Emotional Literacy as a Gateway for Healing C-PTSD (Richard Grannon)

Another great video to help sufferers of C-PTSD heal from Richard Grannon (SpartanLifeCoach).

Psychology should be required for middle and high-school students.

middle_school

Psychology, when it’s offered at the high school level, is offered as an elective course — which means it’s not required to graduate.    Many, if not most, high schools, don’t even offer Psychology as an option.   It’s only offered at the larger high schools, and not usually until Junior or Senior year, after required courses in math, English, languages and history are fulfilled.    Abnormal psychology, which goes into more depth about mental disorders and includes personality disorders, isn’t usually offered until the college level, and only to those students who have chosen a psychology or sociology major.

I don’t understand this.  Knowledge about psychology is necessary for us to understand our own behaviors and those of our fellow humans.  It can help kids be able to detect red flags or signs of mental illness in others, including in our leaders.   In my way of thinking, psychology is a life skill and is so much more useful in our daily lives than things like algebra or trigonometry, which are rarely thought of again once a student graduates and only have practical use in the scientific or technical fields.   Do any of us in our 40s, 50s, or 60s actually remember how to do a proof in Geometry? Do any of us actually remember some of the dates we had to memorize in History or can reproduce the Table of the Elements without having to refer to outside sources?   Not that such knowledge doesn’t have value — it makes you seem smart or at least educated. But really, how are these things relevant to living a successful adult life unless you work in these fields or teach them yourself?

If Psychology were offered at the high school, or even at the middle school level, I think kids would be making better choices in their friendships, relationships, and even in their voting practices as they grow older.   They would know better what they are dealing with among the people they wind up going to school with, working with, and having to deal with day to day.

I think anti-bullying education should also be a part of a psychology program, especially for young middle school students, where bullying is at its most vicious and where kids are more vulnerable to the trauma caused by bullying than they are at the high school or college level when their sense of self is more developed.   Practical lessons in mindfulness or anger management could be adapted into a middle- or high-school curriculum as well.   I think all kids — not just kids with impulse or emotional problems — would benefit from such classes.  It would help them develop their emotional — not just their cognitive — intelligence.

We are now saddled with a president who is a diagnosed malignant narcissist (remotely diagnosed by actual psychiatrists, but it’s common knowledge now) and whose rash and impulsive actions are showing that he’s a greater threat than anyone could have imagined.   His cabinet picks aren’t much better.   I think if psychology (including abnormal psychology) had been a required course for kids, starting at the middle school level, as they reached voting age, they would reach adulthood with more emotional intelligence, and take into account the personality traits of the candidates and choose those who seemed more in touch with reality and more mentally sound, regardless of their political beliefs.

The rich? They really are different. . .

Something I’ve suspected for a very long time has been confirmed.

The study cited in this article could explain why wealthier (mostly upper middle class, who are still trying to achieve “upper class” status) are more likely than others to be narcissistic and have scapegoat and golden child children.   I have found that many upper middle class families are extremely competitive and value material and financial success over familial compassion, a sense of “we are in this together,” and unconditional love.   Of course not all of them are like this, but many are.   Middle- to working-class and poor families are much more likely to stick together and try to help each other out, even when funds are lacking.    This article will explain why it might bode better for your future to be the loved child of a poor family than the scapegoated or rejected child of a wealthier one.   Less wealthy people tend to be more emotionally intelligent.

*****

Here are two related articles from the same blog.

https://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/the-upper-class-pays-less-attention-to-others/

https://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2016/02/23/in-a-throwaway-culture-people-are-discarded/

eats shoots 'n leaves

“The rich are different from you and me,” wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald in “The Rich Boy,” [Thanks, Postman]  and now science is proving he was right.

Keri Chiodo of the Association for Psychological Science explains:

Upper-class people have more educational opportunities, greater financial security, and better job prospects than people from lower social classes, but that doesn’t mean they’re more skilled at everything. A new study published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, finds surprisingly, that lower-class people are better at reading the emotions of others.

The researchers were inspired by observing that, for lower-class people, success depends more on how much they can rely on other individuals. For example, if you can’t afford to buy support services, such as daycare service for your children, you have to rely on your neighbors or relatives to watch the kids while you attend classes or run…

View original post 305 more words