Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL  (Read 109452 times)

countryman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Key theorists
« Reply #510 on: January 29, 2011, 05:48:17 PM »

Are you just tagging the post "I Still Have A Pony"? I mean Hadrian's post is really interesting. I remember Bion's theory from the time of my college days when I wrote a research paper on group dynamics.


Here are the key theorists on group formation and dynamics:

Gustave Le Bon was a French social psychologist whose seminal study, "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind" (1896) led to the development of group psychology.

Sigmund Freud's "Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego," (1922) based on a critique of Le Bon's work, led to further development in theories of group behavior in the latter half of the twentieth century.

Jacob L. Moreno was a psychiatrist, dramatist, philosopher and theoretician who coined the term "group psychotherapy" in the early 1930s and was highly influential at the time.

Kurt Lewin (1943, 1948, 1951) is commonly identified as the founder of the movement to study groups scientifically. He coined the term group dynamics to describe the way groups and individuals act and react to changing circumstances.

William Schutz (1958, 1966) looked at interpersonal relations from the perspective of three dimensions: inclusion, control, and affection. This became the basis for a theory of group behavior that sees groups as resolving issues in each of these stages in order to be able to develop to the next stage. Conversely, a group may also devolve to an earlier stage if unable to resolve outstanding issues in a particular stage.

Wilfred Bion (1961) studied group dynamics from a psychoanalytic perspective, and stated that he was much influenced by Wilfred Trotter for whom he worked at University College Hospital London, as did another key figure in the Psychoanalytic movement, Ernest Jones. He discovered several mass group processes which involved the group as a whole adopting an orientation which, in his opinion, interfered with the ability of a group to accomplish the work it was nominally engaged in. His experiences are reported in his published books, especially "Experiences in Groups." The Tavistock Institute has further developed and applied the theory and practices developed by Bion.

Bruce Tuckman (1965) proposed the four-stage model called Tuckman's Stages for a group. Tuckman's model states that the ideal group decision-making process should occur in four stages and later added a fifth stage for the dissolution of a group called adjourning.

M. Scott Peck developed stages for larger-scale groups (i.e., communities) which are similar to Tuckman's stages of group development.


You could have simply reminded us of Wikipedia where to find the information that you have pasted here.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Dominick

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #511 on: February 22, 2011, 02:06:05 AM »
Exactly, countryman, some people have an obsession with copying/pasting stuff, sometimes they will do it for the hell of it!

lawstudent2011

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #512 on: February 22, 2011, 10:19:06 AM »
Who cares? Get some bimbo blonde with an MBA and a paralegal certificate to do it for you.
Everyone who can suck air passes LSR and the rest is her job.

Exactly, countryman, some people have an obsession with copying/pasting stuff, sometimes they will do it for the hell of it!

shevardnadze

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #513 on: February 22, 2011, 09:07:41 PM »

ceco, the diagnosis of paranoid personality structure implies to many people a serious disturbance in mental health. This type of organization, however, exists on a continuum of severity from psychotic to normal. It may be that "healthier" paranoid people are rarer than "sicker" ones, but someone can have a paranoid character at any level of ego strength, identity integration, reality testing, and object relations. A paranoid person has to be in fairly deep trouble before he or she seeks (or is brought for) psychological help; paranoid people are not disposed to trust stangers. People with normal-level paranoid characters often seek out political roles, where their disposition to oppose themselves to forces they see as evil or threatening can find ready expression. Many reporters covering the 1992 American presidential elections ascribed paranoid characteristics to Ross Perot, but even some of these amateur diagnosticians probably voted for him on basis of realistic competence. J. Edgar Hoover was another high-functioning public figure who appears to have had a strong paranoid element in his personality. At the other end of the developmental continuum, some serial murderers who killed their victims out of the conviction that the victims were trying to murder him, and Charles Manson of the California "hippie" cult, exemplify the destructiveness of projection gone mad; that is, paranoia operating without the moderating effects of more mature ego processes and without a solid grounding in reality.

Because they see the sources of their suffering as outside themselves, paranoid people in the more disturbed range are likely to be more dangerous to others than to themselves. They are much less suicidal than equally disturbed depressives, although they have been known to kill themselves to preempt someone's else (imagined) imminent destruction of them. The angry, threatening qualities of many paranoid people have prompted speculations that one contrubutant to a paranoid orientation is a high degree of innate aggression or irritability. Affectively, paranoid people struggle not only with anger, resentment, vindictiveness and the other more hostile feelings, they also suffer overwhelmingly from fear. A combination of fear and shame? The downward-left eye movements common in paranoid people (the "shifty" quality that even non-professionals notice) are physically a compromise between the horizontal-left direction specific to the affect of pure fear and the straight-down direction of uncontaminated shame. Even the most grandiose paranoid person lives with the terror of harm from others and monitors each human interaction with extreme vigilance. 

As for shame, that affect is as great a menace to paranoid people as to narcissistic ones, but the danger is experienced quite differently by each type of person. Narcissistic people, even of the most arrogant variety, are subject to conscious feelings of shame if they are unmasked in certain ways. Their energies go into efforts to impress others so that the devalued self will not be exposed to them. Paranoid people, contrastingly, use denial and projection so powerfully that no sense of shame remains accessible within the self. The energies of the paranoid person are therefore spent on foiling the effects of those who are seen as bent on shaming and humiliating them. Also like narcissistic people, paranoid individuals are very vulnerable to envy. Unlike them, they handle it projectively. Resentment and jealousy, occasionally of delusional proportions, darken their lives. Sometimes these attitudes are directly projected, taking the form of the conviction that "others are out to get me because of the things about me that they envy"; more often they are ancillary to the denial and projection of other affects and impulses, as when a paranoid man, oblivious to his own normal phantasies of infidelity, becomes convinced his wife is dangerously attracted to others. Frequently involved in this kind of jealousy is an unconscious yearning for closeness with a person of the same sex. Because paranoid people confuse such longings with erotic homosexuality, an orientation that frightens them, the wishes are abhorred and denied. These desires for care from a person of the same gender then resurface as the conviction that it is, for example, one's girlfriend rather than oneself who wants to be more intimate with a mutual male friend.

Finally, paranoid people are profoundly burdened with guilt, a feeling that is acknowledged and projected in the same way that shame is. Some reasons for their deep sense of badness will be suggested: their unbearable burden of unconscious guilt is a feature that makes them so hard to help: they live in terror that when the therapist really gets to know them, he or she will be shocked by all their sins and depravities, and will reject them or punish them for their crimes.


Another cut/paste post, for sure!

3

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #514 on: April 19, 2011, 05:48:37 PM »

[...] Popular culture serves up rebellion to the masses in such a way that when and if they finally act out against the state that makes them miserable their very act of rebellion finally supports that state [...]


In fact, littleby, there are words that it's not just "popular culture" that does that - several philosophers argue that all postmodern theories contribute to the survival of capitalism, while they overtly seem to oppose it - maybe that's why Jacques Derrida was so popular in America, after all :)

folate

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #515 on: April 25, 2011, 02:54:20 PM »



http://www.lmn.tv/movies/details.php?id=MOVE+1652

Kevin Coe, born Frederick Harlan Coe on Feb. 2, 1947, is a convicted rapist from Spokane, Washington, often referred to in the news media as the "South Hill Rapist". He has been in custody since conviction in 1981. Starting on September 15, 2008 the State of Washington held a "civil commitment" trial before a jury wherein it argued that he should be declared a sexually violent predator and confined indefinitely; jury selection began that day, and testimony commenced September 29. As of May, 2008, he is still a suspect in dozens of rapes. His notoriety is due to much more than the fact of his statuses as a suspect and convict. The number of victims he has been suspected of having raped is unusually large; his convictions received an unusual amount of attention from appeals courts; his mother was convicted for hiring a hit man against her son's judge and prosecutor after the initial convictions; and the bizarre relationship between Coe and his mother became the subject of a nonfiction book by the widely read writer on crime, Jack Olsen. "Sins of the Mother" is the title of the movie depicting the story.




Dale Midkiff plays the role of Kevin Coe

In 1981 Coe, a radio announcer by profession, gained regional renown when he was arrested as the suspect in up to 43 rapes which had been perpetrated in Spokane between 1978 and 1981. Many of the rapes involved an extreme level of physical injury to the victims, and the police suspected them to be the work of a single offender, who came to be dubbed the "South Hill rapist". It was suggested that Kevin was mad at his mother for treating him like dirt, and that he was displacing his anger towards her onto his victims, the women he raped and hurt.


Ruth was a total lunatic, overbearing, very protective of Fred - she's rightly portrayed in the movie as the tragico-comical woman she was.


Just funny I'd say!

100 gypsy violins

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Suicide, practice of medicine, drugs, sex - Outside State Jurisdiction
« Reply #516 on: April 27, 2011, 03:20:21 PM »

[...] situations where a person receives different or contradictory messages. [...]


Right on the money! Consider, for instance, this scenario: you buy a dog and name him Stay. It's kinda fun, after all, to call him ... "Come here, Stay! Come here, Stay!" He will go insane. Over time, he'll probably just ignore you and keep typing.


This kind of dog is acting like cats. They say cats do not respond when you call 'em, no matter what! You can even try to give them names to address them by name and they won't care - they do as they please.

hiduty

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #517 on: May 02, 2011, 02:03:57 PM »

Projective Identification is a psychological term first introduced by Melanie Klein of the Object relations school of psychoanalytic thought in 1946. It refers to a psychological process in which one person projects a thought, belief or emotion to a second person. Then, in most common definitions of projective identification, there is another action in which the second person is changed by the projection and begins to behave as though he or she is in fact actually characterized by those thoughts or beliefs that have been projected. This is a process that generally happens outside of the awareness of both parties involved, although this has been a matter of some argument. What is projected is most often an intolerable, painful, or dangerous idea or belief about the self that the first person cannot accept (i.e. "I have behaved wrongly" or "I have a sexual feeling towards ...." ) Or it may be a valued or esteemed idea that again is difficult for the first person to acknowledge. Projective identification is believed to be a very early or primitive psychological process and is understood to be one of the more primitive defense mechanisms. Yet it is also thought to be the basis out of which more mature psychological processes like empathy and intuition are formed.

Many authors have described the mechanism of projective identification. Ogden (1979, 1986) describes a process in which part of the self is projected onto an external object. The external object (the second person) experiences a blurring of the boundaries or definitions of the self and other. This takes place during an interpersonal interaction in which the projector (the first person) actively pressures the recipient to think, feel and act in accordance with the projection. The recipient of the projection then processes or "metabolizes" (mirrors or explains) the projection so that it can then be re-internalized (re-experienced and understood) by the projector (see example). Different definitions of projective identification exist and there are disagreements as to a number of its aspects, for example: where does the process begin and end, exactly what is "projected" and what is "received", is a second person required for projective identification to take place, does projective identification occur when it is within the awareness of either party involved, and what is the difference between projection and projective identification. Young (1994, ch. 7) provides a detailed history and conceptual analysis of these issues.

Ogden (1982) describes the process of projective identification as simultaneously involving a type of psychological defense against unwanted feelings or fantasies, a mode of communication, and as a type of human relationship. As a defense a psychiatric patient, for example, can use PI to deny the truth of unwanted feelings or beliefs by projecting them into the other person. Additionally, because the analyst begins to unknowingly enact these feelings or beliefs (even though they were originally uncharacteristic of him or her), the patient is in a sense "controlling" the interaction with the analyst. This is often experienced by the analyst as a subtle pressure to behave or believe in a particular way; but it is an influence to which the analyst usually is not attentive or which is not experienced consciously. By influencing the analyst's behavior, the patient prevents exploratory, original and vulnerable material from coming into the discussion.

Projective identification functions as a mode of communication as well. The sender "gives" his or her unwanted thoughts or feelings to the receiver. Instead of describing these thoughts or feelings in discussion, the unwanted content is communicated directly or recreated in the receiver by actions, facial expression, bodily attitude, words or sounds, etc. By experiencing it himself, the receiver may understand what the sender is experiencing, even if the sender is unaware of it. Projective identification often occurs not as an isolated incident, but as a series of projections and identifications and counter-projections and counter-identifications that evolve in a relationship over time. An example of this might be the mother/infant dyad or a husband and wife pairing. In such cases there is an ongoing emotional economy or transaction between the partners that takes place over the course of an entire relationship.

Here is a simple example of projective identification in a psychiatric setting: A traumatized patient describes to his analyst a horrible incident which he experienced recently. Yet in describing this incident the patient remains emotionally unaffected or even indifferent to his own obvious suffering and perhaps even the suffering of his loved ones. When asked he denies having any feelings about the event whatsoever. Yet, when the analyst hears this story, she begins to feel very strong feelings (i.e. perhaps sadness and/or anger) in response. She might tear up or become righteously indignant on behalf of the patient, thereby acting out the patient's feelings resulting from the trauma. Being a well-trained analyst however, she recognizes the profound effect that her patient's story is having on her. Acknowledging to herself the feelings she is having, she suggests to the patient that he might perhaps be having feelings that are difficult for him to experience in relation to the trauma. She processes or metabolizes these experiences in herself and puts them into words and speaks them to the patient. Ideally, then the patient can recognize in himself the emotions or thoughts that he previously could not let into his awareness. Another common example is in the mother/child dyad where the mother is able to experience and address her child’s needs when the child is often unable to state his own needs at all. The above examples describe projective identification within the context of a dyad. However, PI takes place within a group context as well. Another notable psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion (1961) described projective identification in the following way: "the analyst feels he is being manipulated so as to be playing a part, no matter how difficult to recognize, in someone else's fantasy" This ongoing link between internal intra-psychic process and the interpersonal dimension has provided the foundation for understanding important aspects of group and organizational life. Bion's studies of groups examined how collusive, shared group phenomena such as scapegoating, group-think and emotional contagion are all rooted in the collective use of projective identification. In fact, sociologists often see projective identification at work on the societal level in the relationship of minority groups and the majority class.


Is projective identification somehow the mechanism involved in the situation when a parent/guardian of a child assures his/her child of having a disease and therefore spending the entire childhood of the child in the hospitals, after a disease is initiated in the child (Münchausen By Proxy Syndrome)?

ha b a n e r a

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #518 on: May 02, 2011, 02:40:47 PM »

Is projective identification somehow the mechanism involved in the situation when a parent/guardian of a child assures his/her child of having a disease and therefore spending the entire childhood of the child in the hospitals, after a disease is initiated in the child (Münchausen By Proxy Syndrome)?


In MBPS, an individual -- usually a mother -- deliberately makes another person (most often his or her own preschool child) sick or convinces others that the person is sick. The parent or caregiver misleads others into thinking that the child has medical problems by lying and reporting fictitious episodes. He or she may exaggerate, fabricate, or induce symptoms. As a result, doctors usually order tests, try different types of medications, and may even hospitalize the child or perform surgery to determine the cause. Typically, the perpetrator feels satisfied when he or she has the attention and sympathy of doctors, nurses, and others who come into contact with him or her and the child. Some experts believe that it isn't just the attention that's gained from the "illness" of the child that drives this behavior, but there is satisfaction gained by the perpetrator in being able to deceive individuals that they consider to be more important and powerful than themselves. Because the parent or caregiver appears to be so caring and attentive, often no one suspects any wrongdoing. A perplexing aspect of the syndrome is the ability of the parent or caregiver to fool and manipulate doctors. Frequently, the perpetrator is familiar with the medical profession and is very good at fooling the doctors. Even the most experienced doctors can miss the meaning of the inconsistencies in the child's symptoms. It's not unusual for medical personnel to overlook the possibility of MBPS, because it goes against the belief that a parent or caregiver would never deliberately hurt his or her child. Children who are subject to MBPS are typically preschool age, although there have been reported cases in children up to 16 years old. There are equal numbers of boys and girls, however, 98% of the perpetrators are female.

In some cases, the parents or caregivers themselves were abused, both physically and sexually, as children. They may have come from families in which being sick was a way to get love. The parent's or caregiver's own personal needs overcome his or her ability to see the child as a person with feelings and rights, possibly because the parent or caregiver may have grown up being treated like he or she wasn't a person with rights or feelings. Other theories say that MBPS is a cry for help on the part of the parent or caregiver, who may be experiencing anxiety or depression or have feelings of inadequacy as a parent or caregiver of a young child. Some may feel a sense of acknowledgment when the child's doctor confirms their caregiving skills. Or, the parent or caregiver may just enjoy the attention that the sick child -- and therefore, he or she -- gets. The suspected person may also have symptoms similar to the child's own medical problems or an illness history that's puzzling and unusual. He or she frequently has an emotionally distant relationship with his or her spouse, who often fails to visit the seriously ill child or have contact with doctors.

In the most severe instances, parents or caregivers with MBPS may go to great lengths to make their children look sick. When cameras were placed in some children's hospital rooms, some perpetrators were filmed switching medications, injecting children with urine to cause an infection, or placing drops of blood in urine specimens. One mother was taped injecting nail polish remover into her daughter's feeding tube. Another suffocated a child to the point of consciousness, then frantically rushed him to medical personnel for attention. Some perpetrators aggravate an existing problem, such as manipulating a wound so that it doesn't heal. One parent discovered that scrubbing the child's skin with oven cleaner would cause a baffling, long-lasting rash. Whatever the cause, the child's symptoms -- whether created or faked -- don't happen when the parent isn't present, and they usually go away during periods of separation from the parent. When confronted, the parent usually denies knowing how the illness occurred. If the child lives to be old enough to comprehend what's happening, the psychological damage can be significant. The child may come to feel that he or she will only be loved when ill and may, therefore, help the parent try to deceive doctors, using self-abuse to avoid being abandoned by his or her mother. And so, some victims of MBPS later become perpetrators themselves.

Qircom

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #519 on: May 02, 2011, 03:27:08 PM »

[...] Some experts believe that it isn't just the attention that's gained from the "illness" of the child that drives this behavior, but there is satisfaction gained by the perpetrator in being able to deceive individuals that they consider to be more important and powerful than themselves. [...]

[...]A perplexing aspect of the syndrome is the ability of the parent or caregiver to fool and manipulate doctors. Frequently, the perpetrator is familiar with the medical profession and is very good at fooling the doctors. [...]

[...]


If such perpetrators are familiar with the medical profession to manipulate symptoms, how come doctors not suspect a case of MBPS after they learn such a fact? (I am assuming they would have some clue to at least suspect that)