The only thing more difficult than killing another person is to kill oneself, and this difficulty is the thing that typically thwarts suicide attempts. Interviews with people who have survived suicide attempts (In working in the field that I do, I have had several of my own conversations with people who have survived suicide) reveal that the person’s body has a tendency to “protect” itself, independent of what the person’s intellectual intentions are. The body seems to “take over” and act on it’s own in a physiological self-defense. Exposure to death, abuse, and killing dull the body’s protective response to suicide, leaving combat veterans in a position of vulnerability.

Once other war-caused psychological problems are thrown into the mix, ( such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depression, and otherwise benign Adjustment Disorders) we have a population that is alarmingly prone for suicide.

This article from the Huffington Post speaks about the increasing number of veteran suicides, and speculates on how the numbers will only increase as more soldiers return from combat. We need more mental health services to keep these soldiers functioning in civilian society. We owe it to them to keep us alive. Right now, state governments are engaged in whole-sale slashing of Mental Health Care budgets. Because of the economy and the way that state and county funding is handled, school districts, mental health, and all of the other money earmarked for public services is shrinking. Everyone is fighting for a progressively smaller piece of the pie, and people like our veterans are the ones who are suffering. I don’t know if I agree with the aimless organization of the Occupy Wallstreet Movement, but I empathize with their sentiments. Something is wrong with a system that puts the services designed to nurture and care for the Citizens at an absolute low priority. What can be more important than teaching our children, healing our sick, and keeping our soldiers alive? After our U.S. service men and women risked their lives to protect us, the least we can do is protect them.

My girlfriend point this out to me after watching a video that one of her friends posted on YouTube. As you can see from the video, there is a staged child abduction. This abduction was repeated over and over again for hours. Every single person passing by ignored the girl’s plight. Some glanced, but none took action. Finally, two men came to her rescue. If you haven’t watched the video yet, watch it now and see if you can notice anything peculiar about it.

See it? Again, my girlfriend immediately took note that the only black guys featured in the video were the ones who turned out to be the heroes. Could this be careful or unintentional editing? It’s possible. It’s also possible that this could be a coincidence. However, the simplest solution is most often the correct one, and it seems very likely that the rescuers’ culture played a big role in their decision to take action.

First off, a basic assumption must be made: the video was taken in a New York suburban city. The black men in the video were dressed differently from the other white people featured in the video and were probably from an inner-city background (again, an assumption). Maybe they themselves did not grow up in NYC, but there was probably cultural influence from the big City that helped to shape their developing years. My girlfriend, who grew up in Oakland (a predominantly black city), gave a lot of input and shared her experiences of growing up in inner-city culture. What we were able to conclude from the discussion was that inner-city black culture is very community orientated. Raising children is a group effort, and even a complete stranger understands the expectations and limits that are expected of another person’s child. This also applies to the nurturing and protection that is given to members of their community. In other words, it would not be terribly out of place for a parent to give a scolding to another child that was not their own, nor would it be odd for a parent to feed a neighbor’s kid if he was around the house at meal time (I’ve witnessed this myself while visiting a friend of mine in a barrio of South Central Los Angeles). This is the first element that probably contributed to the action that the men in the video took.

The second element was the element of bravery. There is an inherent fear that one must overcome when confronting another person. Whether this confrontation takes place in conversation, such as interrupting someone that you are talking to, or challenging a person who cut in front of a line. Those with less social inhibition will have an easier time making this confrontation. Loud, boisterous conversation and actions are valued, particularly in men, in black urban culture. Youth practice how to “holla” at girls, so that when they approach a girl who is a serious contender for romantic interaction they don’t appear shy. To “holla” is to brashly approach a unknown young lady with a verbally aggressive cat call. As soon as one stumbles over one’s words, allows a silence to carry for too long, or any other indication of nervousness, then the attempt is considered a failure and the exercise must be repeated again. The approach is practiced until it can be delivered smoothly. Nervousness in that community is considered weakness and disqualifies one as a quality romantic partner. Contrast this with other cultural communities, where a male’s nervousness might be considered endearing. The value of aggressiveness is amplified when applied to physical confrontation. A male who backs down from the opportunity to either reclaim his dignity (after an affront) or to protect the honor or physical corpus of a loved one is considered weak and treated with great disdain. Again, while these observations of the value of the dissolution of social inhibition might be generalizations to some degree, they represent the frequent experience of people raised in this culture.

The fostering of bravery in the inner city black community can also be attributed to the crime associated with residential neighborhoods of lower socioeconomic status. Many of my past patients have experienced traumatization because of a lack of physical safety. Slow police response and a general fear (or disrespect) of the law has left an element of lawlessness in these communities. This leaves the leaders of the families as the guardians of the weak. When there are no higher authorities responsible for preventing injustice, children learn at a young age that they are responsible for the safety of their relatives. Drug addiction is another plague of the inner city that frequently leaves children, in my experience, as the caretakers of their families. I have had grammar-school aged children that find themselves responsible for their younger siblings because their mother is too high to function or their father is out of the home on an alcoholic binge. These experiences have the culminating effect of teaching individual responsibility and inhibit tendencies to defer to higher social authorities.

Put that all together, and it would make sense that two young men raised in a black urban community would be the first people to step up to become heroes where their white suburban counterparts failed. They didn’t appear to be slowed by social inhibition, and their quick, aggressive action was synchronous. Their inclination to defend was not shadowed with doubt: “What if that guy is her farther?” “Maybe someone else knows what’s going on?” They recognized this as a very real event, and took action. In the eyes of a person who has never witnessed crime, there is typically a moment of disbelief, “Am I really seeing this?” And then the reality of the horror invokes our psychological defenses to shield us from the uncomfortable realization that this child may get hurt. The result? Denial. Judging from the fact that these men showed no evidence of such denial, I am lead to believe that they have witnessed crime in their past, and therefore have been raised with some degree of inner-city influence. Again, a huge assumption is being made by presuming that they did not grow up in a predominantly white, middle classed neighborhood. But the logic behind such a presumption seems sound.

So what are the implications of this video, and what can be learned? First and foremost, the values of a community-minded culture must be applauded. My experiences in South Central Los Angeles brings up the idea that black communities are not the only culture minded communities found in the inner-cities. Centuries ago, Irish communities looked out for one another in a similar manner. Anyone familiar with large cities are also aware of the giant Latino and Asian communities prevalent in localized neighborhoods. Culturally segregated communities exist even in neighborhoods of higher socio-economic status, as I discovered while living near the East Side of Providence Rhode Island. There, one can find Jewish residential communities distinct from Italian neighborhoods (although the physical boundaries between these middle to upper class communities are not as distinct as those separating communities separated by economic standards of living). These cultural communities don’t draw as distinct of a hard between one family and another, and often have boundaries that would be described by mainstream white American culture as loose. Here in mainstream “white” American culture, the attitude of “rugged individualism” has defined us. One of the obvious dangers of this cultural attitude is the resistance that people have to help out a stranger in need. This was a CHILD that was in danger, clearly shouting “This isn’t my father”. She did everything that we teach children to do to prevent their victimization, and yet, it wasn’t enough. Maybe what needs to change is the isolated cultural that we live in.

All of the major theorist of Family Therapy, or Systems, school of thinking are from cultures other than mainstream American culture. When doing therapy, they see the problem as arising from the system that they troubled person lives in. In most cases, the family is the heart of this system, but other influential people are included as well. The client is not seen as an isolated individual who is broken, instead, they are viewed as the result of an ineffective system. Therapeutic change takes place by fixing the system (which is done by changing the way that the members of the family interact).

Depression is rampant throughout our country, and psychopathology worsens as the U.S. ages. Is it possible that our rugged individualism is severing us from the living communities that sustain us? Are we as people being choked off from the life-giving emotional nurturance that communities provide? As the video above suggests, this emotional choking may be affecting us physically, as well. If we exist only to provide for and protect ourselves, then as a country we must slowly be dying.

From Game Play by Loren Ford

I’ve long been disgusted by the threat that Fast Food poses to the Nation’s Health. It’s because I know people who eat far too much Fast Food and have no… fucking… clue… because they’ve been doing it all their life. They’ll tell you that they only do it “once a week”; as if they are the poster-child for dietary moderation. They’re not. Do you have any idea how toxic and addicting that shit is? It should be eaten a few times a year, at max. I’m sorry if I come across as a bit heated- it’s because I am. I’m frustrated with people’s own weakness and inability to care for themselves. In my opinion, regular consumption of Fast Food is an indication of poor self-respect. If you love yourself and feel that you are a worthy, loveable human being, you wouldn’t want to poison your body. But some people feel that one of the only comforts they will ever have in this world is a weekly pork-out-fest at the Golden Arches, and so they eat themselves deeper into their depression.

We can’t blame the Fast Food companies either. The most successful companies in the world make their money by exploiting people’s emotional vulnerabilities. The cigarette companies have given us our fair warning. Every kid born after 1975 has been bombarded with messages about how smoking is bad, and how it will make you ugly and crusty like the old man on t.v. who breaths from his neck like one of the tunnel dwelling Morlocks from the Uncanny X-Men. The public was given their fair warning, and the people who still choose to smoke do it full well knowing that they are hurting themselves. Most people who smoke have parents who smoke. They’ve watched their parents try to kick the habit and fail. Yet, the kids will pick up their first cigarette for the first time for precisely the same reason that the Truth.com people tell them not to: it’s bad for them. Teenagers question and doubt themselves, and they’re looking to rebel against a society that tries to contain their budding quest for mature freedom. They want to smoke precisely because their parents tell them not to. “Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me!” And the poor people who can’t afford a PS3 and an X5 will give you the same message. “Fuck you, I won’t eat what you tell me! No one gives a shit about me, so I’m going to destroy my body because it gives me immediate satisfaction. My life is so stressed out and shitty and I’m so emotionally drained, that I don’t have the energy to do what you say is healthy. I deserve something quick, easy and self-indulgent because I’ve endured the hell that my daily life is.” Cigarette companies and Fast Food companies have found a way to profit on the misery and desperation of the majority of Americans. They just put out a product- they have no control over what the public chooses to do with it.

On a less sarcastic note (Capitalism has no morality, and thus we can’t expect corporations to behave morally), maybe the heads of those companies are as frustrated as I am watching those people eat themselves to death. I grow weary of watching people I care for struggle with their weight and health problems, only to have them explain my incredibly lucky life-long streak of good health as “good genes”. “You got lucky, you’ll always be skinny.” Which is not true, because when I stop exercising and eating healthy food, I gain weight just as fast as the next Bub-chub. I get angry at those people for not caring enough about themselves to put in the extra effort of making healthy choices. My anger makes me want to start a Fast Food company myself, so I can profit by feeding people their own depression too. I want to encourage them to stay unhealthy, so that they all have a heaps of little fatties running (walking?) around the school yard in 8 years. These are the same kids that are going to be competing with my kids, trying out for the same little league or gymnastics team, competing for a girlfriend or boyfriend, or taking the same standardized test in school (yes, research does show that a poor diet will make your kids dumber). This anger at them makes me want them to suffer.

And then I realize that the anger I feel for these people is probably the same anger that they feel for themselves. They are probably disgusted too. The hopelessness that I feel for their situation is probably less intense than the hopelessness they feel for themselves. They probably feel they deserve to be punished for their worthlessness. And what better punishment is there for the body than one that tastes soooo good going down? What better way to destroy oneself out of spite than a Whooper with fries? Couple that with a cigarette to kill a few alveoli in the lungs while you’re at it, and you have happy suicide.

Maybe the answer to poor health in America is to stop punishing the people who are subconsciously punishing themselves. Lawmakers and the Truth.com people are out shaming smokers every chance they can get. Addiction is a nasty physiological, neuro-chemical trap that is doubly reinforced by shame. Maybe the way to get people who are addicted to Fast Food to love themselves is for the rest of us to love them first. Or maybe I’m just a stupid hippie who needs a swift kick in the ass. What do I know.

One of the controversies that surrounds using blogs for self-therapy or as a part of structured writing therapy is the risk that putting private information online poses. There is risk to self-esteem and ego, it can damage real-world relationships (or other previously established relationships) because of the potential for rejection or criticism. There are things that we are all embarrassed about, and while sharing them helps us overcome the shame, negative reactions can increase it.

On the other hand, because of the anonymity, the Internet provides the opportunity to be able to disclose this information with leaving little personal to self-esteem. The author’s personal identity and relationships are not at risk, and therefore there is less of barrier when disclosing the most painful secrets.

Comments (systems that allow readers to comment on articles or other posted material, such as Facebook comments or the comments on this blog) unleash the full potential of Internet discourse in that they allow for the validation of disclosure to the masses. When a blogger posts an entry, there is no evidence that anyone read that post. However, feedback from readers solidifies any questions that one might have about the visibility of their disclosure. Reader participation has been sited by many studies as a reinforcing element in the use of blogging for various purposes (e.g. as a teaching tool for graduate students learning Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy or for high school writing classes). Reader participation has been key in developing online communities as well. Some of these communities even serve a therapeutic purpose, sharing common experiences of a traumatic event or theme.

When it comes to therapeutic writing, reader feedback (via a Comment system) can encourage bloggers to continue their disclosure and provide encouragement that they are not being judged. A Japanese study has found that negative comments tended to be externalized (i.e. attributed to the reader, e.g. “that guys must have been in a bitter mood to post something so rude on my blog”) and positive comments were internalized (i.e. attributed to the writer, e.g. “That guy was really impressed by what I wrote, I must have done something right”) by the study participants. Such an attitude would only increase the effect that user feedback would have on reinforcing blogging behavior. However, because of cultural differences, those results may not generalize to an American or a world-wide audience. My study will examine real world frequencies of blogging and length of blog entries (as opposed to subjective feedback given on surveys) as an indicator of the reinforcing effect of Comments.

I will examine a great many therapeutic blogs, specifically looking at the comments provided. Positive and negative comments will be coded and counted. The frequency and length of blog postings will be examined over the life of a blog, and statistics will be run to determine any correlation with the frequency of comments. The effect of positive vs. negative feedback will also be examined.

This study will be different from any other study about blogs and therapeutic writing that I have encountered in that it will look at short-lived blogs. Looking at only successful blogs (as all other researchers I have come across have done) fails to acknowledge the experience of the vast majority of bloggers. Past research has shown that there is an incredible amount of ‘blog-churn’ (blogs that die soon after they are started). Some factors are contributing to the author’s decision to stick with their blog or to abandon it. Past research has shown that personality may be one of the factors. Negative emotions are elicited from writing about traumatic events, and in the case of a person blogging for self-therapy, this could be another reason for abandoning the blog. By looking at patterns of blogging participation as evidence of the effects of reader participation, this study will attempt to contribute to the development of an online writing therapy. In other words, I am trying to see if Comments are a helpful part online writing therapy.

There are three major concerns that I have about this proposed idea. The first is that it might not be closely related enough to Clinical Psychology. While I am applying it to blogs that have the intention of providing self-therapy (and thus, bloggers will be disclosing personal information that will be a strong target for negative feedback and criticism), it could just as easily be applied to regular blogs that have nothing to do with therapy. Indeed, if anyone cites the results in the future they would probably be applied to Commenting systems in general. The second problem is that abandoned blogs are difficult to find. Ping Sites post a constant list of updated blogs in real-time as they are made. The front page of Xanga and other similar sites feature recently updated blogs. What these sources do not link to are abandoned blogs. While there are many out there, if they are inactive, there’s no real use for people to find them, and thus no reason to link to them. The final, and most significant flaw to this study is that most, if not all, blog commenting systems give the blogger the ability to delete unwanted comments. If someone received a particularly harmful comment, there is a good chance that they would delete it. This means that there would be no public record of the comment, and thus no way for this study to examine the effect of the negative comment. The only solution that I can think of would be to contact the authors of each and every blog I examine in order to send them a simple survey that would ask if they had ever deleted a comment because it was negative or hurtful, and then what blog entry they deleted it from. If I don’t contact the blog authors, I save myself a ton of paperwork and headache. If I do, I run the risk of having many of them refusing to participate in my study. The quantitative element of this study requires a large number of blogs to be effective. I could do the study and ignore the fact that a lot of harmful comments could have been deleted, but it’s such a critical confound that the study might not get approved.