Skip to content

Archive for November, 2006

The Infinite Mind: Coincidence

We’ve all experienced it – a friend calls just as we are thinking of him, or a romantic partner has the same birthday we do. Some coincidences are small, and seemingly inconsequential, but others have the potential to change lives. What causes a coincidence to happen, and what does it mean? Is every coincidence meaningful? And what are the odds of a particular coincidence happening? This week we explore the nature of coincidence with scientists, psychotherapists, mathematicians, and people like you.

Guests include: Jungian analyst and psychotherapist Robert Hopcke, who has authored books on coincidence and the related theory of synchronicity (“Coincidences are meaningful for what they tell us about ourselves”); cognitive scientist Josh Tenenbaum at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who studies how coincidences work in the brain (“They seem to be the source of some of our greatest irrationalities”); and statistician Karl Sigman at Columbia University, who computes the odds that coincidences will happen. The program also includes quirky first-person accounts of coincidence from writers, filmmakers, identical twins, and others, and from the producer of this show, who experienced an unusual coincidence while working on it. With commentary by John Hockenberry.

The Infinite Mind: Coincidence

Got a Stalker? I Do.

Have you ever seen the movie Swimfan? The following is from the Wikipedia entry for stalking: Psychologists tend to group stalkers into two categories: psychotic and nonpsychotic. Many stalkers have pre-existing psychotic disorders such as delusional disorder, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophrenia. Most stalkers are nonpsychotic and exhibit disorders such as major depression, adjustment disorder, or substance dependence, as well as a variety of Axis II personality disorders, such as antisocial, avoidant, borderline, dependent, narcissistic, or paranoid. The nonpsychotic stalkers’ pursuit of victims can be influenced by various psychological factors, including anger and hostility, projection of blame, obsession, dependency, minimization and denial, and jealousy.

In “A Study of Stalkers,” Mullen et al (2000) identify six types of stalkers:

  • Rejected stalkers: pursue their victims in order to reverse, correct, or avenge a rejection (e.g. divorce, separation, termination).
  • Resentful stalkers: pursue a vendetta because of a sense of grievance against the victims – motivated mainly by the desire to frighten and distress the victim.
  • Intimacy seekers: The intimacy seeker seeks to establish an intimate, loving relationship with their victim. To them, the victim is a long sought-after soul mate, and they were meant to be together.
  • Eroto-manic stalker: This stalker believes that the victim is in love with them. The erotomaniac reinterprets what their victim says and does to support the delusion, and is convinced that the imagined romance will eventually become a permanent union. They often target a celebrity or a person of a higher social status (though it is important to note, not all celebrity stalkers are erotomaniacs).
  • Incompetent suitor: despite poor social/courting skills, possess a sense of entitlement to an intimate relationship with those who have attracted their amorous interest.
  • Predatory stalker: spy on the victim in to prepare and plan an attack – usually sexual – on the victim.
  • The 2002 National Victim Association Academy define an additional form of stalking. The Terrorism stalker also known as the political stalker, uses stalking as a means to accomplish a political agenda, often by using threats and intimidation to force their target to refrain and/or become involved in some particular activity, regardless of the victim’s consent.

    Many stalkers fit categories with paranoid disorders. Intimacy-seeking stalkers often have delusional disorders that are secondary to preexisting psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. With rejected stalkers, the continual clinging to a relationship of an inadequate or dependent person couples with the entitlement of the narcissistic personality, and the persistent jealousy of the paranoid personality. In contrast, resentful stalkers demonstrate an almost – pure culture of persecution, – with delusional disorders of the paranoid type, paranoid personalities, and paranoid schizophrenia.

    Gender Studies in Stalking Pathology

    Most stalkers are male, but women can also be stalkers. The demographic characteristics of the male and female stalkers do not differ, although more male stalkers report a history of criminal offenses and more report substance abuse. The psychiatric status of male and female stalkers do not otherwise differ. The duration of the time invested in stalking and the frequency of associated violence were equivalent between male and female stalkers. Women are more likely to target someone they have known such as a professional contact, and are more likely to target other females. Men, on the other hand, do not usually target other men. Women are also much less likely to target a stranger.

    In “A Study of Women Who Stalk”, by Purcell, Pathé and Mullen, the authors concluded that the two major psychiatric variables that differentiate female from male stalkers is motivation for stalking and choice of victim. Female stalkers seek intimacy with the victim, who usually is someone already known. The victim is most often chosen from those who assume a professional role of helper. This could be a doctor or nurse, a therapist or counselor. Context was found to differ, but the conclusion was the intrusiveness and harmfulness did not. In other words, female stalkers are potentially as dangerous as any male stalker. A Study of Women Who Stalk. AJP 2001

    © Wikipedia

    He’ll Still Be Wondering Why

    Anyone who knows me knows of my endless fascination with all things hyperdimensional. The idea of a space at right angles to our visible dimensions is one of the most fascinating ideas ever considered. In M Theory it is the place where gravity comes from. If such a dimension does exist, is it a limitation of cognition or one of physics that keeps its secrets unrevealed? Why should something so amazing be wrapped up in a mathematical model that only a few people in the world understand? We know so little about the universe. We know so little about ourselves. It boggles my mind to think about where we may be a million years from now. How radically different we will be physically, mentally. Will we then be able to peer into those unseen realities? Will we have come to a complete understanding of the universe or will a descendant of mine be looking into a different night sky, with different constellations, thousands of light years away wondering how much we will know a millions years from then.

    As an aspiring scientist it is taboo to say that complete understanding is impossible – but I’m not sure that given a billion years we will be any closer to understanding how the universe began than we are now. Even catching a glimpse of a Hecatonicosihedrigon or a Hexacosihedrigon in some cognitively twisted hyperdimension will only complicate the puzzle further, pull the Gordian knot a little tighter. Yeah, I’m pretty sure my distant relative will look to the stars and even if he knows how it all began, he’ll still be wondering why.

    Here is a round up of the latest in my reading on hyperdimensions:

    Lacking a Viable Life Plan?

    In the emerging field of evolutionary psychiatry there has recently been attention focused on mood and personality disorders as adaptive traits. Why is it that disorders like depression or schizophrenia have not been deleted out of the human genome? Of course, not all expressed traits are always an adaptation; sometimes a trait can be vestigial or even transitory in its expression. In an evolutionary context, psychopathology is difficult to explain. In the case of schizophrenia there is evidence that sexual selection is at work. Depression seems to present a more complicated problem. There are a few theories that try to explain how natural selection could allow depression to survive as a successful adaptation.

    There is a great article in Arch Gen Psychiatry, Is Depression an Adaptation? by Randolph M. Nesse, MD. Nesse does a brief but thorough review of the most widely accepted thinking on this issue. Though the conclusions are not all that breathtaking, there are some interesting twists on what we may consider common sense. Families and friends are usually too busy dealing with the consequences of depression to ever really focus on the etiology of the disease, much less its natural selection fitness factors. There are two theories in particular that seem to have powerful predictive power and also seem to explain how a disease like depression could have survived in the genome.

    The first theory is based on the idea of “lacking a viable life plan” or missing a “crucial resource.” This would mean that having no goals in life or at least having all goals fall apart would be a trigger for major depression. Another trigger would be having no resources – no money for example. These situations are both recognized as usually leading to depression and sometimes suicide (evolutionary theory has more difficulty explaining suicide ideation as an adaptation and usually explains it an aberration).

    The second theory describes depression as a way to win scarce resources by generating sympathy and activating a caregiver response in others – or as Nesse puts it, “a communication designed to manipulate others into providing resources.”

    Nesse’s conclusion:

    It seems likely that low mood and related negative affects were shaped to help organisms cope with unpropitious situations. Some negative and passive aspects of depression may be useful because they inhibit dangerous or wasteful actions in situations characterized by committed pursuit of an unreachable goal, temptations to challenge authority, insufficient internal reserves to allow action without damage, or lack of a viable life strategy.

    However, it is essential to emphasize that many depressions are clearly disease states: some caused by dysregulations of negative affect and others by brain defects unrelated to low mood. The fact that low mood, and perhaps some depression, may be useful should not distract attention from recognition that depression is one of humanity’s most serious medial problems. A deeper understanding of the adaptive significance of low mood and depression will improve our ability to prevent and relieve both mood disorders and low moods that are normal, but unnecessary.

    E.O. Wilson + Daniel Dennett

    The biologist and the philosopher meet up to talk about God, evolution, incest, and of course, ants. E.O. Wilson is a biologist. Daniel C. Dennett is a philosopher. Both believe that understanding evolution is essential to understanding our humanity. Despite an incipient blizzard, they met up in the spring of 2004 to talk about God, evolution, incest, and of course, ants. This was their conversation.

    E.O. Wilson + Daniel Dennett