Personality and Leadership

I just finished reading Quiet by Susan Cain. The topic of the book is introversion and how Western culture tends to overvalue extraversion. Cain covers a number of interesting topics such as the relationship between work environments and personality, the downsides to the emphasis on group work in schools, and how differences in levels of extraversion can impact relationships.

As someone who is more towards the introvert side of the spectrum, I found the book particularly enjoyable to read. I thought the best take home message from the book was that introverts have unique strengths. The point is not that introverts can’t succeed in ventures that we assume favor extraverts, but that they are better served by employing tactics that come naturally than trying to fake it as an extravert. That being said, Cain also advocates for structuring one’s life in a way that suits one’s level of extraversion. The idea of seeking out a career that is a good match for one’s personality is an interesting point when considering the personality types that are drawn to political careers.

Given that holding a political office requires a great deal of interaction with others, it’s a safe assumption that politicians are more extraverted on average. On the one hand, you might think that this makes good sense; we need leaders to be outgoing, confident, and able to handle a great deal of public speaking. On the other hand, research shows that we tend to equate speaking more with being more intelligent and having better ideas when this isn’t true. We tend to overvalue presentation ability rather than the actual content of the ideas being presented. Extraverts may also be less likely to listen to listen to ideas from others because they are more prone to focus on their own ideas and leadership. One important quality that introverts may offer is a greater likelihood of being cautious. Some of the best stock traders are introverts for this very reason; being cautious and less enticed by rewards pays off in the long run. Introverts also have a knack for anticipating future negative events, such as economic downturns. They tend to be ignored however, particularly when it comes to predicting a bubble burst because expressing caution is not well-received among investors.

So if introverts make better predictors of risks and extraverts are more drawn to politics, where does that leave us when we consider the government’s role in addressing climate change? I fear that politicians on average are more extraverted and therefore more prone to dismiss risks and strive for rewards. However, there’s a reason that a wide range of the extraversion dimension exists within our gene pool; we benefit collectively when we have both extraverts and introverts. We need people who are good at marching towards rewards and bringing others with them as well as people who are good at sounding the alarm when risks are on the horizon. This range of personality allows us to maintain a balance within our population as a whole; however, our government is perhaps lacking in this balance. We need to find a way for the voices expressing doubt and caution to be heard as loudly as those promising security and future rewards.

Relationship between worry and mental health

To continue with the theme of a previous post, I wanted to look a little further into how climate change affects mental health. Specifically, the topic for today is how worrying about climate change relates to mental health. In the field of psychology, we tend to view worry as “bad” and would probably make the assumption that a person who spends a lot of time worrying about climate change has poor mental health. In fact, if they worry about other topics (war, hunger, etc.), we may even think that they have generalized anxiety disorder. However, the relationship between worry and mental health does not appear to be as simple as this interpretation.

First of all, there is more than one type of worry. Boehnke et al. (1998) distinguish between two types of worries: microworries and macroworries. For microworrying, the object of the worry would be the self or people close to the self (parents, spouse, etc.). With macroworrying, the object of the worry is external to the self and is relevant to a wider group of people (climate change, war, etc.). Previous researchers have found that microworry is related to poor mental health outcomes (Boehnke et al., 1998; Schwartz et al., 2000); whereas macroworry shows a small association with indicators of positive mental health (Griffin & Prior, 1990). During the cold war, mental health professionals worried about how the threat of a nuclear bomb would influence society’s mental health. They expected to find that the greater one appraised the threat of nuclear war, the more troubled the person would be. However, several studies have found that the same people who reported above average well-being were the same people who believed the level of threat to be the highest. This suggested that it may only be people with enough cognitive and emotional resources who can afford to acknowledge the true level of threat (Schwartz & Melech, 2000).

So a certain level of well-being makes it more likely that one will acknowledge macrolevel problems, and, presumably, be concerned about them. Another component to the relationship between worry and well-being may be how one reacts to the worry. An individual who has a degree of concern and takes action by becoming involved in activism would seem likely to fare better than one with a high degree of concern who takes no action besides worrying. A recent study attempted to answer the question of how activism over time relates to macro and microworry (Boehnke & Wong, 2011). The authors found that for those who appraised a high level of nuclear threat in 1985, being involved in activism made the difference in terms of mental health in midadulthood. Those who were involved saw a steeper decline in microworries (which was related to poor mental health) compared to those who did not become involved with activism.

Unfortunately we do not know whether being involved in activism caused the better mental health outcome, or whether there is something different about those who become involved in activism in the first place. I think its likely that people who become involved in activism have a high degree of agency and belief in their ability to change things that would relate to better mental health outcome across the lifespan regardless of level of worry. That being said, for someone who has a high level of concern, I would have to think that doing something proactive about it would relate to a better prognosis over time. As much as our brains seem to think otherwise, rumination is never productive and we tend to feel better when we focus on what we can control. So for all the time one might spend worrying about climate change, if one is not going to do anything about it, that person may as well deny that it is happening and just try to be happy. A really interesting study would be to find out what happens to people with a high degree of concern, but low level of agency, who become involved in activism work. Does this lead to less worry over time and better mental health? Or would people with low agency feel even worse trying to do something for which they don’t have a natural predisposition? In conclusion, not all worry is bad (rejoice, neurotics!); if it inspires one to action it could be helpful and we would certainly not want to live in a society without macroworriers. At least I wouldn’t!

Battery Recycling

Up until recently, whenever it came time to dispose of a used battery, I would simply put it in an ever-growing plastic bag in my pantry that was filled with other spent batteries. This bag has traveled with me for awhile now, even when I have moved apartments. You see, I tend to hoard things that I don't know how to dispose of correctly.

I was recently forced to come to terms with my hoarded collection of used up batteries when I became a member of the "green" committee within my department. One of the jobs of this committee was to continue a battery recycling program that had fallen away when the administrator in charge of it retired. We had a brimming collection pail filled with used batteries and it became my job to recycle them. It turns out that this job was much more difficult that I anticipated. I was really frustrated with the lack of useful information on the topic so I thought I would share what I managed to scrounge up.

*It is really hard to find a way to recycle alkaline batteries, which made up the majority of the batteries that the department had collected. I think the availability of recycling options for alkaline batteries really varies by city. In my city, there was only one location in the whole city that would take alkaline batteries.

-alkaline batteries are non-rechargeable batteries and they are the typical batteries that you probably use in your remote, etc.

*There is only one place that you can recycle alkaline batteries in Saint Louis. You can bring them to the museum store at the Old Courthouse downtown (http://www.jnpa.com/302/Battery_Recycling.htm).

-They do not accept corroded batteries (bad news for me, because many of the batteries I had were corroded!)

-The batteries must have their positive end taped over (bad news for me, because I had sooo many batteries to tape!)

*Many other locations will recycle rechargeable batteries such as Best Buy. This is because rechargeable batteries contain mercury and MUST be recycled. I believe it is against the law to dispose of them in the regular trash.

*There are differing opinions on the utility of recycling alkaline batteries. You can see both sides of the argument here: http://willtaft.com/136/environment/there-may-be-no-need-to-recycle-alkaline-batteries

and here: http://willtaft.com/170/environment/yes-we-do-need-to-recycle-alkaline-batteries. These posts are by the same blogger; evidently he changed his opinion after the first posting.

*I consulted our Office of Sustainability in hopes that they offered battery recycling on campus. They informed me that they do provide recycling pick up for rechargeable batteries but they do not recommend recycling of alkaline batteries. Wait... what? That's right, they stated that they believe there is limited to no benefit to recycling alkaline batteries. Here are some reasons they gave:

-it takes more energy to recycle the batteries than it does to create a new one, resulting in a net energy loss.

-it is very expensive which means that if you want to recycle them, you have to pay for it.

-the materials that can be extracted from the battery for reuse are very minimal

-the battery may travel great distances to a recycling facility which increases the energy used in the process.

*You can pay to recycle alkaline batteries through companies such as: iRecycle (http://www.batteryrecycling.com/new+iRecycle+kits). I tried out one of their kits during my desperate time of trying to recycle my battery stash and it was about $25 for a pretty small box that was filled very quickly.

To conclude, it is still unclear to me what the best option is for trying to recycle nonrechargeable batteries from an environmental standpoint. I ended up doing a combination of bringing some batteries to the Old Courthouse and mailing the rest in via the iRecycle kit. Even though I trusted the opinion of the people from the Office of Sustainability, it still felt really wrong to me to just toss the batteries in the trash. Maybe its all a part of some imagined control that I want to believe I have and maybe it just made me feel better to believe I was recycling the batteries to some benefit. I think a part of it is that if I feel like I made some effort that must be better than simply throwing something in the trash which takes so little effort and thought. However, its important to consider whether this is actually true. I could be wasting time and effort that could be spent on other items that are more beneficial to recycle. I think the bottom line is that the best option may be to switch to rechargeable batteries but that these MUST be recycled. As for those who (like me) have stashes of nonrechargeable batteries, I would recommend researching what is available in your city and weighing the pros and cons of recycling. Ultimately, there is no perfect option and that is something we all have to come to terms with.

Mental Health and Climate Change

(source: life123)

There are many ways to view the relationship between mental health and climate change. One can consider whether environmental toxins contribute to some mental disorders, one can think about how natural disasters lead to post-traumatic stress disorder or acute stress disorder, one can examine how lack of access to green space impacts well-being, etc. Today, I'd like to take a look at the psychological reaction to awareness of climate change.

I recently stumbled upon an article (Wolf, 2008) discussing a young man who was reported to have climate change delusions. According to the report, this man believed that, due climate change, his water consumption could lead to the death of millions of people. He experienced depression, insomnia, anxiety, and suicidal ideation among other symptoms. He reported feeling very guilty about his influence on others' water supply and he even tried to stop drinking water because of these thoughts.

The article mentioned that incorporation of contemporary phenomena is common in delusional disorders, but the authors could not locate other examples of climate change delusions. The young man was prescribed medication, and after a few days, no longer endorsed his climate change delusions.

I think this case is fascinating for a number of reasons. First, I think it is a really interesting example of how fears about climate change are becoming a focus of psychological treatment and disorder. Secondly, although I am not disagreeing that his thoughts were inaccurate, it is interesting to see how we view anxiety about climate change as disordered or delusional.

As people become increasingly aware of climate change and its associated consequences, the fears will likely become a focus of therapy and may increase the rates of anxiety and depression in our population. People who are more prone to anxiety or depression may in fact be the first people to show this anxiety and could be key people in responding to the crisis. I recently read a book called "Surviving the Depression Epidemic" by Bruce Levine and this author brought up the fact that when patients are anxious and depressed about the state of the world, we respond by labeling them as disordered and treating them. I think this response should be somewhat questioned when a reasonable reaction to our predicament may be anxiety and sadness! I'm not saying that people who are struggling with anxiety or depression should not receive treatment, I just think that we should expect these sorts of reactions and validate to clients that climate change is frightening and some amount of anxiety and sadness are normal reactions. Instead, we tend to think that people who are not bothered by anything as "normal." I never really questioned this notion until recently and always felt jealous of people who seem completely unfazed by world problems. However, in thinking about the situation with climate change and how our generation is faced with this huge problem that will be an even greater burden to each successive generation, I wonder what the "normal reaction" should be. Either way, clinical psychologists are likely to deal with increasing numbers of people who feel very anxious about the future and may even feel like they have a fore-shortened future or wonder about what the next generation's quality of life with be. I think that people who are prone to anxiety or depression have probably had concerns about any apocalyptic-type threat throughout history, but I wonder if these types of threats are at one of the highest peaks and that is why we are seeing increasing rates of depression and anxiety. One might think that people who are prone to these symptoms are ill-equipped to deal with climate change and think of these traits as disadvantageous. However, I would think that it would be adaptive for a society to preserve a gene pool that includes some predisposition to these traits- it is advantageous to have some people whose radars go off so that we can respond to problems. Additionally, it may only be when anxiety and sadness become debilitating that they are counterproductive. If anxiety leads to greater awareness and action, then it can be a great asset to a society. I wonder which reaction tends to be more beneficial: denial or anxiety?

I also wonder about the man with the climate change delusions and how he fits into all this. Although his idea that he could kill millions of people by drinking water wasn't accurate, I can see how the idea of inter-connectedness among people and the finite quality of resources was the basis for his delusion. These are ideas that are very important to understanding climate change, and I don't think his ideas are that far-off from some of the anxieties that we all feel sometimes. His ideas may actually be a good example of how a child might experience the anxiety associated with climate change: a slight distortion but based in a scary reality. This is a good reminder that talking to children about climate change and addressing their anxiety will likely be a difficult but important task for current and future parents.

There are many other angles from which to view the relationship between mental health and climate change and I will tackle other topics in posts to come.

Renewable Energy

solarrochester.com

I recently read a New York Times article on renewable energy that complimented some of the downsides I have been hearing to these sources of energy. In a June 7^th, 2011 article (The Gas is Greener), Robert Bryce evaluates the wisdom of new mandates that require states to acquire certain percentages of their energy from renewable sources, such as the one in California that requires the state to use renewable energy for one-third of its electricity. I wish that the story could end there and we could all be excited about mandating the use of clean sources of energy. But, like so many attempts to solve climate woes by replacing what we have now with a new technology or product, this approach is not without its downsides. As Bryce points out in his article, converting wind or sunlight into electricity requires the use of other energy sources, notably fossil fuels, and also uses a very large amount of land. The sources on their own are sustainable, but the process needed to acquire them and transport them takes large amounts of energy and other resources. For example, converting wind to wind energy requires the use of wind turbines- these take large amounts of steel and energy to produce and transport. Wind farms also take large amounts of land and require power lines to transport the energy. From what I understand from the article, both of these sources of energy are not sustainable if you consider the energy needed to produce the equipment and the energy needed to transport the energy. Also, these sources are unlikely to be able to produce all of our energy, meaning, sadly, that they are not a complete solution to our energy problems.

I admit I’m really attracted to the idea of harnassing the power of the sun or wind (Captain Planet, anyone?), but the more I learn about these sources, the less promising I think they are as a replacement for fossil fuels. I believe that these sources could be used in combination with other approaches so that they may be a part of the solution, just not the whole solution.

I agreed with everything I read in the article until I got to the end of the article and read that Bryce was promoting natural gas and nuclear energy. Why is it that the last solution to be suggested is the one that could arguably be the most feasible and most likely to save us? That’s right, I’m talking about (gasp) reducing our energy use! It’s frustrating to see that we keep searching for alternative energy sources so that we can continue to power our current energy lifestyle. Instead, I believe we should be drastically reducing our energy use so that we don’t have such an insurmountable challenge in trying to replace fossil fuels. I think a combined approach of reducing energy use with renewable energy should be considered. I say that it might be easier to reduce our energy use, but only in the sense that I think it should be easier to stop doing something than to discover a magical technology that will provide completely clean renewable energy that can power our entire planet for generations to come. But perhaps I shouldn’t underestimate the strength of our ability to cling to our “way of life.” That being said (trying to end on an optimistic note!), I do think that we can rally and put up with a lot less if it’s seen as a sacrifice for the greater good of the nation (i.e., World War II as others have suggested). It’s just a matter of how we are conceptualizing climate change- perhaps if it were an adversary we could go to war with, things would be different.

Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08bryce.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=renewable%20energy&st=cse

Us or Them: Spinning Environmental Cuts

(frogworld.net)

In an April 15th New York Times article on proposed cuts to environmental regulation in Maine and Florida, the governor of Maine is quoted as saying, "Maine's working families and small businesses are endangered. It is time to we start defending the interests of those who want to work and invest in Maine with the same vigor that we defend tree frogs and Canadian lynx." His words made me really angry, and I also worried that his message would be persuasive. It's clear that he spent some time crafting his misleading message to suggest that we have to choose: animals or people. He is not only equating jobless people to endangered species, but he is suggesting that protecting animals has a direct negative impact on humans.

There are so many ways in which the statement is illogical, I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with pointing out that the proposed cuts would be to opening up parts of the North Woods to development and suspending a law meant to monitor toxic chemicals found in children's products (according to the NY Times). So when he says protect tree frogs, he means tree frogs, trees, many other animals, and children from toxic chemicals, to name a few. Does he mean that we should protect the interests of those who want to work and invest in Maine above children's health and exposure to toxic chemicals? Also, he seems to be implying that we protect tree frogs and lynx with a lot of vigor, and that we never protect the interest of businesses or investment. Right. I think its also ironic that he states that working families and businesses are endangered. Actually, he's right- just not in the way he means. All of our jobs and businesses that depend on finite natural resources absolutely are endangered. And as scary as it is to think, we as a species are endangered. Even if his statement were true, and we were only choosing between tree frogs and jobs, I wonder if I would even agree with it then? Should we protect jobs with the same vigor as protecting the lives of other animals? Do we have to have jobs that destroy other creatures? I would protect a human life with much more vigor than a tree frog's life, but I don't know that I think we have a right to destroy the homes of other creatures for our work. Even if one considered jobs to be more important than tree frogs, there's a slight problem with that logic: tree frogs do not exist in a vacuum and never do we. We are unavoidably linked to the other creatures in our world and we cannot destroy them without consequences to our own health and prosperity. So even if you doesn't value the lives of other animals, surely you value your own life, and the lives of children that are hopelessly bound to everything else in our environment.

I think it will be interesting to see whether this "jobs are an endangered species" logic is one we will see more of to justify cuts to environmental protection. So much of the struggle to get support for protecting the environmental seems to be about the way we conceptualize these problems and a lot of that has to do with how we talk about them.

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)

A CSA is a network of consumers who support a local farm by buying a "share" of their produce. This usually means that they pay up front directly to the farmers to receive a regularly-occurring share of food. The type of share can range from just fruits and vegetables to include meat, dairy, and other food. The shares are sometimes delivered, and other times you pick up your share from a pick-up location.

A good source for more information on CSAs is local harvest (http://www.localharvest.org/csa/). On their website you can search for CSAs available in your area. This summer will be my first time trying out a CSA; we are getting a half-share, which means pick-up is biweekly, and it will be just fruits and vegetables.

From an environmental perspective, buying local has been emphasized as a way to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Most food travels quite a distance to arrive at your grocery store (I think I've heard the average is 1500 miles). Even though I have very limited experience with them, so far I think joining a CSA seems like a good idea. However, I think a focus on local food should be combined with reducing the impact of an even bigger polluter in food consumption: meat. I've heard that reducing meat consumption can actually have a bigger impact and may be easier in some cases. For example, reducing meat may take less work on the part of the consumer; it may be easier to just avoid meat here and there rather than take the time to make sure all produce is local or enroll in a CSA. I do still think buying local is a good idea and still beneficial. The best case scenario would be to try to buy local AND cut down on meat consumption. In the case of joining a CSA, these may go hand in hand because one is likely to need a steady supply of vegetables for all those new vegetarian dishes! This is why I like the concept so much- its like committing up front to eating a lot of vegetables or else you waste your money. I should also mention that there are other benefits to a CSA such as supporting local farmers, rather than industrial agriculture, supporting farming that might be more likely to use organic, sustainable practice, and being better connected to where your food comes from and how it is produced. Plus you buy direct and get to meet the people that actually grow the food!

*Updated with pictures of actual CSA produce. These are little turnips. I love seeing all the irregularities of vegetables that haven't been mass-produced.