Manon Eileen – a Writer's Blog

The Greeks and Romans always thought that psychological disorders were biologically caused and so, they treated them like physical illnesses.

Hippocrates: already impressively close to the truth in 400 B.C.

Hippocrates, a Greek physician (470-366 B.C.) and many others contributed to a manual called the Hippocratic Corpus, on how psychological disorders could be treated like any other disease. However, Hippocrates and his associates didn’t stop there; they had the notion that psychological disorders might also be caused by brain pathology or head trauma and also, they had the idea that psychopathology could be influenced by genetics.

It’s quite interesting to see how close Hippocrates came to the truth. Many of his deductions have been supported in recent years. Hippocrates also recognized the importance of social contributions to psychopathology, such as the negative effects of family stress. In some cases he even removed patients from their families.

Galen: quite a humorous guy

The Roman physician Galen (approx. 129-198 A.D.) took the ideas of Hippocrates even further. He created a powerful and influential school of thought within the biological tradition of psychology that extended well into the 19th century.

Galen’s theory was the humoral theory, and perhaps the forst example of associating psychological disorders with chemical imbalance, which is a widespread theory still to this day.

It was initially assumed that normal brain functioning was related to four body fluids (or humors): blood (the heart), black bile (the spleen), yellow bile (the liver) and phlegm (the brain). Physicians believed that too much or too little of any of these humors would lead to disease. For instance, it was believed that too much black bile lead to melancholia (depression).

The four humors were related to the Greeks’ conception of the four basic qualities: heat, dryness, moisture and cold. Each humor was associated with one of these qualities. Terms derived from the four humors are still used today to describe personality traits. For example sanguine (red, like blood) describes someone who is ruddy in complexion, cheerful and optimistic. Melancholic means depressive, and a phlegmatic personality indicates apathy and sluggishness, but can also mean being calm under stress. A choleric (from yellow bile or choler) person is hot tempered.

Treatment of an excess of humors

An overabundance of any of these humors was treated by regulating environmental factors. They increased or decreased heat, dryness, moisture or cold, depending on which humor was out of balance.

In addition to rest, good nutrition and exercise, two treatments were developed. In one, bleeding, or bloodletting, a carefully measured amount of blood was removed from the body. This was often done with leeches. The other was to induce vomiting to treat depression (in Anatomy of Melancholy (1621) Robert Burton advised to eat tobacco and a half-boiled cabbage to induce vomiting).

What do you think of these theories? It’s interesting to see that these theories are already so old, but still so close to the truth. Of course, the humoral theory has become obsolete somewhere in the last two centuries, but people have always considered the theory to be true.

Also, isn’t it great that this theory had such a big influence of a part of our language, on how we describe personality traits?

Please share your thoughts!

Source: Barlow, D.H., & Durand, V.M. (2009) Abnormal psychology: an integrative approach (5th Edition). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

This week’s Sci-fi movie analysis regards the movie Equilibrium (2002), featuring Christian Bale and Taye Diggs. The movie was written and directed by Kurt Wimmer.

The movie synopsis:

A man who dares to feel finds his life in danger in this cautionary science fiction drama. In the future, after a Third World War has decimated much of the Earth’s population, a new nation known as Libria rises up under the unquestioned leadership of Dupont (Angus MacFadyen). Believing human emotions and their expression were to blame for the failings of past societies, The Father has decreed that all citizens must take a daily dose of Prozia II, a drug which levels out the emotional landscape, and that all forms of creative expression are against the law; violating either regulation can be punished by death. John Preston (Christian Bale) is a Grammaton, an elite law enforcement officer who tracks down and punishes “sense offenders.” One day, Preston accidentally fails to take his Prozia II, and for the first time begins experiencing emotions himself. Preston becomes aware of an underground of rebels who refuse to take their medication and have embraced art and literature, and he finds himself becoming infatuated with one of their number, Mary O’Brian (Emily Watson).

Watch the trailer here [or watch the embedded youtube video]

I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a huge fan of Christian Bale. There’s quite a handful of movies in which he displayed his qualities as an actor (to name a few: The Machinist, American Psycho, The Prestige, etc.), and Equilibrium is no exception.

This is Kurt Wimmer’s second movie (of three) as a Director, although he has written many scripts (such as Salt, Law Abiding Citizen and The Recruit). Now, I have to say I’m quite picky when it comes to the general direction of a movie, so I can understand why Wimmer didn’t direct more than three movies – it’s not his strength. The direction sometimes feels rather gimmicky – he tried to copy the directing style of The Wachowskis of The Matrix, but he didn’t quite achieve that goal.

However, the script of this movie is brilliant. For those that have read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, the story concept and theme might sound awfully familiar. Equilibrium is a modern, and much cooler execution of that idea.

What would it be like to not be able to experience emotions? We know what emotions are, what they feel like… Do you sometimes wish you didn’t have them?

Or if, in the hypothetical situation, we would lose the right to “feel”, would you fight the authorities to get them back?

I don’t think I ever wished to not have emotions. I hate to feel sad, but I love to feel happy. I think the emotion of happiness makes up for all the times I’ve felt sad, so I’ve never really even wished for losing the ability to experience emotion.

Honestly, I think that our emotions are what makes us human, and interesting. I study psychology – what can I say, without human emotion, psychology gets sort of boring.

I’m not sure if I personally would have the guts to fight the authorities as I have never tested it, but perhaps I do… If I was as kick-ass as John Preston in Equilibrium, I would be sure to take them on! I think…

Please share your thoughts!

…On an unrelated note… Happy birthday to my mom! :p

If you’re a writer, you probably follow @elizabethscraig (Elizabeth S. Craig, mystery writer and owner of the blog Mystery Writing Is Murder) for the great articles on writing she shares on Twitter. If you don’t yet follow her (and her blog), shame on you and go follow her quickly!

A short while ago she created a database in which ALL the links she shares on Twitter are stored and – even better- they’re searchable and categorized on topic. If you ever need some help when you’re stuck with your writing, go consult that database.

Screenshot of my Trunk.ly

Anyway, I too share a lot of links on Twitter, although not on writing. I share links of articles on human psychology and recent findings in studies. I think they could be of help to many writers out there as our knowledge of the human psyche decides so much about the quality of our stories.

To say the least, I was impressed with Elizabeth’s Writer’s Knowledge Database, so much that I wanted to create something similar, but had no clue how to. Also, I’d preferred it to not be too time consuming.

Then, not too long ago I found out about Trunk.ly! Trunk.ly basically offers everything I was looking for, even if it looks a little less professional than the Writer’s Knowledge Database. The only two downpoints are that it logs ALL the links I share, so also links to my Plixi account of pictures I took and shared, and that I can’t categorize the links. But they’re sacrifices I’m willing to make right now.

Also, you can collect your shared links not just from Twitter; it can also import links from Facebook, an RSS feed, Delicious and Pinboard.

You can find my account here: Manon Eileen’s Trunk.ly.

If you’re looking for a way to store all your shared articles and other links… Go check this one out!

P.S. I just created a widget on my site with my latest shared links… Pretty neat!

I dunno if anyone ever noticed but I base my titles of the Sunday posts on lyrics of songs… This week it’s Tori Amos’ Spring Haze.

So! Another Sunday!

The last two weeks were awfully hectic. I had two exams (and I’m proud to say that I passed at least one of them – still waiting to hear back about the other), assignments, and all sorts of social stuff I had to attend to! Also, the weather has been absolutely gorgeous so I’ve spent a lot of time outside, basking in the sunlight (and I’ve tanned so much I barely recognize myself in the mirror)!

This morning I finally rewrote my very first short story. In retrospect, it was quite bad, but I was so excited when I had finished it last year. It’s interesting to see that since then I have learned so much about writing. My English has improved (spelling and grammar), I have learned about story structure, clichés, things writers should and shouldn’t do… And blogging has helped with this all, too.

I think the most important lesson I’ve learned these few months is one about myself. I learned I can stick to a schedule, because the last few months I’ve had a very strict schedule for my blog. Previously, I always thought I couldn’t. I do have discipline, yay! But what I have also learned is that it’s okay if you can’t stick to that schedule because you have other important things going on, like having to pass a course. At first I was very worried people would stop reading my blog if I skipped a blog, but I’m very happy that people kept returning.

This leads me to the following: I would like to thank everyone who has been reading my blog! It wouldn’t have been as gratifying if no one bothered, but I’m very proud that I’m apparently producing something that makes people want to return and read what I’ve written. Thank you so much, everyone .

…All sentimental stuff aside, it’s time for another blog mashup!

Interesting & Fun stuff!

This kid can sure play the cello… And beatbox, too. An interesting combination! @ Youtube

How are Mac & PC people different? [infographic] @ Mashable.com – wow, Mac users are 80% more likely than PC users to be vegetarian!

Scientists “See” Ocean Floor via Sonar @ National Geographic – cool stuff.

Alien Trees Would Bloom Black on Worlds With Double Stars @ National Geographic – for those SFF worldbuilders among us… Read this article if you want your world to be scientifically correct!

A parody of Lady Gaga’s “Born this Way” by Weird Al Yankovich @ Youtube – it’s even catchier than the original! And funny!

Singing Sheep, Dreams, and Getting Ready for Work @ Mirrors, Musings and Magic – my lovely writer friend Radha Pyari remains to be hilarious.

Writing, Social Media, Publishing and all that

Arcadia Meadows @ Mysilentfury.com: Peter Saint-Clair tells us about how he has created a fictional town and map for his mystery novel

The new way we read: 10 ways digital books are changing our literary lives @ Denver Post

40+ free tools for authors @ Password Incorrect – there’s some really useful stuff in here!

How Amazon Recommendation Algorithms Help Sell Your Book @ The Creative Penn – an interesting read.

And of course, an xkcd.com comic! Future Timeline – and this one was particularly funny!

P.S. Happy Easter, all!

A while ago I asked everyone to tell me what they saw in a Rorschach inkblot. Personally, I had a lot of fun interpreting your answers, and I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. This was my way of demonstrating why the Rorschach is not a reliable tool to use. However, I did exaggerate a little bit, but not much. And I’m definitely not the only one who does not think highly of the Rorschach.

The Dutch Commission of Test Affairs (Commissie Testaangelegenheden Nederland – COTAN) shows us clearly why the Rorschach test sucks. They assess the quality of all available (Dutch) tests on eight criteria; basic principles of the test construction, quality of the test material, quality of the manual, norm groups, reliability, construct validity* and criterion validity**. As a psychologist (in training) I have access to this information online, this isn’t available to the public.

*Construct validity: refers to the extent to which operationalizations of a construct (e.g. practical tests developed from a theory) do actually measure what the theory says they do.

**Criterion validity: compares the test with other measures or outcomes (the criteria) already held to be valid.

Of the Rorschach, COTAN has the following to say (criteria are rated with insufficient, sufficient and good):

• Basic principles of the test construction: insufficitent – incomplete explanation of definitions, backgrounds and operationalization of the measured constructs.
• Quality of the test material: insufficient – poor standardization
• Quality of the manual: insufficient - A lot of information is not available for the test user and the information regarding scoring and interpretation is too complex.
• Norm groups: insufficient – The norm groups are too small and don’t represent the general population (and/or the representativity is not assessable)
• Reliability: insufficient - Only data regarding inter-rater reliability is provided and this is of mediocre quality
• Construct Validity: insufficient – no research
• Criterion Validity: insufficient – no research

Honestly, there are very few tests that are rated “good” on all criteria (an example is the SCL-90-TR – Symptom Checklist). But a test rated with “insufficient” on all criteria is just as rare.

That they recommend you to NOT use this test is an understatement. What they’re saying with these ratings is that they’d rather see this test buried alive. Or burned. Or ripped in a million pieces. All of them.

So if you ever go to a therapist who wants to do the Rorschach with you… Run as fast as you can. You’d be diagnosed with disorders you most likely don’t have (unless they just take the test for fun, like I did with you all, and uses other tests to do the actual diagnosing. It’s still a waste of your time, though).

So that, my friends, is why the Rorschach sucks.

However, if you’re curious to my interpretation of what you see in the inkblot in the previous article, don’t hesitate to share. I promise I’ll try to make you laugh .