Normalcy bias refers to a mental state

							    Normalcy bias refers to a mental state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The normalcy bias, or normality bias,
refers to a mental state people enter
when facing a disaster. It causes
people to underestimate both the
possibility of a disaster occurring and
its possible effects. This often results
in situations where people fail to
adequately prepare for a disaster, and
on a larger scale, the failure of
governments to include the populace
in its disaster preparations. The
assumption that is made in the case of
the normalcy bias is that since a
disaster never has occurred then it
never will occur. It also results in the
inability of people to cope with a
disaster once it occurs. People with a
normalcy bias have difficulties
reacting to something they have not
experienced before. People also tend
to interpret warnings in the most
optimistic way possible, seizing on
any ambiguities to infer a less serious
situation.[1]

Possible causes
The normalcy bias may be caused in part by the way the brain processes new data. Research suggests
that even when the brain is calm, it takes 8–10 seconds to process new information. Stress slows the
process, and when the brain cannot find an acceptable response to a situation, it fixates on a single and
sometimes default solution that may or may not be correct. An evolutionary reason for this response
could be that paralysis gives an animal a better chance of surviving an attack; predators are less likely
to eat prey that isn't struggling.[2]


Effects
The normalcy bias often results in unnecessary deaths in disaster situations. The lack of preparation for
disasters often leads to inadequate shelter, supplies, and evacuation plans. Even when all these things
are in place, individuals with a normalcy bias often refuse to leave their homes. Studies have shown
that more than 70% of people check with others before deciding to evacuate.[2]
The normalcy bias also causes people to drastically underestimate the effects of the disaster. Therefore,
they think that everything will be all right, while information from the radio, television, or neighbors
gives them reason to believe there is a risk. This creates a cognitive dissonance that they then must
work to eliminate. Some manage to eliminate it by refusing to believe new warnings coming in and
refusing to evacuate (maintaining the normalcy bias), while others eliminate the dissonance by
escaping the danger. The possibility that some may refuse to evacuate causes significant problems in
disaster planning.[3]


Examples
Not limited to, but most notably: The Nazi genocide of millions of Jews. Even after knowing friends
and family were being taken against their will, the Jewish community still stayed put, and refused to
believe something was "going on." Because of the extreme nature of the situation it is understandable
why most would deny it.
Little Sioux Scout camp in June 2008. Despite being in the middle of "Tornado Alley," the campground
had no tornado shelter to offer protection from a strong tornado.[4]
New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina. Inadequate government and citizen preparation and the denial
that the levees could fail were an example of the normalcy bias, as were the thousands of people who
refused to evacuate.[citation needed]


Prevention
The negative effects can be combated through the four stages of disaster response:
    • preparation, including publicly acknowledging the possibility of disaster and forming
      contingency plans[citation needed]
    • warning, including issuing clear, unambiguous, and frequent warnings and helping the public to
      understand and believe them[citation needed]
    • impact, the stage at which the contingency plans take effect and emergency services, rescue
      teams, and disaster relief teams work in tandem[citation needed]
    • aftermath, or reestablishing equilibrium after the fact by providing supplies and aid to those in
      need[citation needed]
       SOURCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias


Learned helplessness is the condition of a
human or animal that has learned to behave
helplessly
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Learned helplessness is the condition of a human or animal that
has learned to behave helplessly, failing to respond even though
there are opportunities for it to help itself by avoiding unpleasant
circumstances or by gaining positive rewards. Learned
helplessness theory is the view that clinical depression and related
mental illnesses may result from a perceived absence of control
over the outcome of a situation.[1] Organisms which have been
ineffective and less sensitive in determining the consequences of
                                        their behavior are defined as having acquired learned
                                        helplessness. Foundation of research and theory

                                        Seligman and Maier
                                        The American psychologist Martin Seligman's foundational
                                        experiments and theory of learned helplessness began at the
                                        University of Pennsylvania in 1967, as an extension of his
                                        interest in depression. Quite by accident, Seligman and
                                        colleagues discovered that the conditioning of dogs led to
                                        outcomes that opposed the predictions of B.F. Skinner's
                                        behaviorism, then a leading psychological theory.[3][4]

                                        Experiment

                                        Summary
In the learned helplessness experiment an animal is repeatedly hurt by an adverse stimulus which it
cannot escape.
Eventually the animal will stop trying to avoid the pain and behave as if it is utterly helpless to change
the situation.
Finally, when opportunities to escape are presented, this learned helplessness prevents any action. The
only coping mechanism the animal uses is to be stoical and put up with the discomfort, not expending
energy getting worked up about the adverse stimulus.

Detail
In Part 1 of Seligman and Steve Maier's experiment, three groups of dogs were placed in harnesses.
Group 1 dogs were simply put in the harnesses for a period of time and later released. Groups 2 and 3
consisted of "yoked pairs." A dog in Group 2 would be intentionally subjected to pain by being given
electric shocks, which the dog could end by pressing a lever. A Group 3 dog was wired in series with a
Group 2 dog, receiving shocks of identical intensity and duration, but his lever didn't stop the electric
shocks. To a dog in Group 3, it seemed that the shock ended at random, because it was his paired dog in
Group 2 that was causing it to stop. For Group 3 dogs, the shock was apparently "inescapable." Group
1 and Group 2 dogs quickly recovered from the experience, but Group 3 dogs learned to be helpless,
and exhibited symptoms similar to chronic clinical depression.
In Part 2 of the Seligman and Maier experiment, these three groups of dogs were tested in a shuttle-box
apparatus, in which the dogs could escape electric shocks by jumping over a low partition. For the most
part, the Group 3 dogs, who had previously learned that nothing they did had any effect on the shocks,
simply lay down passively and whined. Even though they could have easily escaped the shocks, the
dogs didn't try.
In a second experiment later that year, Overmier and Seligman ruled out the possibility that the Group
3 dogs learned some behavior in Part 1 of the experiment, while they were struggling in the harnesses
against the "inescapable shocks," that somehow interfered with what would have been their normal,
successful behavior of escaping from the shocks in Part 2. The Group 3 dogs were immobilized with a
paralyzing drug (Curare), and underwent a procedure similar to that in Part 1 of the Seligman and
Maier experiment. A similar Part 2 in the shuttle-box was also undertaken in this experiment, and the
Group 3 dogs exhibited the same "helpless" response.
Later experiments
Other experiments were performed with different animals with similar results. In all cases, the strongest
predictor of a depressive response was lack of control over the aversive stimulus. One such later
experiment, presented by Watson & Ramey (1969), consisted of two groups of human babies. One
group was placed into a crib with a sensory pillow, designed so that the movement of the baby's head
could control the rotation of a mobile. The other group had no control over the movement of the mobile
and could only enjoy looking at it. Later, both groups of babies were tested in cribs that allowed the
babies to control the mobile. Although all the babies now had the power to control the mobile, only the
group that had already learned about the sensory pillow attempted to use it.[5]
A similar experiment was done with people who performed mental tasks in the presence of distracting
noise. People who could use a switch to turn off the noise had improved performance, even though they
rarely bothered to do so. Simply being aware of this option was enough to substantially counteract its
distracting effect.[6] In 2011, an animal study[7] found that animals with control over stress exhibited
changes in the excitability of specific neurons within the prefrontal cortex, and modeled this
phenomenon in a conductance-based neural simulation. Animals that lacked control failed to exhibit an
increase in excitability and showed signs consistent with learned helplessness and social anxiety.


Attributional reformulation
Later research discovered that the original theory of learned helplessness failed to account for people's
varying reactions to situations that can cause learned helplessness.[8] Learned helplessness sometimes
remains specific to one situation,[9] but at other times generalizes across situations.[6]
An individual's attributional style or explanatory style is the key to understanding why people respond
differently to adverse events.[10] Although a group of people may experience the same or similar
negative events, how each person privately interprets or explains the event will affect the likelihood of
acquiring learned helplessness and subsequent depression.[11]
People with pessimistic explanatory style—which sees negative events as permanent ("it will never
change"), personal ("it's my fault"), and pervasive ("I can't do anything correctly")—are most likely to
suffer from learned helplessness and depression.[12] Cognitive behavioral therapy, heavily endorsed by
Seligman, can often help people to learn more realistic explanatory styles, and can help ease
depression.
Bernard Weiner's attribution theory (1979, 1985, 1986) concerns the way that people attribute a cause
or explanation to an unpleasant event. Attribution theory includes the dimensions of
globality/specificity, stability/instability, and internality/externality.[13] A global attribution occurs
when the individual believes that the cause of negative events is consistent across different contexts. A
specific attribution occurs when the individual believes that the cause of a negative event is unique to a
particular situation. A stable attribution occurs when the individual believes the cause to be consistent
across time. Unstable attribution occurs when the individual thinks that the cause is specific to one
point in time. An external attribution assigns causality to situational or external factors, while an
internal attribution assigns causality to factors within the person.[11]


Differences between humans and other animals
There are several aspects of human helplessness that have no counterpart among animals. One of the
most intriguing aspects is "vicarious learning (or modelling)": that people can learn to be helpless
through observing another person encountering uncontrollable events.[14]
Apart from the shared depression symptoms between human and other animals such as passivity,
introjected hostility, weight loss, appetite loss, social and sexual deficits, some of the diagnostic
symptoms of learned helplessness—including depressed mood, feelings of worthlessness, and suicidal
ideation—can be found and observed in human beings but not necessarily in other animals.[12] In non-
human animal models, control over stress conveys resilience to future uncontrolled stressors and
induces changes in the function of specific neurons within the prefrontal cortex.[15]


Neurobiological Perspective
Research has shown that increased 5-HT (serotonin) activity in the dorsal raphe nucleus plays a critical
role in learned helplessness (commonly referred to as conditioned defeat). Other key brain regions that
are involved with the expression of helpless behavior include the basolateral amygdala, central nucleus
of the amygdala and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis.[16]
Additional sources have concluded that activity in medial prefrontal cortex, dorsal hippocampus,
septum and hypothalamus were observed during states of helplessness.
In the article, "Exercise, Learned Helplessness, and the Stress-Resistant Brain", by Benjamin N.
Greenwood and Monika Fleshner, they mention how exercise and neurobiology relate in the facet that
it can prevent anxiety-related disorders such as depression. Greenwood and Fleshner state, "The
underlying neurobiological mechanisms of this effect, however, remain unknown. Identifying the
mechanisms by which exercise prevents learned helplessness could shed light on the complex
neurobiology of depression and anxiety and potentially lead to novel strategies for the prevention of
stress-related mood disorders".[17]
In a fast paced world, especially for college students, stress can eventually alter one's mood or
emotions. In the abstract, the authors state the following focuses: 1) how exercise can alter the
behavioral consequences of stress and how "learned helplessness" affects animals 2) the neurocircuitry
of learned helplessness and the role of serotonin (or 5-HT) 3) exercise-associated neural adaptations
and neural plasticity that may contribute to the stress-resistant brain,
This article also mentions "laboratory rodents" as prime subjects for wheel running and how the
specific animal deals with anxiety and depression. "Treadmill training increases muscle enzymatic
capacity" [18] Enzymatic meaning of or pertaining to an enzyme". What this wheel running does is
relieve stress, but also time may not be as important as how specific or intense the training was. It was
proven that wheel running did prevent anxiety and stress-related diseases and/or consequences in
Greenwood and Fleshner's study. Again, the focus was to determine if or if not wheel running can
prevent the onset of depression and "anxiety-like behaviours" in the laboratory rodents.


Health implications
Regardless of origin, people who see uncontrollable events reliably suffer disruption of emotions,
aggressions, physiology, and are having difficulties with problem-solving tasks.[19][20] These helpless
experiences can associate with passivity, uncontrollability and poor cognition in people, ultimately
threatening their physical and mental well-being.

Physical health
Learned helplessness can contribute to poor health when people neglect diet, exercise, and medical
treatment, falsely believing they have no power to change. The more people perceive events as
uncontrollable and unpredictable, the more stress they experience;,[21] and the less hope they feel
about making changes in their lives.[22][23]

Depression
Young adults and middle-aged parents with a pessimistic explanatory style are often more likely to
suffer from depression.[24] People with a pessimistic explanatory style tend to be poor at problem-
solving and cognitive restructuring, and also tend to demonstrate poor job satisfaction and interpersonal
relationships in the workplace.[22][25] Those with a pessimistic explanatory style also tend to have
weakened immune systems, and not only have increased vulnerability to minor ailments (e.g., cold,
fever) and major illness (e.g., heart attack, cancers), but also have a less effective recovery from health
problems.[26]
According to Cox et al., Abramson, Devine, and Hollon (2012), learned helplessness is a key factor in
depression that is caused by prejudice (i.e., "deprejudice").[27]
Someone facing inescapable prejudice (e.g., abuse) may develop learned helplessness and depression
as a result. "Helplessness born in the face of inescapable prejudice matches the helplessness born in the
face of inescapable shocks."[28]

Motivation
Learned helplessness can also be a motivational problem. Individuals who have failed at tasks in the
past conclude erroneously that they are incapable of improving their performance.[29] This might set
children behind in academic subjects and dampen their social skills.
Children with learned helplessness typically fail academic subjects, and are less intrinsically motivated
than others. They may use learned helplessness as an excuse or a shield to provide self-justification for
school failure.[citation needed] Additionally, describing someone as having learned to be helpless can
serve as a reason to avoid blaming him or her for the inconveniences experienced.[citation needed] In
turn, the student will give up trying to gain respect or advancement through academic performance.[30]

Social impact
Child abuse by neglect can be a manifestation of learned helplessness: when parents believe they are
incapable of stopping an infant's crying, they may simply give up trying to do anything for the child.
[31]
Another example of learned helplessness in social settings involves loneliness and shyness. Those who
are extremely shy, passive, anxious and depressed may learn helplessness to offer stable explanations
for unpleasant social experiences. However, Gotlib and Beatty (1985) found that people who cite
helplessness in social settings may be viewed poorly by others, resulting in a situation that reinforces
the problematic thinking. A third example is aging, when some older people may respond to the deaths
of friends and family members, the loss of jobs and income, and the development of age-related health
problems by neglecting their medical care needs.[32]
Social problems resulting from learned helplessness may seem unavoidable; however, when induced in
experimental settings learned helplessness resolves with the passage of time.[33] Learned helplessness
in response to experiences can be prevented or minimized by "immunization" and, when present, may
be reversed by therapy. People can be immunized against the perception that events are uncontrollable
by increasing their awareness of previous experiences, when they were able to effect a desired
outcome.[34] Therapy can instruct people in the fact of contingency[35] and bolster people's self
esteem.[36]
Extensions
Cognitive scientist and usability engineer Donald Norman used learned helplessness to explain why
people blame themselves when they have a difficult time using simple objects in their environment.[37]
The American sociologist Harrison White has suggested in his book Identity and Control that the
notion of learned helplessness can be extended beyond psychology into the realm of social action.
When a culture or political identity fails to achieve desired goals, perceptions of collective ability
suffer.
According to author Jane Mayer,[38] Seligman gave a talk at the Navy SERE school in San Diego in
2002, which he said was a three-hour talk on helping U.S. soldiers to resist torture, based on his
understanding of learned helplessness, not on how to break down resistance in detainees.
SOURCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness


Stockholm syndrome is a psychological
phenomenon in which hostages express
empathy,
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express
empathy, sympathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of
defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured
by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2]
The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of
Stockholm syndrome.[3]
Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require
a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where
one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."[4] One commonly
used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests
that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the
aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the
aggressor, they no longer become a threat. [5]
Battered-person syndrome is an example of activating the capture-bonding psychological mechanism,
as are military basic training and fraternity bonding by hazing.[6][7][8]
Stockholm syndrome is sometimes erroneously referred to as the Helsinki syndrome.[9][10]

History
Stockholm syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in
Stockholm, Sweden in which several bank employees were held hostage in a bank vault from August
23 to August 28, 1973. During this situation, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors,
rejected assistance from government officials at one point and even defended them after they were
freed from their six-day ordeal.[11] The term "Stockholm syndrome" was coined by the criminologist
and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome
in a news broadcast.[12] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management
of hostage situations.[13]


Evolutionary explanations
In the view of evolutionary psychology "the mind is a set of information-processing machines that were
designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors."[14]
One of the "adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors," particularly females, was being
abducted by another band. Life in the human "environment of evolutionary adaptiveness" (EEA) is
thought by researchers such as Azar Gat to be similar to that of the few remaining hunter-gatherer
societies. "Deadly violence is also regularly activated in competition over women. . . . Abduction of
women, rape, . . . are widespread direct causes of reproductive conflict . . ."[15] I.e., being captured[16]
and having their dependent children killed might have been fairly common.[17] Women who resisted
capture in such situations risked being killed.[18]
Azar Gat argues that war and abductions (capture) were typical of human pre-history.[15] When
selection is intense and persistent, adaptive traits (such as capture-bonding) become universal to the
population or species. (See Selection.)
Partial activation of the capture-bonding psychological trait may lie behind battered-wife syndrome,
military basic training, fraternity hazing, and sex practices such as sadism/masochism or
bondage/discipline.[citation needed] Being captured by neighbouring tribes was a relatively common
event for women in human history, if anything like the recent history of the few remaining primitive
tribes. In some of those tribes (Yanomamo, for instance) practically everyone in the tribe is descended
from a captive within the last three generations. Perhaps as high as one in ten of females were abducted
and incorporated into the tribe that captured them.


Notable examples
Mary McElroy was kidnapped and held for ransom in 1933 and released by her captors unharmed.
When three of her four captors were apprehended and given maximum sentences (including one death
sentence), McElroy defended them. According to reports, she suffered from feelings of guilt concerning
the case which compromised her mental and physical health. She took her own life in 1940.
    • Patty Hearst was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army in 1974. After two months in
      captivity, she actively took part in a robbery they were orchestrating. Her unsuccessful legal
      defense claimed that she suffered from Stockholm syndrome and was coerced into aiding the
      SLA. She was convicted and imprisoned for her actions in the robbery, though her sentence was
      commuted in February 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, and she received a Presidential pardon
      from President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001 (among his last official acts before leaving
      office).


In economics
Recently, in the 9th International Conference "Developments in Economic Theory and Policy" held in
Bilbao, by the Department of Applied Economics V of the University of the Basque Country (Spain)
and the Cambridge Centre for Economic and Public Policy, Department of Land Economy of the
University of Cambridge (United Kingdom), the concept of Stockholm syndrome was introduced in
economics referring to governments that have been "kidnapped" by financial capital because of their
need to refinance public debt. They are coerced into accepting high interest rates and conditions that
compromise their sovereignty .[19]
In politics
In politics, the Stockholm syndrome is the predisposition of a politician to feel grateful for harsh
criticism from opponents and the public in general. In Portugal, the Minister of Finance Vitor Gaspar
spoke on Parliament on September 2012, praising the huge street protests against his austerity
measures, and the amazing dignity of the protesters, referring to the protesters as "the best people in the
world". [20]
Lima syndrome
An inverse of Stockholm syndrome called "Lima syndrome" has been proposed, in which abductors
develop sympathy for their hostages. It was named after an abduction at the Japanese Embassy in Lima,
Peru in 1996, when members of a militant movement took hostage hundreds of people attending a party
in the official residence of Japan's ambassador. Within a few hours, the abductors had set free of most
of the hostages, including the most valuable ones, due to sympathy.[21][2
DOES ANY OF THESE STATES OF MIND REMIND YOU OF ANYONE. DOESN'T THIS
SOUND LIKE THE STATE OF MIND HUMANITY IS IN RIGHT NOW THAT THE
CONTROLLERS HAVE PUT US IN. AFTER READING THIS THINK ABOUT HOW THESE
MIND STATES AFFECT YOUR LIFE IF HUMANITY IS SO WEAK WHY ARE THE
CONTROLLERS GOING THROUGH THIS TROUBLE TO KEEP US IN THE DARK THE
FACT IS THEY ARE WEAK WE ARE NOT THEY KNOW THIS AND THIS IS WHY WE ARE
IN THE SITUATION WERE IN TODAY WE HAVE ALL THE POWER WE JUST HAVE TO
REALIZE THAT. THIS ALL CAN END BY TOMMORO IF A PERCENTAGE OF US SAID NO
Bill Hicks It's Just A Ride VIDEO BELOW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMUiwTubYu0

SOURCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome


         http://www.infowars.com/