John the Atheist

One Way to Handle Grief: Just Get Over It. Some People Resume Their Lives Without Obsessing About a Loss They've Suffered. It Seems to Work.

By Charles Zanor

Special to The Washington Post

Tuesday, July 29, 2008; HE04

The day after Eleanor Clift's husband died of kidney cancer in March 2005, "The McLaughlin Group" host John McLaughlin phoned. Would Clift, a Newsweek contributing editor, be in the television studio the next day, he wanted to know, for the customary Friday taping of the show?

After consulting with her son, Clift agreed.

A mildly startling decision, perhaps, but a reflection of a kind of resilience that is often overlooked.

Clift's recently published book, "Two Weeks of Life," chronicling her final days with her husband, Tom Brazaitis, demonstrates they had a solid marriage and a healthy dependence on each other. Her decision to occupy her usual seat that Friday and bat around the political issues of the day did not reflect a lack of caring but a way of coping.

When I asked her if she had drawn any positive lessons from her experience, Clift named only one:

"It's really a gift to help usher someone out of life. It's a moving experience, and I kept trying to be mindful of the fact that this is part of life. . . . And if I could just somehow get through it and honor his memory and keep on living life as best I can and as normal as I can, that's what I would do."

That response is one Christopher Davis, an associate professor of psychology at Carleton University in Ottawa, has come to recognize. Davis has spent more than a decade studying how people respond to the death of a loved one. Eight years after a mine disaster in Nova Scotia took the lives of 26 coal miners, he and his colleagues interviewed 52 surviving family members, including 11 widows. Three groups emerged from his analysis of the responses: mullers (who extract positive lessons from the experience), chronic grievers and copers (like Clift).

The Nova Scotia interviews lasted two to three hours or longer, giving the family members plenty of room to speak their minds -- almost unheard of in these days of multiple-choice questionnaires and checklists. The people the researchers spoke with "wanted to tell their story," Davis told me.

The interviewers asked about the personal impact of the loss, whether anything positive had come of it, how it affected their philosophy of life and whether they ever tried to find a purpose for the death: the big "Why did this happen to me [or my husband or son or father]?"

The mullers were exactly the collection of successful grievers that Davis had expected to find. As he wrote in the 2008 "Handbook of Bereavement Research and Clinical Practice," published by the American Psychological Association, "People in this cluster tended to report losing a part of themselves, searching for and finding some meaning . . . and describing positive [personal] changes."

As Davis notes, this is consistent with 20 years of psychological literature reporting that many people eventually feel that a wrenching loss also had some benefits. I have a mnemonic device for this reaction: CPR. The "C" is for character (these people have been tested and strengthened); "P" is for perspective (they now see the world in a new way); "R" is for relationships (important people in their lives have taken on increased emotional significance).

The second group fared less well. They were the chronic grievers, stuck in many ways where they had been eight years earlier.

Almost all asked "Why did this happen?" Almost none found answers. The overwhelming majority felt nothing good had come from the experience, that it had shattered their beliefs about justice and the benevolent intentions of others.

The third group, the copers, were a surprise for Davis. Had he not designed the study to let participants speak for themselves, he might have missed them.

"They had an orientation to life, a way of looking at life, that said, 'You know what? [Bad stuff] happens. When it comes along, well, here it is.'

"I was blown away by one comment that one of the participants made . . . : 'If it hadn't been the explosion, it would have been a car accident, or it might have been cancer. It might have been something else.' You know, his days were numbered. It happened this way, and get used to it."

In contrast to the chronic grievers and the mullers, virtually none of the copers asked the "why" question. They did not feel the death had given them inner strength, and almost two-thirds said that as far as they could tell, nothing good had come of it.

The quiet coping response has not received a lot of attention in the loss literature. Yet if you look around, quiet copers seem to be everywhere.

When I asked a friend about the death of his mother several years ago, he told me this story:

"My father never complained during my mother's [neurodegenerative] illness. He just took care of her by himself until we finally had to put her in a nursing facility. . . . She was there for about a month before she died. . . . Right after that he went into planning mode, asking each of the [adult] kids how they felt about this and that funeral arrangement. . . . If you asked him how he felt, he'd tell you: I feel torn apart, I feel relieved, I miss her. But unless you asked him how he felt, he didn't really talk about his feelings."

About three days after the funeral, my friend noticed that his father didn't have his wedding ring on. (The removal, by the way, was no easy task; he had to have it done at the local fire station.) My friend asked him why he wasn't wearing it. Even though I can see his answer coming from a mile away, it still slays me: "Because I'm not married anymore."

He never had a period of nonfunctioning after his wife's death, and he soon found volunteer activities (a food-share program, a community garden) to devote time to. He made connections at the senior center as well.

He embodies the best qualities of the quiet copers, the people who roll up their sleeves and get to work, who deal with things by dealing with things.

It would be a big mistake to think, however, that the sleeve-rollers just move along without looking back.

Eleanor Clift told me that she continues to think about her husband every day: When she has a decision to make, she'll try to figure out what advice he would give her.

As a psychologist, I am a muller and a rehasher. I have to be. If I brought in casseroles for my patients instead of reviewing life events, I wouldn't be doing my job. Besides, I couldn't stop rehashing things if you paid me.

But can there be too much talking, reflecting, uncovering and exploring one's feelings? Sometimes it has to be better to just shut up and have a sandwich.

We mullers have managed to infuse popular culture with the idea that the unfailing exploration of your feelings will put you on the main road to personal happiness. Well, tell that to the copers. They seem to be doing just fine.

******************************

Charles Zanor is a practicing psychologist in Massachusetts. Comments:health@washpost.com.

VAHİM AMA CİDDİ DEĞİL

HALUK ŞAHİN
26.11.08

Basın özgürlüğü konularında uluslararası gözcülük yapan, geçmişte Türk basınının özgürlük mücadelesinde önemli roller üstlenmiş olan International Press Institute’ün (IPI) direktörü David Dadge İstanbul’da idi. Türkiye’deki Uluslararası Basın Enstitüsü Derneği’nin yöneticisi arkadaşlar Dadge’in basın mensuplarımızla yapacağı toplantının moderatörlüğünü benim yapmama rica istediler.

Toplantı öncesinde bu konuda dünyada son zamanlarda cereyan etmekte olan tartışmalara şöyle bir göz atmak için İnternet’te Google girdim. İngilizce “basın özgürlüğü” gibi bir şeyler yazdım ve çıkan listede ilginç bulduğum ilke siteye ulaşmak için tuşa bastım. Karşıma ne çıktı dersiniz? O meşum yazı:

“Bu siteye giriş yasaklanmıştır.”

Altında da açıklaması:“Ankara 9. Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi 04.02.2008 tarih ve 2008/140 nolu kararı gereği bu siteye erişim Telekomünikasyon İletişim Başkanlığı’nca engellenmiştir.”

Buyrunuz, 2008 yılının sonlarında, Avrupa Birliği ile tam üyelik müzakereleri yapan Türkiye’de basın özgürlüğü konulu bir siteye giremiyorsunuz!

Bu yeterince absürd! Ama bitmedi. Geri dönüp, “Önbellek’e basınca yasaklı yazı şıp diye karşıma çıktı.

Ey Aziz Nesin, nerelerdesin!

Yasaklı yazıya baktım, meğer iki Yunanlı fikir adamının Noam Chomsky ile yaptığı görüşmenin metni imiş. Sonuna kadar okudum. İçinde Türkiye ya da Atatürk ile ilgili tek kelime olmadığı gibi, başka bir şey de yok: Chomsky’nin ülkemizde onlarca kez yayınlanmış görüşlerinin bir özetinden ibaret!

Ülkemizde ifade ve basın özgürlüğünün durumu aynen böyle: Vahim ama ciddi değil!

Nasıl ciddi olur: Ülkemizin Başbakanı Hindistan yolunda gazetecilere aylardır yasaklı olan YouTube’e girdiğini söylüyor ve onlara da tavsiye ediyor:

“Ben giriyorum, siz de girin!”

Evet, YouTube’ün aylardır katmerli yasaklı olması Türkiye’yi ele güne rezil ediyor, ifade özgürlüğü ile ilgili listelerde Kuzey Kore, Çin, İran, Suudi Arabistan gibi ülkelerle aynı öbeğe konmasına neden oluyor.

Gelin görün ki, bu YouTube Türkiye’de en çok ziyaret edilen siteler listesinde ilk onda! Kapıdan giremezseniz, pencereden, bacadan, duvardaki çatlaktan, damdaki delikten girebiliyorsunuz. Bunun nasıl yapılacağını da internetten öğrenebiliorsunuz.

Internet böyle bir ortam. Site yasaklamak basılıp dağıtılan gazete yasaklamaya benzemiyor.

Ama kime anlatacaksınız?

Bu Internet yasasını yapanların ve onun bir an önce değişmesi için harekete geçmeyenlerin hangi çağda yaşadıklarının farkında olmadıkları anlaşılıyor.

Vahim bir durum. Ama ciddi değil!

Changing The Way We Relate

Making Over Our Partners*
DailyOM.com
July 16, 2008

A relationship, in the truest sense of the word, means relating to another. Usually when we say that we relate to someone, it is because we’ve found common ground. But part of relating is finding ways to make ideas that seem different come together. So often when we choose relationships, we try to fit another person into our predetermined ideal. When they don’t fit perfectly, we may try to make them over, creating our own vision from the raw material they’ve brought. But unless someone asks for guidance and direction, entering into a relationship with someone we want to change is dishonest. Then our relationship becomes with someone we’ve imagined, and anytime our partner steps outside of that imaginary projection, we will be disappointed. An honest relationship is one in which we accept each other as whole individuals, and find a way to share our life experiences together. Then, whenever we want, we can choose as a couple to give the relationship a makeover by renewing the way we interact.

By wanting to give another person a makeover, we are basically saying we don’t accept them for who they are. If we take a moment to imagine the roles reversed, we can get a sense of how it would feel if our beloved only committed to us because they thought we were, or would become, someone else entirely. In such an environment, we are not relating to each other from a real place, and we are keeping ourselves from being able to learn and grow from the different viewpoints that our partners offer.

If we feel that a change is needed in our relationship, the only makeover that we truly have the power to make is on ourselves. By accepting our partners for exactly who they are—the ideal and the not-so-ideal—we will create an energetic shift in our relationships, and we may find ourselves really appreciating our partners for the first time. Working from within, we determine how we relate to the people and the world around us, and when we can accept it and embrace it all, without conditions, we make every act of relating a positive one.

* or our various family members! (added by Falcon Moon)

The Body's Own Facebook?

TimeOut: Istanbul (in English)

The Sixth Degree
With Ezgi Karaca

July 2008
By Ayşe Şahin
**************************************************
If you get the way Facebook works, you could get the key to the causes of cancer. Don’t get it? Ayşe Şahin gets Ezgi Karaca to break it down for us.
**************************************************

AS: At 25, you’ve attracted the attention of top schools around the world with the cutting-edge research you’ve been doing for your Master’s Degree in chemical engineering, in a little-known yet vital area of science called computational biology…

EK: Experiments on a molecular basis aren’t always enough, or feasible, in the search for treatments for incurable diseases. When that’s the case, analyses done via computers can provide us with answers. Computational biology has been around for about 50 years, but it’s only recently become a hot area of medical research. It’s really starting to explode nowadays. Pharmaceutical firms and the US government have been pouring a ton of money into it.

AS: You yourself are currently doing your research thanks to a TÜBİTAK (The Scientific & Technological Research Council of Turkey) scholarship that supports the work of young scientists. Where are you conducting your research?

EK: At the Polymer Research Center at Bosphorus University, under the guidance of one of Turkey’s youngest and most successful professors, Prof. Dr. Türkan Haliloğlu.

AS: Can you give us a brief description of what it is specifically that you’ve been researching?

EK: There is a tumor-suppressing mechanism within the human body, made up of various proteins that communicate with each other through social networks...

AS: Hmm... Like Facebook?

EK: Yes, you could say that. My work has concentrated on a tumor-suppressing protein known as p73, which belongs to the p53 family of proteins. One of the primary aims of this study is to try to determine what kinds of circumstances might prevent it from working. It can be inconsistent in the way it functions, and increase or decrease depending on a number of positive and negative influences. In fact, it isn’t even consistently present in the body. It can be synthesized or distributed based on need, or even destroyed by several different proteins.

AS: So there’s a certain economy at work here, and even, a cellular rivalry to speak of...

EK: Yes, it’s a matter of balance. What’s also interesting is that the cell has various “check points” to maintain this balance. If that balance has been upset in some way, a protein’s function and the state of the cell can change dramatically.

AS: Given the many factors at play in this area of chemical engineering, combining it with the discipline of computer science to study them sounds logical and obvious enough. Less so may be the potential for contributions from still other disciplines...

EK: Absolutely. Microbiology is a field that could benefit from the perspectives of chemistry and physics too, for example, and even economics or philosophy... There could be significant advances to be made from experts in all of these fields getting together to discuss this subject.

AS: Molecular dynamics research figures in your work in computational biology, as well…

EK: It does... The thing is that, even though there are software programs used to study molecular dynamics, there is no computer that can precisely simulate the behavior of cell activity – computers just aren’t powerful enough. There really is still so much we have yet to learn in this field... Yet we tend to be egotistical and superficial, and believe we’re far more powerful and knowing than we actually are. I think we’re actually weak and pitiful, and that we try to cover up that weakness by trying to beat down other people and other species.

AS: You also happen to be an experienced deep-sea diver...

EK: I’m a licensed one-star instructor, which means that I’m certified to guide one other person in a deep-sea diving expedition. The highest level is the 3-star instructor, where you’re certified to open courses to train new divers. This has been a hobby that’s been helpful in terms of other areas of my life too, without a doubt. Though unfortunately I’ve had to put it aside for the time being, to concentrate on my studies and finish interviewing for doctoral programs.

AS: Where have you interviewed?

EK: I’ve had interviews with the University of Cambridge, the University of Leeds, King’s College of London, the University of Barcelona, and Utrecht University.

AS: Rumor has it that you’ve got some good news to share with us?

EK: I’m due to start a PhD under the Department of Chemistry at Utrecht University, one of the leading schools for Life Sciences. My supervisor will be Dr. Alexandre Bonvin, who’s working on computational structural biology, especially on protein-protein interactions.

AS: Where do you see yourself 5 years down the road?

EK: I’d like to find a post-Doc position in a highly qualified and prestigious environment. Afterwards, I’d like to come back to Turkey to teach what I’ve learned over the years.

AS: And in the meantime...

EK: I’d like to see the Turkish government develop an initiative that promotes the return of Turkish scientists who’ve lived and achieved success in their careers abroad. The Catalanian government in Spain recently did this by establishing research institutes of high standards for Spanish scientists to conduct their work. As a result, students have begun to go to Spain, so that they can study with these scientists instead of with scientists in other European countries or in the States. Why shouldn’t Turkey do the same?

*****

Ms. Karaca's research will be published in Nucleic Acids Research Magazine soon.

Everyone Has A Story

Interesting People Everywhere
June 19, 2008

It’s easy to forget sometimes that everyone has a story to tell if we take the time to listen. We are so accustomed to hearing the stories of people in the news that we sometimes lose track of the fact that the random stranger on the bus also has a fascinating story about where they came from and how they got to be where they are. The sheer variety of paths taken in this world, from farmers to CEOs to homeless people to world travelers, is indicative of how much we can learn from each individual. Sometimes the shy, quiet person at work has the most amazing life story and the biggest dreams, it is up to us to take the time to find out.

Some people travel a path of wealth and privilege, while others struggle with only themselves to rely on, and both have great stories to tell. Each person learns lessons, makes choices, and develops a unique perspective, which only they can claim and share. Even two people who have had very similar lives will have slightly different experiences, leading them to a different point of view, so each person remains a treasure trove waiting to be explored. When we take the time to ask questions and listen, we find that every person has a fascinating story to tell and an utterly unique perspective from which to tell it.

Bearing this in mind, we have the opportunity to approach the world around us in a new way. There is never any reason to be bored at a party, or on the bus, or in a conversation with a stranger. When we retain the spark of curiosity and the warmth required to open someone up, we always have in front of us the makings of a great story. All we have to do is ask.

This article is from DailyOM
http://www.dailyom.com/articles/2008/14236.html