S3E13: The Art of the Deal Discussion

[candyrose]

Hey candy! I'm not ignoring your post, but I don't really have anything new to say. You are right, I make general assumptions about depression based on my experiences with my colleague and you are right again in saying that her behaviour may come from her personality type not her depression. However she is officially diagnosed with clincal depression, so I feel I'm not completely off by accounting the disease for at least some of her behaviour.
Thing is, older teachers in Austria can't be fired. Worst thing they could do to her is sending forcing her into early retirement, which will of course hurt her finacially. Actually she works part time this year and she isn't sick as often as last year, but she is still "fragile" and has to be treated with care (=official policy). She has to return to work full time the year after the next school year at the latest.

I'm glad to hear that...I was beginning to wonder if my post had turned into some sort of rant which made absolutely no sense....and I was going to respond to your other posts...which I felt would take the discussion in a different direction...but I wanted to wait first.

That's strange that number of years worked could prevent someone from being fired...we don't have that sort of policy here....if you don't do the work....even if they don't like you as a person...who could potentially be fired.
Well, you stated she is getting a little better regarding not being "sick" as often. Do you think this is improvement on her part or because she isn't required to show up as often? See, maybe my idea would have been effective...LOL.. I can understand her still being "fragile" and needing a little extra caution....but I don't really believe this warrants ass-kissing....just be civil....very casual...small-talk if it's unavoidable...and then move on...
If she has been diagnosed with depression, is she taking any form of medication?? What about therapy?? I don't think medicine alone will solve her problem...she may be the type who needs to talk things out....

You certainly are right here. I pride myself in not succumbing to predjudices and regarding my stance to depressed people I somehow thought I was basing it on expierence. Scientifically a sample of 3 people at the most isn' experience.

Yea, I think it's too complex and there are so many variations and degrees of severity to account them as all the same....

Do you have to be there or could you say you need a break?

What do you mean???

[Calena]

That's strange that number of years worked could prevent someone from being fired...we don't have that sort of policy here....if you don't do the work....even if they don't like you as a person...who could potentially be fired.

Even if you are employed by the state? In private companies it's the same here, but teachers, cops, etc, esentially people who may have to piss off people in their line of work, have been given the status of being not-fireable. The idea is that if someone you pissed of because you gave their kid a bad mark for example goes on and complains about you, you can't be fired just because of this. It isn't done now anymore, so I don't have that status, I'm too young. A friend of mine who is 3 years younger than me has it.

If she has been diagnosed with depression, is she taking any form of medication??

She has been prescribed medication but isn't really taking it. Because of the side effects, I assume. I'll stop now, before I launch into a full on rant again.

I don't think medicine alone will solve her problem...she may be the type who needs to talk things out....

She is in therapy. Has been for years. I read an intersting article that said talking it out my not be such a great idea after all. Because in the weekly therapist sessions everything gets stirred up again and you can never leave what troubles you behind. My strategy ofrepressing things may not be so bad after all.
Also just today I read an article that said if something traumatic happened in very early childhood, before the child could speak, talk therapy can never work, because one only remembers those things in a non-verbal way. That's why very few people remember things that happened before their 4th birthday.

Do you have to be there or could you say you need a break?
What do you mean???

Those kids are not yours. Do you have to see them every week? It seems to take a toll on you.

[candyrose]

Even if you are employed by the state? In private companies it's the same here, but teachers, cops, etc, esentially people who may have to piss off people in their line of work, have been given the status of being not-fireable. The idea is that if someone you pissed of because you gave their kid a bad mark for example goes on and complains about you, you can't be fired just because of this. It isn't done now anymore, so I don't have that status, I'm too young. friend of mine who is 3 years younger than me has it.

It is exceptionally common in the education field, especially for teachers working in colleges and high schools. I've seen it more times than I can count. I've seen men and women, especially men, walk into a teaching job and get fired...or not get a contract renewal...just because they didn't join the cliques or become buddies with their co-workers...inversely I have seen people who have made so many stupid mistakes, slacked off at work (in the education field)...but if they are generally liked, they keep their jobs....this is somewhat different from other fields in which diligence is expected regardless of popularity. Oh, yes...you are soooo young.....I bet you like that...

She has been prescribed medication but isn't really taking it. Because of the side effects, I assume. I'll stop now, before I launch into a full on rant again.

There are so many drugs out on the market, they could easily find her something which has more tolerable side effects....or even fewer side effects....and then they could always adjust her dosage...sometimes this helps....so if she's not doing anything about it...then more than likely she hasn't spoken up and therefore isn't interested in making herself better....or at least enough to take her meds.

She is in therapy. Has been for years. I read an intersting article that said talking it out my not be such a great idea after all. Because in the weekly therapist sessions everything gets stirred up again and you can never leave what troubles you behind. My strategy ofrepressing things may not be so bad after all.

Do you have a link to this article....because I have always read the contrary. From research and exposure, it's always been noted that therapy is an important part of recovery. Repression is probably one of the worst things you can do other than displace your feelings in a negative manner. It doesn’t make the problem go away….it’s sits in one’s subconscious and often unknowingly affects their actions in a negative manner. Sometimes this will result in anxiety disorders, sometimes which appear to be generalized anxiety but may indeed have an underlying cause or trigger. And, moreover, it isn't just about getting everything off your chest....it's about having someone there...someone who is objective....to help you work through your problems and find solutions...it's a form of behavior modification. For example, if someone doesn't want to get out of the bed or is experiencing anxiety in social settings, then a step-by-step program is created in which the patient slowly increases time spent in public. The first goal may be to get out of the bed and walk around the house. Once this is done, the patient is then encouraged to step outside and get some fresh air...then this progresses to them talking a walk outside or going for a drive...this way they have gotten out of the house and are around people...but not directly....and then once they have achieved these goals they then go somewhere public...usually it's a small crowd first....or something small like going to the grocery store...and then it's something bigger...you get my drift??

Also just today I read an article that said if something traumatic happened in very early childhood, before the child could speak, talk therapy can never work, because one only remembers those things in a non-verbal way. That's why very few people remember things that happened before their 4th birthday.

Again, I would like the link to this article. What you are referring to is infantile/childhood amnesia, which means people rarely have explicit memories (i.e. semantic memory and episodic memory) from the first two years of their lives. This isn't necessarily linked with verbal ability, but with the overall level of cognitive function of the infant (the stage of cognitive development they are in). The first two years of life are the most crucial in cognitive development and the time in which the rate of development is most rapid. However, during infancy, the brain isn't fully developed. This equates to information transmission and storage not being fully efficient. There are many factors to consider such as hemisphere specialization, the development or increase of myelin sheaths and connections between dendrites, and brain mass(at birth it's 25% of its adult weight; at 2 years-old it's 75% its adult weight)...among other things. And several studies have found that external stimuli and quality of environment greatly contributed to the rate at which an infant's brain develops, so this is also a factor to take into consideration. Now this doesn’t mean that infants or small children don’t have memory function because studies have shown that children as young as 2-6 months have a degree of memory function. However, this is relegated to implicit memory, not explicit memory. OK, I am moving on because I don’t want to drag this out. If you want to know more, then I will gladly oblige.
Now, you stated that the article mentioned therapy doesn’t work because the memories from childhood—or infancy—took place before verbal ability was achieved. Without reading the article, I cannot accurately state what it was implying. What kind of memories were they referring to….were they fragmented images? Pieces of an incomplete puzzle?? Since you are referring to traumatic experiences, then we know the article was referring to episodic memories. Now, we must ask ourselves why this memory, incomplete and fragmented, is so traumatic for the individual. Why are they seeking therapy for something they clearly can’t express in words (if I am following you here) and more or less can’t accurately recall? Another factor in memory function is the formation of schemes. We use schemes, which are based on our experiences, to interpret and store information (memories). This, in turn, aids in our perceptions of incoming stimuli or encountered circumstances to put it more plainly. So, in order for us to classify something as negative or traumatic, we must have a working or evolving sense of identity, be able to think concretely and somewhat abstractly, and have the experiences which have contributed to the formation of our schemes. This contributes to the emotional reaction to memories…how we interpret them. Since we are speaking about children between the ages of 0-4, who are still in the sensorimotor and preoperational stages, thinking is still limited, especially when it comes to abstract thinking, concrete thinking, and the formation of identity. Since no value has been assigned to certain qualities of life and circumstance, it is easy to say that seemingly traumatic events would be hard to articulate…or to be more precise…less substantial and influential on a person’s mentality. So, again, if an event cannot be assigned an emotional value and integrated into the person’s identity…and if there is nothing but bits and pieces of the memory, which leads little room for full understanding, then how would this affect someone in adulthood? I think this takes us to the nature of the event and of traumatic experiences in general. Typically such an event may not initially be comprehended or even easily recalled, but it can nonetheless have perpetuating consequences. For example, say someone lost a parent—or both-- at a very early age. Although they may not remember the exact details of the event, the effects of their parent’s death would alter the path their life takes and affect subsequent years. As they aged, they would become more acutely aware of the absence of their parents. The effects of the initial wouldn’t necessarily outweigh everything that came after it. Also, it must be taken into consideration that others around them may be more knowledgeable of such events and may fill in blanks that cannot be filled by the individual. Even if the memory of how it affected them during the moment of occurrence may be a bit hazy, subsequent gained information can cause certain effects on one’s mentality. This lies in the general values we give to certain contexts, and when they take these…say more general formats of interpretation and apply them to a distant situation; it can alter the way they think about themselves and their lives. They may begin to analyze the situation and apply it to the present…use it to answers questions they may have had about themselves and their lives. Also, it must be noted that memory, especially old memories, are not always reliable. When someone can’t remember something vividly or have a firm grasp of it, it isn’t uncommon to fill in the blanks and create false memories. You see this with some individuals who are recalling events from their childhoods. Often there is some truth to these events, but they have often been altered and reconstructed, with tinges of one’s current subconscious thought permeating the actual details. So, it is common for some out our memories from childhood to indeed be generally false. And then there is the issue, going along with this, of induced memories. You see this with eye witness testimonies…where they may remember some minor details, but are pushed to remember more. This results in the eye witness, sometimes unconsciously, fabricating details…and children are especially susceptible to such influence…which accounts for the many false accusations of sexual abuse….there have been several cases of this occurring with child care facilities in the United States.

[Calena]

I'm here and I still don't see any links.

I'm sorry I can't give you the links to those articles, because I read them in a magazine, I doubt they are online, and they were in German anyway.

rom research and exposure, it's always been noted that therapy is an important part of recovery.

Therapy yes, but not necessarily therapy in the form of constantly talking about traumatic events. Because always thinking and talking about it prevents reaching closure or something like that the argument went.
It was months ago I read it and can't remember exactly. However I found it very interesting and it also seems logical to me.
The description of a step-by-step programme you gave seems like a sort of behavioral treatment to me, which I can see being helpful. The article meant that therapy where you just sit or lie on the couch and talk about your problems may not necessarily be the most helpful. Sorry if I was unclear.

I just got the mag where I read the second article in. The article was based on this:
Richardson, R. & Hayne H. (2007). You Can't Take It With You: The Translation of Memory across Development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 223-227.
Here's a link explaining a bit what those guys are doing:
http://www2.psy.unsw.edu.au/Users/rrichardson/

[InLoveWithRobertKnepper]

wow....this thread is where the action is
!!

[candyrose]

Thanks Calena...I'll ahve to check it out and respond to your post more thoroughly after I read it. It may be a few days since I am rather crammed here...but I will get to it. It is an interesting opinion that talk-therapy may not be helpful due to the constant revisiting unpleasant thoughts and feelings...I can see the logic behind this...but, at the same time, I feel my previous post tackled that issue...and I have to disagree to a certain extent...mainly because talk-therapy isn't only about getting things off your chest....it's not a pity party or a rant fest....the goal is to face your problems and deal with them...overcome them....

[InLoveWithRobertKnepper]

wow candy...thats unusually deep ....for you...

[lala78]

something i found
'Prison Break' - Thanks for leaving us with even more questions

So, what did we learn from the season finale of “Prison Break?”


The mysterious coordinates are really actually…nothing.
Awesome. We’ve been hearing about these stupid coordinates all season and they were just a big, fat ruse.

Sucre will never betray Michael and Lincoln.
I was a little worried that Sucre was going to turn on Michael and Lincoln, first to Gretchen and then to the Sona guards, but he stuck by them more than I ever imagined.
Now he’s stuck in Sona and Michael has no idea the price Sucre paid to get him out of prison.

Michael may not have what it takes to kill Gretchen even though he knows she cut Sara’s head off.
Personally, I’d rather see him beat the hell out of her than just shoot her.
So while we learned a few things we were also left with so many more questions.

Who’s this Jason Lief man that lives in Scottsdale?

We still have no idea who Whistler really is other than he is someone who works for the Company.
After all these years I’ve already forgotten why the Company is after Michael and Lincoln. Something to do with Daddy Burrows but he’s dead now and…yeah, I shouldn’t try to remember. It just makes my brain hurt.

Why is Mahone now working with Gretchen and Whistler and what are they planning?

What is in that damn book that Whistler lost and is now conveniently in the hands of T-Bag?

Why hasn’t someone put a bullet in T-Bag’s head by now?
He’s annoying and worthless. I really wanted Lechero to be faking the whole dead thing and come back and kill him.
He’s vile and disgusting, and should have been eliminated back in season two.

Where is Michael headed?
Going to Arizona to look for Scottsdale guy seems like a very bad idea since, while Lincoln was exonerated, Michael is still a wanted man in America.
And, finally, that flashback with Sara and Michael back at Fox River was just about more than I could handle. I read that there was going to be a cameo from a surprising past character.
I guess that was it.
I was hoping for the return of Kellerman. Yeah, he was supposedly shot in the back of a van but did we ever see him dead? No, we didn’t and this show needs a boost. Kellerman is just the guy that could do it.
Plus, it would save Paul Adelstein from the ridiculousness that is “Private Practice.”

http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/blogs/...ontrolled/7946

[Calena]

Why hasn’t someone put a bullet in T-Bag’s head by now?
He’s annoying and worthless. I really wanted Lechero to be faking the whole dead thing and come back and kill him.
He’s vile and disgusting, and should have been eliminated back in season two.

I absolutely disagree! T-Bag isn't annoying, he is still fascinating and he'll prove his worth when Michael tries to get Sucre out of Sona!

[InLoveWithRobertKnepper]

Quote:

I absolutely disagree! T-Bag isn't annoying, he is still fascinating and he'll prove his worth when Michael tries to get Sucre out of Sona!

he gives the show what it needs!! another bad guy!!! (also sex appeal!!)
lol!!