Had an interesting conversation with Janice last night. We were talking about depression (of which both of us suffered at one time) and drifted on to how counselling can help. As we drew to a close, we realised that the best counselling methods are not found in any books or any theories, but it's right there in the Bible, and the best counsellor is not Carl Rogers nor Sigmund Freud, but is God Himself. See how this works:
Regardless of the school of thought, rule number of counsellors: Establish Rapport - Our relationship with God determines how much He can help us and how much we are willing to allow Him to help us
The clients must come to realise the issues that are bothering them - We must be convicted of sins, weakness and shortcomings before God can guide us to overcome them
The clients must possess the desire to overcome their problems and believe that it can be done - We must acknowledge and embrace the fullness of God's love, forgiveness, grace and restoration
The counsellor must know when to comfort and when to confront the client - God knows when to encourage and rebuke us
The counsellor must project an image of unconditional positive regard - God loves (agape) us unconditionally and Jesus is the evidence of His love (agape)
There so much more to say. But guess what, there are effective counseling methods, important experiences and essential attitudes that are not always present in counsellors but are always present in God:
Knowing what the client is really going through first-hand - Jesus was tempted in everyway and He can fully empathise with us
Enabling the clients to really change (cognitively, emotionally and behaviourally) for the better - Grace, the divine enablement of God, ensures change (regardless of type, intensity) is possible
Counsellors being there for the client always - God's Spirit is always with us regarless of time and circumstances
Counsellors really possessing a geunine care and concern for the clients rather than just fulfilling job responsibilities - God's job is to love and His nature is love
All in all, no matter what great theories and methods already exist or are being developed, the Bible is the best source for counselling skills and the Spirit of God is the best counsellor there ever can be. No wonder the Holy Spirit is called the Helper and Comforter.
Eric: Self-serving bias. You're going to RT (remidial training) means you like RT. Because if you do not like RT, you won't be going for RT. The fact that you're going for RT means you like RT. You love RT.
Moses: Just World Belief. Everything happens for a reason. I'm a good guy. I'm doing RT... There must be a purpose for me to be there?
Eric: Yes! To impact lives!
Moses: Haha.. I thought all these bias, errors are only coping mechanisms for us, give us excuses to feel better about our stinking lives? Haha... kidding of course.
Eric: Maybe you're right afterall.
So does social psychology really answer questions? Or does it simply veer around issues and offer disguised, distorted, disillusioned explanations of things? So are we drawing near to the truth or drifting away from it? You decide.
Social Psych 5: The Loving and Merciful (Righteous and Just) Master
March 27, 2008
There once lived a loving and merciful master. He cared for his servants, was full of empathy and forgiveness. Yet, he was renowned as a righteous and just and judges all things with an upright and honorable spirit, not showing favoritism. The master would spend time with his servants whenever he could, bringing them joy and delight because of his companion, and also teaching them his moral and admirable ways. Once every year, he would review the stewardship of his servants.
So it came to pass that the master wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, one, was brought to him who owed him one thousand gold coins(1). But as he was unable to pay, the master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. The servant fell on his knees and said, ‘Master! Have patience with me, and I will pay you all!’ Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and canceled his debt.
But when the servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred stone pieces(2), he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying ‘Pay me what you owe!’ So his fellow servant fell on his knees and begged with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had happened.
Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I canceled all your debt because you begged me. Should you not also have compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you? Because you have done evil, I shall hand you over to the officers in jail.’ Amazed, the servant pleaded, ‘Master! You are full of compassion and mercy. You forgave me once, you shall forgive me once more!’ To that the master answered, ‘Have not you heard that I am a righteous judge? I’ll have mercy on those who have mercy, but I’ll not forgive those who do not forgive.’ And his master handed him over to the jail officers until he should pay all that was due to him.
In this vignette, the unforgiving servant committed three crucial errors. First, he did not develop a complete and accurate schema of his master; he over-emphasized on his master’s love and mercy and neglected his righteousness and justice. Schemas are mental representations of anything (people, objects, places etc.) that contains the defining features of that particular person or object, as well as understanding about how the person or object acts or works. The possession of schemas in our minds allows us to respond and react adequately to that particular person or object. Once a schema is formed, the process of associating the person or object to its central characteristics comes naturally and easily. It permits us to bring an otherwise chaotic and confusing world under control.
Obviously, the servant only saw the master as a tender-loving man, filled with kindness and forgiveness. He probably enjoyed the wonderful times spent with his master, but remained uninterested whenever his master imparted wisdom and knowledge; hence, he never learned the upright ways of his master. This selective attention, on the master’s forgiveness, and selective interpretation, that the master’s degree of forgiveness surpasses any form of transgression, probably led him to behave so cruelly to his fellow servant; he believed that his master would always forgive all his misdeeds unconditionally, regardless of his response upon receiving mercy (which was not the case at all if he had been attentive when the master was teaching him the honourable way of life). The selective attention and interpretation of the servant probably accounted for his amazement when the master sentenced him to jail the second time round; the righteousness of the master was something he had never contemplated and it totally shocked him when the final judgement was declared.
Schemas are formed so that people can respond adequately and appropriately to that particular person or object. Hence, as the servant developed an inaccurate schema of his master, his responses to the master’s mercy on him were in error. Instead of practicing what he sees the master do (cancelling his debt and forgetting about the issue altogether), he abuses the mercy of his master by condemning a fellow servant to jail. If the unforgiving servant had acknowledged the master’s compassion, while remembering and honouring his righteousness and justice, he would have acted differently and averted the severe judgment that fell on him.
The unforgiving servant’s second error was to use heuristics – representative and availability – when the master called for him during the settlement of accounts. Representative heuristics refers to the inclination to judge the probability that a target belongs to a category based on how identical the target is to the characteristic qualities of the category, and availability heuristics refers to the inclination to establish a judgement on how easily salient examples can be remembered.
When he was first called, he used the representative heuristic (the master is kind-hearted), that led him to cry out for mercy, and he received it. On the second occasion, he used the availability heuristic (the master will forgive him again for his misdeeds), but this time failing to receive mercy. This shows that heuristics, a kind of cognitive shortcut, does not always work well. It would have been better for the servant to contemplate on his actions and words carefully, than to be a cognitive miser in a situation where careful and deliberate thoughts were necessary (the threat of ending up in jail certainly isn’t a minor issue). Therefore, although heuristics help to organise our world and permit efficient responding, it is definitely insufficient when dealing with complex information or situations (having to maintain the image of the master as being merciful and just at the same time).
Hence, rather than to make assumptions about the truths, which keeps us ignorant and deceived, we ought to accustom ourselves with real truths, that we may be ready to give an account of ourselves and not be amazed by the final decision. And let us exercise mercy as mercy has been exercised on us, for mercy triumphs over judgement. 1 one thousand gold coins is the equivalent of twenty-two years wages of a servant 2 one hundred stone pieces is the equivalent of a month's wages of a servant
Honest: All the cars in this garage are good; you’re free to purchase any car except the Red Ferrari in the middle. It has not yet been authorized for drive on the streets; so you must not purchase it, for if you drive the Red Ferrari on the streets you’ll surely be arrested.
Then Honest left and attended to other business while Alert started looking through the cars available for purchase. While Enlightened was still standing around the Red Ferrari, Deceiving came across and spoke to Enlightened.
Deceiving: Did Honest really say, ‘You must not purchase any car from this garage’?
Enlightened: We may purchase any car in this garage, but Honest did say, ‘You must not purchase the Red Ferrari in the middle of the garage, and you must not sit in it, or you will be arrested.’
Deceiving: You will not certainly be arrested! For Honest knows that when you purchase the Red Ferrari, you’re getting an exclusive vehicle, and you’ll be like Honest, driving the coolest car in town!
When Enlightened saw that the Red Ferrari was good for drive and gaining attention, and it was also a renowned and unique car, she decided to take the car out for a test drive. She decided to get Alert, who was with her, for the test drive. While they were on the streets in the Red Ferrari, Justice stopped them and they were arrested for driving an unauthorized vehicle on the streets.
During the course of this entire exchange, Deceiving used three distinctive persuasion techniques simultaneously and got Enlightened to comply with him. Compliance refers to a change in behavior that is appealed by another person or group; the individual acted in some way because others asked him or her to do so (but it was feasible to reject or turn down). Typically, the person making the appeal imply that the offer can be refused, though they would welcome compliance.
The first persuasion technique used by Deceiving is door-in-the-face. The door-in-the-face technique begins by making a very large offer, one that is certain to be declined, then follows by a smaller offer, the one to which compliance is actually wanted. The logic is that these individuals, who have refused the first offer, will be more likely to agree to the second offer.
In this exchange, a variant form of the foot-in-the-door is used by Deceiving. Deceiving approached Enlightened and denied her access to all the cars (making a huge proclamation). When Enlightened corrected Deceiving about the situation (refuting his proclamation), Deceiving seized the opportunity to offer her the unauthorized Red Ferrari (presenting the smaller request).
At this point time, Deceiving started employing a second persuasion technique to help his cause – the scarcity technique. Scarcity is a trait that markets products. According to reactance theory, people often desire what they cannot possess. Hence, if people were denied access to something, it would cause them to believe that they really want that article. Therefore, Deceiving focused Enlightened’s attention on the one car, the Red Ferrari, which she could not have; while diluting her attention on all other cars in the garage that were available. Making the Red Ferrari appear as a scarce commodity also increased its perceived value, hence, Enlightened began making positive attributions to the car (it’s appeal and ability) that heightened her desire to acquire this restricted vehicle.
As Enlightened made positive appraisals on the Red Ferrari, she was committing an error that led to her eventual arrest – she believed that what is beautiful is good. Though she has yet to test drive the car personally, she was already making positive appraisals about its ability (something that cannot be judged based on appearance). Additionally, Enlightened also appeared to make another mistake by employing the representative heuristic. Since the Red Ferrari was a renowned car, she assumed that this particular vehicle must be good as well, neglecting the important information about its lack of authorization, which might have implied something regarding safety (be it the car itself or to other road users).
During the entire exchange, Deceiving employed the liking technique skillfully. The liking technique is a strategy used to increase compliance, based on the account that people are more likely to agree with others they find attractive. The liking technique is easily achieved, yet extremely potent, as any form of appeal would greatly increase compliance. Deceiving made himself likeable to Enlightened by appearing as a friend who is telling her the truth (that the Red Ferrari was available for purchase, she would not be arrested for driving the car on the streets and that he would be delighted for her to own such a special car). Moreover, he also handed Enlightened the opportunity to drive the car, something she was denied initially, thereby increasing his favor with her. At this moment, Enlightened committed another blunder by applying the heuristics of a friend on Deceiving simply because he was presenting himself to her as a friend. Hence, Enlightened assumed that Deceiving had her best interests and would never lie to her, needless to say harm her; this effectively sealed the deal for Deceiving as Enlightened have taken the bait.
Hence, from the entire exchange, Deceiving has shown himself to be a Master Manipulator; his choice and use of persuasive technique was immaculate. Indeed, he showed that the key to making a successful deception is to start with a half-truth (a truth that might have been twisted or perverted in some way or another) rather than tell a blatant lie (which will most likely be rejected once and for all). Moreover, he showed that the best way to get someone to believe in a half-truth is via seduction (revealing attractive parts of the forbidden fruit to entice). Therefore, since we’re discerning, we ought to be careful not to exchange the truth for a lie, disguised as a half-truth, and be deceived. Rather, we should resist any form of flattery, for flattery blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the sincere; a lying tongue detests those it deceives, and a flattering mouth works devastation.
Imagine you’ve just transferred to a new college because your family relocated. You’re naturally a sociable person, hence, it didn’t take you long to blend in smoothly with your new course mates. As you spend more time hanging out with a particular group, you started to eat like them, speak like them, dress like them and act like them. Unknowingly, you’ve conformed to their way of life.
One of the ways you’ve conformed to this new group, which you haven’t been feeling very comfortable with, is their social interaction. It appears that this clique you’re in is the bench marker of the course: whoever (lecturers, tutors, fellow course mates or even strangers) they appraise positively would be accepted, whoever they appraise negatively would be ostracised.
This is causing you some distress because you’re beginning to be dumbfounded by their persistence in ostracising some people – including nice people who assisted you in adjusting to the new setting initially and others that you haven’t really had any unpleasant encounters with. No one openly discusses this issue either, but everyone seems willing to participate in the ostracising act.
Out of confusion, you started asking yourself,“Why am I so cold and unaffectionate towards some people? Why do I exclude them from my social circle?”
One of the primary reasons for participation in this act of ostracism is caused byconformity– any form of behavioural change influenced by another person or group. However, the behavioural change is not accompanied by attitudinal or perceptual changes; this probably caused the perplexity reported.
Two principal forces –informational influenceandnormative influence- motivate conformity. Informational influence happens when people are persuaded by others due to the desire to be correct and obtain valid information. Normative influence happens when people are swayed to behave in a certain by others in order to gain rewards or avoid punishment. They may not necessarily agree with the judgements of others, however, they are keen to be accepted or avoid exclusion. It appears that normative influence plays the dominant role in this scenario.
Normative influencereflects the social motivation of people to conform. Humans are by nature social beings, hence, there is a deep desire within every person to form connections with people; this involves gaining acceptance in a group, forming favourable impressions and building relations with others. To successfully establish rapport, a person has to be well liked and approved by the target audience. Therefore, it is highly likely that a person participates freely in ostracism if it ensures that they’re included, not excluded, since their behaviour is in agreement with the group norm. Indeed, it is usually undesirable to disagree with popular opinions or social norms – it makes the person salient and brings forth scrutiny and mostly negative appraisal. Thus, this creates the pressure to conform in behaviour even when the person holds beliefs contrary to what is performed (as per the scenario), or when the behaviour itself seems erroneous. This, though, can lead to further devastation if informational influence starts to affect a person’s appraisal of the ostracising act. Informational influence occurs when people trust others’ judgements, because they appear to be more knowledgeable, to be useful in a specific event. Hence, if ostracism comes to be viewed as an acceptable social norm, it would actually lead many to perform baseless exclusion and ridicule.
A further damaging effect of blind conformity is attitudinal change. Caused, in part, by the cognitive dissonance between attitude and behaviour, the person might be inclined to realign his or her values and beliefs to match the behaviour. This can result in adverse consequences as ostracism, an unethical act by nature, becomes justified. Not only is the person’s morality negatively affected, this form of mental reasoning can lead to unwanted consequences if they are applied in situations relating to aggression, violence and abuse.
Thus, we ought to be discerning and not be easily swayed by established social norms, especially when they are perverse. Therefore, since we’re aware of the powerful social influences imposed on us, let us not conform to the patterns of this world any longer, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds, by what is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, or praiseworthy, that we may act according to that which is good and acceptable.
Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. Isaiah 53:4-5
The Power of the Cross
Oh, to see the dawn Of the darkest day: Christ on the road to Calvary. Tried by sinful men, Torn and beaten, then Nailed to a cross of wood.
CHORUS: This, the pow'r of the cross: Christ became sin for us; Took the blame, bore the wrath— We stand forgiven at the cross.
Oh, to see the pain Written on Your face, Bearing the awesome weight of sin. Ev'ry bitter thought, Ev'ry evil deed Crowning Your bloodstained brow.
Now the daylight flees; Now the ground beneath Quakes as its Maker bows His head. Curtain torn in two, Dead are raised to life; "Finished!" the vict'ry cry.
Oh, to see my name Written in the wounds, For through Your suffering I am free. Death is crushed to death; Life is mine to live, Won through Your selfless love.
FINAL CHORUS: This, the pow'r of the cross: Son of God—slain for us. What a love! What a cost! We stand forgiven at the cross.
Oh! If only I was there, I would have intervened! These heartless people! What are our schools doing? We ought to send these people for moral education!
How can these people be so indifferent? How would they feel if they were the ones in need? I think they should put themselves in the victim's shoes, perhaps, then will they be able to see the importance of having a communal spirit and helping people in times of trouble.
Even if they were afraid that the other gang members might come after them, the least they should do is to inform the police about the incident. Standing there, doing nothing and enjoying the spectacle is simply absurd! I would never have done that!
How righteous! Such Justice! Indeed, we need more people such as these! IF, they actually do what they say.
These comments are frequently heard from the general public after incidents such as those mentioned in the post relating to the bystander effect. Indeed, their indignation is justified to a certain extent. However, their continuous, relentless and harsh verbal punishment on the bystanders are, quite simply, a reflection of yet another common and easily identifiable social phenomenon -The Fundamental Attribution Error.
Thefundamental attribution errorasserts that people tend to overestimate dispositional factors and underestimate situational factors when assessing a certain event. In this instance, it seems as though the respondents were united in one voice condemning the apathetic bystanders: they could have done more, their indifference was due to their wicked personalities and if we (the respondents) were present at the scene, we would have intervened.
The only problem is this: the accusers and the accused belong to the same society and they probably hold identical beliefs and social norms. Hence, it is extremely likely that they would have reacted in a similar way. Most bystander effect studies would lend support to this argument as it appears that a significant number of people are being mastered by social situations rather than being masters of it. So are the accusers condemning themselves indirectly?
The underlying source of such faulty attributions is thecorrespondence bias. Thecorrespondence biasrefers to the inclination to assume that people’s words and deeds reflect their traits, attitudes, or some other internal factor, rather than external situational factors. Hence, the respondents readily and willingly attributed the inaction of the bystanders as a testament of their poor character; failing to consider the shock, fear, inability, or other inhibitions that might have prevented them from offering help to the victims.
I was totally stunned by what happened… I knew I should have responded and intervened… but I was just too… stunned… by what happened… There were too many of them. I wanted to help. In fact, I would definitely have gone forward if others have given an indication that they would do so as well. I couldn’t possibly have taken on all of them by myself.
The responses of the bystanders, on the other hand, reflect another underlying aspect of thefundamental attribution error – the actor-observer difference. Theactor-observer differencestates that actors in an event are inclined to make external attributions for their own behaviour, while observers of the same event make internal attributions for the same actor.
The comments from the respondents refer to the ‘observer’ part (a reflection of the correspondence bias), while comments from the bystanders refer to the ‘actor’ part of the phenomenon. There are several explanations for such attributions and only one would be illustrated here. Some theorists suggests that actors are more likely to focus their attention, hence attributing their behaviour, on the environmental and social settings, because the surroundings are more prominent to the actors. Whereas, the observers are more likely to narrow their focus on the actors, since they’re the performers of the social setting. Therefore, in this instance, the actors (bystanders) naturally accounted for their inaction by shifting some responsibility to the situational factors, such as being in shock and the size of the aggressive crowd.
In conclusion, whether or not a person is involved in a situation would definitely affect the attributions of behaviour to internal or external factors. It appears to be a case of having assess to various information, from dissimilar perspectives, interpreted differently leading to diverse conclusions.
Hence, rather than passing judgements on others based on limited information or our own incomplete perception and interpretation of the events, it is better not to judge at all. For when we judge, the same judgement will befall on us, and with whatever criteria we use, it will be used unto us as well. Hold that tongue from accusations and condemnation, for it may very well be the exact words that return to accuse and condemn us.