Posted in Psychology & Medicine

Five Stages Of Grief

Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross was a psychiatrist who was greatly interested in the field of death and dying. She believed that medical students and doctors should be aware of how important the topic was. One of her major contributions to the field of medicine was a theory inspired by her work with terminally ill patients. Dr. Kübler-Ross discovered that patients who were given bad news often reacted in a rather predictable pattern of five “stages”. She also found that these theoretical stages of coping with dying also applied to other grieving processes, such as a child going through a divorce or grieving a break-up. It is important to note that these stages are not absolutely complete or chronological, but only a general theory of how people react to grief.

  1. Denial: A person’s initial response to any bad news or trauma is usually denial. Denial is a hardwired defence mechanism of the brain to protect the mind from trauma. However, it may hinder the process of coping, with some people being perpetually stuck in this stage while never fully coping with their grief. An example thought during this stage is “This can’t be happening to me”.
  2. Anger: Once the person overcomes their denial and recognises reality, they respond with anger. This is an externalisation response where the mind tries to deal with the bad news by lashing out. It can be seen as the mind’s response to the confusion that arises from receiving the bad news, which may be caused by cognitive dissonance arising from the conflict between denial and reality. Because people at this stage often lash out with rage and verbal abuse (sometimes even physical), they may be difficult to deal with. Thus, it is important to recognise that this is a natural response to grief and try to support them even though they are acting abusive. An example thought during this stage is “It’s unfair that this is happening to me”.
  3. Bargaining: When the anger settles down, a person attempts to deal with the grief with logic instead of emotions. They will try to negotiate with a higher power to delay their death, such as through praying. This stage shows how desperate and vulnerable the person is while trying to deal with the bad news. They will try to do anything to make the grief go away, or at least reduce it. However, this stage rarely produces any viable solutions. An example thought during this stage is “If I can have a few more years, I will do anything”.
  4. Depression: With both emotions and logic failing to protect them from the grief, the person will fall into a state of depression. Hope is lost and the person understands that resistance is futile (an example of learned helplessness). By this stage, the person has become quiet and withdrawn, often detaching themselves from family and friends. Ironically, trying to cheer a person up during this stage is ill-advised. It is more beneficial if the person can pull through the depression and process it to make it to the last stage of grief. An example thought during this stage is “Why bother, I’m going to die anyway”.
  5. Acceptance: The last stage of grief is not only accepting that death is unavoidable, but also recognising that there is still time before that. The person reaches a state of clarity and comes to term with the grief, achieving some inner peace. The time taken to reach this state varies and some people may never reach it at all. It is also important to note that just because the person receiving the bad news has accepted it, others around them may not have processed the grief. An example thought during this stage is “Everything is going to be okay”.
Posted in Philosophy

Prisoner’s Dilemma

The prisoner’s dilemma is a famous example of how game theory functions. It predicts the behaviour of two people when forced to cooperate. The story goes as follows:

Two accomplices in crime are arrested by the police. They are interrogated in separate rooms. As the police have insufficient information, they offer a deal to each prisoner to confess that the two committed a crime (or deny). The deal is:

  • If you confess and your partner denies taking part in the crime, you go free and your partner will serve ten years (and vice versa).
  • If you both confess you will go to prison for four years each.
  • If you both deny taking part in the crime, you both go to prison for two years.

Assuming the prisoners act rationally (i.e. for their best interest and minimising their jail time), the prisoner will obviously choose the “confess” option as this is hypothetically the best choice (minimum time = 0 years, compared to only 2 years minimum for denying). However, because both prisoners are thinking this, the result is almost always that both confess and end up with four years each. Therefore, because human beings are unable to trust another human being enough, people always end up acting irrationally (benefit not maximised).
If the two had been trusting (assuming the other would deny too) and cooperated, both would have served half the time. But people always assume (correctly) that the other person will betray them for their selfish gain and this win-win result is unattainable.

But what if the other prisoner was yourself? Let us assume that the prisoner’s dilemma game was played by you and an exact copy of you. A copy that thinks like you, acts like you and identical to you in every single way. Can you trust yourself? Do you trust yourself enough to deny the crime, when it is entirely possible that he or she rats you out to walk free while you suffer for 10 years? How do you know that he loves you more than himself? 

Your greatest enemy is you.

Posted in Psychology & Medicine

Cognitive Dissonance

When two conflicting ideas exist at the same time in the human mind, it causes uneasiness and discomfort. Human beings instinctively tried to reduce the dissonance, most easily achieved by adaptation and blaming. For example, when a person wants something strongly but cannot attain it, they choose to believe that they do not want it any longer, discarding one idea to dissolve the dissonance.

A famous portrayal of this condition is Aesop’s fable The Fox and the Grapes, which goes as following:

A fox sees a grape on a tree and wants to eat it. However, the grape is too high up, so the fox says “That grape is surely sour.” and turns away.

This fable shows the classic pattern of: Wants something -> finds it unattainable
-> criticises it to reduce their want, and ultimately the dissonance caused by it.

This effect is quite powerful and explains many of mankind’s unique behaviours. As stated above, people try to reduce the dissonance by justification, denial and even blaming a third party to ease their mind.
Interestingly, the act of “justification” is brought on by another human feature: arrogance. Most people consider themselves intelligent and always making the right decisions, ergo when they make a mistake it conflicts with their self-image. Instead of accepting that they made a mistake (thus altering their image), they instead believe that they intended that action. This belief is so strong that they do not even know the justification happened subconsciously.

For example, there is a phenomenon called buyer’s remorse, where a buyer finds a flaw or a better product after buying something, feeling remorse (which is due to the discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance). Instead of blaming themselves, people will justify their reasons for buying that product, and paradoxically value that item even more. This shows how cognitive dissonance can be seen everywhere in everyday life.

In short, people cannot accept paradoxes, believe they always make the right decisions, and twist reality and make excuses when it does not fit what they desire. People are fascinating.