LETTERS

Another angle

THANK YOU FOR THE APRIL article "Can infants count? Some researchers say yes?" explaining how English number words may hamper the learning of math skills. No wonder our children are performing so poorly compared with some other nations. I believe, however, that an interesting companion piece would have been to identify how and when English number words mutated since the time, not too long ago, when this nation led the world in math and science skills.

George C. Levitt, PhD

Sacramento, Calif.

In response to the Littleton tragedy

IN THE AFTERMATH OF tragedies such as that in Littleton, Colo., we wonder how the inner lives of these child perpetrators could have been so unknown to their families and schools. I would like to suggest two possible remedies.

First, research has clearly demonstrated that children and teen-agers who take part in shared, family mealtimes are less likely to take drugs and less likely to be depressed than those from families that don't eat together. They are more successful in school, and they have better peer relationships. Eating together promotes good communication, strengthens family bonds and relationships, and teaches family values. The Greater New Milford (CT) Area Healthy Community 2000 organization maintains the public interest "Family Mealtime" Web site at www.familymealtime.org. It is both a fact sheet on the significant benefits of family meals, and a handbook for spreading this simple and powerful message.

Second, a "homeroom" period should be instituted in all middle and high schools.

This is not to be instructional or formal preparatory time, but 15 or 20 minutes at the relatively relaxed start of the day during which students and their homeroom teachers could socialize, listen to announcements, and get organized.

Students might also be dismissed from the same homeroom at the end of the day.

The homeroom should include children who are initially selected at random from every grade in a given school, allowing for interaction between students of different ages and "cliques." If children remained in the same homeroom throughout their entire three or four-year tenure in the school, the homeroom teachers would get to know them sufficiently to better gauge when emotional problems were developing and when intervention was appropriate.

While these changes won't eliminate all school violence, they will establish the safe and nurturing environments that our children deserve.

Michael Schwarzchild, PhD

THE SURREAL TRAGEDY IN Colorado has unleashed the talking heads and chattering choruses. They drown out the human suffering, making a maudlin sideshow. They cannot allow the victims to grieve in the privacy that most crave. Among them are the counselors, mental health professionals superimposing themselves, becoming experts and professional mourners, keening and renting their garments. They lack understanding of the Quaker aphorism that those who wish to do good can create great evil. For example, their views on adolescent passage may not be reliable or valid. The may even be practicing "junk science."

Adolescents in the industrial and postindustrial West may need to withdraw into a transitional schizoid state, feel isolated, abandoned, and rebellious. This behavior is not always pathology; it is sometimes a quest toward identity. It sometimes shores up a sense of self. This behavior can also be the root for creative activity, be it in science, art, or writing. It may be called regression at the service of the ego. The use of fantasy and dreams often coalesces and contains the rage and anomie, also creating idealism and empathy.

Probity and perspective from the professional counselors can preclude overcounseling and offhand quick diagnosis in the service of business, celebrity or self-congratulation. In fact, it was once taught that being a therapist involved a degree of marginality with one foot in and one foot out of the culture.

Harold J. Fine, PhD

APA needs more alliances

I SPEAK FOR MANY PSYCH- ologists who feel APA's past and current governance does not often address issues at our hearts. This doesn't demean the great contributions of people such as Dr. Newman, but recently President Suinn has focused on ethnic diversity and new understanding of cultures encountered. Laudable but not the life-and-death and hostile issues we face.

Psychiatry deep down resents our understanding of human behavior not developed, as theirs was, from an initial encounter with a cadaver, yet they hold the key to our survival with their ability, albeit highly trained, to prescribe. I deeply doubt the quality of our training to do so but we have few allies. Psychotropics for the most part are prescribed by nonpsychiatrists. Shouldn't APA lobby the drug companies to underwrite the training costs? It could be done and is of mutual interest.

But more effective would be ad campaigns stating that the use of this medication should be accompanied by individual psychotherapy. Isn't it below the standard of care to just Prozac'em as so many capitated and HMO psychiatrists do? What I'm saying is that the APA should be looking for effective alliances--not only ethnic diversity, intelligence and practice. Get out of the classroom!

William A. Spindell, PhD

West Hills, Calif.

Controversial positions

THE APRIL MONITOR detailed the advocacy positions of the APA's Public Policy Office (PPO). While causes such as school violence and quality child care are noble and of universal concern, there are others, including reproductive rights and abortion, which are controversial and not embraced by all association members.

As an organization, APA should be concerned with the advancement of our profession. The PPO should reflect those concerns and not be used as a vehicle for the moral and political views of individual members, even if those individuals constitute a majority of APA. I believe it is time that the function of the PPO be re-evaluated and the APA concentrate on those issues that will benefit the association as a whole.

Robert Gallagher, PhD

Riva, Md.

Where's your sense of humor?

AS A CURRENT CLINICAL psychology doctoral student I feel I owe it to my peers near and far to let them in on a little secret. We are human! Therefore, after noticing the March article on humor ("Therapists see sense in use of humor," page 1), I was delighted. The article itself was excellent and I congratulate you on printing it. However, do we "brilliant psychologists" really need reminders about humor or tips on how to add humor into our lives? I was always under the impression that this was something that should come natural. Hello! Have we forgotten who we are?

As psychologists we should never become too distinguished to conceal our humanity. Being appropriately humorous or displaying a smile with a patient or colleague does not tarnish our reputation or take away our expertise. On the contrary, when used properly it can help confirm our expertise. To ourselves and to others. Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that we should be entertaining our patients. And I am not implying that we should disclose personal information to them either. But I am saying this: Don't be so afraid to let someone know you are human. That you are real. Your colleagues may thank you with a cup of coffee. Your clients may thank you with a working alliance.

Vincent Passarelli

Oyster Nay, N.Y.

Consumer input?

IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT war is too important to be left to generals. Similarly, research about human beings is far too important to be left solely to researchers. I was heartsick to hear that APA Executive Director for Science Richard McCarty has advanced the position that consumers have no business voting on the scientific merit of NIMH research proposals. This arrogant and insensitive position betrays just how badly scientists need such input. Dr. McCarty apparently is burdened by a number of inaccurate, harmful and unscientific stereotypes about the phenomena we call mental illnesses. For example, what makes him think that mental health consumers (whose ranks include, for example, many psychologists, chemists, geologists, physicians, and physicists) know nothing about science or what is scientific? Or that consumers have difficulty "understanding" difficult scientific concepts?

Dr. McCarty suggests that it is OK for consumers to "comment" and "provide input" on research proposals, but that it would be "dangerous" to allow them to be full voting members. It is frankly hypocritical for an organization that prides itself on supporting freedom, autonomy, and "empowerment" could take such a paternalistic and insulting position toward the clients we purport to serve.

During my career as an administrator of public mental health services, I relied far more on the wisdom, knowledge, intelligence and science of scores of self-identified consumers than Dr. McCarty would ever imagine. I find his position on this issue self-serving, embarrassing and infuriating.

Joel A. Dvoskin, PhD

Corrections

The American Psychological Foundation (APF) regrets two errors in our list of Foundation donors in the May Monitor. The correct listings should read as follows: "In memory of Dr. John Liebeskind" --Dr. Salvatore Cianci; "In memory of Dr. Stanley Milgram"