January wrap

SLOW CRIME SUNDAYS (YASSS, it's back), navigating book release (no longer a debut!) and cognitive dissonance in the context of Israel/Gaza.

We’ve made it through the first month of the year. It’s only going to get easier from here as we skedaddle through the rest of 2024, progressively shedding resolutions, goals and good habits as we hurtle through both space and time. The focus on January resolutions and becoming our best selves is huge, which is why so many publishers release health books at this time of year (yes, I know I had a book out too, I’ll get to that). Humans need chronological markers and ways of orienting ourselves against anchor points, and a new year serves as one of these. Other chronological anchors are occasions like birthdays and anniversaries. Using these time-points to reflect and review can be helpful, but I do think the classic new year’s resolution has a not-so-palatable side. First, they’re often outcomes-focused, not process-oriented; second, they are often unrealistic and have not been well articulated using a SMART goals framework (and each time we try something and fail, we lose self-efficacy, or the belief that we can affect change in our lives), and; third, they are most often highly individualistic, self-focused, and focused on trivialities (…weight loss) which don’t add much essential meaning to our lives, or to the lives of others.

We are all probably at the stage where we have started to abandon our resolutions, and I can only encourage this and ask you to focus on values-driven living built around care for self and others instead.

Book launch

One of my main goals for the year was to get LIFE SKILLS FOR A BROKEN WORLD out into your hands, and I can confirm that this has indeed eventuated (luckily the last stage before book release basically involves no authorial work whatsoever, so this was a no-effort goal to achieve). Here are SOME WORDS I wrote for Scribe on why I wrote SKILLS, and my current favourite life skill (I rotate through them). I’ve been doing dribs and drabs of promo material and this will continue through until mid-year, as I attend various writers festivals and library events (some feat. Karla!). Releasing this book has been very different to my debut, as I’ve known better what to expect, especially in terms of the energy and mood highs and lows which come with this terrain. I’ve paced things better (like moving my launch to mid-Feb so I have time between release and launch), and have staggered publicity commitments. While I enjoy speaking to the media, the adrenalin ebbs and flows can be physically and psychologically tiring.

Despite my efforts to manage this time better, it’s still been nerve-wracking and anxiety provoking. There’s a lot of identity tied up in the work you do and releasing a book is an excellent way to challenge this identity and test some schemas (‘am I actually good enough?’). There’s also some dissonance between holding an identity as a psychologist (where limited personal information is available to clients), and a writer (where lots of information is out there). I err on the side of careful and staged disclosure in my writing to ensure my clients don’t know more about me than they can hold, and that they don’t feel responsible for keeping their problems at bay to protect me. I find that this containment and pacing generally lands better for me psychologically too, instead of the no-holds-barred style of trauma memoir which can often hit it’s progenitor like a freight train carrying an explosive cargo of vulnerability.

Psychology, and world events

Book release has also been tainted both by sorrow and urgency. We’ve hit over a 100 days of bombing in Gaza, with no end to this death and devastation in sight. I refuse to believe that this is the best we humans can do — bombing and massacring each other into non-existence generation after generation because of things that started millennia ago. I know the history of the Middle East is long, bloody and complex, but it should not take an advanced history or politics degree to have an articulated stance around pacifism, peace, and humanitarianism.

This conflict feels much more dangerous and fraught than many others have because it has been enacted by a democratic power with the explicit approval of other democracies. I fear this sets a very dangerous precedent for us all and changes the bar of international law we hold each other to.

I’ve been aghast by the cognitive dissonance I’ve seen from people who continue to enact or justify these humanitarian atrocities directed at civilians (are we even seeing the same footage?), and more than ever, I believe that psychology needs to step up to explore dialogue and peace processes, and to continue examining and drawing attention to concepts like in/out groups, and cognitive dissonance. I deeply wish for a one/two state solution where all people who now inhabit this land can live freely without danger, and for us all to work toward this and use the unique skills we each possess to drive peace. I have seen some very damaging examples of cognitive dissonance about Gaza. This dissonance allows people to hold contradictory beliefs or attitudes (e.g., “I am a peaceful person, but I believe that we should not stop this war”, or further, “Of course I want to keep my children safe, but I’ll support the killing of other people’s children”) without feeling distress. THIS is another example of cognitive dissonance occurring at a governmental level. Cognitive dissonance is a way of protecting ourselves and helps us maintain internal order, but at huge cost to others.

The other patterns I have noticed in the thinking and dialogue presented by pro-war factions* are many psychological defences, especially denial (‘this isn’t happening’, ‘it isn’t as bad as you say it is’), splitting (‘we are good, they are bad’), projection (‘they’re angry, we are not’), and rationalisation (using a set of ‘facts’ to rationalise decisions, finding ways to explain inexplicable things). LOGICAL BIASES have also predominated in most of the arguments I have seen in pro-war communications. These have included cherry picking and the confirmation bias (only attending to and presenting information which confirms one’s stance, leading to revisionist versions of history being presented at times), the fundamental attribution error (a belief that our own behaviour is influenced by external circumstances, whereas others act as they do as a reflection of who they truly are), in-group biases (giving people preferential treatment because they belong to the same group we do), affect heuristics (allowing our current emotional state or mood to influence our decisions) and belief perseverance (maintaining a belief despite new information that firmly contradicts existing beliefs). These patterns predominate anywhere there is significant conflict or dispute, not just in the Middle East. Any war (whether religious, economic or political in nature) is characterised by these biases and patterns of justification. Noticing these patterns is important, because this helps us identify logical flaws and pre-bunk misinformation/disinformation designed to tug on our emotions and sway us away from a humanitarian stance.

I’ve also noticed us getting absorbed in red herring arguments. For instance, the question about whether Israel is committing genocide is one which has received much attention, but essentially, I’m not sure it matters to me. Even if this isn’t found to satisfy the legal criteria for genocide (and the ICJ has made a preliminary ruling suggesting that there are grounds for a case of genocide — the final ruling will take years), I’m still not going to be okay with tens of thousands of civilians and children being slaughtered. It seems like an arcane question when I flip from an instagram post which says that ‘the intent of an action is central to the charge of genocide, not the impact on the population’, to a video of a young Palestinian adolescent scraping bloody human flesh off a floor. The remnants of this once-loved person were indistinguishable from meat in the supermarket, and I find myself unable to engage in discussions about whether this is genocide or not in the face of such wanton cruelty.

Apart from looking at these patterns in dialogue closely and debunking misinformation, how can you help? Targeted action is important to support those in need, and to maintain hope.

1. Donate — consider the MSF, or UNICEF. When I support an organisation I like to set up a recurring monthly donation to ensure it’s set and forget.

2. Engage with inter-faith organisations supporting peace, like the SULHA PEACE MOVEMENT, and STANDING TOGETHER.

3. Rally, picket the docks, strike.

4. Continue to WRITE to your politicians asking for support for a ceasefire, and

5. Read the Palestine Laboratory by Anthony Lowenstein, and Doppelganger by Naomi Klein. Klein also wrote this excellent piece about BDS as a political, non-violent means of addressing war crimes.

*This language is a deliberate choice. I want to ensure that we don’t conflate all Jewish people with this conflict, or even all Israeli people. Antisemitism is a painful struggle for the Jewish community at present and so I’ve chosen to use language focused on the behaviour I am discussing (i.e., encouraging war), rather than the identity of those doing the encouragement.

---

SLOW CRIME SUNDAYS
Gypsy Rose Blanchard (and a little about Depp and Heard)

Generated using AI prompt ‘Forensic psychologist’. V unsure what is happening here TBH.

(Let’s get the disclaimers out of the way first. As a registered psychologist, I cannot provide diagnoses or commentary about mental health unless I have seen a client, and if I have seen someone, then I cannot speak about them publicly for obvious reasons. What I present in this section are general thoughts only, and these musings are not intended to be seen as clinical advice. I’ll be picking out overseas or historical cases and using them as a way to springboard into discussions about relevant forensic issues. I have no specific knowledge of the Blanchard or the Depp/Heard case, and my commentary is meant to be informational and educational in nature only.)

Gypsy Rose Blanchard first came to my attention after THIS article on the Conversation. It’s a sad story really, a young woman who lived under her mother’s thumb for years. It seems her mother had a form of factitious disorder (when someone fakes an illness, or purposely gets sick). It sounds like Dee Dee (Gypsy’s mother, and the victim of the murder) had Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP), where someone pretends that someone else is unwell, usually a child in their care. MSBP is a rare psychiatric condition and is under-studied, with little know about its aetiology (i.e., why it occurs) or appropriate treatment pathways. There is likely to be something about the secondary gains (i.e., benefits) associated with inhabiting the sick role (or having someone close to you), such as care from medical professionals, or immersion in excitement, which drives this behaviour (this actually sounds a little like Lucy Letby, as I reflect on it!). The majority of parents with MSBP are female caregivers, many of whom are in healthcare professions themselves. Some have histories of obstetric complications (perhaps impacting on their initial attachment to the baby?), and others have trauma histories themselves (see THIS PAPER). Many caregivers with MSBP have no mental health disorder, and may engage in this form of behaviour for gains like financial benefit. It sounds like financial gain was a driver for Dee Dee.

When understanding a behaviour like this, I focus on FORMULATING the behaviour (i.e., why is this person doing this at this point in time? What purpose does it serve? What individual, psychological and social factors allow and facilitate this behaviour?) not on diagnosing or seeking a quick answer (e.g., she poisons her child because she is depressed). It’s common to blame offending on mental illness or to try and find one clear answer about why someone did something. Sometimes, we don’t know why a crime occurs, the perpetrator may not know themselves, and this is a hard pill to swallow. In addition many people have mental health issues but don’t harm their children, so it’s important to understand what sets this person apart from those with the same history who don’t harm others — whether this relates to psychological factors such as personality functioning, or because of social circumstances or other influences. I like this paragraph by forensic psychiatrist Gwen Adshead about the relationship between mental illness and offending in the context of homicide:

The issue of mental illness is a complex one because it is a mitigator of responsibility in law and is usually the main reason that group members have been sent to hospital instead of being sentenced to prison. His lawyers, families, and clinical teams may frequently emphasize to them that they are not responsible for the homicide because of his mental illness. Yet, full acknowledgment and responsibility usually comes with exploration and acceptance of mental states as being dreadful and puzzling, but ultimately understandable and meaningful: “I deceived myself,” “I was jealous.” Finally, group members often come to finally accept responsibility for his actions despite having a mental illness, personality disorder, or substance misuse problem: “It’s difficult because I did it and I have to accept it.” Sometimes, what is disclosed is a richer and enhanced narrative of what happened that reverses the earlier denial completely: “It wasn’t just self-defense; I had murder in my heart that day.”

Regardless of why Dee Dee developed MSBP, the impact on Gypsy Rose sounds horrendous. She’s described the murder as being born of a desire to escape her mother but also seems to have a level of denial about her role in the murder (“There's a big difference between someone who asks someone to kill someone and someone that actually does it,” Gypsy said. “Because I would never kill somebody. I would never physically go through with killing somebody. I can't.”). The murder itself was committed in conjunction with her partner and this is a common scenario for female offenders who more often offend with male partners, than solo. Many people who engage in offences like murder rationalise it in different ways. This is often ego-protective, and the only way someone can still believe they are a good person despite this awful thing that they’ve done. Despite what we often believe, this form of denial does not always increase risk of future re-offending and in some instances may actually be protective, because it means that someone has not internalised the narrative of being an ‘offender’ and may thus be more able to live a prosocial life. That said, coming to terms with having offended can be important, and I struggle to see how Gypsy Rose can do so while in the media glare, with odd parasocial relationships with her followers who glamourise her actions.

It’s an altogether very sad case for everyone involved, and points to the importance of early identification of child abuse and intervention. Most children who are abused won’t go on to kill their parents, and experiencing abuse is not a valid reason to kill someone (two wrongs don’t make a right), but may act as a mitigating factor when considering moral culpability and issues like provocation during sentencing. The task for Gypsy Rose now will be to reintegrate and find her own new narrative and redemptive shift (excellent paper HERE), though transacting this in the eye of the public, media, and publishers may be difficult.

Why are some people so obsessed with Gypsy Rose?

I can only guess.

This mirrors the Depp/Heard trial in some ways, with the formation of a parasocial relationship with a public figure, a false sense of intimacy, and an impetus to engage in the drama of choosing a side. Gypsy Rose is young, white, attractive and instinctively evokes sympathy, as many female offenders do at times. She was offended against and so people can justify her behaviour — she wasn’t really bad, just harmed so deeply by her mother that she had no choice. A victim, not a perpetrator. Perhaps an identification with her speaks to the latent and hidden desire many of us hold to harm those who have wronged us.

The Depp/Heard trial was characterised by the same polarisation and positioning of victim/perpetrator. I saw thousands of nasty statements made about Heard online, notably on X (formerly Twitter), by Depp’s supporters — often young, female supporters (or bots?!). There was a belief that because Heard was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder that she had to have been lying (people with BPD can be, and often are, abused by partners, you know?).

A lot of attention was paid to her diagnoses though I did not especially consider that relevant to the key question. There were also pockets of people insisting that we should support Heard because it’s important to believe and support women always. This is not a view I hold, because there are many dangers in uncritically accepting any claim, even though we can hold in mind stats about the rarity of false allegations. People kept asking me which camp I was in, and my answer was always the same, that I was in the ‘how-about-you-don’t-be-a-dick-to-your-partner’ camp. Regardless of who the initial or main perpetrator was, it looked like there were escalations and poor behaviour by both parties, which will never make for a safe or good relationship. The venom that many women used when speaking about Heard and supporting Depp was also an interesting phenomenon to note, and something to explore and dissect further.

The confluence of social media personalities/influencers and true crime is an interesting one, and I am curious to watch developments in this case, and others. I can just see a serial killer becoming the next big thing on TikTok!

Any thoughts on which case I should focus on next month? Comment below, or DM ME.

---

WHAT I READ (OR MOSTLY READ) IN JAN

The Rachel Incident - Caroline O’Donoghue
Blind Spot (YA) - Robyn Dennison
The Night Watchman (fiction) - Louise Erdrich * did not finish this, it’s as weighty and meaty as the Sentence which I LOVED, but this just didn’t resonate with me in the same way. I tend to struggle with books with male protagonists.
The Marriage Act - John Marrs (SO GOOD for those who enjoy dystopian fiction)
The Vanishing of Class 3b - Jackie Gabler
The Prophet Song - Paul Lynch
The Guest - Emma Cline
The Bee Sting - Paul Murray *for the love of god, authors, please use punctuation unless you want your characters to sound thought disordered and manic.
Between a Wolf and a Dog - Georgia Blain
How to do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy - Jenny Odell *read half, then lost mojo because I cannot resist the attention economy
On Failure - The School of Life
Travelling Lightly - Robyn Davidson
(…and just started Horse - Geraldine Brooks. It’s been lurking on my TBR since I collected it from a roadside library last year)

MEDIA WRAP

Media is always exciting and terrifying around the time of book release. I have an uneasy relationship with self-promotion and the shuffle of publicity, but also sulk a lot if my book receives no media attention (hell hath no misery like a writer scorned), so am grateful for the many opportunities which have come my way:

• I appeared on ABC News Breakfast (babies first live TV YASS) and managed to not faint despite accidentally taking double the recommended beta-blocker dose, did ABC RN Life Matters, and late-night radio with ABC Mortal Coil (I stayed awake till 11 pm, who even am I?). I’ll also be doing Breakfasters with Triple R on Monday 29th January.

• The Guardian EXCERPTED, as did RAMONA MAG. Another couple of excerpts and a few interviews coming in March/April, but as my excellent former publicist (wahhhhh, Cora!) so wisely said, ‘we don’t want the whole book excerpted on the internet’.

• I spoke to BRISBANE TIMES about how to use advice from experts this coming year, and am also writing a couple of essays for various media outlets, and have been enjoying this after the cut and thrust (slowwww jib and jab) of writing a book.

UPCOMING EVENTS

Book launch of course — a heart, rainbow and sparkles themed greyhound rescue fundraiser and Pawlentines Day event.

Details here (we’ve sold out of tickets though): https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/pawlentines-northside-wines-book-launch-and-greyhound-fundraiser-tickets-780572101167

Much more soon, including library talks, an IWD event, and of course — writers festivals!

‘Psychologist having a dog themed book launch’. Love you forever, AI. Never change.

CURRENT OBSESSION(S)

• Chilli oil. Do I need to say more?

• Germinating painted daisies

• Sun (but slip slop slap babeh)