Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Happy Birthday Ben

               ~ already eleven ~

          ~ remember me ben ~

Monday, April 20, 2015

The last beat of my heart

The El Paso County Terry R. Harris Judicial Complex -- where families go to get raped

We are not Native American...yet this is precisely what has happened to our family...thanks to the hapless "doctors" who nearly killed our son with their guessing games, and then covered their asses with our family by making a false report of medical neglect against me to the El Paso County Department of Human Services.

Our children have been gone for one full year.  There was a time when I believed in America and the Constitution...a time when I trusted in due process, and felt certain that the truth would set us free -- but that was a year and a lifetime ago.  Since then, I've learned that our nation's "civil courtrooms" couldn't care less about truth or justice -- those terms went out of vogue when Matlock went off the air -- and the Constitution?  Well, in our "civil courts" they use it for tissue paper.

Now I know why our "caseworker" -- herself the young mother of a half black and half white child...a  surly brobdingnagian unlicensed to practice social work in the state of Colorado -- has evenso been given carte blanche authority by the 4th Judicial District Court to rip El Paso County families into shreds and feed upon them: she cut her baby teeth in South Dakota.

My family has been torn into smithereens, and I don't know when or if I will ever see my children again; I only hope that one day, my kids might read this and know that they are always on my mind...that the courts have made every attempt to claw my heart out from my chest -- and yet, it's still there --

-- and my love for my children will endure forever...long after the last beat of my heart.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Meaningful to the Mean

Did you know that the Myers-Briggs test is one of the first things required of parents following the removal of their children by the state?  Parents must complete the test AND pay for the test...which is administered by a "mental health professional" whose credentials are murky at best.

Take the case of "Doctor" Edwin Shockney in Colorado Springs, for instance -- with the blessing of the 4th Judicial District Court in El Paso County, Colorado, Shockney's "expert" testimony helped remove untold numbers of children from their loving families.  Shockney has since been proven to be a charlatan (though I'm sure the families he helped tear apart remain largely unaware); surely, smilin' Doc Shockney approached many of his victims holding Myers-Briggs answer sheets and number 2 pencils in his hands...


The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is probably the most widely used personality test in the world.
An estimated 2 million people take it annually, at the behest of corporate HR departments, colleges, and even government agencies. The company that makes and markets the test makes somewhere around $20 million each year.

The only problem? The test is completely meaningless.

"There's just no evidence behind it," says Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania who's written about the shortcomings of the Myers-Briggs previously. "The characteristics measured by the test have almost no predictive power on how happy you'll be in a situation, how you'll perform at your job, or how happy you'll be in your marriage."

The test claims that, based on 93 questions, it can group all the people of the world into 16 different discrete "types" — and in doing so, serve as "a powerful framework for building better relationships, driving positive change, harnessing innovation, and achieving excellence." Most of the faithful think of it primarily as a tool for telling you your proper career choice.

But the test was developed in the 1940s based off the untested theories of an outdated analytical psychologist named Carl Jung, and is now thoroughly disregarded by the psychology community. Even Jung warned that his personality "types" were just rough tendencies he'd observed, rather than strict classifications. Several analyses have shown the test is totally ineffective at predicting people's success in various jobs, and that about half of the people who take it twice get different results each time.

Yet you've probably heard people telling you that they're an ENFJ (extraverted intuitive feeling judging), an INTP (introverted intuitive thinking perceiving), or another one of the 16 types drawn from his work, and you may have even been given this test in a professional setting. Here's an explanation of why these labels are so meaningless — and why no organization in the 21st century should rely on the test for anything.

The Myers-Briggs rests on wholly unproven theories

Carl Jung in 1960. Douglas Glass/Paul Popper/Popperfoto/Getty Images

In 1921, Jung published the book Psychological Types. In it, he put forth a few different interesting, unsupported theories on how the human brain operates.

Among other things, he explained that humans roughly fall into two main typesperceivers and judgers. The former group could be further split into people who prefer sensing and others who prefer intuiting, while the latter could be split into thinkers and feelers, making for a total of four types of people. All four types, additionally, could be divided based on attitudes intointroverts and extraverts (Jung's spelling). These categories, though, were approximate: "Every individual is an exception to the rule," Jung wrote.

Even these rough categories, though, didn't come out of controlled experiments or data. "This was before psychology was an empirical science," says Grant, the Penn psychologist. "Jung literally made these up based on his own experiences." But Jung's influence on the early field was enormous, and this idea of "types" in particular caught on.

Jung's principles were later adapted into a test by Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, a pair of Americans who had no formal training in psychology. To learn the techniques of test-making and statistical analysis, Briggs worked with Edward Hay, an HR manager for a Philadelphia bank.

They began testing their "Type Indicator" in 1942. It copied Jung's types, but slightly altered the terminology, and modified it so that a person was assigned one possibility or the other in all four categories, based on their answers to a series of two-choice questions.

Raise two (the number of possibilities in each category) to the fourth power (the number of categories) and you get 16: the different types of people there apparently are in the world. Myers and Briggs gave titles to each of these types, like the Executive, the Caregiver, the Scientist, and the Idealist.

The test has grown enormously in popularity over the years — especially since it was taken over by the company CPP in 1975 — but has changed little. It still assigns you a four-letter type to represent which result you got in each of the four categories:

The Myers-Briggs uses false, limited binaries

With most traits, humans fall on different points along a spectrum. If you ask people whether they prefer to think or feel, or whether they prefer to judge or perceive, the majority will tell you a little of both. Jung himself admitted as much, noting that the binaries were useful ways of thinking about people, but writing that "there is no such thing as a pure extravert or a pure introvert. Such a man would be in the lunatic asylum."

But the test is built entirely around the basis that people are all one or the other. It arrives at the conclusion by giving people questions such as "You tend to sympathize with other people" and offering them only two blunt answers: "yes" or "no."

If there were good empirical reasons for these strange binary choices that don't seem to describe the reality we know, we might have reason to seriously consider them. But the fact is that they come from the now-disregarded theories of a early 20th century thinker who believed in things like ESP and the collective unconscious.

Actual data tells psychologists that these traits do not have a bimodal distribution. Tracking a group of people's interactions with others, for instance, shows that as Jung noted, there aren't really pure extroverts and introverts, but mostly people who fall somewhere in between.

All four of the categories in the Myers-Briggs suffer from these kinds of problems, and psychologists say they aren't an effective way of distinguishing between different personality types. "Contemporary social scientists are rarely studying things like whether you make decisions based on feelings or rational calculus — because all of us use both of these," Grant says. "These categories all create dichotomies, but the characteristics on either end are either independent from each other, or sometimes even go hand-in-hand." Even data from the Myers-Briggs test itself shows that most people are somewhere in the middle for any one category, and just end up being pigeonholed into one or the other.

This is why some psychologists have shifted from talking about personality traits to personality states — and why it's extremely hard to find a real psychologist anywhere who uses the Myers-Briggs with patients.

There's also another related problem with these limited choices: look at the chart above, and you'll notice that words like "selfish," "lazy," or "mean" don't appear anywhere. No matter what type you're assigned, you get a flattering description of yourself as a "thinker," "performer," or "nurturer."

This isn't a test designed to accurately categorize people, but a test designed to make them feel happy after taking it. This is one of the reasons why it's persisted for so many years in the corporate world, despite being disregarded by psychologists.

The Myers-Briggs provides inconsistent, inaccurate results

Frederick Florin/AFP/Getty Images

We could accept the fact that the Myers-Briggs is limited in defining people in binary categories, but still theoretically get some value out of it because it accurately indicates which pole of any category we're closest to.

But that idea is tough to swallow given the fact that the test is notoriously inconsistent. Research has found that as much as 50 percent of people arrive at a different result the second time they take a test, even if it's just five weeks later.

That's because these traits aren't the ones that are consistently different among people. Most of us vary in these traits over time — depending on our mood when we take the test, for instance, we may or may not think that we sympathize with people. But the test simply tells us whether we're "thinking" or "feeling" based on how we answered the binary questions, with no room in between.

Another indicator that the Myers-Briggs is inaccurate is that several differentanalyses have shown it's not particularly effective at predicting people's success at different jobs.

If the test gives people such inaccurate results, why do so many still put stock in it? One reason is that the flattering, vague descriptions for many of the types have huge amounts of overlap — so many people could fit into several of them.

This is called the Forer effect, and is a technique long used by purveyors of astrology, fortune-telling, and other sorts of pseudoscience to persuade people they have accurate information about them.

The Myers-Briggs is largely disregarded by psychologists

All this is why psychologists — the people who focus on understanding and analyzing human behavior — almost completely disregard the Myers-Briggs in contemporary research.

Search for any prominent psychology journal for analysis of personality tests, and you'll find mentions of several different systems that have been developed in the decades since the test was introduced, but not the Myers-Briggs itself. Apart from a few analyses finding it to be flawed, virtually no major psychology journals have published research on the test — almost all of it comes in dubious outlets like The Journal of Psychological Type, which were specifically created for this type of research.

CPP, the company that publishes the test, has three leading psychologists on their board, but none of them have used it whatsoever in their research. "It would be questioned by my academic colleagues," Carl Thoresen, a Stanford psychologist and CPP board member, admitted to the Washington Post in 2012.

Apart from the introversion/extroversion aspect of the Myers-Briggs, the newer, empirically driven tests focus on entirely different categories. The Five Factor model measures people's openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism — factors that do differ widely among people, data has told us. And there's some evidence that this scheme have some predictive power in determining people's ability to be successful at various jobs and in other situations.

One thing it doesn't have: the marketing machine that surrounds the Myers-Briggs.

So what is the test useful for?

The Myers-Briggs is useful for one thing: entertainment. There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking the test as a fun, interesting activity, like a BuzzFeed quiz.

But there is something wrong with CPP peddling the test as "Reliable and valid, backed by ongoing global research and development investment." The company makes an estimated $20 million annually, with the Myers-Briggs as its flagship product. Among other things, it charges between $15 and $40 to each person who wants to take the test, and $1,700 to each person who wants to become a certified test administrator.

Why would someone pay this much to administer a flawed test? Because once you have that title, you can sell your services as a career coach to both people looking for work and the thousands of major companies — such as McKinsey & Co., General Motors, and a reported 89 of the Fortune 100 — that use the test to separate employees and potential hires into "types" and assign them appropriate training programs and responsibilities. Once certified, test administrators become cheerleaders of the Myers-Briggs, ensuring that use of the outdated instrument is continued.

If private companies want to throw their money away on the Myers-Briggs, that's their prerogative. But about 200 federal agencies reportedly waste money on the test too, including the State Department and the CIA. Themilitary in particular relies heavily on the Myers-Briggs, and the EPA has given it to about a quarter of its 17,000 employees.

It's 2014. Thousands of professional psychologists have evaluated the century-old Myers-Briggs, found it to be inaccurate and arbitrary, and devised better systems for evaluating personality. Let's stop using this outdated measure — which has about as much scientific validity as your astrological sign — and move on to something else.

Correction: this piece previously stated that the military uses the Myers-Briggs for promotions in particular, rather than using it as a general tool.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Protection - what's not to like?

Monday, February 2, 2015

Dr. Charles "Oops" Johnson, DO

click here for link to original story.

Back-Alley Butcher?

'Script Peddler?

Or Family Practitioner?

You be the judge.

Dr. Charles L. Johnson practices in Colorado, and has been repeatedly in trouble with the medical board. His original disciplinary actions were regarding abortion patients. Evidently he decided that he was getting into to much trouble as an abortionist. He opened a family practice.


The medical board faulted Johnson with his care of a patient they identify as "B.H." To avoid depersonalizing her, I'll refer to her as "Brandy".

Brandy was 32 years old and 22 to 23 weeks pregnant when she underwent an abortion by Johnson on February 5, 1990. Johnson did not discuss Brandy's medical history with her, nor did he obtain informed consent. He didn't record observations of Brandy's pre-operative emotional or mental state. He didn't perfrom an ultrasound, a physical examination, blood or other testing, or take Brandy's vital signs prior to the abortion. He didn't discuss the risks of general anesthesia, but recommended it based on the gestation age.

Brandy was ill the day of the abortion. Johnson didn't record the method used to dilate her cervix, nor did he record the dosage or type of anesthesia. He didn't record who administered the anesthesia, or if there was an IV in place. There was no record of Brandy's vital signs during the abortion.

Johnson's notes did indicate that he chose a suction aspiration method for Brandy's abortion, which is an inappropriate method for a 22-week pregnancy.

The post-abortion note indicates uterine atony and a blood pressure of 90/60 -- but doesn not note the time this was observed. Brandy's pulse was recorded as 100, but again there was no mention of the time or of who made this observation.

Brandy was discharged before her vital signs could be documented as normal and stable. Brandy was bleeding profusely and was unable to walk unaided to the car.

Though Johnson knew that Brandy was returning by private car to Florence from Colorado Springs (circa 40 miles by map), he failed to provide written post-operative instructions or emergency contact persons.

Brandy arrived at an emergency room at 1:40 am with profuse bleeding. She was in shock, with no measurable blood pressure. Brandy treatment including four units of blood. (Stipulation and Final Agency Order; complaint by Attorney General of Colorado)


The medical board also faulted Johnson for his care of a patient they identify as "J.T." I'll call her "Jolene".

Jolene underwent an abortion by Johnson on February 20, 1990. The health history form, presumably completed by Jolene, indicated a history of high blood pressure, headaches, dizziness, toxemia and C-section in prior pregnancy. There was no record that these conditions were noted elsewhere or discussed with Jolene prior to proceeding with the abortion.

Jolene's pregnancy was determined to be 22 weeks by date. Johnson's records do not show counseling or informed consent or observation of pre-operative mental or emotional state. Johnson did not perform an ultrasound, physical examination, or blood and other tests. There was no note that Jolene's vital signs were taken prior to the abortion.

Jolene's pre-operative, intraoperative, and post-operative charts were incomplete and inadequate. Johnson failed to note the method of dilation of Jolene's cervix, dosage or type of anesthesia, personnel administering anesthesia, and whether an IV was in place. There was no note of the identity of nurses or other assisting personnel.

The records indicate that Johnson performed a suction abortion, which was an incorrect method for a 22-week pregnancy. The records document a cervical tear and repair, but fail to record the amount of blood loss. Johnson likewise failed to record the time or duration of post-abortion observation or by whom Jolene was observed> There were no readings of vital signs during the post-operative period.
Jolene was discharged without any recorded follow-up or emergency care instructions, and without noting vital signs stable and normal.

The next day Jolene was taken by ambulance to a hospital, in shock secondary to blood loss post-abortion. Doctors diagnosed tachycardia (racing pulse) and hematoma. Hospital staff noted laceration of Jolene's uterus, extended deep into her pelvis. The end of Jolene's ovarian vein was lacerated and tied. Hospital staff also noted kinking of Jolene's ureter by the suture Johnson used to repair her cervix. (Stipulation and Final Agency Order; complaint by Colorado Attorney General)


Regarding abortion patients B.H., J.T., V.F., I.M., and K.S., treated during 1990-91: the medical board "possesses a prima facie case that certain aspects of Respondent's care ... constitute two or more acts or omissions which fail to meet generally-accepted standards of medical practice." (Stipulation and Final Agency Order)

"For the year 1990, respondent reports three complications for 134 second trimester abortions performed. His major complication rate ... is approximately 10 times the standard of care for this procedure." Johnson was placed on probation by the medical board from August 21, 1992 until May 31, 1995 due to complaints of acts or omissions failing to meet generally-accepted standards of medical practice. (Complaint by Attorney General; Stipulation and Final Agency Order, Colorado Board of Medical Examiners)


The medical board faulted Johnson for his care of a woman they identify as "Patient A". I'll refer to her as "Arlene".  Arlene was a patient at Johnson's Family Medicine Practice. Arlene was given numerous prescriptions for medications including Diazepam, Flurazepam, Xanax, Morphine, Oxycodone, Hydrocodeme, Tylenol with Codeine, Paxil, Celexa, and Soma. "These drugs, with varying regularity, were prescribed for at least thirteen and one-half months, January 2003 through February 2004" by various doctors at Johnson's office. For all these prescriptions, Arlene was seen only once by Johnson and five times by other doctors in the practice. Johnson's name was on 27 of the prescriptions, almost all of which were refills or renewals of previous prescriptions.

In October of 2003, Dr. C., one of the doctors in Johnson's practice, got a call from Arlene's daughter, informing him that Arlene had been hospitalized for three weeks in August and September, and was put in a nursing home for a short time, due to a possible overdose of her medications. Dr. C. put a note that Arlene wasn't to be given any more prescriptions for Valium or pain medication until she was seen again in the office.

Johnson last saw Arlene on January 28, 2004. He noted that she was being treated for major depression, but there was no note of a psychological examination, her psychiatric history, or notes about whether she was suicidal. Johnson's last contact with Arlene was a phone call on February 17, 2004. At that time, Johnson prescribed Soma, a muscle relaxant.

Arlene died February 20, 2004, from mixed drug intoxication from prescription medications.



Monday, January 26, 2015

Sibylline Spydra

Centuries ago,
Concurrent with the 50th Olympiad
Not long before the expulsion of Rome's kings
An old woman
"Who was not a native of the country"
Arrived incognita in Rome.
She offered nine books of prophecies to
King Tarquin
And as the king declined to purchase them
Owing to the exorbitant price she demanded,
She burned three and offered
The remaining six to Tarquin
At the same stiff price
Which he again refused
Whereupon she burned three more and
Repeated her offer.
Tarquin then relented and
Purchased the last three
At the full original price
Whereupon she
"Disappeared from among men."

Friday, January 23, 2015

In Iambic Octameter

originally published 5/7/11

Embrace ye not the deceivers
And pay the liar no homage;
Tear off the linsey-woolsey suits
Of the sheep’s clothing worn by wolves.

Milquetoasts take warmth and soft comfort
In lives of quick and sure safety;
But heroes do not hesitate
To pay Freedom's steep, hoary price.

Friends, citizens and countrymen,
The moment of truth approaches:
On that day's dark, awful dawning,
Which way do you think you will choose?

the 2008 ad campaign

The definition of SCION

  • a detached living portion of a plant (as a bud or a shoot) joined aerially to a graft
  • aristocratic descendent
    • scion of a railroad empire

Merely some fractured fairy tale?
Or could it mean something much more?
See for yourselves, and then discern.

They always go green in the end.

* * * * * * * *

this post shall serve as preamble
to one sibyl's sober portent