Please support the blog via Wise.
Today I had a coffee-meeting which started great, but ended in disaster.
The backstory. I'm a psychological scientist/research psychologist. I was recruited twice to Finland and the University of Helingfors because of my expertis in executive functions (Österberg, 2001, 2004, 2012). Because I have no research money, but TV-English,I aim to offer my expertis to private organizations and government arm in Finland or elsewhere in the world. That means I'm kind of active to rearch entrainment which is rhytmic synchronization of bevahior (Borrie, 2017), with people with whome I can form beneficial cooperations with.
On October 25, 2025, I met a person at a vernissage. It turned out that he was a former a former Police officer who shared my interest in preventing antisocial behavior. We really had entrainment.
The same evening (7.26 pm), I wrote to him:
“Hi X, It was a pleasure meeting you and your wife at the XXXXXX event and discussing potential collaboration regarding how my expertise could help prevent antisocial behavior among Finnish children and youth.
Let’s grab a coffee soon and continue the conversation!
As I mentioned, my background is in psychology; twenty-five years ago, I conducted the study that became my master’s thesis in social psychology (Österberg, 2004).
It includes 15 ANOVA/ANCOVA tables based on responses from over 1,200 14-year-olds regarding emotional and social adjustment and cognitive development—the components that collectively form the mind's executive functions.
As I also mentioned, I met Sir Michael Rutter – known as the father of child psychiatry – in 2010 at a Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (KVA) conference on antisocial behavior.
When I described the results of my study, Dr. Rutter said:
“You are right on the money, but it's a hot political potato."
That “hot potato" costs Finnish society enormous sums, and I possess expertise that could likely contribute to improvements for Finland.
As I said, let’s grab a coffee soon and continue the conversation!"
“Hi Peter,
Thank you for your message and for the meeting at XXXXXXXXX. It was great to hear about your experience in preventing antisocial behavior. Let’s arrange a time to continue the discussion over a cup of coffee.
I would have time towards the end of November—for example, on the 17th or 20th."
“Hi X,I never heard from him against. Then on August 11, 2026, a woman approach me at another vernissage. She said that we used to meet another vernissage. We had entrainment but then we parted we to watch the exibition.
I’ll go with November 17th.
I am available during office hours.
Location and time?
Best regards,
Peter"
Then probably August 29, we met again, and again we had entrainment. Out of the blue, a tall man showed up with what I will interpret was a dominance display. It was the husband who I spoke to the year before, and had invited me to a meeting but who never confirmed it.
His behavior was of the jealous husband.
After I recognized him, I pointed out to him that he was the guy who had invited me to a meeting, but who never confirmed when I replied to him (see conversation above).
He said that we should do that, and suggested September 22, 2026.
Again I heard nothing from him, but on September 21, a recieved mail from him:
“Hello mr Österberg, shall we meet in Alenius coffee Merikatu 1? Tomorrow at 13:00?I replied:
Best
X"
“Hi X,September 22 2026. The day started great; I started for 31rd time with a dip in the Baltic sea, and by catching some sun for 45 minutes.
Yes, that works. See you tomorrow at 1:00 PM at Alenius Coffee, Havsgatan 1.
Warmest regards'
Peter"
Then I went down-town to have brunch (I don't eat breakfast, and fast for 17 – 21 hours, sometimes more every day).
I was a bit early, so I cycled to the harbor to look at boats. I even had a conversation with a father and his daughter about their Bavaria 42 feet sailboat.
The weather was warmer and sunnier then during the morning. The café is situated so that the sun points right in your face. My host hadn't showed up, so I sat down outside to wait for him. Soon he showed, and after and after we greeted with a handshake,he offered to buy me a cook of coffee.
As we sat down, and I had switch to shorts, I gave a brief orientation about the topic we shared an interest in. And here's where things went wrong, and we lost entrainment.
I first commented on a conversation I had with a psychotherapist on Facebook on ADHD, which led to the nature-nature debate. My host instantly sided with the nature side.
He showed no ambition to reason with me. Instead, he started to interrogate me and question what I sad.
When I mentioned what his former colleagues had pointed out in April, 2022, that Finnish women's relational aggressiveness is the big issues, he said that it was wrong.
The same happened when I pointed out that research conducted with validated instruments, demonstrate the the typical perpetrator of domestic violence is a women.
He interrupted me and pointed out that data from the police and authorities showed the opposite.
When I pointed out that the police and authorities do not base their conclusions on actual violence but on claims of violence – which is a typical female behavior – he got angry.
he didn't admit he was wrong, but instead he asked what I have published on the topic.
When I explained that a scientist doesn't refer to his/hers work alone, but the pattern that forms via a meta-perspective, he switched to methods.
Here he gave the oddest of comments. He claimed that he referred to randomized controlled questionnaires.
I pointed out that the questionnaires were not administered as RCT. (I also mentioned that I teach method.)
He didn't give in, but said that was questionnaires which where randomly selected.
When I said I teach methods, and repeated what he already knew, that was recruited to Finland because of my expertise, he replied that he also had a PhD, in criminality, and added that he has published lotrs of papers.
He's coffee was now on the brink of boiling over, and he raised his tone and said that he didn't believe anything I said.
Then I mentioned that its not the amount of papers you published, but what patterns of papers show that matters.
That's proably was when his coffee boiled over; his suddenly stood up and said he had to leave, and that I was welcome to send him references.
I repeated that I was recruited to Finland because of my expertise, and that I'm offer master classes.
He didn't listen, he just left (fight-flight).
Why do people's coffee sometimes boil over?
The short version is that elevated levels of cortisol block hippocampi (there's one in each hemisphere) in favor of amygdalae (there's also one in each hemisphere) (Goleman, 2006).
It's also likely that there's some malfunction in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC).
This people are sometimes called bad apples.
“Yes, there is a study from 2006 known as the “Bad Apple Effect.” This research was conducted by William Felps, Terence Mitchell, and Eliza Byington at the University of Washington. The study examined how one negative team member can significantly impact the overall performance and dynamics of a group (Co-pilot)
“This paper presents a review and integrative model of how, when, and why the behaviors of one negative group member can have powerful, detrimental influence on teammates and groups. We define the negative group member as someone who persistently exhibits one or more of the following behaviors: withholding effort from the group, expressing negative affect, or violating important interpersonal norms. We then detail how these behaviors elicit psychological states in teammates (e.g. perceptions of inequity, negative feelings, reduced trust), how those psychological states lead to defensive behavioral reactions (e.g. outbursts, mood maintenance, withdrawal), and finally, how these various manifestations of defensiveness influence important group processes and dynamics (e.g. cooperation, creativity). Key mechanisms and moderators are discussed as well as actions that might reduce the impact of the bad apple. Implications for both practice and research are discussed” (Felps et al. 2006).
“A single “bad apple” can reduce team performance by 30 – 40%. That's not a typo – one negative person can slash your team's effectiveness by nearly half” (The Leaders Guide).
“Common defensive mechanisms employees use to cope with a “bad apple” include denial, social withdrawal, anger, anxiety and fear. Trust in the team deteriorates and as the group loses its positive culture, members physically and psychologically disengage themselves from the team” (Gardner, 2007).
More reading: Finland's collapse is continuing, but no politician or public manager admits to having done anything wrong
Please support the blog via Wise.
More about my expertise:
Executive coaching for CEOs/managers and workshops to facilitate Organizational Performance, Learning, and Creativity for Problem Solving | Lectures: Nutrition for physical and mental health | Course/lecture: children's emotional and social adjustment and cognitive development | Language training - Swedish | Academy Competency | CV | Teaching skills and experience | Summary of research project | Instagram | Linkedin | YouTube-channel | TikTok | X
No comments:
Post a Comment