Watch Footage from the Psychology Experiment That Shocked the World: Milgram’s Obedience Study (1961)

For decades fol­low­ing World War II,  the world was left won­der­ing how the atroc­i­ties of the Holo­caust could have been per­pe­trat­ed in the midst of—and, most hor­rif­i­cal­ly, by—a mod­ern and civ­i­lized soci­ety. How did peo­ple come to engage in a will­ing and sys­tem­at­ic exter­mi­na­tion of their neigh­bors? Psy­chol­o­gists, whose field had grown into a grudg­ing­ly respect­ed sci­ence by the mid­point of the 20th cen­tu­ry, were eager to tack­le the ques­tion.

In 1961, Yale University’s Stan­ley Mil­gram began a series of infa­mous obe­di­ence exper­i­ments. While Adolf Eichmann’s tri­al was under­way in Jerusalem (result­ing in Han­nah Arendt’s five-piece reportage, which became one of The New York­er magazine’s most dra­mat­ic and con­tro­ver­sial arti­cle series), Mil­gram began to sus­pect that human nature was more straight­for­ward than ear­li­er the­o­rists had imag­ined; he won­dered, as he lat­er wrote, “Could it be that Eich­mann and his mil­lion accom­plices in the Holo­caust were just fol­low­ing orders? Could we call them all accom­plices?”

In the most famous his exper­i­ments, Mil­gram osten­si­bly recruit­ed par­tic­i­pants to take part in a study assess­ing the effects of pain on learn­ing. In real­i­ty, he want­ed to see how far he could push the aver­age Amer­i­can to admin­is­ter painful elec­tric shocks to a fel­low human being.

When par­tic­i­pants arrived at his lab, Milgram’s assis­tant would ask them, as well as a sec­ond man, to draw slips of paper to receive their roles for the exper­i­ment. In fact, the sec­ond man was a con­fed­er­ate; the par­tic­i­pant would always draw the role of “teacher,” and the sec­ond man would invari­ably be made the “learn­er.”


The par­tic­i­pants received instruc­tions to teach pairs of words to the con­fed­er­ate. After they had read the list of words once, the teach­ers were to test the learner’s recall by read­ing one word, and ask­ing the learn­er to name one of the four words asso­ci­at­ed with it. The exper­i­menter told the par­tic­i­pants to pun­ish any learn­er mis­takes by push­ing a but­ton and admin­is­ter­ing an elec­tric shock; while they could not see the learn­er, par­tic­i­pants could hear his screams. The con­fed­er­ate, of course, remained unharmed, and mere­ly act­ed out in pain, with each mis­take cost­ing him an addi­tion­al 15 volts of pun­ish­ment. In case par­tic­i­pants fal­tered in their sci­en­tif­ic resolve, the exper­i­menter was near­by to urge them, using four author­i­ta­tive state­ments:

Please con­tin­ue.

The exper­i­ment requires that you con­tin­ue.

It is absolute­ly essen­tial that you con­tin­ue.

You have no oth­er choice, you must go on.

In a jar­ring set of find­ings, Mil­gram found that 26 of the 40 par­tic­i­pants obeyed instruc­tions, admin­is­ter­ing shocks all the way from “Slight Shock,” to “Dan­ger: Severe Shock.” The final two omi­nous switch­es were sim­ply marked “XXX.” Even when the learn­ers would pound on the walls in agony after seem­ing­ly receiv­ing 300 volts, par­tic­i­pants per­sist­ed. Even­tu­al­ly, the learn­er sim­ply stopped respond­ing.

Although they fol­lowed instruc­tions, par­tic­i­pants repeat­ed­ly expressed their desire to stop the exper­i­ment, and showed clear signs of extreme dis­com­fort:

“I observed a mature and ini­tial­ly poised busi­ness­man enter the lab­o­ra­to­ry smil­ing and con­fi­dent. With­in 20 min­utes he was reduced to a twitch­ing, stut­ter­ing wreck, who was rapid­ly approach­ing a point of ner­vous col­lapse… At one point he pushed his fist into his fore­head and mut­tered: “Oh God, let’s stop it.” And yet he con­tin­ued to respond to every word of the exper­i­menter, and obeyed to the end.” 

Milgram’s study set off a pow­der keg whose impact remains felt to this day. Eth­i­cal­ly, many object­ed to the decep­tion and the lack of ade­quate par­tic­i­pant debrief­ing. Oth­ers claimed that Mil­gram overem­pha­sized human nature’s propen­si­ty for blind obe­di­ence, with the exper­i­menter often urg­ing par­tic­i­pants to con­tin­ue many more times than the four stock phras­es allowed.

In the clip above, you can watch orig­i­nal footage from Milgram’s  exper­i­ment, fright­en­ing in its insid­i­ous sim­plic­i­ty. (See a full doc­u­men­tary on the study below.) The man admin­is­ter­ing the shock grows increas­ing­ly uncom­fort­able with his part in the pro­ceed­ings, and almost walks out, ask­ing “Who’s going to take the respon­si­bil­i­ty for any­thing that hap­pens to that gen­tle­man?” When the exper­i­menter replies, “I’m respon­si­ble,” the man, absolv­ing him­self, con­tin­ues. As the per­son receiv­ing the shocks grows increas­ing­ly pan­icked, com­plain­ing about his heart and ask­ing to be let out, the par­tic­i­pant makes his objec­tions known but appears par­a­lyzed, sheep­ish­ly turn­ing to the exper­i­menter, unable to leave.

Although Milgram’s work has drawn crit­ics, his results endure. While chang­ing the experiment’s pro­ce­dure may alter com­pli­ance (e.g., hav­ing the exper­i­menter speak to par­tic­i­pants over the phone rather than remain in the same room through­out the exper­i­ment decreased obe­di­ence rates), repli­ca­tions have tend­ed to con­firm Milgram’s ini­tial find­ings. Whether one is urged once or a dozen times, peo­ple tend to take on the yoke of author­i­ty as absolute, relin­quish­ing their per­son­al agency in the pain they impart. Human nature, it seems, has no Manichean leanings—merely a pli­ant bent.

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in Novem­ber 2013.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Lit­tle Albert Exper­i­ment: The Per­verse 1920 Study That Made a Baby Afraid of San­ta Claus & Bun­nies

The Pow­er of Con­for­mi­ty: 1962 Episode of Can­did Cam­era Reveals the Strange Psy­chol­o­gy of Rid­ing Ele­va­tors

Her­mann Rorschach’s Orig­i­nal Rorschach Test: What Do You See? (1921)

Carl Gus­tav Jung Explains His Ground­break­ing The­o­ries About Psy­chol­o­gy in Rare Inter­view (1957)

Free Online Cours­es Psy­chol­o­gy

Ilia Blin­d­er­man is a Mon­tre­al-based sci­ence and cul­ture writer. Fol­low him at @iliablinderman

The Visionary Mystical Art of Carl Jung: See Illustrated Pages from The Red Book

Carl Jung’s Liber Novus, bet­ter known as The Red Book, has only recent­ly come to light in a com­plete Eng­lish trans­la­tion, pub­lished by Nor­ton in a 2009 fac­sim­i­le edi­tion and a small­er “reader’s edi­tion” in 2012. The years since have seen sev­er­al exhi­bi­tions of the book, which “could pass for a Bible ren­dered by a medieval monk,” writes art crit­ic Peter Frank, “espe­cial­ly for the care with which Jung entered his writ­ing as ornate Goth­ic script.”

Jung “refused to think of him­self as an ‘artist’” but “it’s no acci­dent the Liber Novus has been exhib­it­ed in muse­ums, or func­tioned as the nucle­us of ‘Ency­clo­pe­dic Palace,’ the sur­vey of vision­ary art in the 2013 Venice Bien­nale.” Jung’s elab­o­rate paint­ings show him “every bit the artist the medieval monk or Per­sian courtier was; his art hap­pened to be ded­i­cat­ed not to the glo­ry of God or king, but that of the human race.”

One could more accu­rate­ly say that Jung’s book was ded­i­cat­ed to the mys­ti­cal uncon­scious, a much more neb­u­lous and ocean­ic cat­e­go­ry. The “ocean­ic feeling”—a phrase coined in 1927 by French play­wright Romain Rol­land to describe mys­ti­cal oneness—so annoyed Sig­mund Freud that he dis­missed it as infan­tile regres­sion.

Freud’s antipa­thy to mys­ti­cism, as we know, did not dis­suade Jung, his one­time stu­dent and admir­er, from div­ing in and swim­ming to the deep­est depths. The voy­age began long before he met his famous men­tor. At age 11, Jung lat­er wrote in 1959, “I found that I had been in a mist, not know­ing how to dif­fer­en­ti­ate myself from things; I was just one among many things.”

Jung con­sid­ered his elab­o­rate dream/vision journal—kept from 1913 to 1930, then added to spo­rad­i­cal­ly until 1961—“the cen­tral work in his oeu­vre,” says Jung schol­ar Sonu Sham­dasani in the Rubin Muse­um intro­duc­tion above. “It is lit­er­al­ly his most impor­tant work.”

And yet it took Dr. Sham­dasani “three years to con­vince Jung’s fam­i­ly to bring the book out of hid­ing,” notes NPR. “It took anoth­er 13 years to trans­late it.” Part of the rea­son his heirs left the book hid­den in a Swiss vault for half a cen­tu­ry may be evi­dent in the only por­tion of the Red Book to appear in Jung’s life­time. “The Sev­en Ser­mons of the Dead.”

Jung had this text pri­vate­ly print­ed in 1916 and gave copies to select friends and fam­i­ly mem­bers. He com­posed it in 1913 in a peri­od of Gnos­tic stud­ies, dur­ing which he entered into vision­ary trance states, tran­scrib­ing his visions in note­books called the “Black Books,” which would lat­er be rewrit­ten in The Red Book.

You can see a page of Jung’s metic­u­lous­ly hand-let­tered man­u­script above. The “Ser­mons,” he wrote in a lat­er inter­pre­ta­tion, came to him dur­ing an actu­al haunt­ing:

The atmos­phere was thick, believe me! Then I knew that some­thing had to hap­pen. The whole house was filled as if there were a crowd present, crammed full of spir­its. They were packed deep right up to the door, and the air was so thick it was scarce­ly pos­si­ble to breathe. As for myself, I was all a‑quiver with the ques­tion: “For God’s sake, what in the world is this?” Then they cried out in cho­rus, “We have come back from Jerusalem where we found not what we sought/’ That is the begin­ning of the Septem Ser­mones. 

The strange, short “ser­mons” are dif­fi­cult to cat­e­go­rize. They are awash in Gnos­tic the­ol­o­gy and occult terms like “plero­ma.” The great mys­ti­cal one­ness of ocean­ic feel­ing also took on a very sin­is­ter aspect in the demigod Abraxas, who “beget­teth truth and lying, good and evil, light and dark­ness, in the same word and in the same act. Where­fore is Abraxas ter­ri­ble.”

There are tedious, didac­tic pas­sages, for con­verts only, but much of Jung’s writ­ing in the “Sev­en Ser­mons,” and through­out The Red Book, is filled with strange obscure poet­ry, com­ple­ment­ed by his intense illus­tra­tions. Jung “took on the sim­i­lar­ly styl­ized and beau­ti­ful man­ners of non-west­ern word-image con­fla­tion,” writes Frank, “includ­ing Per­sian minia­ture paint­ing and east Asian cal­lig­ra­phy.”

If The Red Book is, as Sham­dasani claims, Jung’s most impor­tant work—and Jung him­self, though he kept it qui­et, seemed to think it was—then we may in time come to think of him as not only as an inspir­er of eccen­tric artists, but as an eccen­tric artist him­self, on par with the great illu­mi­na­tors and vision­ary mys­tic poet/painters.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Carl Jung: Tarot Cards Pro­vide Door­ways to the Uncon­scious, and Maybe a Way to Pre­dict the Future

The Famous Break Up of Sig­mund Freud & Carl Jung Explained in a New Ani­mat­ed Video

Carl Jung Explains His Ground­break­ing The­o­ries About Psy­chol­o­gy in a Rare Inter­view (1957)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

When Salvador Dali Met Sigmund Freud, and Changed Freud’s Mind About Surrealism (1938)

The close asso­ci­a­tions between Sur­re­al­ism and Freudi­an psy­cho­analy­sis were lib­er­al­ly encour­aged by the most famous pro­po­nent of the move­ment, Sal­vador Dalí, who con­sid­ered him­self a devot­ed fol­low­er of Freud. We don’t have to won­der what the founder of psy­cho­analy­sis would have thought of his self-appoint­ed pro­tégé.

We have them record­ing, in their own words, their impres­sions of their one and only meeting—which took place in July of 1938, at Freud’s home in Lon­don. Freud was 81, Dali 34. We also have sketch­es Dali made of Freud while the two sat togeth­er. Their mem­o­ries of events, shall we say, dif­fer con­sid­er­ably, or at least they seemed total­ly bewil­dered by each oth­er. (Freud pro­nounced Dali a “fanat­ic.”)

In any case, There’s absolute­ly no way the encounter could have lived up to Dali’s expec­ta­tions, as the Freud Muse­um Lon­don notes:

[Dalí] had already trav­elled to Vien­na sev­er­al times but failed to make an intro­duc­tion. Instead, he wrote in his auto­bi­og­ra­phy, he spent his time hav­ing “long and exhaus­tive imag­i­nary con­ver­sa­tions” with his hero, at one point fan­ta­siz­ing that he “came home with me and stayed all night cling­ing to the cur­tains of my room in the Hotel Sach­er.”

Freud was cer­tain­ly not going to indulge Dalí’s pecu­liar fan­tasies, but what the artist real­ly want­ed was val­i­da­tion of his work—and maybe his very being. “Dali had spent his teens and ear­ly twen­ties read­ing Freud’s works on the uncon­scious,” writes Paul Gal­lagher at Dan­ger­ous Minds, “on sex­u­al­i­ty and The Inter­pre­ta­tion of Dreams.” He was obsessed. Final­ly meet­ing Freud in ’38, he must have felt “like a believ­er might feel when com­ing face-to-face with God.”

He brought with him his lat­est paint­ing The Meta­mor­pho­sis of Nar­cis­sus, and an arti­cle he had pub­lished on para­noia. This, espe­cial­ly, Dali hoped would gain the respect of the elder­ly Freud.

Try­ing to inter­est him, I explained that it was not a sur­re­al­ist diver­sion, but was real­ly an ambi­tious­ly sci­en­tif­ic arti­cle, and I repeat­ed the title, point­ing to it at the same time with my fin­ger. Before his imper­turbable indif­fer­ence, my voice became invol­un­tar­i­ly sharp­er and more insis­tent.

On being shown the paint­ing, Freud sup­pos­ed­ly said, “in clas­sic paint­ings I look for the uncon­scious, but in your paint­ings I look for the con­scious.” The com­ment stung, though Dali wasn’t entire­ly sure what it meant. But he took it as fur­ther evi­dence that the meet­ing was a bust. Sketch­ing Freud in the draw­ing below, he wrote, “Freud’s cra­ni­um is a snail! His brain is in the form of a spiral—to be extract­ed with a nee­dle!”

One might see why Freud was sus­pi­cious of Sur­re­al­ists, “who have appar­ent­ly cho­sen me as their patron saint,” he wrote to Ste­fan Zweig, the mutu­al friend who intro­duced him to Dali. In 1921, poet and Sur­re­al­ist man­i­festo writer André Bre­ton “had shown up unin­vit­ed on [Freud’s] doorstep.” Unhap­py with his recep­tion, Bre­ton pub­lished a “bit­ter attack,” call­ing Freud an “old man with­out ele­gance” and lat­er accused Freud of pla­gia­riz­ing him.

Despite the mem­o­ry of this nas­ti­ness, and Freud’s gen­er­al dis­taste for mod­ern art, he could­n’t help but be impressed with Dali. “Until then,” he wrote to Zweig, “I was inclined to look upon the sur­re­al­ists… as absolute (let us say 95 per­cent, like alco­hol), cranks. That young Spaniard, how­ev­er, with his can­did and fanat­i­cal eyes, and his unde­ni­able tech­ni­cal mas­tery, has made me recon­sid­er my opin­ion.”

via Dan­ger­ous Minds

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Sal­vador Dalí’s Tarot Cards Get Re-Issued: The Occult Meets Sur­re­al­ism in a Clas­sic Tarot Card Deck

George Orwell Reviews Sal­vador Dali’s Auto­bi­og­ra­phy: “Dali is a Good Draughts­man and a Dis­gust­ing Human Being” (1944)

The Famous Break Up of Sig­mund Freud & Carl Jung Explained in a New Ani­mat­ed Video

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Can You Spot Liars Through Their Body Language? A Former FBI Agent Breaks Down the Clues in Non-Verbal Communication

Can you spot a liar? We all know peo­ple who think they can, and very often they claim to be able to do so by read­ing “body lan­guage.” Clear­ing one’s throat, touch­ing one’s mouth, cross­ing one’s arms, look­ing away: these and oth­er such ges­tures, they say, indi­cate on the part of the speak­er a cer­tain dis­tance from the truth. In the WIRED “Trade­craft” video above, how­ev­er for­mer FBI spe­cial agent Joe Navar­ro more than once pro­nounces ideas about such phys­i­cal lie indi­ca­tors “non­sense.” And hav­ing spent 25 years work­ing to iden­ti­fy peo­ple pre­sent­ing them­selves false­ly to the world — “my job was to catch spies,” he says — he should know, at the very least, what isn’t a tell.

Not that all the throat-clear­ing and arm-cross­ing does­n’t indi­cate some­thing. Navar­ro calls such behav­iors “self-soothers,” phys­i­cal actions we use to paci­fy our­selves in stress­ful moments. Of course, even if self-soothers pro­vide no use­ful infor­ma­tion about whether a per­son is telling the truth, that does­n’t mean they pro­vide no use­ful infor­ma­tion at all.

But Navar­ro’s career has taught him that actions deci­sive­ly indi­cat­ing decep­tion are much more spe­cif­ic, and with­out rel­e­vant knowl­edge com­plete­ly illeg­i­ble: take the sus­pect­ed spy he had under sur­veil­lance who gave the game away just by leav­ing a flower shop hold­ing a bou­quet fac­ing not upward but down­ward, “how they car­ry flow­ers in east­ern Europe.”

For the most part, detect­ing a liar requires a great deal of what Navar­ro calls “face time,” a neces­si­ty when it comes to observ­ing the full range of and pat­terns in an indi­vid­u­al’s forms of non-ver­bal com­mu­ni­ca­tion. In the video he ana­lyzes footage of a pok­er game, the kind of set­ting that height­ens our aware­ness of such non-ver­bal com­mu­ni­ca­tion. At the table we all know to put on a “pok­er face” and shut our mouths, but even when we say noth­ing, Navar­ro empha­sizes, we’re con­stant­ly trans­mit­ting a high quan­ti­ty of infor­ma­tion about our­selves. What­ev­er the set­ting, it comes through in how we dress, how we walk, how we car­ry our­selves — espe­cial­ly if we think it does­n’t. In the eyes of those who know how to inter­pret this infor­ma­tion, all the world becomes a pok­er game.

Navar­ro is the author of two books on this sub­ject: The Dic­tio­nary of Body Lan­guage: A Field Guide to Human Behav­ior and What Every Body Is Say­ing: An Ex-FBI Agen­t’s Guide to Speed-Read­ing Peo­ple. For a con­trar­i­an point of view that chal­lenges the idea that we can ever read peo­ple accu­rate­ly, see Mal­colm Glad­well’s new book, Talk­ing to Strangers: What We Should Know about the Peo­ple We Don’t Know.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Han­nah Arendt Explains How Pro­pa­gan­da Uses Lies to Erode All Truth & Moral­i­ty: Insights from The Ori­gins of Total­i­tar­i­an­ism

How to Spot Bull­shit: A Primer by Prince­ton Philoso­pher Har­ry Frank­furt

FBI’s “Vault” Web Site Reveals Declas­si­fied Files on Hem­ing­way, Ein­stein, Mar­i­lyn & Oth­er Icons

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. His projects include the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

A Visual Introduction to Kintsugi, the Japanese Art of Repairing Broken Pottery and Finding Beauty in Imperfection

Kintsu­gi, the Japan­ese art of join­ing bro­ken pot­tery with gleam­ing seams of gold or sil­ver, cre­ates fine art objects we can see as sym­bols for the beau­ty of vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty. Sure­ly, these bowls, cups, vas­es, etc. remind of us Leonard Cohen’s oft-quot­ed lyric from “Anthem” (“There is a crack in every­thing, that’s how the light gets in.”) Writer and artist Austin Kleon touch­es on this same sen­ti­ment in a recent post on his blog. “The thing I love the most about Kintsu­gi is the vis­i­ble trace of heal­ing and repair—the idea of high­light­ed, glow­ing scars.”

Kintsu­gi, which trans­lates to “gold­en join­ery,” has a his­to­ry that dates back to the 15th cen­tu­ry, as Col­in Mar­shall explained in a pre­vi­ous post here. But it’s fas­ci­nat­ing how much this art res­onates with our con­tem­po­rary dis­course around trau­ma and heal­ing.

“We all grow up believ­ing we should empha­size the inher­ent pos­i­tives about our­selves,” writes Mar­shall, “but what if we also empha­sized the neg­a­tives, the parts we’ve had to work to fix or improve? If we did it just right, would the neg­a­tives still look so neg­a­tive after all?”

A key idea here is “doing it just right.” Kintsu­gi is not a warts-and-all pre­sen­ta­tion, but a means of turn­ing bro­ken­ness into art, a skill­ful real­iza­tion of the Japan­ese idea of wabi-sabi, the “beau­ty of things imper­fect, imper­ma­nent, and incom­plete,” as Leonard Koren writes in Wabi-Sabi for Artists, Design­ers, Poets & Philoso­phers. Objects that rep­re­sent wabi-sabi “may exhib­it the effects of acci­dent, like a bro­ken bowl glued back togeth­er again.” In kintsu­gi, those effects are due to the artist’s craft rather than ran­dom chance.

When it comes to heal­ing psy­chic wounds so that they shine like pre­cious met­als, there seems to be no one per­fect method. But when we’re talk­ing about the artistry of kintsu­gi, there are some—from the most refined arti­san­ship to less rig­or­ous do-it-your­self techniques—we can all adopt with some suc­cess. In the video at the top, learn DIY kintsu­gi from World Crafted’s Robert Mahar. Fur­ther up, we have an inten­sive, word­less demon­stra­tion from pro­fes­sion­al kintsu­gi artist Kyoko Ohwa­ki.

And just above, see psy­chol­o­gist Alexa Alt­man trav­el to Japan to learn kintsu­gi, then make it “acces­si­ble” with an expla­na­tion of both the phys­i­cal process of kintsu­gi and its metaphor­i­cal dimen­sions. As Alt­man shows, kintsu­gi can just as well be made from things bro­ken on pur­pose as by acci­dent. When it comes to the beau­ti­ful­ly flawed fin­ished prod­uct, how­ev­er, per­haps how a thing was bro­ken mat­ters far less than the amount of care and skill we use to join it back togeth­er.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Kintsu­gi: The Cen­turies-Old Japan­ese Craft of Repair­ing Pot­tery with Gold & Find­ing Beau­ty in Bro­ken Things

The Philo­soph­i­cal Appre­ci­a­tion of Rocks in Chi­na & Japan: A Short Intro­duc­tion to an Ancient Tra­di­tion

Wabi-Sabi: A Short Film on the Beau­ty of Tra­di­tion­al Japan

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Ram Dass (RIP) Offers Wisdom on Confronting Aging and Dying

After his dis­missal from Har­vard for research­ing LSD with Tim­o­thy Leary, Richard Alpert left the U.S. for India in 1967. He devot­ed him­self to the teach­ings of Hin­du teacher Neem Karoli Baba and returned to the States a per­ma­nent­ly changed man, with a new name and a mes­sage he first spread via the col­lab­o­ra­tive­ly-edit­ed and illus­trat­ed 1971 clas­sic Be Here Now.

In the “philo­soph­i­cal­ly misty, stub­born­ly res­o­nant Bud­dhist-Hin­du-Chris­t­ian mash-up,” writes David March­ese at The New York Times, Ram Dass “extolled the now-com­mon­place, then-nov­el (to West­ern hip­pies, at least) idea that pay­ing deep atten­tion to the present moment—that is, mindfulness—is the best path to a mean­ing­ful life.” We’ve grown so used to hear­ing this by now that we’ve like­ly become a lit­tle numb to it, even if we’ve bought into the premise and the prac­tice of med­i­ta­tion.

Ram Dass dis­cov­ered that mind­ful aware­ness was not part of any self-improve­ment project but a way of being ordi­nary and aban­don­ing excess self-con­cern. “The more your aware­ness is expand­ed, the more it becomes just a nat­ur­al part of your life, like eat­ing or sleep­ing or going to the toi­let” he says in the excerpt above from a talk he gave on “Con­scious Aging” in 1992. “If you’re full of ego, if you’re full of your­self, you’re doing it out of right­eous­ness to prove you’re a good per­son.”

To real­ly open our­selves up to real­i­ty, we must be will­ing to put desire aside and become “irrel­e­vant.” That’s a tough ask in a cul­ture that val­ues few things more high­ly than fame, youth, and beau­ty and fears noth­ing more than aging, loss, and death. Our cul­ture “den­i­grates non-youth,” Ram Dass wrote in 2017, and thus stig­ma­tizes and ignores a nat­ur­al process every­one must all endure if they live long enough.

[W]hat I real­ized many years ago was I went into train­ing to be a kind of elder, or social philoso­pher, or find a role that would be com­fort­able as I became irrel­e­vant in the youth mar­ket. Now I’ve seen in inter­view­ing old peo­ple that the minute you cling to some­thing that was a moment ago, you suf­fer. You suf­fer when you have your face lift­ed to be who you wish you were then, for a lit­tle longer, because you know it’s tem­po­rary.

The minute you pit your­self against nature, the minute you pit your­self with your mind against change, you are ask­ing for suf­fer­ing.

Old­er adults are pro­ject­ed to out­num­ber chil­dren in the next decade or so, with a health­care sys­tem designed to extract max­i­mum prof­it for the min­i­mal amount of care. The denial of aging and death cre­ates “a very cru­el cul­ture,” Ram Dass writes, “and the bizarre sit­u­a­tion is that as the demo­graph­ic changes, and the baby boomers come along and get old, what you have is an aging soci­ety and a youth mythology”—a recipe for mass suf­fer­ing if there ever was one.

We can and should, Ram Dass believed, advo­cate for bet­ter social pol­i­cy. But to change our col­lec­tive approach to aging and death, we must also, indi­vid­u­al­ly, con­front our own fears of mor­tal­i­ty, no mat­ter how old we are at the moment. The spir­i­tu­al teacher and writer, who passed away yes­ter­day at age 88, con­front­ed death for decades and helped stu­dents do the same with books like 2001’s Still Here: Embrac­ing Aging, Chang­ing, and Dying and his series of talks on “Con­scious Aging,” which you can hear in full fur­ther up.

“Record­ed at the Con­scious Aging con­fer­ence spon­sored by the Omega Insti­tute in 1992,” notes the Ram Dass Love Serve Remem­ber Foun­da­tion, the con­fer­ence “was the first of its kind on aging. Ram Dass had just turned six­ty.” He begins his first talk with a joke about pur­chas­ing his first senior cit­i­zen tick­et and says he felt like a teenag­er until he hit fifty. But jok­ing aside, he learned ear­ly that real­ly liv­ing in the present means fac­ing aging and death in all its forms.

Ram Dass met aging with wis­dom, humor, and com­pas­sion, as you can see in the recent video above. As we remem­ber his life, we can also turn to decades of his teach­ing to learn how to become kinder to our­selves and oth­ers (a dis­tinc­tion with­out a real dif­fer­ence, he argued), as we all face the inevitable togeth­er.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Wis­dom of Ram Dass Is Now Online: Stream 150 of His Enlight­ened Spir­i­tu­al Talks as Free Pod­casts

You’re Only As Old As You Feel: Har­vard Psy­chol­o­gist Ellen Langer Shows How Men­tal Atti­tude Can Poten­tial­ly Reverse the Effects of Aging

Bertrand Russell’s Advice For How (Not) to Grow Old: “Make Your Inter­ests Grad­u­al­ly Wider and More Imper­son­al”

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Discover the Stendhal Syndrome: The Condition Where People Faint, or Feel Totally Overwhelmed, in the Presence of Great Art

Clutch imag­i­nary pearls, rest the back of your hand on your fore­head, look wan and strick­en, begin to wilt, and most peo­ple will rec­og­nize the symp­toms of your sar­casm, aimed at some pejo­ra­tive­ly fem­i­nized qual­i­ties we’ve seen char­ac­ters embody in movies. The “lit­er­ary swoon” as Iaian Bam­forth writes at the British Jour­nal of Gen­er­al Prac­tice, dates back much fur­ther than film, to the ear­ly years of the mod­ern nov­el itself, and it was once a male domain.

“Some­where around the time of the French Rev­o­lu­tion (or per­haps a lit­tle before it) feel­ings were let loose on the world.” Ratio­nal­ism went out vogue and pas­sion was in—lots of it, though not all at once. It took some decades before the dis­cov­ery of emo­tion reached the cli­max of Roman­ti­cism and denoue­ment of Vic­to­ri­an sen­ti­men­tal­i­ty:

Back in 1761, read­ers had swooned when they encoun­tered the ‘true voice of feel­ing’ in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s nov­el La Nou­velle Héloïse; by the end of the decade, all of Europe was being sen­ti­men­tal in the man­ner made fash­ion­able a few years lat­er by Lau­rence Sterne in his A Sen­ti­men­tal Jour­ney. Then there was Goethe’s novel­la, The Sor­rows of Young Werther (1774), which made its author a celebri­ty.

It’s impos­si­ble to over­state how pop­u­lar Goethe’s book became among the aris­to­crat­ic young men of Europe. Napoleon “reput­ed­ly car­ried a copy of the nov­el with him on his mil­i­tary cam­paign.” Its swoon­ing hero, whom we might be tempt­ed to diag­nose with any num­ber of per­son­al­i­ty and mood dis­or­ders, devel­ops a dis­turb­ing and debil­i­tat­ing obses­sion with an engaged woman and final­ly com­mits sui­cide. The nov­el sup­pos­ed­ly inspired many copy­cats and “the media’s first moral pan­ic.”

If we can feel such exal­ta­tion, dis­qui­et, and fear when in the grip of roman­tic pas­sion, or when faced with nature’s implaca­ble behe­moths, as in Kan­t’s Sub­lime, so too may we be over­come by art. Napoleon­ic nov­el­ist Stend­hal sug­gest­ed as much in a dra­mat­ic account of such an expe­ri­ence. Stend­hal, the pen name of Marie-Hen­ri Beyle, was no inex­pe­ri­enced dream­er. He had trav­eled and fought exten­sive­ly with the Grand Army (includ­ing that fate­ful march through Rus­sia, and back) and had held sev­er­al gov­ern­ment offices abroad. His real­ist fic­tion didn’t always com­port with the more lyri­cal tenor of the times.

Pho­to of the Basil­i­ca of San­ta Croce by Diana Ringo, via Wiki­me­dia Com­mons

But he was also of the gen­er­a­tion of young men who read Werther while tour­ing Europe, con­tem­plat­ing the vari­eties of emo­tion. He had held a sim­i­lar­ly unre­quit­ed obses­sion for an unavail­able woman, and once wrote that “in Italy… peo­ple are still dri­ven to despair by love.” Dur­ing a vis­it to the Basil­i­ca of San­ta Croce in 1817, he “found a monk to let him into the chapel,” writes Bam­forth, “where he could sit on a gen­u­flect­ing stool, tilt his head back and take in the prospect of Volterrano’s fres­co of the Sibyls with­out inter­rup­tion.” As Stend­hal described the scene:

I was already in a kind of ecsta­sy by the idea of being in Flo­rence, and the prox­im­i­ty of the great men whose tombs I had just seen. Absorbed in con­tem­plat­ing sub­lime beau­ty, I saw it close-up—I touched it, so to speak. I had reached that point of emo­tion where the heav­en­ly sen­sa­tions of the fine arts meet pas­sion­ate feel­ing. As I emerged from San­ta Croce, I had pal­pi­ta­tions (what they call an attack of the nerves in Berlin); the life went out of me, and I walked in fear of falling.

With the record­ing of this expe­ri­ence, Stend­hal “brought the lit­er­ary swoon into tourism,” Bam­forth remarks. Such pas­sages became far more com­mon­place in trav­el­ogues, not least those involv­ing the city of Flo­rence. So many cas­es sim­i­lar to Stend­hal’s have been report­ed in the city that the con­di­tion acquired the name Stend­hal syn­drome in the late sev­en­ties from Dr. Gra­ziel­la Magheri­ni, chief of psy­chi­a­try at the San­ta Maria Nuo­va Hos­pi­tal. It presents as an acute state of exhil­a­rat­ed anx­i­ety that caus­es peo­ple to feel faint, or to col­lapse, in the pres­ence of art.

Magheri­ni and her assis­tants com­piled stud­ies of 107 dif­fer­ent cas­es in 1989. Since then, San­ta Maria Nuo­va has con­tin­ued to treat tourists for the syn­drome with some reg­u­lar­i­ty. “Dr. Magheri­ni insists,” writes The New York Times, that “cer­tain men and women are sus­cep­ti­ble to swoon­ing in the pres­ence of great art, espe­cial­ly when far from home.” Stend­hal didn’t invent the phe­nom­e­non, of course. And it need not be sole­ly caused by suf­fer­ers’ love of the 15th cen­tu­ry.

The stress­es of trav­el can some­times be enough to make any­one faint, though fur­ther research may rule out oth­er fac­tors. The effect, how­ev­er, does not seem to occur with near­ly as much fre­quen­cy in oth­er major cities with oth­er major cul­tur­al trea­sures. “It is sure­ly the sheer con­cen­tra­tion of great art in Flo­rence that caus­es such issues,” claims Jonathan Jones at The Guardian. Try­ing to take it all in while nav­i­gat­ing unfa­mil­iar streets and crowds.… “More cyn­i­cal­ly, some might say the long queues do add a lay­er of stress on the heart.”

There’s also no dis­count­ing the effect of expec­ta­tion. “It is among reli­gious trav­el­ers that Stendhal’s syn­drome seems to have found its most florid expres­sion,” notes Bam­forth. Stend­hal admit­ted that his “ecsta­sy” began with an aware­ness of his “prox­im­i­ty of the great men whose tombs I had just seen.” With­out his pri­or edu­ca­tion, the effect might have dis­ap­peared entire­ly. The sto­ry of the Renais­sance, in his time and ours, has impressed upon us such a rev­er­ence for its artists, states­men, and engi­neers, that sen­si­tive vis­i­tors may feel they can hard­ly stand in the actu­al pres­ence of Flo­rence’s abun­dant trea­sures.

Per­haps Stend­hal syn­drome should be regard­ed as akin to a spir­i­tu­al expe­ri­ence. A study of reli­gious trav­el­ers to Jerusalem found that “oth­er­wise nor­mal patients tend­ed to have ‘an ide­al­is­tic sub­con­scious image of Jerusalem’” before they suc­cumbed to Stend­hal syn­drome. Carl Jung described his own such feel­ings about Pom­peii and Rome, which he could nev­er bring him­self to vis­it because he lived in such awe of its his­tor­i­cal aura. Those primed to have symp­toms tend also to have a sen­ti­men­tal nature, a word that once meant great depth of feel­ing rather than a cal­low or mawk­ish nature.

We might all expect great art to over­whelm us, but Stend­hal syn­drome is rare and rar­i­fied. The expe­ri­ence of many more trav­el­ers accords with Mark Twain’s 1869 The Inno­cents Abroad, or The New Pilgrim’s Progress, a fic­tion­al­ized mem­oir “lam­poon­ing the grandiose trav­el accounts of his con­tem­po­raries,” notes Bam­forth. It became “one of the best-sell­ing trav­el books ever” and gave its author’s name to what one researcher calls Mark Twain Malaise, “a cyn­i­cal mood which over­comes trav­el­ers and leaves them total­ly unim­pressed with any­thing UNESCO has on its uni­ver­sal her­itage list.” Sen­ti­men­tal­ists might wish these weary tourists would stay home and let them swoon in peace.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Your Brain on Art: The Emerg­ing Sci­ence of Neu­roaes­thet­ics Probes What Art Does to Our Brains

1.8 Mil­lion Free Works of Art from World-Class Muse­ums: A Meta List of Great Art Avail­able Online

The Met­ro­pol­i­tan Muse­um of Art Puts 400,000 High-Res Images Online & Makes Them Free to Use

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

How to Improve Your Memory: Four TED Talks Explain the Techniques to Remember Anything

Offered the abil­i­ty to remem­ber every­thing, who among us could turn it down? For that mat­ter, who among us could turn down even a slight increase in our mem­o­ry capac­i­ty? If we’re old­er, we com­plain of for­get­ful­ness. If we’re younger, we com­plain that so lit­tle of what we’re sup­posed to learn for tests sticks. If we’re in the mid­dle, we com­plain of being “bad with names” and hav­ing trou­ble prop­er­ly orga­niz­ing all the tasks we need to com­plete. What­ev­er our stage in life, we could all use the kind of mem­o­ry-improv­ing tech­niques explained in these four TED Talks, the most pop­u­lar of which offers Swedish “mem­o­ry ath­lete” Idriz Zoga­j’s method of “How to Become a Mem­o­ry Mas­ter.”

Fram­ing his talk with the sto­ry of how he trained him­self to com­pete in the World Mem­o­ry Cham­pi­onships (yes, they exist), Zogaj rec­om­mends remem­ber­ing by mak­ing “a fun, vivid, ani­mat­ed sto­ry,” using all your sens­es.” “And do it in 3D, even though you don’t have the 3D gog­gles. Your brain is amaz­ing; it can do it any­way.” Telling your­self a sto­ry in such a way that con­nects seem­ing­ly unre­lat­ed images, words, num­bers, or oth­er pieces of infor­ma­tion gives those con­nec­tions strength in our brains.

In “How to Triple Your Mem­o­ry by Using This Trick,” Ricar­do Lieuw On rec­om­mends a sim­i­lar­ly sto­ry-based method, but empha­sizes the impor­tance of con­struct­ing it with “bizarre images.” And “if you tie these bizarre images to a place you know well, like your body, sud­den­ly mem­o­riz­ing things in order becomes a lot eas­i­er.”

In his TED Talk about dai­ly prac­tices to improve mem­o­ry, Kris­han Cha­hal divides “the art of mem­o­riz­ing” into two parts. The first entails “design­ing the infor­ma­tion or mod­i­fy­ing the infor­ma­tion in such a way so that it can catch your atten­tion,” mak­ing what you want to mem­o­rize more nat­u­ral­ly palat­able to “the taste of human mind” — sto­ries and strong visu­al images being per­haps the human mind’s tasti­est treat. The sec­ond involves cre­at­ing what he calls a “self-mean­ing sys­tem,” the best-known vari­ety of which is the mem­o­ry palace. The Mem­o­ry Tech­niques Wiki describes a mem­o­ry palace as “an imag­i­nary loca­tion in your mind where you can store mnemon­ic images,” typ­i­cal­ly mod­eled on “a place you know well, like a build­ing or town.” When mem­o­riz­ing, you store pieces infor­ma­tion in dif­fer­ent “loca­tions” with­in your mem­o­ry palace; when recall­ing, you take that same men­tal jour­ney through your palace and find every­thing where you left it.

The mem­o­ry palace came up here on Open Cul­ture ear­li­er this year when we fea­tured a video about how to mem­o­rize an entire chap­ter of Moby-Dick. Its cre­ator drew on Joshua Foer’s book Moon­walk­ing With Ein­stein: The Art and Sci­ence of Remem­ber­ing Every­thing, and if you want a taste of what Foer has learned about mem­o­ry, watch his TED Talk above. Foer, too, has spent time at the World Mem­o­ry Cham­pi­onships, and his ques­tions about how mem­o­ry ath­letes do what they do led him to the con­cept psy­chol­o­gists call “elab­o­ra­tive encod­ing,” the prac­tice of tak­ing infor­ma­tion “lack­ing in con­text, in sig­nif­i­cance, in mean­ing” and trans­form­ing it “so that it becomes mean­ing­ful in the light of all the oth­er things that you have in your mind.”

Elab­o­ra­tive encod­ing under­lies the effec­tive­ness of mem­o­riz­ing even the dri­est lists of facts in the form of sto­ries full of strik­ing and unusu­al sights. (Foer him­self opens with a mem­o­ry-aid­ing sto­ry star­ring “a pack of over­weight nud­ists on bicy­cles.”) No won­der so many of the great­est sto­ry­tellers have had a the­mat­ic pre­oc­cu­pa­tion with mem­o­ry. Take Jorge Luis Borges, author of “Shake­speare’s Mem­o­ry” (pre­vi­ous­ly fea­tured here on Open Cul­ture) and the even more (dare I say) mem­o­rable “Funes the Mem­o­ri­ous.” In the lat­ter a horse-rid­ing acci­dent robs a rur­al teenag­er of the abil­i­ty to for­get, bestow­ing upon him an effec­tive­ly infi­nite mem­o­ry — a pow­er that has him tak­ing an entire day to remem­ber an entire day and assign­ing a dif­fer­ent name (“the train,” “Máx­i­mo Perez,” “the whale,” “Napoleon”) to each and every num­ber in exis­tence. As much as we all want to remem­ber more things, sure­ly none of us wants to remem­ber every­thing.

Relat­ed Com­ment:

How to Mem­o­rize an Entire Chap­ter from “Moby Dick”: The Art and Sci­ence of Remem­ber­ing Every­thing

How to Focus: Five Talks Reveal the Secrets of Con­cen­tra­tion

What Are the Most Effec­tive Strate­gies for Learn­ing a For­eign Lan­guage?: Six TED Talks Pro­vide the Answers

This Is Your Brain on Exer­cise: Why Phys­i­cal Exer­cise (Not Men­tal Games) Might Be the Best Way to Keep Your Mind Sharp

Play Mark Twain’s “Mem­o­ry-Builder,” His Game for Remem­ber­ing His­tor­i­cal Facts & Dates

Hear “Shakespeare’s Mem­o­ry” by Jorge Luis Borges

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, the video series The City in Cin­e­maand the crowd­fund­ed jour­nal­ism project Where Is the City of the Future? Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast