The Psychology of Blame: Another Animated Lesson That Can Make You a Better Person

The last time we checked in with Dr. Brené Brown, a research pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Hous­ton Grad­u­ate Col­lege of Social Work, we learned all about the dif­fer­ence between sym­pa­thy and empa­thy, and why empa­thy is much more mean­ing­ful in the end. Now, in a sequel to that first video, we dis­cov­er an impor­tant bar­ri­er to empa­thy — blame. Can you relate? Both videos come from RSA (the Roy­al Soci­ety of the Arts), the same cul­tur­al orga­ni­za­tion that brought us those white­board ani­ma­tions illus­trat­ing lec­tures by Slavoj Zizek, Steven PinkerBar­bara Ehren­re­ich, and oth­ers. You can watch Brown’s com­plete (unan­i­mat­ed) lec­ture here.

Fol­low us on Face­book, Twit­ter, Google Plus and LinkedIn and  share intel­li­gent media with your friends. Or bet­ter yet, sign up for our dai­ly email and get a dai­ly dose of Open Cul­ture in your inbox.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Free Online Psy­chol­o­gy Cours­es (Part of our list of 1100 Free Online Cours­es)

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

Jacques Lacan’s Con­fronta­tion with a Young Rebel: Clas­sic Moment, 1972

New Ani­ma­tion Explains Sher­ry Turkle’s The­o­ries on Why Social Media Makes Us Lone­ly

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 2 ) |

Sigmund Freud’s Psychoanalytic Drawings Show How He First Visualized the Ego, Superego, Id & More

Id Ego Superego

It’s easy to think we know all there is to know about Sig­mund Freud. His name, after all, has become an adjec­tive, a sure sign that someone’s lega­cy has embed­ded itself in the cul­tur­al con­scious­ness. But did you know that the Ger­man neu­rol­o­gist we cred­it with the inven­tion of psy­cho­analy­sis, the diag­noses of hys­te­ria, dream inter­pre­ta­tion, and the death dri­ve began his career patient­ly dis­sect­ing eels in search of… eel tes­ti­cles? Per­haps you did know that. Per­haps you only sus­pect­ed it. There are few things about Freud—who also pio­neered both the med­ical and recre­ation­al use of cocaine, joined the august British Roy­al Soci­ety, and unwit­ting­ly re-engi­neered phi­los­o­phy and lit­er­ary criticism—that sur­prise me any­more. Freud was a pecu­liar­ly tal­ent­ed indi­vid­ual.

Freud 2

One area in which he excelled may seem mod­est next to his ros­ter of pub­li­ca­tions and celebri­ty acquain­tances, and yet, the doctor’s skill as a med­ical draughts­man and mak­er of dia­grams to illus­trate his the­o­ries sure­ly deserves some appre­ci­a­tion. Freud’s draw­ing received a book length treat­ment in 2006’s From Neu­rol­o­gy to Psy­cho­analy­sis: Sig­mund Freud’s Neu­ro­log­i­cal Draw­ings and Dia­grams of the Mind by Lynn Gamwell and Mark Solms. These are but a small sam­pling of the many works of med­ical art found with­in its cov­ers, tak­en from a 2006 exhib­it at the New York Acad­e­my of Med­i­cine of the largest col­lec­tion of Freud’s draw­ings ever assem­bled, in com­mem­o­ra­tion of his 150th birth­day.

Freud 3

As the title of the book indi­cates, the draw­ings lit­er­al­ly illus­trate the rad­i­cal shift Freud made from the hard sci­ence of neu­rol­o­gy to a prac­tice of his own inven­tion. Cura­tor Gamwell writes, “as Freud focused on increas­ing­ly com­plex men­tal func­tions such as dis­or­ders of lan­guage and mem­o­ry, he put aside any attempt to dia­gram the under­ly­ing phys­i­o­log­i­cal struc­ture, such as neu­ro­log­i­cal path­ways, and he began mak­ing schemat­ic images of hypo­thet­i­cal psy­cho­log­i­cal struc­tures,” i.e. the Ego, Super­ego, and Id, as rep­re­sent­ed at the top in a 1933 dia­gram. Below it, from 1921, see “Group Psy­chol­o­gy and the Analy­sis of the Ego,” a schemat­ic that “attempts to rep­re­sent rela­tions between the major men­tal sys­tems (or agen­cies) in a group of human minds.” And just above, see Freud’s dia­gram for “The Psy­chi­cal Mech­a­nism of For­get­ful­ness” from 1898, depict­ing “asso­cia­tive links between var­i­ous con­scious, pre­con­scious and uncon­scious word pre­sen­ta­tions.”

Freud 4

It is in these late nine­teenth-cen­tu­ry dia­grams that we see Freud make the defin­i­tive move from empir­i­cal­ly observed illus­tra­tions of phys­i­cal structures—like the 1878 “Spinal Gan­glia and Spinal Chord of Petromy­zom” above—to rela­tions between ideas and “con­cep­tu­al enti­ties that have no tan­gi­ble exis­tence in the phys­i­cal world.” That shift, gen­er­al­ly marked by the pub­li­ca­tion of Stud­ies in Hys­te­ria in 1895, caused Freud some unease. “Look­ing back over his career 30 years lat­er,” writes Mark Solms, “ his long­ing for the com­fort­able respectabil­i­ty of his ear­li­er career is still evi­dent.” Even at the time, Freud would write in Stud­ies in Hys­te­ria that his case his­to­ries “lack the seri­ous stamp of sci­ence.” Though his stud­ies of eel, lam­prey, and human brains involved tan­gi­ble, observ­able phe­nom­e­na, he approached the new dis­ci­pline of psy­cho­analy­sis with no less rig­or, stat­ing only that the “the nature of the sub­ject” had changed, not his method.

Freud 5

The draw­ings, writes Bene­dict Carey in the New York Times, “tell a sto­ry in three acts, from biol­o­gy to psy­chol­o­gy, from the micro­scope to the couch.” As Freud makes the tran­si­tion, his metic­u­lous­ly detailed med­ical work, copied from glass slides, gives way to loose out­lines. One draw­ing of the brain’s audi­to­ry sys­tem from 1886 (above) “is as spare and geo­met­ric as a Calder sculp­ture.” Just a few years lat­er, Freud sketched out the dia­gram below in 1894, a schemat­ic, writes Solms, of “the rela­tion­ship between var­i­ous nor­mal and patho­log­i­cal mood states and sex­u­al phys­i­ol­o­gy.” It’s his first pure­ly psy­cho­an­a­lyt­ic draw­ing, sketched in a let­ter to a col­league, Dr. Wil­helm Fleiss.

Freud 6

In the lat­er dia­grams, as we see above, his ten­ta­tive free­hand gave way to type­script and a tech­ni­cal draughtsman’s pre­ci­sion, with some draw­ings resem­bling, in Carey’s words, “the schemat­ic for an air-con­di­tion­ing sys­tem.” Freud seems to com­ment on the archi­tec­tur­al nature of these dia­grams when he writes in The Inter­pre­ta­tion of Dreams in 1900, “We are jus­ti­fied, in my view, in giv­ing free reign to our spec­u­la­tions so long as we retain the cool­ness of our judg­ment, and do not mis­take the scaf­fold­ing for the build­ing.” It’s a warn­ing many of Freud’s dis­ci­ples may not have heed­ed care­ful­ly enough.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

How a Young Sig­mund Freud Researched & Got Addict­ed to Cocaine, the New “Mir­a­cle Drug,” in 1894

Sig­mund Freud Writes to Con­cerned Moth­er: “Homo­sex­u­al­i­ty is Noth­ing to Be Ashamed Of” (1935)

Sig­mund Freud Appears in Rare, Sur­viv­ing Video & Audio Record­ed Dur­ing the 1930s

Free Online Psy­chol­o­gy Cours­es

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

The Keys to Happiness: The Emerging Science and the Upcoming MOOC by Raj Raghunathan

Psy­chol­o­gy has made many advances in the past few decades, notably in cog­ni­tive sci­ence, neu­ro­science, and behav­ioral psy­chol­o­gy. A major new focus area in psy­chol­o­gy that draws upon these dis­ci­plines start­ed in 1998 when Mar­tin Selig­man, then pres­i­dent of the Amer­i­can Psy­cho­log­i­cal Asso­ci­a­tion, called on his col­leagues to start study­ing hap­pi­ness, rather than ill­ness­es, the tra­di­tion­al focus of psy­chol­o­gy. The result was an explo­sion of research, aca­d­e­m­ic depart­ments, and pop­u­lar books and the cre­ation of a new field of ‘pos­i­tive psy­chol­o­gy’. It is this field that Dr. Raj Raghu­nathan stud­ies, and he pas­sion­ate­ly teach­es his stu­dents about the sci­ence of hap­pi­ness at the McCombs School of Busi­ness  at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Texas at Austin. He also writes a blog col­umn for Psy­chol­o­gy Today. This sum­mer, Raghu­nathan, who is cur­rent­ly vis­it­ing pro­fes­sor at the Indi­an School of Busi­ness, will be offer­ing his MOOC, A Life of Hap­pi­ness and Ful­fill­ment, to the pub­lic on the Cours­era plat­form.

It may be sur­pris­ing that a course on hap­pi­ness is being offered in busi­ness school, the sup­posed fac­to­ry of bud­ding ruth­less cap­i­tal­ists. How­ev­er, times are chang­ing, and enlight­ened busi­ness schools can be a good set­ting to think about the social and eco­nom­ic means and ends in our cur­rent soci­ety. In fact, it was a busi­ness con­text which steered Raghu­nathan towards study­ing hap­pi­ness in the first place:

When I vis­it­ed India in 2007 I met up with my class­mates from 15 years ago and I dis­cov­ered two things. One, there’s very lit­tle cor­re­la­tion between aca­d­e­m­ic suc­cess and career suc­cess. The peo­ple who were at the top weren’t nec­es­sar­i­ly the ones who were doing well in their careers, which is, of course, quite well known in the research. But sec­ond, there was an even small­er cor­re­la­tion between career suc­cess and life suc­cess. The guys who were real­ly suc­cess­ful weren’t able to main­tain a con­ver­sa­tion with me and weren’t able to be present, they were con­stant­ly dis­tract­ed. They had bags under their eyes, had put on weight, and it was clear that they weren’t very hap­py.

Fast for­ward and you find Raghu­nathan, after obtain­ing a PhD at New York Uni­ver­si­ty, a tenured fac­ul­ty mem­ber at the McCombs School of Busi­ness, a top-20 U.S. busi­ness school, teach­ing stu­dents about hap­pi­ness. There are only a few tenure-track pro­fes­sors in the coun­try teach­ing a whole course on hap­pi­ness in U.S. busi­ness schools, so Raghu­nathan has been a trail­blaz­er. It is also a great tes­ta­ment to the Indi­an School of Busi­ness, a pre­mier busi­ness pro­gram in a rapid­ly indus­tri­al­iz­ing coun­try, that this sub­ject was cho­sen to be their first MOOC offer­ing in its new part­ner­ship with Cours­era.

Hap­pi­ness Sci­ence vs. the Wis­dom Lit­er­a­ture

As peo­ple have been con­cerned with hap­pi­ness from before the dawn of civ­i­liza­tion, we’ve had many sources to turn to with regard to hap­pi­ness: intu­ition, tra­di­tion, rea­son, but most­ly, reli­gious and spir­i­tu­al wis­dom. Now sci­ence has recent­ly added a new dimen­sion to our under­stand­ing. We can see, for exam­ple, which parts of the brain are active dur­ing dif­fer­ent emo­tion­al states, and under­stand bet­ter the role of neu­ro­trans­mit­ters, such as sero­tonin and dopamine. One very con­ve­nient, prac­ti­cal result for psy­chol­o­gy is that these changes in brain states are large­ly cor­re­lat­ed with self-report­ed answers of how hap­py peo­ple feel—so hap­pi­ness is fair­ly straight­for­ward to mea­sure (you can take a 20-minute hap­pi­ness test here if you are inter­est­ed). So what have we found out about hap­pi­ness? It turns out that many of the find­ings sup­port the religious/spiritual view­points. For exam­ple:

  • Mon­ey can­not buy you hap­pi­ness, unless you’re poor. Robust sur­veys among a broad array of peo­ple across coun­tries indi­cate that beyond a cer­tain thresh­old, peo­ple do not report being hap­pi­er. Specif­i­cal­ly, in the U.S., Daniel Kah­ne­man and Angus Deaton found through a robust sur­vey of 450,000 Amer­i­cans that once peo­ple reach an income thresh­old of around $75,000 per year, they tend not to be any hap­pi­er.
  •  Car­ing for oth­ers is one of the most impor­tant things you can do. Anoth­er spe­cif­ic find­ing that the sci­ence brings us is the val­ue of altru­ism. Stud­ies have shown, for exam­ple, that when giv­en a small sum of mon­ey, the peo­ple who give it to oth­ers, rather than spend­ing it on them­selves, actu­al­ly report being hap­pi­er. Raghu­nathan also adds that being altru­is­tic does­n’t have to mean being bor­ing, and he has his class­es exper­i­ment with fun ways to be altru­is­tic.

These find­ings are sim­i­lar to the teach­ings of many wis­dom tra­di­tions, but they also give more specifics and pro­vide insight into the under­ly­ing mech­a­nisms involved. These can result in prac­ti­cal sug­ges­tions and tips for man­ag­ing our­selves bet­ter through set­ting up help­ful habits, mind­sets, and trig­gers. But a puz­zling ques­tion has emerged: why do we often not pur­sue what we sup­pos­ed­ly want?

The Fun­da­men­tal Hap­pi­ness Para­dox

There is a phe­nom­e­non that most of us will prob­a­bly rec­og­nize, which Raghu­nathan calls the Fun­da­men­tal Hap­pi­ness Para­dox: we want to achieve hap­pi­ness, but often pur­sue things that clear­ly don’t lead to it. Raghu­nathan elab­o­rates:

On the one hand peo­ple think hap­pi­ness is very, very impor­tant to them, so there­fore you would think that they ought to be mak­ing deci­sions are con­sis­tent with that, but when we observe their deci­sions, a good 50–60 per­cent of the time they are sac­ri­fic­ing hap­pi­ness for the sake of oth­er things as they go about their dai­ly lives, in lit­tle small ways, and even in big ways.

The prob­lem is that we pur­sue hap­pi­ness through var­i­ous means, such as mon­ey, sta­tus, esteem, or health, but we some­times over­ly fix­ate on these means rather than the ends. As a soci­ety we do rec­og­nize this on some level—think of all the movies and tele­vi­sion shows that end with the pro­tag­o­nists real­iz­ing what’s real­ly impor­tant to them. Yet, it tells you some­thing if we keep hav­ing to remind our­selves about this con­stant­ly and repet­i­tive­ly in our cul­tur­al sto­ries. Psy­chol­o­gy has already explained why we eat the last few Chee­tos in a bowl, and in the future may help explain this mys­tery of why we don’t pur­sue our hap­pi­ness as direct­ly as we could.

Hap­pi­ness Comes in Threes

The Three Pil­lars of Hap­pi­ness

So what should we do to pur­sue hap­pi­ness? Raghu­nathan groups the research find­ings into three main pil­lars:

  1. Pur­sue mean­ing­ful work – Try to spend your ener­gy in ways that are mean­ing­ful to you, at work or at home. Mihaly Csik­szent­mi­haly has pop­u­lar­ized the notion of “flow”, those times when we are doing some­thing that so ful­ly absorbs our atten­tion that we lose track of time (I guess I must be in “flow” when­ev­er I’m watch­ing Grey’s Anato­my…). From a career stand­point, Raghu­nathan rec­om­mends mak­ing pas­sion a cri­te­ri­on for choos­ing your work: “you spend so much time at work you might as well make that a mean­ing­ful thing that you are doing in your life”. Per­haps this is not fea­si­ble for every­one at every point in their career, but it is sure­ly a sound guid­ing prin­ci­ple, as it has been echoed by Steve Jobs, Thore­au, Glo­ria Este­fan, and oth­ers.
  2. Main­tain close rela­tion­ships – Most peo­ple, upon reflec­tion, con­sid­er the rela­tion­ships they’ve devel­oped with fam­i­ly, friends, col­leagues, and oth­ers to be the most mean­ing­ful part of their lives. How­ev­er, we often don’t place a high pri­or­i­ty on build­ing or main­tain­ing these. Rela­tion­ships are like invest­ments that require time and atten­tion, and they are bonds that rep­re­sent com­mit­ments and expec­ta­tions, yet we are quick to down­play or dis­miss them. Social sci­ence offers tips and prac­ti­cal sug­ges­tions for improv­ing rela­tion­ships, such as: giv­ing your brain a cool­ing off peri­od when you are angry, see­ing for­give­ness as an inte­gral part of free­ing up your own mind, and cul­ti­vat­ing face-to-face time in our mobile con­nect­ed world.
  3. Have a spir­i­tu­al atti­tude – A strong sense of spir­i­tu­al­i­ty, whether reli­gious­ly or oth­er­wise sourced, has been asso­ci­at­ed with reduced stress lev­els, and we know we can’t be hap­py when we are over-stressed. There is also grow­ing evi­dence that med­i­ta­tion prac­tices have ben­e­fi­cial effects. In fact, in the MOOC, Raghu­nathan will have a cou­ple of experts lead­ing par­tic­i­pants through the steps of the med­i­ta­tion process.

Do these three pil­lars reveal any shock­ing sur­pris­es? No, and thank­ful­ly not–otherwise it would be a dec­la­ra­tion that pre­vi­ous gen­er­a­tions had missed the boat on under­stand­ing hap­pi­ness (though Raghu­nathan points out that few spir­i­tu­al tra­di­tions empha­size the first pil­lar –pur­su­ing mean­ing­ful work). Rather, the con­tri­bu­tion of sci­ence is in the details. We start to see what cog­ni­tive dri­vers and bar­ri­ers to hap­pi­ness are. From this under­stand­ing comes evi­dence-based tech­niques and frame­works we can use to help our­selves con­struct hap­pi­er lives.

There is some seri­ous research on hap­pi­ness, and it has the poten­tial to direct­ly impact our lives. Whether you are in busi­ness school or high school, on the farm or in city hall, in a cubi­cle or at a retire­ment home—why wouldn’t you want to know more about what makes us hap­py? And you have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to be guid­ed by Dr. Raghu­nathan by sign­ing up for his free MOOC: A Life of Hap­pi­ness and Ful­fill­ment, which starts this sum­mer.

Char­lie Chung is pas­sion­ate about the inter­sec­tion of learn­ing and tech­nol­o­gy. He is Chief Edi­tor at Class Cen­tral, a MOOC search engine and reviews site. Spe­cial thanks to Raj Raghu­nathan, who agreed to be inter­viewed for this arti­cle, the Indi­an School of Busi­ness, and Cours­era.

All You Need is Love: The Keys to Happiness Revealed by a 75-Year Harvard Study

The lat­est install­ment from PBS’ Brain­Craft video series intro­duces us to two sci­en­tif­ic stud­ies that teach us a thing or two about what brings us hap­pi­ness. One set of results comes from Dr. John Gottman’s Fam­i­ly Research Lab­o­ra­to­ry (a.k.a. the “Love Lab”); the oth­er from the Har­vard Grant Study, a 75-year study that has traced the lives and devel­op­ment of 268 Har­vard sopho­mores from the class­es of 1939–1944. Although the study focus­es on priv­i­leged white men (the demo­graph­ic that attend­ed Har­vard Col­lege dur­ing the 1930s and 40s), the Har­vard Grant Study has yield­ed con­clu­sions that apply to a broad­er pop­u­la­tion.

One of the longest-run­ning stud­ies of adult devel­op­ment, the study has found, for exam­ple, that alco­holism has some of the most ruinous effects on mar­riages, fam­i­ly finances and per­son­al health. Like­wise, it reveals that lib­er­als have sex much fur­ther into old age than their con­ser­v­a­tive peers.

But those aren’t the big take­aways — the con­clu­sions that talk about hap­pi­ness. If you watch the inter­view below with George Vail­lant, the long­time direc­tor of the study, you will hear him con­clude that hap­pi­ness isn’t about “con­form­ing, keep­ing up with the Jone­ses. It is about play­ing, and work­ing, and lov­ing. And lov­ing is prob­a­bly the most impor­tant. Hap­pi­ness is love.”

Accord­ing to Vail­lant, “warmth of rela­tion­ships through­out life have the great­est pos­i­tive impact on ‘life sat­is­fac­tion.’ ” When we have warm rela­tion­ships with our par­ents, spous­es, friends and fam­i­ly, we expe­ri­ence less dai­ly anx­i­ety and a greater sense of over­all plea­sure; we have bet­ter health (includ­ing low­er lev­els of demen­tia lat­er in life); and we’re more effec­tive at work and make more mon­ey.

Essen­tial­ly The Bea­t­les had it right, “All you need is love. Love is all you need.”

You can read more about the Har­vard study over at The Atlantic.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

A Guide to Hap­pi­ness: Alain de Bot­ton Shows How Six Great Philoso­phers Can Change Your Life

Take the ‘Hap­pi­ness Exper­i­ment’

Free Online Psy­chol­o­gy Cours­es

A Crash Course on Psy­chol­o­gy: A 30-Part Video Series from Hank Green

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 2 ) |

The Origins of Pleasure: Paul Bloom Explains Why We Like Expensive Wines & Original Paintings

Let’s say you spend a con­sid­er­able amount of mon­ey for a paint­ing by a not­ed artist. Or maybe you get it for a steal. Either way, the paint­ing hangs promi­nent­ly in your home, where it is admired by guests and brings you plea­sure every time you look at it, which is often. Years lat­er, you acci­den­tal­ly dis­cov­er that your paint­ing is not the work of the artist whose sig­na­ture graces the low­er right hand cor­ner of the can­vas, but rather a hereto­fore anony­mous forg­er.  How do you react?

Do you laugh and say, “When I think of all the hap­pi­ness that liv­ing with this beau­ti­ful image has brought me over the years, I feel I have got­ten my money’s worth many times over. I don’t care who paint­ed it!”

Or do you look as though you’ve just real­ized that evil exists in the world, which is how Hitler’s right hand man, Her­mann Göring, reput­ed­ly looked when, as a pris­on­er at Nurem­berg, he was informed that his beloved Ver­meer, ”Christ with the Woman Tak­en in Adul­tery” (below), was actu­al­ly the work of the Dutch deal­er who had sold it to him.

vermeer

Göring’s reac­tion may have been the most human thing about him. Accord­ing to Yale psy­chol­o­gist Paul Bloom, the plea­sure we take in the things we love is deeply informed by their per­ceived ori­gins. For­get mon­e­tary val­ue. For­get brag­ging rights. We need to believe that our paint­ing was not just paint­ed by Ver­meer, but han­dled by him, breathed upon him. If only that Ver­meer of mine could talk…I bet it could set­tle once and for all the exact nature of his rela­tion­ship with that lit­tle serv­ing girl. Remem­ber? The one with the pearl ear­ring?

Oh, wait. She was fic­tion­al. I for­got.

But that’s the sort of prove­nance we crave. The kind that comes with a sto­ry we can sink our teeth into.

The sto­ry must also fit the cir­cum­stances, as Bloom makes plain in his won­der­ful­ly enter­tain­ing TED talk on the Ori­gins of Plea­sure.

Unknow­ing­ly hop­ping in the sack with a blood rel­a­tive or eat­ing rat meat are intrigu­ing nar­ra­tives, pro­vid­ed they hap­pen to some­one else. Knowl­edge of such sto­ries could deep­en your con­nec­tion to a par­tic­u­lar piece of art.

(Can’t you feel the sex­u­al anguish ooz­ing out of my Ver­meer? Did you know he had to choose between buy­ing brush­es and buy­ing food?)

Not the sort of ori­gin sto­ry you’d want to find at the bot­tom of your own per­son­al soup bowl, how­ev­er.

Ergo, let us say that when it comes to plea­sure ema­nat­ing from food, we savor tastes we per­ceive as com­ing from whole­some organ­ic farms, arti­sanal oper­a­tions, restau­rants that are known to have passed the Board of Health’s san­i­tary inspec­tion with fly­ing col­ors. 

And when it comes to drink, we will will­ing­ly believe in the supe­ri­or fla­vor of any­thing poured under the aus­pices of an acclaimed label. Sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence con­firms this.

(On a relat­ed note, I once hung on to a bot­tle after drink­ing the lux­u­ry vod­ka it once con­tained, think­ing I’d refill it with a cheap liquor hack I had read about. The exper­i­ment end­ed when my hus­band com­plained that the water in our Bri­ta pitch­er tast­ed fun­ny.)

Speak­ing of roman­tic part­ners, it turns out that beau­ty tru­ly is not so much in the eye, but the brain of the behold­er. And it’s prob­a­bly not a bad idea to make sure you’ve got the facts regard­ing a poten­tial lover’s age, gen­der, and blood­lines. Caveat emp­tor, as any­one who’s ever seen the Cry­ing Game  will attest.

Note: Paul Bloom has taught a free course through Yale called “Intro­duc­tion to Psy­chol­o­gy,”. It’s avail­able in our col­lec­tion of Free Online Psy­chol­o­gy Cours­es, part of our larg­er col­lec­tion, 1,700 Free Online Cours­es from Top Uni­ver­si­ties.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Why We Love Rep­e­ti­tion in Music: Explained in a New TED-Ed Ani­ma­tion

A Dar­win­ian The­o­ry of Beau­ty, or TED Does Its Best RSA

1756 TED Talks List­ed in a Neat Spread­sheet

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, home­school­er, and Chief Pri­ma­tol­o­gist of the East Vil­lage Inky zine. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday

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

The field of psy­chol­o­gy is very dif­fer­ent than it used to be. Nowa­days, the Amer­i­can Psy­cho­log­i­cal Asso­ci­a­tion has a code of con­duct for exper­i­ments that ensures a subject’s con­fi­den­tial­i­ty, con­sent and gen­er­al men­tal well being. In the old days, it was­n’t the case.

Back then, you could, for instance, con sub­jects into think­ing that they were elec­tro­cut­ing a man to death, as they did in the infa­mous 1961 Mil­gram exper­i­ment, which left peo­ple trau­ma­tized and hum­bled in the knowl­edge that deep down they are lit­tle more than weak-willed pup­pets in the face of author­i­ty. You could also try to turn a group of unsus­pect­ing orphans into stut­ter­ers by method­i­cal­ly under­min­ing their self-esteem as the folks who ran the apt­ly named Mon­ster Study of 1939 tried to do. But, if you real­ly want to get into the swamp of moral dubi­ous­ness, look no fur­ther than the Lit­tle Albert exper­i­ments, which trau­ma­tized a baby into hat­ing dogs, San­ta Claus and all things fuzzy.

Albert-and-rabbit-1024x718

In 1920, Johns Hop­kins pro­fes­sor John B. Wat­son was fas­ci­nat­ed with Ivan Pavlov’s research on con­di­tioned stim­u­lus. Pavlov famous­ly rang a bell every time he fed his dogs. At first the food caused the dogs to sali­vate, but after a spell of pair­ing the bell with din­ner, the dogs would even­tu­al­ly sali­vate at just the sound of the bell. That’s called a con­di­tioned response. Wat­son want­ed to see if he could cre­ate a con­di­tioned response in a baby.

Enter 9‑month old Albert B., AKA Lit­tle Albert. At the begin­ning of the exper­i­ment, Albert was pre­sent­ed with a white rat, a dog, a white rab­bit, and a mask of San­ta Claus among oth­er things. The lad was unafraid of every­thing and was, in fact, real­ly tak­en with the rat. Then every time the baby touched the ani­mals, sci­en­tists struck a met­al bar behind him, cre­at­ing a star­tling­ly loud bang. The sound freaked out the child and soon, like Pavlov’s dogs, Lit­tle Albert grew ter­ri­fied of the rat and the mask of San­ta and even a fur coat. The par­tic­u­lar­ly messed up thing about the exper­i­ment was that Wat­son didn’t even both to reverse the psy­cho­log­i­cal trau­ma he inflict­ed.

Little-albert

What hap­pened to poor baby Albert is hard to say, in part because no one is real­ly sure of the child’s true iden­ti­ty. He might have been Dou­glas Mer­ritte, as psy­chol­o­gists Hall P. Beck and Shar­man Levin­son argued in 2009. If that’s the case, then the child died at the age of 6 in 1925 of hydro­cephalus. Or he might have been William Albert Barg­er, as Russ Pow­ell and Nan­cy Dig­don argued in 2012. He passed away in 2007 at the age of 87. He report­ed­ly had a life­long aver­sion to dogs, though it can­not be deter­mined if it was a last­ing effect of the exper­i­ment.

Lat­er in life, Wat­son left aca­d­e­mics for adver­tis­ing.

You can watch a video of the exper­i­ment above.

via Men­tal Floss

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Free Online Psy­chol­o­gy Cours­es

How To Think Like a Psy­chol­o­gist: A Free Online Course from Stan­ford

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

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

Jonathan Crow is a Los Ange­les-based writer and film­mak­er whose work has appeared in Yahoo!, The Hol­ly­wood Reporter, and oth­er pub­li­ca­tions. You can fol­low him at @jonccrow. And check out his blog Veep­to­pus, fea­tur­ing lots of pic­tures of bad­gers and even more pic­tures of vice pres­i­dents with octo­pus­es on their heads.  The Veep­to­pus store is here.

We Are Wired to Be Kind: How Evolution Gave Us Empathy, Compassion & Gratitude

Empa­thy, com­pas­sion and grat­i­tude — these traits don’t usu­al­ly spring to mind when you think about Dar­win­ism and nat­ur­al selec­tion. No, your mind more imme­di­ate­ly drifts toward anti-social char­ac­ter­is­tics like com­pe­ti­tion, sur­vival of the fittest, and self­ish­ness (as in the “self­ish gene”). But above, on the first day of 2015, UC Berke­ley psy­chol­o­gist Dacher Kelt­ner reminds us that evo­lu­tion can bring out the best in us, and Dar­win rec­og­nized that. As Dar­win wrote in The Descent of Man, the strength­en­ing of our capac­i­ty for “sym­pa­thy” played a cen­tral role in human evo­lu­tion:

With mankind, self­ish­ness, expe­ri­ence, and imi­ta­tion, prob­a­bly add .… to the pow­er of sym­pa­thy; for we are led by the hope of receiv­ing good in return to per­form acts of sym­pa­thet­ic kind­ness to oth­ers; and sym­pa­thy is much strength­ened by habit. In how­ev­er com­plex a man­ner this feel­ing may have orig­i­nat­ed, as it is one of high impor­tance to all those ani­mals which aid and defend one anoth­er, it will have been increased through nat­ur­al selec­tion; for those com­mu­ni­ties, which includ­ed the great­est num­ber of the most sym­pa­thet­ic mem­bers, would flour­ish best, and rear the great­est num­ber of off­spring.

That’s not to say that we don’t have a dual nature — a capac­i­ty for being unsym­pa­thet­ic, self­ish, pow­er hun­gry. That’s some­thing Kelt­ner stud­ies too, and, indeed a while back, we told you about his stud­ies show­ing that the wealthy tend to be less sym­pa­thet­ic and giv­ing than the poor. You can find cours­es taught by Kelt­ner on Human Emo­tion and Human Hap­pi­ness in our col­lec­tion of Free Online Psy­chol­o­gy Cours­es, part of our larg­er col­lec­tion, 1,700 Free Online Cours­es from Top Uni­ver­si­ties.

via Devour

Fol­low us on Face­book, Twit­ter and Google Plus and share intel­li­gent media with your friends. Or bet­ter yet, sign up for our dai­ly email and get a dai­ly dose of Open Cul­ture in your inbox.

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

John Cleese on How “Stupid People Have No Idea How Stupid They Are” (a.k.a. the Dunning-Kruger Effect)

I often say that, if you want to vast­ly over­es­ti­mate your own capa­bil­i­ties, you need only do one of two things: (a) get coked out of your mind, or (b) get behind the wheel of a car. But what if the prob­lem runs deep­er in human­i­ty than that? Indeed, what if our inabil­i­ty to per­ceive our own incom­pe­tence exact­ly match­es the degree of the incom­pe­tence itself? Now, none of us can do every­thing well, but we’ve all met peo­ple who, even well out­side of the con­texts of drugs or dri­ving, sim­ply can­not grasp the full extent of how much they can’t do well. “The prob­lem with peo­ple like this is that they are so stu­pid,” explains Mon­ty Python’s John Cleese in the clip above, “they have no idea how stu­pid they are.”

“In order to know how good you are at some­thing requires exact­ly the same skills as it does to be good at that thing in the first place,” Cleese elab­o­rates, “which means — and this is ter­ri­bly fun­ny — that if you are absolute­ly no good at some­thing at all, then you lack exact­ly the skills you need to know that you are absolute­ly no good at it.” With that, he gives us an extreme­ly brief intro­duc­tion to the Dunning–Kruger effect, “a cog­ni­tive bias where­in unskilled indi­vid­u­als suf­fer from illu­so­ry supe­ri­or­i­ty, mis­tak­en­ly rat­ing their abil­i­ty much high­er than is accu­rate” owing to “a metacog­ni­tive inabil­i­ty of the unskilled to rec­og­nize their inep­ti­tude” (and, by the same token, of “high­ly skilled indi­vid­u­als to under­es­ti­mate their rel­a­tive com­pe­tence, erro­neous­ly assum­ing that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for oth­ers”).

The effect takes its name from Cor­nell Uni­ver­si­ty researchers Justin Kruger and David Dun­ning, the lat­ter of whom Cleese, who has spent time at Cor­nell as a long-term vis­it­ing pro­fes­sor (where he has, among oth­er projects, tak­en part in a talk about cre­ativ­i­ty, group dynam­ics and celebri­ty), counts as a friend. He orig­i­nal­ly invoked Dun­ning and Kruger’s “won­der­ful bit of research” in the video “John Cleese Con­sid­ers Your Futile Com­ments,” where he talks back to YouTube com­menters on Mon­ty Python videos — in this case, those who men­tioned the names of cer­tain polit­i­cal com­men­ta­tors beneath the 1970 sketch “Upper­class Twit of the Year.” “This explains not just Hol­ly­wood,” Cleese con­cludes, “but almost the entire­ty of Fox News.”

Those of you inter­est­ed in both cog­ni­tive phe­nom­e­na and con­ser­v­a­tive Amer­i­can polit­i­cal fig­ures will sure­ly have seen Gates of Heav­en and A Brief His­to­ry of Time doc­u­men­tar­i­an Errol Mor­ris’ most recent film The Unknown Known, a long-form con­ver­sa­tion with for­mer U.S. Sec­re­tary of Defense Don­ald Rums­feld. In the years before its release, Mor­ris wrote a five-part series for the New York Times called “The Anosog­nosic’s Dilem­ma,” fueled not just by his fas­ci­na­tion with Rums­feld but with his near-obses­sion over the Dun­ning-Kruger effect. In it, he actu­al­ly inter­views Dun­ning him­self, who sum­ma­rizes the issue thus: “We’re not very good at know­ing what we don’t know.”

Dun­ning even brings up the sub­ject of Rums­feld first, specif­i­cal­ly about his speech on “unknown unknowns” that gave Mor­ris’ movie its title. It goes some­thing like this: ‘There are things we know we know about ter­ror­ism. There are things we know we don’t know. And there are things that are unknown unknowns. We don’t know that we don’t know.’ He got a lot of grief for that. And I thought, ‘That’s the smartest and most mod­est thing I’ve heard in a year.’ ” When Mor­ris fol­lowed up, Dun­ning added that “the notion of unknown unknowns real­ly does res­onate with me, and per­haps the idea would res­onate with oth­er peo­ple if they knew that it orig­i­nal­ly came from the world of design and engi­neer­ing rather than Rums­feld.” Or maybe they could asso­ciate it with the Min­istry of Sil­ly Walks instead.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. Or fol­low our posts on Threads, Face­book, BlueSky or Mastodon.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

via Laugh­ing Squid

Relat­ed Con­tent:

1,700 Free Online Cours­es from Top Uni­ver­si­ties

John Cleese Explains the Brain — and the Plea­sures of DirecTV

John Cleese’s Phi­los­o­phy of Cre­ativ­i­ty: Cre­at­ing Oases for Child­like Play

Why You Do Your Best Think­ing In The Show­er: Cre­ativ­i­ty & the “Incu­ba­tion Peri­od”

Jorge Luis Borges: “Soc­cer is Pop­u­lar Because Stu­pid­i­ty is Pop­u­lar”

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast
Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.