FreudiÂanÂism may no longer be in vogue. But, even so, SigÂmund Freud remains one of the most enveÂlope-pushÂing thinkers of the past cenÂtuÂry, someÂone still worth getÂting to know. In this lecÂture, Yale psyÂcholÂoÂgy proÂfesÂsor Paul Bloom offers a primer on Freud and FreudiÂan thought. The lecÂture is part of a largÂer free course (20 lecÂtures in total) called “IntroÂducÂtion to PsyÂcholÂoÂgy.” You can access the course via the Yale Open Course web site, YouTube and iTuneÂsU.
“I’m not sure how much outÂward details or accomÂplishÂments ever realÂly make us hapÂpy deep down. The milÂlionÂaires I know seem desÂperÂate to become mulÂtiÂmilÂlionÂaires, and spend more time with their lawyers and their bankers than with their friends (whose motiÂvaÂtions they are no longer sure of). And I rememÂber how, in the corÂpoÂrate world, I always knew there was some highÂer posiÂtion I could attain, which meant that, like Zeno’s arrow, I was guarÂanÂteed nevÂer to arrive and always to remain disÂsatÂisÂfied…”
“…my two-room apartÂment in nowhere Japan seems more abunÂdant than the big house that burned down [in SanÂta BarÂbara, CA]. I have time to read the new John le Carre, while nibÂbling at sweet tanÂgerÂines in the sun. When a SigÂur Ros album comes out, it fills my days and nights, resplenÂdent. And then it seems that hapÂpiÂness, like peace or pasÂsion, comes most freely when it isn’t purÂsued.”
On a relatÂed note, you might want to check out this piece in the The Atlantic, What Makes Us HapÂpy?, which takes a look at HarÂvard’s long effort to answer that quesÂtion.
SpeakÂing at the TED conÂferÂence in 2007, MalÂcolm GladÂwell (author of The TipÂping Point, Blink, and now OutÂliers: The StoÂry of SucÂcess) introÂduces you to the food indusÂtry’s purÂsuit of the perÂfect spaghetÂti sauce, which ultiÂmateÂly tells you someÂthing essenÂtial about human choice and hapÂpiÂness.
The Time ParaÂdox, a new book by Philip ZimÂbarÂdo & John Boyd, puts forth an intriguÂing arguÂment — our attiÂtudes toward time, often unconÂscious ones, can strongÂly shape our perÂsonÂalÂiÂties and the kind of lives we lead. They can conÂtribute to our hapÂpiÂness and sucÂcess, or our unhapÂpiÂness and depresÂsion.
The arguÂment goes someÂthing like this: Not entireÂly knowÂingÂly, we all focus on the past, present or future. And, in modÂerÂaÂtion, each focus can have some net good. Future-oriÂentÂed peoÂple tend to be ambiÂtious and sucÂcessÂful; present-oriÂentÂed peoÂple tend to have friends and fun; and past-oriÂentÂed peoÂple often have close famÂiÂly relaÂtionÂships. But when we assoÂciate too strongÂly with one of these “time zones” (again often withÂout realÂizÂing it), we run into probÂlems. When we’re too strongÂly focused on the future, we sacÂriÂfice friends, famÂiÂly and fun. When we’re too present-oriÂentÂed, we leave ourÂselves open to hedoÂnism and addicÂtions. And when we cling to the past, we simÂply get stuck in the past, and depresÂsion usuÂalÂly folÂlows. The upshot then is that we need to find a “temÂpoÂral balÂance,” and this applies not just to indiÂvidÂuÂals, but to nations, reliÂgious groups and social classÂes as well. AccordÂing to ZimÂbarÂdo and Boyd, largÂer social groups can tend toward disÂtortÂed sensÂes of time. The AmerÂiÂcan finanÂcial criÂsis boils down to an extreme focus on the present, or a lack of conÂcern for future conÂseÂquences. That’s essenÂtialÂly what the big credÂit giveÂaway was all about.
You may recÂogÂnize Philip ZimÂbarÂdo’s name. He’s a wideÂly recÂogÂnized psyÂcholÂoÂgy proÂfesÂsor who was behind the famous StanÂford Prison ExperÂiÂment (1971). He has served as the presÂiÂdent of the AmerÂiÂcan PsyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal AssoÂciÂaÂtion. And, last year, he pubÂlished The Lucifer Effect, a New York Times bestÂseller.
To delve a bit more deeply into The Time ParaÂdox, you should watch (below) the engrossÂing preÂsenÂtaÂtion that ZimÂbarÂdo gave at Google’s HQ last month. Or you can lisÂten to this radio interÂview that aired recentÂly in New York City (iTunesFeedMP3). LastÂly, you can take a surÂvey on The Time ParaÂdox web site and learn more about your temÂpoÂral balÂance.
SpeakÂing at the TED ConÂferÂence, famed psyÂcholÂoÂgist Mihaly CzikÂszentÂmiÂhaÂlyi asks what’s the source of hapÂpiÂness? And his answer comes down to this: Beyond a cerÂtain point (and it’s not very far), monÂey doesÂn’t affect hapÂpiÂness too much. Rather, as his research shows, we tend to be most hapÂpy when we get immersed, almost lost in, being creÂative and perÂformÂing at our best. It’s an ecstaÂtÂic state that he calls “flow.” The video runs about 19 minÂutes, and is well worth your time. Some book titles worth checkÂing out include: Flow: The PsyÂcholÂoÂgy of OptiÂmal ExpeÂriÂence or FindÂing Flow: The PsyÂcholÂoÂgy of EngageÂment with EveryÂday Life.
If you would like to supÂport the misÂsion of Open CulÂture, conÂsidÂer makÂing a donaÂtion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your conÂtriÂbuÂtions will help us conÂtinÂue proÂvidÂing the best free culÂturÂal and eduÂcaÂtionÂal mateÂriÂals to learnÂers everyÂwhere. You can conÂtribute through PayÂPal, PatreÂon, and VenÂmo (@openculture). Thanks!
PsyÂchÂCenÂtral has postÂed its list of the ten best psyÂcholÂoÂgy videos availÂable on the web. Below, we have postÂed links to the videos themÂselves. But if you want a quick descripÂtion of each clip, then defÂiÂniteÂly read through the origÂiÂnal post. Thanks to Kottke.org for bringÂing this to light.
Back in 1971, Philip ZimÂbarÂdo, a StanÂford psyÂcholÂoÂgy proÂfesÂsor, set up an experÂiÂment that quickÂly and now famousÂly went awry. Here, ZimÂbarÂdo had underÂgradÂuÂates play the role of prisÂonÂers and prison guards in a mock prison enviÂronÂment. Meant to last two weeks, the experÂiÂment was cut short after only six days when, as The StanÂford Prison ExperÂiÂment web site puts it, the guards “became sadisÂtic and [the] prisÂonÂers became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress.” For ZimÂbarÂdo, the way things played out says a lot about what hapÂpens when good, averÂage peoÂple are put in bad sitÂuÂaÂtions. And it speaks to how torÂture sceÂnarÂios, like those at Abu Ghraib, become posÂsiÂble. (For more on the parÂalÂlels between the prison experÂiÂment and the torÂture in Iraq, you may want to check out ZimÂbarÂdo’s recent video-capÂtured talk at GoogleÂplex.
Below, we’ve postÂed a video that offers a quick verÂsion, with origÂiÂnal footage, of how the prison experÂiÂment went down. If you’re interÂestÂed in underÂstandÂing what he calls the “Lucifer Effect,” the title of his new book (which, by the way, was just reviewed by Martha NussÂbaum in the Times Online), then it’s worth your time.
Human behavÂior is notoÂriÂousÂly comÂplex, and there’s been no shortÂage of psyÂcholÂoÂgists and psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal theÂoÂries venÂturÂing to explain what makes us tick. Why do we get irraÂtionalÂly jealÂous? Or have midlife crises? Why do we overeat to our own detriÂment? Why do we find ourÂselves often strongÂly attractÂed to cerÂtain physÂiÂcal traits? NumerÂous theÂoÂries abound, but few are perÂhaps as novÂel and thought-proÂvokÂing as those sugÂgestÂed by a new book with a long title: Why BeauÂtiÂful PeoÂple Have More DaughÂters: From DatÂing, ShopÂping, and PrayÂing to Going to War and BecomÂing a BilÂlionÂaire — Two EvoÂluÂtionÂary PsyÂcholÂoÂgists Explain Why We Do What We Do. WritÂten by Satoshi KanazaÂwa and Alan S. Miller, the book finds answers not in ids, egos and superÂegos, but in the evoÂluÂtion of the human brain. WritÂten in snapÂpy prose, their arguÂment is essenÂtialÂly that our behavÂior — our wants, desires and impulsÂes — are overÂwhelmÂingÂly shaped by the way our brain evolved 10,000+ years ago, and one conÂseÂquence is that our ancesÂtral brain is often respondÂing to a world long ago disÂapÂpeared, not the modÂern, fast-changÂing world in which we live. This disÂconÂnect can lead us to be out of sync, to act in ways that seem inexÂplicÂaÂble or counter-proÂducÂtive, even to ourÂselves. These arguÂments belong to new field called “evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy,” and we were forÂtuÂnate to interÂview Satoshi KanazaÂwa (LonÂdon School of EcoÂnomÂics) and delve furÂther into evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy and the (someÂtimes dispirÂitÂing) issues it raisÂes. Have a read, check out the book, and also see the relatÂed piece that the FreakoÂnomÂics folks recentÂly did on this book. Please note that the full interÂview conÂtinÂues after the jump.
DC: In a nutÂshell, what is “evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy”? (e.g. when did the field emerge? what are the basic tenets/principles of this school of thinkÂing?)
SK: EvoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy is the appliÂcaÂtion of evoÂluÂtionÂary biolÂoÂgy to human cogÂniÂtion and behavÂior. For more than a cenÂtuÂry, zoolÂoÂgists have sucÂcessÂfulÂly used the uniÂfyÂing prinÂciÂples of evoÂluÂtion to explain the body and behavÂior of all aniÂmal species in nature, except for humans. SciÂenÂtists held a speÂcial place for humans and made an excepÂtion for them.
In 1992, a group of psyÂcholÂoÂgists and anthroÂpolÂoÂgists simÂply asked, “Why not? Why can’t we use the prinÂciÂples of evoÂluÂtion to explain human behavÂior as well?” And the new sciÂence of evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy was born. It is premised on two grand genÂerÂalÂizaÂtions. First, all the laws of evoÂluÂtion by natÂurÂal and sexÂuÂal selecÂtion hold for humans as much as they do for all species in nature. SecÂond, the conÂtents of the human brain have been shaped by the forces of evoÂluÂtion just as much as every othÂer part of human body. In othÂer words, humans are aniÂmals, and as such they have been shaped by evoÂluÂtionÂary forces just as othÂer aniÂmals have been.
DC: EvoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy porÂtrays us as havÂing impulsÂes that took form long ago, in a very pre-modÂern conÂtext (say, 10,000 years ago), and now these impulsÂes are someÂtimes rather ill-adaptÂed to our conÂtemÂpoÂrary world. For examÂple, in a food-scarce enviÂronÂment, we became proÂgrammed to eat whenÂevÂer we can; now, with food aboundÂing in many parts of the world, this impulse creÂates the conÂdiÂtions for an obeÂsiÂty epiÂdemÂic. GivÂen that our world will likeÂly conÂtinÂue changÂing at a rapid pace, are we doomed to have our impulsÂes conÂstantÂly playÂing catch up with our enviÂronÂment, and does that potenÂtialÂly doom us as a species?
SK: In fact, we’re not playÂing catch up; we’re stuck. For any evoÂluÂtionÂary change to take place, the enviÂronÂment has to remain more or less conÂstant for many genÂerÂaÂtions, so that evoÂluÂtion can select the traits that are adapÂtive and elimÂiÂnate those that are not. When the enviÂronÂment underÂgoes rapid change withÂin the space of a genÂerÂaÂtion or two, as it has been for the last couÂple of milÂlenÂnia, if not more, then evoÂluÂtion can’t hapÂpen because nature can’t deterÂmine which traits to select and which to elimÂiÂnate. So they remain at a standÂstill. Our brain (and the rest of our body) are essenÂtialÂly frozen in time — stuck in the Stone Age.
One examÂple of this is that when we watch a scary movie, we get scared, and when we watch porn we get turned on. We cry when someÂone dies in a movie. Our brain canÂnot tell the difÂferÂence between what’s simÂuÂlatÂed and what’s real, because this disÂtincÂtion didn’t exist in the Stone Age.
DC: One conÂcluÂsion from your book is that we’re someÂthing of a prisÂonÂer to our hard-wiring. Yes, there is some room for us to maneuÂver. But, in the end, our evolved nature takes over. If all of this holds true, is there room in our world for utopiÂan (or even mildÂly optiÂmistic) politÂiÂcal moveÂments that look to refashÂion how humans behave and interÂact with one anothÂer? Or does this sciÂence sugÂgest that Edmund Burke was on to someÂthing?
SK: Steven Pinker, in his 2002 book The Blank Slate, makes a very conÂvincÂing arguÂment that all UtopiÂan visions, whether they be motiÂvatÂed by left-wing ideÂolÂoÂgy or right-wing ideÂolÂoÂgy, are doomed to failÂure, because they all assume that human nature is malÂleable. EvoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgists have disÂcovÂered that the human mind is not a blank slate, a tabÂuÂla rasa; humans have innate bioÂlogÂiÂcal nature as much as any othÂer species does, and it is not malÂleable. Paul H. Rubin’s 2002 book DarÂwinÂian PolÂiÂtics: The EvoÂluÂtionÂary OriÂgin of FreeÂdom gives an evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal account of why Burke and clasÂsiÂcal libÂerÂals (who are today called libÂerÂtarÂiÂans) may have been right.
As a sciÂenÂtist, I am not interÂestÂed in UtopiÂan visions (or any othÂer visions for sociÂety). But it seems to me that, if you want to change the world sucÂcessÂfulÂly, you canÂnot start from false premisÂes. Any such attempt is bound to fail. If you build a house on top of a lake on the assumpÂtion that water is solÂid, it will inevitably colÂlapse and sink to the botÂtom of the lake, but if you recÂogÂnize the fluÂid nature of water, you can build a sucÂcessÂful houseÂboat. A houseÂboat may not be as good as a genÂuine house built on ground, but it’s betÂter than a colÂlapsed house on the botÂtom of the lake. A vision for sociÂety based on an evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal underÂstandÂing of human nature at least has a fightÂing chance, which is a much betÂter than any UtopiÂan vision based on the assumpÂtion that human nature is infiÂniteÂly malÂleable.
We're hoping to rely on loyal readers, rather than erratic ads. Please click the Donate button and support Open Culture. You can use Paypal, Venmo, Patreon, even Crypto! We thank you!
Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.
