The Cluttered Mind Uncluttered

Ph.D., Psychology, author, speaker, consultant
About Dr. Jim Taylor

Archive for May, 2011

Is a Low-resolution Life Worth Living?

Tuesday, May 31, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor
Comment
Comments

|
|

I just started writing a new book that focuses on the impact of new technology on children. As I was writing one particular chapter, it struck me that the ideas within had relevance to all of us as we navigate the growing digital landscape.

I see two fundamental differences between connected life, that is, life through the lens of technology, and real life, the one in which we live (I realize that it could be argued that tech life is the real one in which many of us live, but I see that as a problem). First, wired life is not real, meaning experiences are created by technology with the aim of approximating and simulating actual experience. The problem with this “low-resolution” life is that, though it shares similarities to real life, it lacks the high resolution and the granularity of real life. For example, email can be a wonderful means of communication, but it lacks visual input (so important to effective communication), the nuance of facial expressions and body language, and clear emotional content.

Second, digital life is mediated by the technology that makes it possible. There is always something between us and our experiences, whether a text message or a Wii sports game, and, as I just noted, a great deal is lost in the translation.

Susan Greenfield, a noted British neuroscientist who has studied the impact of new technology on people, has articulated some compelling concerns related to the mediated nature of technology. She believes that, for all of its appearance of freedom, technology puts us in a box, a very bright, shiny, and fun box to be sure, but a box nonetheless. You may think those dropdown menus give us options, but what they really do is limit choices that limit our thinking, imaginations, and actions.

Dr. Greenfield suggests that the fixed quality of technology may inhibit the development of creativity which is, by its very nature, open and undefined. Relatedly, she argues that linguistic and visual imagination is being hindered because of the limited and prescribed opportunities that are presented with media.

Dr. Greenfield is also critical of the “contracted, brutalised” (remember that she’s English) writing skills inherent in Twitter and text messages that lack the vocabulary and structure essential for sophisticated thinking and expression.

At an even deeper level, Dr. Greenfield concludes that the substantial changes in our world that are driven by technology will not only affect our thinking and behavior, but there will also be, as the emerging research is demonstrating, , significant alterations in our brains. She cites, as an example, how dopamine, the influential neurochemical that is significantly impacted by technology, reduces activity in the prefrontal cortex, the area most associated with so-called executive functioning including attention, self-control, abstract thinking, planning, decision making. The use of technology has also been shown to influence dopamine in the same way as do sex and gambling.

A (Mostly) Unmediated Life is the Goal

In pulling together this line of thought, let me share with you the kind of experience that I believe we should strive to live. First, our lives should be largely unmediated in which we can have direct access to our experiences. I want to experience life head on and exposed to all that it has to offer, both tidy and messy.

Another thing that makes real life so real is the richness of the sensory experience that it provides: sight, sound, smell, touch, taste, balance, movement, temperature, pain, and emotions (not exactly a sense per se, but experienced acutely in sensory form). Yes, technology has made great advances in replicating the experience of real life, for example, improved visual graphics and sound (e.g., video games), the sensation of balance and movement (e.g., Wii), and, yes, emotionally provocative content, though often artificially created and irrelevant to real life (e.g., FarmVille) or kept at a distance (e.g., Facebook). But, as far as coming even close to the full spectrum of sensory experience? Fuggedaboutit!

Real life offers us experiences that are open-ended, giving us the opportunity to create whatever box we choose based on what the universe of options has to offer. The only limits that exist are those of our creativity and the physical parameters of real life.

Real life is also value driven, meaning the direction that we take our lives is based on what we deem most important. As a result, life has personal meaning and relevance to us. And with that meaning and relevance comes investment, that is to say, caring about what we do and where we direct our lives. Technology, in particular social media that enables us to stay connected with friends and build online communities based on shared values and activities, is moving in that direction, but, as Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out, these wired connections aren’t nearly as powerful as many would like to believe (the uprising in Tunisia was not really the Twitter Revolution).

For much of the technology in which we are immersed, as Susan Greenfield has argued, process, action, and achieving goals trump perspective, context, or relationships. This connection between real life and values is perhaps the most powerful disincentive for the excessive use of technology. Values, meaning, and relevance give real life its power and most of what technology offers is devoid of it.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, real life, and much of the meaning and satisfaction accrued from it, comes from our relationships with others. The development of our social lives is essential for our psychological and emotional well being. Yes, social media are obviously social in nature, but I see it as being “social lite,” because it limits the richness of human interactions, or “social safe” because it keeps relationships at a comfortable distance.

Fundamentally, technology creates a mediated and low-resolution approximation of life that does offer utilitarian benefits and some entertainment value. But is it “real” enough to want to substitute much of real life? I don’t think so. I’ll take high-resolution and unmediated life any time.

Please Fire the Pundits!

Monday, May 23, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor
Comment
Comments

|
|

I should be a pundit. According to a new study, I possess the two qualities most predictive of accurate prognostication. More on that shortly. You should be a pundit; you have as much chance of being correct in your predictions as most pundits. More on that a bit later too.

Remember the days when there were only relatively few pundits in the world. They held forth in the major newspapers and weekly magazines , and on the network morning shows. And they seemed to know what they were talking about (though I might just be having one of those “good old days” moments).

Oh, how times have changed. With the explosion of 24/7 cable news, (where there isn’t enough hard news to fill those long hours), talk radio (where actual expertise is not a job requirement), and, of course, the Internet (where anyone with a URL and an opinion has a megaphone with which to express themselves), punditry has reached new heights (or depths, depending on how you look at it). No doubt being a pundit is a great gig: notoriety, a high soapbox on which to stand and, for many, a full-time, well-paying job.

But perhaps the best part of the job is that pundits have absolutely no accountability for what they say. Have you ever read the Predictions of the Year edition of the National Enquirer? Of course not; no one would actually admit to stooping that low, despite the millions of copies sold (but I digress). But let’s just say you did so I can make a point, which is that no one ever looks back to see if any of those predictions actually came true. The only prediction most anyone has paid attention to after the fact is that May 21, 2011 was going to be Judgment Day, as predicted by Harold Camping (we woke up that Saturday, saw we were in neither Heaven or Hell, and went back to sleep).

Now, back to my original statement that you and I should be pundits. A recent study conducted by a group of college students (out of the mouths of babes, as they say) that has gotten quite a bit of press lately found that a sample of noted pundits had about as much credibility as Nostradamus and said Armageddon. Here’s the CliffsNotes summary: The predictions of 26 pundits (15 professional pundits, 9 politicians, and  two hybrids, New Gingrich and Mike Huckabee) who regularly appear on the Sunday morning news shows and in major newspapers were assessed for their accuracy.

Their findings? First, referring to my assertion that you should be a pundit, if you flipped a coin, you had about the same chance of predicting future events as most of those so-called experts. The most accurate pundit was the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. I don’t find this surprising given that he is a Nobel Prize winner in economics whose predictions were forecasts of the economy. The worst pundit was Cal Thomas, the long-time columnist for the Chicago Tribune.

Second, as to my belief that I should be a pundit. According to the research, the qualities most associated with the accuracy of predictions was being a liberal and not having a law degree. As someone who leans left politically and is not in possession of a law degree, I fit the bill to a T. So where do I sign up?

Admittedly, there were some potential flaws in the study that might call its findings into question (and I’m sure conservatives and lawyers have pointed them out ad nauseum). First, the sample is relatively small. Second, the predictions related to political issues may have been considerably different had the study examined the prognostications prior to and just after the 2010 midterm elections rather than the 2008 Presidential elections. As predictions of both pundits and politicians alike tend to fall along ideological fault lines, it doesn’t seem farfetched to, well, predict that the predictive accuracy would have been different. But the study does have considerable support from a much larger study conducted by the noted psychologist Philip Tetlock.

In his study of almost 300 experts and over 80,000 predictions, Tetlock found that neither education nor experience were related to the accuracy of predictions. The single greatest predictor was which of two cognitive styles that the pundits possessed, what he termed hedgehogs and foxes. Hedgehogs have one big idea and apply it to everything, express their ideas with absolute certitude and confidence, and reject conflicting views. In contrast, foxes are base their predictions on verifiable evidence, open minded, and are receptive to opposing opinions.

Admittedly, pundits do more than just predict (mostly inaccurately) the future. They can ask questions that need to be asked. Pundits can offer perspectives and insights that can broaden our understanding of important stories. And they can illuminate issues and enlighten us. But they can do all that in about 10 minutes.

So what do we make of these studies? They are interesting and provocative and will have zero impact on anything or anyone. The punditocracy isn’t going to all of a sudden have a “come to Jesus” moment, renounce its dissembling ways, and retire to Florida. And punditry is far too profitable for those media who give it voice to ever see the light. Perhaps only an electromagnetic pulse that fries the grid (remember Dark Angel?) would do the trick (though that’s more wishful thinking than prediction).

Admirably, one goal of the Hamilton College study was to help consumers of the punditry to make better decisions about who they should listen to. How wonderfully naïve and idealistic is that! But let’s get real here. People listen to pundits not for their expertise or predictive accuracy. Rather, they follow the prognosticators who confirm their own beliefs and, as Tetlock points out, to give people a greater sense of control over a future that is unknown and, as a result, kind of scary. In other words, pundits simply feed our human weaknesses of needing to be right and needing to feel safe.

Narcissism is Alive and Well in America

Monday, May 16, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor
Comment
Comments

|
|

Do you know the story of Narcissus? The very handsome fellow in Greek mythology who, because of his indifference and disdain toward others, was punished by the gods by falling in love with his own image. He was so enrapted by his beauty that he was unable to pull himself away from his own reflection that he wasted away and died.

Well, according to recent research, Narcissus has spawned many offspring in our current generation and narcissism is alive and well and living in America. Just so we are all on the same wavelength, narcissism is a personality characteristic associated with self-absorption, egocentrism, an overestimation of one’s own importance and abilities, a sense of entitlement, and a disregard for others.

One study found that 30 percent of young people were classified as narcissistic according to a widely used psychological test. That number has doubled in the last 30 years. Another study reported a 40 percent decline among young people in empathy, a personality attribute inversely related to narcissism, since the 1980s.

These findings aren’t surprising to anyone who pays attention to the “it’s all about me” culture in which we currently live. My questions are where this rise in narcissism is coming from and what impact it will have on our society in the future.

One obvious place where young people are learning about narcissism is our omnipresent and unrelenting popular culture.  A study by the celebrity psychiatrist Dr. Drew, in which 200 “celebrities” (I put the word in quotes because the threshold for being considered a celebrity these days has declined significantly) completed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, found that, here’s a shocker, they were significantly more narcissistic than the general population. Interestingly, the celebrities who actually had a talent, for example, musicians, tended to be less narcissistic. Guess who were the most self-absorbed celebrities? Female reality-TV stars! Not surprising that those celebrities who were famous for being famous were the most narcissistic; their narcissism drove them to become celebrities.

Another fascinating study that was just published explored the changes in music lyrics over the past three decades. The researchers found a significant shift toward lyrics that reflect narcissism (“I” and “me” appear more often “we” and “us”) and hostility (change from positive to angry words and emotions). And these findings aren’t just due to the increased popularity and influence of hip-hop music (which is known for its aggrandizement of the artists and its venom), but rather are evident across musical genres.

And you don’t need to go far to collect your own data on narcissism. Do these names ring a bell: Charlie Sheen, Terrell Owens, and Kanye West?

It’s not surprising to see a rise in narcissism in this generation given that young people are being bombarded by these messages 24/7 through every form of media. And here’s the truly disturbing part: How can young people these days avoid being infected with this “disease” when, thanks to the “wired” world in which they live, the majority of messages they receive venerate and encourage narcissism.

The self-esteem movement has likely contributed to this increase in self-adoration. Many parents these days do everything they can to make their children feel good about themselves. The result has been a decline in real self-esteem and an increase in self-love and unjustifiable personal “exceptionalism.”

Also, technology and social media have done their part to promote narcissism. All of the time spent absorbed in screens has reduced the amount of actual human (i.e., face-to-face) interaction that children have, thus depriving them of the experiences needed to develop essential social skills such as empathy, compassion, and consideration for others.

Certainly, the shift in societal values away from collectivism and toward individualism (“You’re on your own”), away from civic responsibility and toward self-gratification, and away from meaningful contributions to society and toward personal success (as defined by wealth, power, and status), have also contributed to the cultural messages of narcissism in which young people are presently immersed.

It’s one thing to see that there are an growing number of narcissists in America today. But the real concern is not the individual narcissists among us, but when our society embraces and, OMG!, accepts narcissism as the norm. And that time may have arrived. That’s when we have to start asking the next question which is far scarier: What effect will this increasingly normalized culture of narcissism have on our society?

You might argue that narcissism has existed for as long as homo sapiens have populated planet Earth and we’ve managed to survive. In fact, some researchers have argued that the recent rise in narcissism is due more o this generation’s willingness to express what they really believe rather than an actual increase in narcissism. But there seems to be a qualitative, rather just a quantitative, shift in so many aspects of our culture that I just don’t buy that explanation.

The answer that came most readily to my mind, and an apocryphal one at that, is a gradual, yet inexorable, tear in the fabric of our society. Think of all the qualities that enable us to form a functioning and vital nation — respect, compassion, tolerance, selflessness — and you will see that they don’t exist in the narcissistic personality (or culture). Gosh, I just had a really terrifying thought. The indifference, egotism, disrespect, and lack of consideration that are central to narcissism are also reflective of the increasingly polarized and vitriolic tone of our current body politic, recent unethical corporate behavior, the rise in cheating among students in school, and the gamut of bad behavior among professional athletes. As Pogo noted so famously, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Definitely not a rosy picture and definitely not one to encourage an optimistic view of the future. Should we see this trend as just another sign of the impending death of the American empire? The cynic in me (and, for those who follow my writing, know that it fills a big portion of my brain) would offer an emphatic “Yes!”

Yet the optimist in me (small, but stubborn) holds out some hope. I don’t mean to demonize and indict this entire generation. In fact, There are a lot of amazing young people out there. I speak at schools around the U.S. and I meet kids (I know I’m getting old when I call them that!) who are motivated, engaged, respectful, and compassionate. Many young people are bucking the trend and are resisting the lure of the “dark side.” And they are our best hope of beating back the onslaught of narcissism and keeping the best of humanity alive and well and living in America.

Ad Out!

Monday, May 9, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor
Comment
Comments

|
|

No, I’m not talking about the upcoming French Open Tennis Championships being held in Paris later this month. I’m talking about the invasion of Web site real estate by all manner of ads. Have you looked at your most frequently visited Web sites lately, I mean really looked at them. Go back to a few and take a really careful look. What do you see? That’s right, you may not have noticed it before because you’ve become so inured to them, but you may actually see more ads than content on any given Web page.

In researching this post, I have learned far more than I cared to about the ways in which on-line advertisers try to entice us into giving them that little bit of “click love” that they so crave. Sex, money, outlandish claims, nothing is out of bounds when it comes to grabbing our attention and generating the almighty dollar.

I also learned about all of the different types of Web ads and their evolution in sophistication. Banner and sidebar ads at the top of a Web site? Gosh, I don’t even notice them anymore. Those crafty Web advertisers need to do better than that to get my attention. And they sure try. Remember pop-up ads? Boy, were those dinosaurs a nuisance. But no longer thanks to those clever pop-up blockers (though those pesky Netflix ads still seem to get through).

How about those before-you-even-get-to-the-home-page ads that you must “Skip This Ad” to even get to what you want to see. Those are beyond irritating. Now we’re getting into Web ad territory that really gets my knickers in an uproar (haven’t used that one in a few decades). Have you ever arrived at a Web page excited to read something of interest and, just as you’re about to start reading, a pull-down banner ad blocks your view? Aarrgghh! These days, you can’t move your mouse very far on the screen without some infuriating little pop-up window appearing. What do you think of interstitials? Uh?, you ask. These are the ads that appear when you transition from one page of a site to the next, forcing you to wait it out or suffer the indignity of having to click again just to get the page you wanted in the first place. I find roll-overs, those ads that look like links, but have a double underline and cause a small window to pop up when you roll over it, especially annoying. Scrolling on sites with roll-overs is like playing an obstacle-course video game trying to avoid the booby traps as you move down the page. Then there are floating ads that move across the screen and follow your scrolling movements. And unicast ads bombard us with video and sound without prompting and require effort to find the ad and turn off the darned thing off.

I accept that Web sites need to be financially self-sustaining. And Web ads allow us to access a vast universe of information and services free of charge. I can live with many Web ads; I just ignore them. My basic philosophy is that if they don’t bother me (too much), I won’t bother them. But I get really steamed when Web ads infringe on my ability to accomplish what I want on a Web site, namely, view content. When Web ads waste my time and distract me from my purpose, then they have gone too far. That’s when I stand with Howard Beale, the fictional newscaster in the film Network who, on the brink of insanity, declares, “I’m mad as Hell and I’m not going to take this anymore.”

Has that line been crossed from necessary evil to unacceptable intrusion? Should these ads be labeled for what I think they are: spam and an unwelcome and inappropriate infringement on my Web-viewing experience? Should we be able to opt out of Web ads? We don’t boycott TV, radio, or magazines because we are in inundated with commercials and ads. We’ve just come to accept them as a part of television (though commercial-free HBO sure is a joy to watch). In fact, advertising on TV has become another form of viewing entertainment, for example, the commercials seen during the Super Bowl. Should Web advertising be any different?

And prepare yourself, this is just the beginning. Web advertising, only about a dozen or so years old now, is still in its infancy. There are some very smart people out there looking for new and more intrusive ways to get our attention and lure us into clicking on their ads. So do we accept them as we do on TV, radio, and magazines? Or do we demand legislation that gives us the power to opt out? My sense is that, at least for the foreseeable future, we’ll just have to suck it up. I don’t see Web ads going away any time soon, so if we want the wheat, we’ll have to accept the chaff, at least until other smart people find ways to block more of those irritating little…buggers.

Three Words for Better Parenting

Monday, May 2, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor
Comment
Comments

|
|

I have a confession to make: I wrote my first two parenting books before I had children. Is this a great country or what, where you can become an “expert” at something you have never done before (of course, I had worked with families for many years in my practice)? I now have two children of mine and, though they are still young, so far, so good; the parenting ideas from those two books are holding up, at least to this point. But I have to admit that in another 15 years or so, I might be writing another book titled I’m Sorry, They Seemed Like Good Ideas at the Time!

My latest parenting book, Your Children are Listening: Nine Messages They Need to Hear From You will be published in June (apologies for the shameless plug) and, yes, it is based largely on my actual parenting experiences. Now that I’m hip deep in real parenting, I have learned more than a few things about what it takes to be a decent parent (I say ‘decent’ because trying to be a great parent often leads to the problems that result in horrible parents).

Though I just wrote a lengthy book about what I have learned as a parent, I think I can distill what parents need to do to raise healthy children down three simple words (so if you read this post, I suppose you won’t need to buy my new book, thus mitigating my shameless plug).

The first word is calm. As any parent will attest, raising children is an emotional roller coaster with soaring highs, involving love, joy, and pride, and plummeting lows that include fear, frustration, anger, and despair. Moreover, children have the ability to bring out the worst in us. Once they learn what our hot buttons are, they just keep on pushing until they get what they want, either another cookie or to see their parents lose it. And lose it parents do. A recent informal poll I conducted with friends found that every single parent I questioned get so angry at their children that they yell at them regularly.

Yet the ability to remain calm in the storm of family life is essential to children’s healthy development for several reasons. First, losing control and yelling at children is truly terrifying to them. When parents yell at their children, they are sending messages of hate to those whom they are supposed to love the most and be loved by the most.

Second, children look to their parents to be their safe haven in a world that, through their eyes and limited experience and capabilities, is really scary. What message do parents send to their children by losing control? That even their parents aren’t strong enough to protect them from that scary world in which they live or, even worse, that their parents are part of that scary world. And, sadly, for some parents, yelling is just one step away from physical abuse.

Third, calm is especially important when children get out of control with either seemingly inconsolable crying or temper tantrums. When parents yell at their children, the children’s emotional maelstrom is only heightened. Equanimity, in turn, conveys the message to them that their parents are unruffled and in control (a real challenge, to be sure) and that things are going to be okay.

Finally, where do you think most parents learned to yell when they get angry? From their parents, of course. And when parents lose control with their children, they’re sending the message that yelling is an acceptable way of expressing anger and they pass the yelling “gene” on to their children.

Of course, parents are human and can’t be expected to be Zen-like with their children all the time. Occasional loss of control and yelling will probably do no harm and might, in fact, send a healthy messages to children, namely, that their behavior can hurt others, and that everyone has their limits and that’s a not a place children should go.

The second word is tough. If you haven’t gotten a sense from my previous writing, I’m not a touchy-feely kind of guy. Yes, I’m loving to my children, but I’m also very tough on them. But tough doesn’t mean being angry, callous, or punitive. Rather, being tough means knowing what is best for children and don’t what is best for them whether they like it or not. It also means establishing expectations and consequences about what is acceptable behavior, and staying firm in the face of sometimes vociferous resistance. If parents give in and lose the battle of wills, their children may have a temporary victory, but they will certainly lose the war.

Being tough is so important for children because, though they aren’t going to admit it, having unfettered freedom to do as they choose is actually scary to them. The boundaries that parents provide when they are firm helps them feel secure because they can’t trust themselves to set safe and comfortable limits. Also, being tough prepares children for a “real world” that, especially these days, is really tough. Being tough also counters the messages from popular culture that children should be able to have and do whatever they want, whenever they want, and however they want.

The final word is persistence. Let’s be honest here. Raising children is frustrating and exhausting. The old parenting cliche “How many times have I told you no?” says it all. You can tell your children something a hundred times and they still don’t get it. It’s just so easy to throw up your hands in despair and say “I give up.” But when you do that, what you are really saying is “I give up on myself and my children.” And that reaction, however strong and seductive it is, will do your children no good.

But you must be persistent. Because if you don’t keep sending those healthy messages to your children, they turn their attention and get their messages from elsewhere, most likely the one source of messages that is relentlessly persistent, namely, popular culture. And I can assure you that those are messages that you don’t want your children to get.

No matter how tired or frustrated you get, or how pointless sending messages to your kids seems, never, ever give up because you know what? They may seem not to hear, ignore what you say, or do the exact opposite of what you are asking, but they are listening and after, say, a few thousand times, they will probably say, “Why didn’t you say so in the first place?”

So post those three words — calm, tough, and persistent — on your fridge, put them on your screensaver, or tattoo them on your forehead, whatever it takes so that you don’t forget them. Of course, saying those three simple words is easy; the hard part is putting them into action. Unfortunately, I don’t have the space to tell you how to do that. You may just have to buy my book after all to figure that part out!