The Cluttered Mind Uncluttered

Ph.D., Psychology, author, speaker, consultant

Author Archive

Are Media Creating a Generation of Narcissists?

by:

The externalization of children’s self-identities caused by the omnipresence of popular culture and social media today, that I discussed in my last post, has resulted in an unhealthy internal focus on the self among young people these days.

Do you recall the story of Narcissus? The 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 in a pool of water and wasted away and died.

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. According to recent research, Narcissus has spawned many offspring in our current generation and narcissism is alive and well and living in America. 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 in empathy among young people, 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 that we currently live in. So what has caused this rise in narcissism and what impact will it have on our children and our society as a whole?

One obvious place where young people are learning about narcissism is from popular culture. A study by the celebrity psychiatrist Dr. Drew Pinsky, in which 200 “celebrities” (I put the word in quotes because the bar for being considered a celebrity is set very low these days) completed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, found that they were significantly more narcissistic than the general population. Interestingly, the celebrities who actually had a talent, such as 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 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). These findings aren’t just due to the increased popularity and influence of hip-hop music (which is known for its self-absorption, aggrandizement of the artists and the venom of its messages), but rather are evident across musical genres. 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 through every form of media including recent technological advancements such as celebrity web sites and social networking sites. Other research suggests that social media web sites, such as Facebook, are receptacles of narcissism because it gives young people outlets for sharing the trivial and gaining attention. Additionally, simply the time spent immersed in technology has likely done its part to promote narcissism. All of the time absorbed in screens has reduced the amount of actual human (i.e., face-to-face) contact that children have, thus depriving them of the experiences needed to develop essential social skills, such as empathy, compassion, and consideration for others, which counter narcissism.

Here’s the truly disturbing part: How can children these days avoid being infected with this “disease” when, thanks to the wired world they live in, the majority of messages they receive venerate and encourage narcissism?

The self-esteem movement and the recent shift toward “hyper-parenting” have also likely contributed to this increase in self-adoration. Though the specific causes of narcissism have not been confirmed, researchers have identified a number of child-rearing risk factors including: 1) being praised for innate qualities such as physical appearance, intelligence, or other abilities; 2) praise that is inconsistent with reality; 3) extreme rewards for good behavior and undue criticism or punishment for bad behavior; 4) being spoiled and excessively indulged by parents; and 5) parents whose self-esteem is overly invested in their children achievements. Additionally, children who are born with a sensitive temperament are more vulnerable to these parenting approaches.

In addition to the unsettling rise in narcissism among our children, perhaps a greater concern is that our culture now seems to not only accept, but also promote narcissism as the norm. Certainly, the shift in societal values away from collectivism and toward individualism, away from civic responsibility and toward self-gratification, and away from meaningful contributions to society and toward personal success (as defined by wealth, power, celebrity, and status) have also contributed to the cultural messages of narcissism in which children are presently immersed.

There is no doubt that narcissists in popular culture are worshipped (narcissism = cool) and the new technology is used to a great extent to feed that narcissism to the masses (how else to explain why the actor Ashton Kutcher would have over seven million followers!). Additionally, 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. Not surprisingly, children who are continuously exposed to these messages will likely fall prey to these messages.

The discussion to this point leads me to ask two questions that I find downright scary. First, what effect will this increasingly normalized culture of narcissism have on our children’s development including their self-identities, self-esteem, values, and aspirations? Think of all the qualities that enable your children to become healthy and contributing members of our society — hard work, respect, compassion, tolerance, selflessness — and you will see that they don’t exist in the narcissistic personality or the culture in which it is fostered.

Second, what will be the influence of future generations of narcissistic children turned adults on the direction of popular culture and our society as a whole? Think about it. The current generation of parents were at least raised in a time that was less narcissistic and more grounded in healthy values and attitudes (even if many adults have now gone to the “dark side”). Imagine a society comprised of the current generation of children soon to be adults who know of no other world other the present, “it’s all about me,” one dominated popular culture and technology.

I don’t have a crystal ball, so I can’t look into the future and see what the answers to these questions are. But if what is happening now to our children and in our society is any indication, it’s difficult to hold out much hope for the future.

Is Facebook Creating a False Self in Your Children?

by:

In my last post, I described how new media is causing the externalization of children’s self-identity. The result of this externalization may be your children developing a false self, in which they internalize the messages of popular culture and media, such as valuing themselves based on their wealth, appearance, or popularity, and those messages become the foundation of their self-identity.

The development of the false self grounded in the unrelenting messages from the many forms of media enables them to meet the demands of the “manufactured” world of so-called popular culture they are immersed in. Yet, the cost is high, namely, the creation of a false self that is incongruent with their true self, a self-identity that is an authentic expression of who they really are and the otherwise healthy world in which they live.

The false self is constructed to satisfy the needs of popular culture, in particular, to generate more profit for those companies that control popular culture. Its emphasis on those needs, for example, materialism, physical appearance, popularity, and celebrity, results in children feeling psychologically, emotionally, and socially “undernourished” because these aspects of the false self don’t satisfy their most basic needs for love, security, competence, and connection. In the absence of real meaning and fulfillment in their lives, children become dependent on media to meet the immediate and superficial needs of the externally constructed false self that provides them with only the bare minimum of “nourishment” to survive.

Children who are allowed to immerse themselves in media without guidance or limits are faced with a choice that really isn’t a choice: They can remain true to their emerging self-identity and forsake what they perceive as acceptance and validation by much of their social world (which is largely controlled by media these days). Or they can accept the false self that has been contrived by popular culture and ensure its ongoing esteem, however unhealthy it is. As children’s exposure to popular media grows, so does the pressure to repress their burgeoning true self, with its positive perspectives and healthy needs, and allow their false self, with its faulty judgments and dangerous prohibitions, to gain dominance.

Here is a wake-up call for you: If your own messages are reinforcing the projected identities of today’s media, your children have little chance but to capitulate to the externalized identity that is being forced on them. Imagine the two most powerful forces in their lives, namely, media and you, sending them the same messages to forsake their internally emerging self-identity for one that is in direct conflict with their own. The need to gain love and approval from you and to be accepted and valued by popular culture gives them no other option than to bury their true self-identity deep inside of them and allow the false self to come to the fore and assert control.

On their own, it’s virtually impossible for your children to resist the external identity and false self being imposed on them by media. Your children lack the experience, perspective, and maturity to withstand the allure, particularly when packaged in such entertaining characters, images, and music. The only chance they have in this world so dominated by media is for you to show them how to use all of the good that media has to offer while avoiding their pitfalls.

Self-esteem

There is a robust body of research affirming that children can come to value themselves based on the messages they get from the media. For example, girls who read fashion and celebrity magazines, which portray thin models, are more self-conscious about their bodies, diet and exercise more, and are more vulnerable to eating disorders. Also, the sexualization of females that dominates both old and new media and is accessible to increasingly younger ages of girls results in distorted body image, low self-esteem, and depression, among other developmental problems. Among boys, research has shown unrealistic portrayals of males related to physical prowess, appearance, intellect, and attractiveness to the opposite sex create unrealistic expectations that lower self-esteem.

New media is playing an growing role in the formation and maintenance of self-esteem among children. There is growing evidence that young people are increasingly basing how they feel about themselves on how connected they are and the quantity of their relationships. The steady influx of text messages, regular postings on social networking sites, and number of “likes” and “friends” they have, for example, become the measures of children’s self-worth. The absence of the above becomes the grounds for doubt, insecurity, and anxiety.

There is also an emerging body of evidence indicating that social media is developing an unhealthy relationship with self-esteem. For example, one study found that Facebook users who had low self-esteem posted more “self-promotional” materials on their pages than those with high self-esteem. Another study reported that those who were more dependent on outside influences for their self-esteem were more likely to spend more time and post more photos of themselves on Facebook.

So far, I’ve painted a pretty bleak picture of media’s impact on children. There is, however, evidence of some positive influence on children’s development. For example, one study found that social media provides opportunities to build self-esteem, develop friendships, and hone social skills. Other research reported that viewing and editing their profile and receiving feedback from friends on their Facebook pages boosted self-esteem. In the case of the profiles, because profiles tend to be positive, subjects were giving themselves a “shot” of optimism about themselves. In the case of the feedback from friends, subjects got a “shot” of support.  Additionally, the sense of security that social media provide can allow shy children to express themselves more and practice social skills which can then translate into confident and comfortable face-to-face interactions.

Consistent with my message throughout my latest parenting book, Raising Generation Tech: Preparing Your Children for a Media-fueled World, media will only be harmful to children’s self-esteem if they are exposed to them in excess, without reasonable filters, guidance, or perspective, and with insufficient counterbalances, such as positive experiences, feedback, messages, from the “real world.”

The Externalization of Your Children’s Self-identity

by:

“To all of Chris’ friends: This is his father. My son carelessly left his account logged in so I decided to snoop around. Upon reading my son’s personal information, I would like to clear a few things up. My son is not a ‘gangsta,’ he will not ‘beat a ho’s ass’ and he will most certainly not ‘roll a fatty wit his boyz.’ So for all of those who think he is some hard ass thug, think again…he is Chris _______, a 15 year old kid that was afraid of the dark until he was 12 and cried at the end of Marley and Me.” Father changing his son’s Facebook status

_____________________________________________________________________________

Is there anything more important to your children’s long-term development than the formation of a healthy self-identity? The self-identity encompasses the totality of the knowledge and understanding that children gain about themselves including their personalities, aptitudes and capabilities, intellectual and physical attributes, interests, and relationships. The self-identity includes not only present perceptions, but also future and idealized self-conceptions that act as the aspirations and goals toward which children strive. Your children’s self-identity, that is, how they come to think of themselves, define who they are as people, and see themselves as unique all play a vital role in the people that your children become and the direction that their lives take.

Self-identity also involves two separate, though related, “mechanisms:” self-awareness and self-esteem. Self-awareness refers to your children’s ability to be introspective and understand who they are, for example, their personality, values, needs, attitudes, and emotions. Self-esteem is your children’s general evaluation of their competence and worth as a person based on what they know of themselves from their self-awareness and feedback from their social world.

As children mature, healthy self-identity becomes clearly defined; children come to know who they are. It’s also internally and externally congruent, meaning different perceptions that children hold about themselves are consistent and those perceptions are not in conflict with feedback they receive about themselves from the world around them.

Importantly, a healthy self-identity provides children with three essential “senses” that act as the foundation for future development. First, self-identity gives children a sense of consistency and stability over time, helping them to feel safe and secure and from which they are comfortable exploring the limits of their abilities. Second, it gives children a sense of uniqueness from which they can seek out their own individual place and make their own special contributions to the world. Third, self-identity gives them a sense of affiliation in which, while seeing themselves as distinct beings, also feel an integral part of a group and capable of building nurturing relationships in different aspects of their lives.

Externalization of Self-identity

One aspect of self-identity that is particularly relevant is that children gain their self-identity through both self-observation and information from their social world. As children gain self-awareness, they observe and evaluate their own behavior based on past experience, current needs, and future goals and dreams. They also look outward to their social, academic, physical, artistic, and spiritual worlds in which they live for feedback that also shapes their self-identity. Because children are fundamentally social beings and an essential part of their development involves finding their place in the social and cultural context in which they live, feedback from that social world plays a significant role in the evolution of their self-identity.

Because children’s social worlds have expanded dramatically in the last decade, from families, friends, neighborhoods, and schools to an almost-limitless universe of people due to the proliferation of the Internet, it isn’t difficult to see how external forces may now be gaining a disproportionate influence over the development of children’s self-identity compared to previous generations where their social worlds were far more confined. These social influences, accelerated by the explosion of technology, may be interfering with the healthy development of self-identity in children.

One of the most powerful ways in which popular culture and technology are altering the way in which self-identity is established in children is through the shift from being internally to externally driven. Yes, as I just described, social factors have always had an impact on the formation of self-identity, but they had been, up until recently, balanced partners of sorts with children’s own internal contributors to self-identity. Now the sheer ubiquity and force of the recent technological advances has taken that influence and turned its volume up to a deafening roar.

In previous generations, most of the social forces that influenced children’s self-identities were positive; parents, peers, schools, communities, extracurricular activities, even the media sent mostly healthy messages to children about who they were and how they should perceive themselves. Yes, there were bad influences, but they were far outweighed by those that were beneficial to children. These forces acted mostly as a mirror reflecting back on children what they saw in themselves, resulting in affirmation rather than change in their self-identity.

But now, the pendulum has swung to the other extreme in a social world where the profit motive trumps concern for children’s well being and where healthy influences are mostly drowned out by the cacophony of popular culture as transmitted by the latest technology.

The self-identities of this generation of children are now shaped by external forces in two ways. First, popular culture, through today’s media, no longer holds a mirror to reflect children’s self-identities. Nor does it provide feedback about how grounded their self-identities are in the reality of their lives. Instead, popular culture manufactures “portraits” of who it wants children to be. Tapping into children’s most basic needs to feel good about themselves, accepted, and attractive, popular culture tells children what they should believe about themselves.

The problem is that the self-identity that is shaped by popular culture serves its own best interests rather than those of children. Additionally, self-identity is no longer really self-identity, meaning derived from the self, but rather is an identity projected onto children by popular culture and in no way a reflection of who children are, what the British neuroscientist Susan Greenfield calls the “Nobody Scenario.”

Second, technology has caused children to shift away from expressing their self-identities and toward constructing a façade based on the answer to the question, “How can I ensure that others view me positively?” The goal for children in their use of technology, whether Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, or text messaging, becomes how they can curry acceptance, popularity, status, and, by extension, self-esteem. Self-awareness and self-expression give way to a preoccupation with what others think, impression management, and self-promotion. As the writer Christine Rosen wrote in her 2007 article in The New Atlantis, “Does this technology, with its constant demands to collect (friends and status), and perform (by marketing ourselves), in some ways undermine our ability to attain what it promises—a surer sense of who we are and where we belong? The Delphic oracle’s guidance was know thyself. Today, in the world of online social networks, the oracle’s advice might be show thyself.

Children come to see their identities not as expressions of who they are and what they believe, but rather the identities they would like to have or that they want people to see. They then feel compelled to promote and market these identities using technology rather than embracing and expressing internally generated and accurate expressions of who they really are.

The line between person and persona, private and public self become blurred or erased completely and the so-called self-identity, which is supposed to be a reflection of the individuality of each child, becomes rather a means of their acceptance and status among others who reside in their digital communities. Yet, in children’s extensive efforts to be “liked”—an act of accumulation to be taken on Facebook—by manipulating their persona, they come to believe that they’re not worthy of being liked—an expression of affection, in the original sense of the word—for the person that they really are.

Paradoxically, in striving for approval from their social world writ large through technology and in seeking uniqueness that enables children to stand out in the densely populated cyber world, they unwittingly sacrifice their true self-identities and shape their identities to conform to what the digital world views as acceptable. In doing so, children relinquish the specialness that they hold so dear. Notes Christine Rosen, “Indeed, this is one of the characteristics of MySpace [before Facebook rose to preeminence] most striking to anyone who spends a few hours trolling its millions of pages: it is an overwhelmingly dull sea of monotonous uniqueness, of conventional individuality, of distinctive sameness.” Because children’s needs for acceptance and status are so strong and the external forces so powerful and pervasive, they have little choice but to capitulate and adopt the identities that are imposed on them rather than seek out their true self-identities.

This post is excerpted from Dr. Jim Taylor’s new parenting book, Raising Generation Tech: Preparing Your Children for a Media-fueled World.

The Disturbing Sexualization of REALLY Young Girls

by:

Whenever I think popular culture, and the companies that control it for their own profiteering ends, has gone as low as it can go in its wanton disregard for basic decency in general and children in particular, it always seems to find a way to dig deeper within itself and discover new depths to plumb.

Cases in point was the release of a new line of girls’ bathing suits by the actress Elizabeth Hurley that have caused quite a stir, along with two recent research studies that, taken in toto, should leave any parent of a young girl absolutely mortified. This isn’t the first time I’ve explored the unhealthy relationship between popular culture and girls. It’s such a big issue for me because I have two young daughters of my own. I see them surrounded by these awful messages and want to do everything I can to protect them for as long as I can (while recognizing that I can’t protect them forever).

Some might argue that all this concern for young girls’ exposure to sexuality is just much ado about nothing. These girls are just wearing clothes that are fun and they don’t even know what sex is. Or we Americans are such prudes; girls in other parts of the world run around naked and no one cares. Or girls might as well get used to it because that’s the world they are now growing up in.

But my harsh reaction isn’t about religious beliefs, personal standards of conduct, or legal views on decency. Rather, my condemnation is based on my own work in child development and parenting as well as the latest research on the impact of early exposure of sexuality to girls’ development. And the impact of this early sexualization of girls is real and it ain’t good.

As I write about in my third parenting book, Your Children are Listening: Nine Messages They Need to Hear From You, children are sponges for the early messages they get. Further, thanks to television, movies, and the Internet, popular culture sends its unhealthy messages loudly and persistently, drowning out other healthier messages (e.g., from parents) that might be trying to get through. When children are exposed to these messages enough, they can’t help but internalize them and make them their own. And, sadly, these unhealthy messages shape the values, attitudes, and beliefs they come to hold about themselves and the world. It’s not hard to see, then, how early exposure to sexuality can set girls on an unhealthy life path.

A recent study found that girls as young as six years old wanted to be like dolls who were dressed in a sexy way compared to dolls who were dressed stylishly, but covered up. These young girls associated being sexy with being the way they wanted to look, being popular in school, and who they wanted to play with. Another finding of the study was the girls who spent a lot of time with media and who had mothers who were overly invested in their own appearance were more likely to identify with the sexily clad dolls.

One study found that about one third of the clothes for girls sold had “sexualizing characteristics.” Interestingly, most of these clothes also had age-appropriate elements, perhaps obscuring the sexual side of the designs.

So, what impact does all of this have on young girls? It definitely not good. An American Psychological Association task force report found that girls who are exposed to sexual messages in popular culture are more likely to have low self-esteem and depression, and suffer from eating disorders. I see girls in my daughters’ school wiggling their behind, strutting their stuff, posing with hands on hips and one hip out, and giving off that “sassy” (codeword for sexy girl) attitude.

The bad news is that mothers can actually cause their young daughters to buy into this early equalization, potentially causing them to develop attitudes about their sexuality that can have serious long-term consequences on how they view themselves and their future sexual behavior.

But, thankfully, mothers’ influence on their daughters is two sides of the same coin. The good news is that mothers also have the ability to mitigate this unhealthy messages about sexuality by limiting exposure to age-inappropriate sexuality, using early exposure to sexual messages as teachable moments, instilling healthy values and attitudes about sexuality, and, probably most importantly, not sexually objectifying themselves.

Hey, don’t forget us fathers either in whether or not young girls see themselves as sexual beings. If you don’t think dads have an impact, you’re being naïve. Think about it. If you read men’s magazines, ogle cheerleaders while watching football on TV, or get upset when your wife isn’t all “dolled up,” what messages are you sending to your daughters?

I can’t really blame companies that sexualize young girls to fatten their bottom line. In the amoral free-market system, that is their reason for being. I do, however, blame the parents who buy this clearly inappropriate stuff, thus creating a market for these and other products that have no redeeming value and do plenty of harm. The calculus is simple: no demand, no market, no sexualization of girls. I do wonder about some of the executives of these companies who have young daughters of their own.

Is there any chance that we can convince the companies that sell sexuality to young girls to just stop it because it is wrong? No way! And I can’t see our government doing anything that would place the welfare of children over the bottom line of Big Business (sorry for the cynicism) So, as is so often the case with children, the buck stops with us. We the parents have the power to either turn our daughters into little you-know-whats or into strong and confident women with a healthy relationship with their sexuality.

The choice is yours.

Give Your Children the Gift of an “Unmediated” Life

by:

I want to provide you with a “big picture” sense of the kind of life that I believe your children should lead during their formative years. This life should result in their developing into children who have both the “old-school” values, attitudes, and tools and the “new-school” skills (i.e., technology capabilities) that will enable them to thrive in the 21st century.

Unmediated Life

At the heart of this life that I advocate for is that your children should live a largely unmediated life in which they can have direct access to their experiences. When I talk about unmediated, I intend it in two ways. First, so many children these days are forced to view their world through the “lens” of popular culture, whether the things they eat, wear, or play with that have merchandising tie-ins or simply the presence of popular culture in everything they see, watch, read, and listen to. It doesn’t take a great stretch of the imagination to see how these popular culture filters would have a significant impact on how your children come to view themselves and their world. You want your children to see themselves and their lives unencumbered by these lenses, in which they can experience life in a pure and unbiased way, allowing them to decide for themselves on its meaning and how it might affect them.

Second, as the research on the astonishing amount of time that children spend in front of screens suggests, so much of their day is spent viewing the world through a screen, whether television, computer, video game console, or smartphone. As I will describe shortly, this mediated experience—a screen is always between them and life—has significant limitations with real implications on their development. You want your children to experience most of their life directly without what are really virtual representations of life as rendered through a screen.

3-D Life

Your children should also experience their lives in three dimensions. New developments in movies, video games, and other forms of technology have resulted in what is called 3-D, but don’t be fooled into thinking it’s the same thing. 3-D movies, video games and now smartphones provide the illusion of three dimensions, but, in reality, continue to be two dimensional. Though certainly adding to the entertainment experience of the different media, there is, nonetheless, no substitute for the true three-dimensionality of real life.

Though there is no research on this topic to date, it seems reasonable to speculate that so much time devoted to the two-dimensional world of technology could hurt your children’s processing of the three-dimensional world. You want your children to perceive and interact as much as possible with all three dimensions of the world as it exists in reality, not in a virtual world missing a dimension.

All of the Senses

Another thing that makes real life so real and satisfying 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 evocative content, though typically artificially created and irrelevant to real life (e.g., FarmVille) or kept at arms’ length (e.g., Facebook).

It seems likely that the substitution of complete sensory experience with one that is lacking, fragmented, or mediated in its sensory output could again have developmental ramifications for your children. You want your children to “consume” the depth and intensity of the full spectrum of sensory information that is available to them through unmediated living.

Open-ended Experience

Technology, by its very nature, puts children in a box, a very bright, shiny, and fun box to be sure, but a box nonetheless. This box is based on technology’s necessity to restrict the options it programs into software. You may think those dropdown menus give your children options, but what the menus really do is limit their choices. When your children are placed in a box they have no incentive or capability to think or act outside of that box, which is what creativity is all about.

Also, because technology provides a complete “package” (narrative, visuals, etc.) in TV shows, movies, and video games, little is left to children’s imaginations; they become consumers of others’ creativity rather than producers of their own. I would argue that the imagination and creativity are “muscles” that will only develop if exercised.

Real life offers children experiences that are open-ended giving them the opportunity flex their imaginative and creative muscles. They’re free to create whatever “box” they choose (or create no box at all) based on the choices from the universe of options that are available in the real world. The only limits that exist are those set by children’s own imaginations and the physical parameters of real life (and that rarely holds them back). Isn’t it a true marvel to watch a child engage in imaginary play with nothing more than a few props? The worlds, characters, and story lines that they create are remarkable. You want your children to have that freedom to explore what is possible (and even impossible) and those opportunities cannot readily be found in the virtual world.

Context

Real life has context, meaning it occurs within a framework of time (past, present, and future), relationships (your children and other people), and consequences (what your children do has an effect on the world). Yes, later in life some of the use of popular culture and technology gains context because it exists within and is an extension of real life. For children, much of popular culture and technology lacks context because their use of them is usually a suspension of time, not a part of life’s timeline. Also, because much of the involvement with popular culture and technology occurs either alone or through virtual connections, children lack the context of real relationships. What children do as they, for example, watch television or movies or play video games, has no direct consequences on their lives or the lives of others. You want your children to spend most of their time in the context of real life because it is that context that children are able to gain perspective on time, relationships, and consequences that are vital to their healthy development.

Physicality

Real life is physical, meaning that much of what children do in their lives involves physical action and an understanding of the place that their physical being holds in the world in which they live. Most of technology limits or lacks this essential physical component either by children sitting passively in front of a television or simulating actual physical activities with a Wii.

Yet, as developing physical beings, children need physicality to be a central part of their lives.  Given the epidemic of obesity among children today, regular physical activity has immense ramifications on children’s and our nation’s futures. Physical activity, for example, sports and dance, and not the simulated variety found with technology, is essential for the healthy development of motor skills.

A great challenge that all children face, particularly as they enter puberty, is to feel comfortable and confident in their bodies. This experience is especially difficult these days when popular culture offers unrealistic and often unhealthy physical role models—images of beautiful and thin women and handsome and muscular men are ubiquitous—and so-called physical imperfections can be easily corrected with cosmetic surgery.

You want your children to experience their bodies through physical activity in ways that will enable them to learn about, become skilled in, and feel at ease and secure with their bodies and physical life.

High-res Life

I’m going to once again borrow a term from the tech world that has tremendous relevance to your children’s world. That word is resolution which refers to the clarity and sharpness of an image, whether a printed photograph or one viewed on a computer screen (usually defined in terms of pixels or dots per inch). Now you might be wondering what resolution has to do with your children. Well here’s how. Technology creates a low-resolution approximation of reality that offers an incomplete experience that lacks “granularity,” meaning richness and complexity, and, as I noted above, three dimensionality. Yes, it offers practical benefits and entertainment value, but is it high resolution enough to want to regularly substitute for your children’s real life? I don’t believe so.

When I refer to high resolution, I mean the full sensory experience of real life, but I also mean its entire social and emotional experience as well. What makes life so high resolution is that it is granular, that it is detailed in all the ways in which we experience it. Life is often risky, messy, difficult, and sometimes hurtful. Life is two sides of the same coin. Your children can’t experience the meaning, satisfaction, and joy of life unless you allow them to also experience its less pleasant sides. You want your children to experience a high-resolution life that is unmediated, unfiltered, and unlimited (with your guidance, of course). Only with such high-resolution experiences will your children develop the values, attitudes, and skills necessary to prosper in the real world in which they live, only a small part of which should be the tech world.

Certainly, technology can play a role in your children’s real lives; they can have great fun with it and they will need to learn how to use it to lead productive lives. I think you would agree that it shouldn’t be a free, unfettered, and dominant force in your children’s lives. If that happens, your children will miss out on so much good stuff that makes unmediated life far better and more interesting than a mediated life could possibly offer.

Relationships

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, real life, and much of the meaning and satisfaction, and happiness accrued from it, comes from our relationships with others. The development of your children’s social lives is essential for much of their future psychological and emotional health and well being. In fact, considerable research has found that the quality of relationships is the single best predictor of happiness.

Yet much technology doesn’t allow for the development of relationships, whether watching television or movies, playing video games alone, or surfing the Web. Yes, some technology, for example, Facebook, texting, and multiplayer video games, have a social component, but they strike me as having serious limitations. First, relationships that are based in technology seem to be “social lite,” because it limits the contributors to the real richness of human interactions (e.g., usually lacking facial expressions, body language, and emotional content). Or, second, they are “social safe” because it keeps relationships at a comfortable distance and protects children from the risks and hurt (along with the benefits and joys) of real social interaction.

Don’t get me wrong. There is certainly a place for technology in children’s social lives. It provides many avenues, for example, Facebook and Skype, to begin and maintain relationships. Interactive video or online games are certainly better than watching TV or movies with others, generally passive and asocial experiences for children. Are they as good or better than kids playing tag or whiffle ball or dress up? I’m going to vote no on that one. You want your children to be immersed in a predominantly rich and unmediated social life that offers everything they need to develop into socially comfortable, confident, and connected people.

What Life Do You Choose for Your Children?

There is, as they say, more than one road to Rome. I can’t offer you a clear and well-defined path that you should take in raising your children in this world so dominated by popular culture and technology. Everything I speak about addresses issues that are not black and white, but rather offer many shades of gray. Which shade of gray you choose depends on your own values and attitudes, your relationship with technology, your understanding of how popular culture and technology influences your children, and the goals that you have for them.

My real point is to convey the importance of my view that you need to be both well informed and deliberate in how you expose your children to popular culture and technology. You can use these criteria of a balanced childhood that includes both unmediated and mediated experiences as a lens through which to look at your children’s relationship with popular culture and technology and, through that lens, you can decide how best to make that vision a reality in your children’s lives.

This post is excerpted from Dr. Jim Taylor’s new parenting book, Raising Generation Tech: Preparing Your Children for a Media-fueled World.

Our 5-Hour, $10,000 Visit to the ER

by:

Back in August, while on vacation in Idaho, my wife began to experience some stomach pain., but didn’t think much of it. But, on our drive home around 9 pm as we neared Reno, the pain became intolerable. I called 911 and was directed to the emergency room of the Northern Nevada Hospital in Sparks.

As we entered the ER, I was first struck by how the stereotypes of an ER on a weekend night were confirmed. Literally all of the visitors were, based on appearances, old, poor, obese, under the influence, or all of the above (I say this as an observation, not a judgment). Once we got my wife checked in, despite being in considerable pain, she had to wait almost an hour to see a nurse. She was then admitted and waited in a room for another hour before a physician came in to examine her.

Once the doctor completed the exam, if you call it that because it lasted perhaps two minutes and there was no actual physical examination, my wife was told that she would have a series of tests done including a CT scan. She then waited another hour and a half for the tests to be started and another hour and a half before the physician gave her a diagnosis. Thankfully, the cause of my wife’s pain wasn’t serious and we were sent on our way at 2 am, 5 hours after we arrived (in the meantime, I stayed in our car in the parking lot with our two young daughters while they tried to sleep).

We have followed the health care debate over the few years and, as a result, know that ER visits are expensive, so we figured my wife’s visit would cost, oh, $2,000 or so. Well folks, we “misunderestimated” the cost by a factor of five. I just received the bill from our insurance company and the grand total was $10, 203 (or about $2,000 an hour). I called the hospital and received an itemized statement. Most of what was done was incomprehensible to me (I’m not that kind of doc!): CMP Pane ($510), Level 4 ($715), but an Internet search helped explain things a bit.

But, not surprisingly, the “bill killer” was an abdominal CT scan which ran a tidy $7525! I did a little research on line and found that a typical range for this type of CT scan runs the gamut from a national minimum of $1600 in Jonesboro, Arkansas to a national average of $2175 to a national maximum of $8,200 in Ketchikan, Alaska. I can understand why a CT scan would cost so much in rural Alaska, but can someone tell me why one in Sparks, Nevada would cost $7525?

Well, I called and asked the billing department at the Northern Nevada Hospital that very same question and was told that the bill was so high because the hospital doesn’t specialize in CT scans. Huh? You’re a hospital, you have a CT scan machine, you have technicians to administer the scan, you have radiologists to read the results, and I assume you do a lot of CT scans. How does that not make you a specialist? How does that justify charging three to five times the normal rate for CT scans and almost as much as one in a remote part of Alaska?

Now let me digress and put this experience in the perspective of health-care costs and health insurance in America today. I work for myself, so I buy health insurance for our family. Though we would love to have a so-called Cadillac plan in which everything is cover from the get-go, the premiums for a self-employed family makes your head spin. We chose a lower-premium, high-deductible plan with a Health Savings Account that costs us around $7,000 a year in premiums (our premium has more than doubled in recent years), that’s about half of what most families pay for coverage. At the beginning of each year, I deposit the allowed amount of pre-tax dollars (around $6,000) in our HSA and use that money to pay for medical expenses that arise up to our $9,000 deductible limit. This coverage has worked well for us because we are all healthy and, most years, don’t even come close to maxing out the deductible.

We are certainly grateful that there was a hospital nearby in the event that my wife’s pain was serious. And the care she received appeared to be perfectly adequate (though the bedside manners of the hospital staff needed some work). And, thankfully, due to some minor surgery my wife had earlier this year plus the usual medical expenses any family incurs, we won’t have to pay the $10,000 ER bill (at least not directly because we all pay for medical care with increased premiums).

On the drive home after leaving the hospital, my wife and I reflected on the experience and felt fortunate that, whatever the cost, we have the resources available for such emergencies. But, when we received the ER bill, we had a decidedly different reaction. We were appalled that there are many families in America for whom such a visit to the ER would drive them to bankruptcy, homelessness, and destitution.

It’s easy, when you have a degree of financial security, to have a real disconnect from the financial challenges that so many Americans face today. It’s also easy, in the partitioned society that America has become, to simply lose touch with the lives and experiences of those different from our own. Yet, our ER experience brought those challenges into sharp relief for me and the impression wasn’t pleasant.

It showed me the plain callousness of a country so supposedly principled that doesn’t provide such a basic right as health care for all of its citizens. I realized the absurdity of how much health care costs in America when other countries provide universal care at much less cost with far better outcomes.

It demonstrated to me the tragedy of so many good people who, out of no fault of their own, are suffering for a lack of such a fundamental right. And, as the father of two girls, it pains me to think of the millions of children who don’t have their most basic needs to live a healthy life  met: proper nutrition, a safe home, a decent education, and, yes, health care.

This wantonly neglectful treatment of so many Americans is an outrage and it is mystifying to me that it isn’t expressed by more people, particularly by our elected officials (actually, I’m not surprised by our elected officials’ indifference). How can this inaction be justified in any moral world?

And I came to these conclusions by simply visiting an ER in Sparks, Nevada, late on a Saturday night.

Six Reasons Why Politicians Believe They Can Lie (and Not Get Caught)

by:

With the presidential and congressional campaigns in the homestretch, the quadrennial contest for deception, misdirection, fact-bending, half-truths, and downright lies, in other words, the challenge to win the hearts and minds of voters, is in full swing. In writing this post, I’m trying to maintain a neutral stance on which party and which candidates are the most disingenuous and dishonest, but I will say that lying seems to be reaching its apogee with less than two months until the election, though I’m sure there will be new heights (or depths, depending on how you look at it) to be reached between now and November.

I’m constantly amazed by how often politicians lie and then, of course, their unwillingness to admit that they lied. The euphemisms that politicians use for what is, in many cases, bald-faced lies are legend. Politicians misspoke. The biased media misinterpreted what they meant. Politicians’ words were distorted, misrepresented, twisted, exaggerated, or taken out of context. They overstated, understated, or misstated. But, of course, politicians never lie, at least that’s what they say.

Yet, the unvarnished truth is that politicians do lie about things substantive, for example, Anthony Wiener’s denials of his physically self-adoring tweets, and trivial, such as Paul Ryan’s physically self-adoring claims of having run a sub-three-hour marathon.

The $64,000 question that is constantly asked is: Why do politicians believe they can lie and not get caught? Particularly in this age of the Internet and its army of professional and amateur fact checkers, the chances of lies standing up under the glare of the inevitable cyber-scrutiny are slim to none. Of course, some politicians don’t even try to adhere to “honesty is always the best policy” (thanks George Washington), as the Romney pollster Neil Newhouse now famously stated, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”

So, why do politicians believe they can lie when their untruths are so easily uncovered? Here are six reasons.

  1. Many politicians are narcissists. Though research on politicians is limited, it isn’t difficult to see the connection. Narcissists are arrogant, self-important, see themselves as special, require excessive admiration, have a sense of entitlement, and are exploitative. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it’s probably a duck. This constellation of narcissistic attributes causes them to believe that they are right and, even if they are not, they’re too smart to be caught or suffer the consequences. In other words, they believe their own BS. Case in point: As John Edwards, the former senator and vice presidential nominee, noted, “[My experiences] fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe you can do whatever you want.”
  2. Politicians know their followers will believe them, even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Politicians and their adherents live in an echo chamber in which everyone watches the same news channel, listens to the same talk radio, reads the same newspapers and web sites, and hangs out with the same like-minded people. There exists an impermeable membrane that prevents conflicting information from entering. The content of the lies is also usually red meat for the politicians’ ravenous base who are only too happy to chew on it for days on end.
  3. People don’t want to hear the truth. Truth, as the saying goes, hurts and no one wants to hear things that threaten their existence, their beliefs, or that will make them uncomfortable. It is decidedly better for politicians to tell people what makes them feel comfortable. Why should politicians be the purveyors of bad news (and decrease the likelihood of getting people’s votes) when they can tell fairy tales with happy endings (which, of course, everyone wants) and come out the victor.
  4. The Internet never forgets. One of the unintended consequences of the Internet is that information, true or not, lives on forever and it is likely to continue to be believed even in the face of contradictory evidence. Research has shown, for example, that people are more likely to believe unsubstantiated rumors about a political candidate they oppose when read in emails and on blogs.
  5. Cognitive biases. Daniel Kahneman and others have demonstrated that the human mind engages in many cognitive tricks to help people be more efficient, reduce confusion and anxiety, and keep life simple and coherent. Examples include the confirmation bias which involves the inclination to seek out information that supports our own preconceived notions; the Semmelweis reflex which is the predisposition to deny new information that challenges our established views; and the overconfidence effect which involves unwarranted confidence in one’s own knowledge, just to name a few.
  6. If a lie is told enough times, people will assume it is true. It is not a stretch to understand why people would believe something if they hear it enough. People expect that lies will be disproved and fade away. So if the lies continue to be heard, people assume, then they must be true. Case in point: John Kerry being “Swift Boated” during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Ultimately, politicians lie because, due to the six reasons above, the cost/benefit ratio for lying is in their favor. Politicians run this calculation when they create or shift a damaging narrative, attack an opponent, or respond to indefensible claims against them. I’m going to assume that most politicians know when they are lying (if not, we not only have a bunch of narcissists in government, but also a whole lot of sociopaths). So, politicians lie when they believe that dishonesty is the best policy for getting elected.

Am I Having a Mid-life Crisis?

by:

I’ve been pretty darned restless for about six months now and I just haven’t been able to shake the feeling. I wasn’t sure what to make of this unsettled feeling because I’ve got a really good life. Then, I received an email from one of my best friends who now lives in London (I’ve been having a bromance with “Drew” for some time) in which he wrote, “The good news is that I am having a huge mid-life crisis.” His declaration hit me like a ton of bricks. Am I having a mid-life crisis?

But I was confused; mid-life crises are supposed to be bad. It’s when guys, particularly those over 40, pretty successful, and married with children (that would be me) feel the need to chase younger women and buy sports cars. Though, as a guy, the former has a certain immature appeal, neither holds much interest to me. So I asked him how a mid-life crisis could be good.

Here’s what he said: “I actually think our generation’s version of a midlife crisis could be a good thing.  Mine anyway, powered by a growing sense of my own mortality and some vestigial feeling of re-birth, is all about becoming even more interesting to myself and to my wife and children. At this point in his life my dad was sinking deeper into a leather chair and a copy of Time magazine. On the other hand I still think I can become a better athlete, a better dad, husband, friend, pilot, leader…you name it.  Maybe that’s totally silly, but I feel a certain urgency to try.  I think my midlife crisis is in some ways accelerating what I hope is an unconventional narrative; not a slowing and sliding into a life of comfort.”

All I could think of was, “Wow!” My heart raced and my adrenaline started flowing. This time he hit the nail on the head for me. Even though I’m supposedly on the back side of my life (over 50), I feel as healthy and vigorous and capable as ever. I’m doing the best work of my life. I can still run and ride my bike and ski with guys half my age. I’m not ready to concede anything to age at this point. And I feel like I have some of my best years ahead of me, personally, socially, professionally, and athletically. His thoughts really got me fired up to take full ownership of my now-defined mid-life crisis.

But then Drew’s next words tempered things a bit for me. “I am fully embracing it even if it causes some stress! I wrote a friend the other day a version of how I am feeling about all of this, and made it sound too heroic and self-helpian…it is actually a messy process, with large doses of self doubt and aches and pains,” he said.

I’m definitely not ready to sink into a leather chair and get comfortable. Yet, over the last year or so, I have been feeling perhaps too comfortable. I love my wife and children. I love my life. I have a career that is both fulfilling and, as I define it, successful. We have a reasonable degree of financial security. I feel fortunate that I can do something I love, earn a decent wage, yet still spend tons of time with my family.

At the same time, I’ve come to the realization that I’m a little bored. I’ve been doing the same work for more than 20 years. I’ve been running and biking the same routes every week for the last five years. I don’t have any new hobbies or new friends.

I’m definitely feeling that sense of mortality. At one level, I feel pretty nihilistic; what’s the point of life? I’m going to die and that will be it. I have two choices then. Either I decide to check out of life or I decide to create meaning in my life. I either waste my time or make the most of the time I have on this planet.

In these situations, the easy road would be to just sit back and let the clock run out because, well, I’m comfortable and I have a good life. But I think I would have a ton of regrets (“I wonder what could have been?”) 20 years down the road.

No, I’ve always felt that life at its most satisfying has an edge to it, some stress, some discomfort, some feeling of not being settled. Maybe that’s my problem. Perhaps my life now is too settled; there’s nothing in my life that is really jazzing me now. So I need to take action. I need to do something that will excite me and break me out of my lethargy. But what do I need to do? My motto should be, “Just change, baby.”

I do feel like I need a change, but don’t know what that change would be. I’m basically happy with who I am as a person (though there’s always room for improvement). I have no wish to trade my wife in for a newer model, as some men do. My kids? Well, I love them and they are one aspect of my life that changes daily. I love my work, so I don’t want to change careers (not that I could even if I wanted to), though taking on some new challenges or heading in a new direction would certainly keep me on my toes. I don’t have any great desire to learn a second language, take up a new sport, or play the guitar. My wife and I have talked about leaving the Bay Area and starting from scratch somewhere new (I like the idea, my wife less so). So what kind of change do I make?

I’m sorry to say that I’m not going to be answering these questions by the end of this post. But I figure that asking the same questions that Drew asked is a start: Can I become more interesting? Can I become a better me? I’d like to hope so. I just need to figure out how. I’ll keep you posted.