The Cluttered Mind Uncluttered

In researching my next parenting book, I came across several recent studies that I found truly disturbing. As you will see shortly, the results don’t paint a pretty picture for the future of our children or our society as a whole. Even more damning is what it tells us about how parents are raising their children these days. Let’s take a look a the findings.

One study analyzed the values expressed on the most popular television shows among so-called tweens (children ages 9-11) every decade from 1967 to 2007. Just so you can get a sense of how TV viewing has changed, here are the shows that were selected:1967: Andy Griffith, The Lucy Show; 1977: Laverne and Shirley, Happy Days; 1986: Growing Pains, Alf;  1997: Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Boy Meets World; 2007: American Idol, Hannah Montana.

The results revealed little change in values presented on the shows between 1967 and 1997, during which time, the five most expressed values were Community Feeling, Benevolence, Image, Tradition, and Popularity (three out of the five would generally be considered healthy). The five least expressed values were Fame, Physical Fitness, Hedonism, Spiritualism, and Financial Success (three out of five would generally be considered unhealthy).

Only during the most recent decade did a dramatic shift in values occur. The new top-five values were Fame, Achievement, Popularity, Image, and Financial Success (with Self-Centered and Power close behind). Related values that also became more prominent included Ambition, Comparison to Others, Attention Seeking, Conceitedness, Glamour, and Materialism. The latest bottom-five values were Spiritualism, Tradition, Security, Conformity, and Benevolence (with Community Feeling to follow). I don’t think the so-called values voters of today (or anyone else, for that matter) would have a hard time judging which would be considered healthy values and which wouldn’t be.

An additional analysis of the data revealed a significant increase from 1997 to 2007 in the importance of fame to the main characters in the television shows. If you look at the popular tween shows today, for example, iCarly, they largely revolve around a young person pursuing fame and fortune, specifically through television, music, or fashion. I don’t know about you, but just reading these findings makes me want to pack my wife and two young daughters in our car and live off the grid in northern Idaho.

Given that the values did not gradually shift during the decades studied, but rather changed abruptly in the last decade, the results can’t be readily attributed to demographic patterns related to increased wealth or education. Instead, the most dramatic change, and the likely cause of these results in my view, is the rapid and all-encompassing emergence of new technology, which has given popular culture new and startling reach and influence on children.

Programming that expresses these value messages to your children are growing by the year. Since the data from this study were collected, more televisions shows aimed at the tween audience are being produced, including Glee, Big Time Rush, Victorious, and True Jackson. In fact, seven out of the top ten shows aimed at tweens are about teenagers who have achieved fame with careers in entertainment. Additionally, video games, such as Guitar Hero (in which everyone can be a rock star), and web sites, including Stardoll.com (the motto of which is “fame, fashion and friends), help create media “supersystems” that envelop children in unhealthy values.

Of course, you could argue, as the creator of several of these tween TV shows does, that all children want to be stars and that the producers of these media are just giving tweens what they want. But that would be like saying that America was clamoring for American Idol or iPods before they were introduced (not true, of course). Admittedly, America is screaming for them now, but the causal direction of this relationship is clear.

You might also contend that your children aren’t paying attention to popular culture’s value messages, much less internalizing them. Unfortunately, preliminary research indicates that children are getting the messages from popular culture. According to a new focus-group study by the same researchers, fame is now the number-one aspirational value among children nine to eleven years old. Another survey of children under ten years of age found that, among their ten favorite things, being famous, attractive, and rich topped the list and being fat topped the list of worst things.

So, what does this say about the values our children are learning? Well, nothing good, that’s for sure. These distorted values are definitely not going to prepare them for life in adulthood where, for most of us, narcissism and aspirations of wealth and fame don’t usually play well with reality.

And who’s to blame? We can’t blame children because they’re the victims here. It would be easy to point the finger at the “entertainment-industrial complex,” but that would be like blaming sharks for killing their prey; it’s simply what their DNA tells them to do. How about our government? Though some reasonable regulations of, for example, marketing to children on television, wouldn’t seem unreasonable, even as someone with a decidedly left-leaning bent, I just don’t believe it’s the government’s job to raise children. So, who’s left? The parents, of course, who should be offering their children healthy values and perspectives that counterbalance the twisted values of popular culture.

Am I optimistic about future generations of our children (and for American society)? It all depends on whether parents are ready to step up and do what’s best for their children. In other words, no, I’m not very optimistic.

I have two young daughters and, in some ways, I’m really excited that they are growing up in this generation. These are amazing times to be young and female with so many opportunities available to them. More women than men are graduating from college and earning graduate degrees. We see women at the highest level of government, business, education, sports, and the arts. Though a glass ceiling still exists in many fields, it seems to be much thinner than in the past and on its way to being broken completely (though it will, admittedly, still take a while). So it would seem that the today’s world will be my daughters’ oysters.

But not so fast.

I’m also terrified for my daughters because, though our society has made huge strides in the way women are viewed and treated in the academic and professional worlds, there is ample evidence that we have taken several giant steps backwards in how women are viewed and treated in other arenas.

This regression is most evident and most powerful in the role that women play in popular culture, but such distasteful and demeaning treatment also exists in places I expect to be more evolved.

As someone who writes and speaks frequently about the nexus of culture and child development and as a relatively new parent (my girls are 6 and 4), I’ve had my concerns about the world in which my daughters are growing up. But two recent publications and some subsequent investigations on my part have really raised the red flag on the world that my daughters will inhabit.

A recent New York Times article described the appalling behavior of men (or should I say boys?) toward their female counterparts on college campuses (supposedly the highest common denominator in our society) around the U.S., even at schools that I would have expected more of. For example, at Duke, a fraternity sent emails to female students inviting them to a Halloween party with the following missive, “Whether your [note misspelling] dressing up as a slutty nurse, slutty doctor, slutty schoolgirl…,” I don’t need to continue; you get the point.

Of course, boys will always be boys (sadly), but my real concern is that hundreds of recipients actually accepted the invitation, costumes and all. And it was noted that, while guys at these parties dress, well, like guys (meaning their usual slovenly selves), the girls are “dolled up” (double meaning intended) in tight and short dresses, high heels, and make-up.

Perhaps all of this stereotypical college-guy behavior is just their sweet revenge for their distaff counterparts leaving them in the dust academically. And the stereotypical female behavior is a way to dumb themselves down and bolster the emasculated male egos, thereby appearing more attractive to the men and increasing their chances of finding one to marry.

And a new book, Confidence Men, by the Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind exploring the role of women in the Obama White House, further tainted my view of women’s place in our society today. Suskind suggests that, despite Obama’s raised-by-his-mother sensibilities and Michelle’s strong presence, the usual boys club was in session at the White House and the behavior of the male members of President Obama’s staff in their treatment of their female counterparts was only a slightly more mature version of the frat boys’ behavior I just described. The former communications director Anita Dunn is quoted as saying, “this place would be in court for a hostile workplace. . . . Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” So women are invited onto the field during games these days, but aren’t actually allowed to play.

Now let’s turn our attention to popular culture, our society’s lowest common denominator. Have you watched television lately? What you’ll notice is the dearth of unattractive women. It doesn’t matter if you’re watching reality TV, a procedural crime drama, or situation comedies. It’s even infected cable and local news where the female newscasters and reporters seem to have stepped off of a beauty pageant runway (hang in there, Candy Crowley!). Admittedly, the guys are getting prettier too.

One of the most critically acclaimed and popular shows on television, Mad Men, and two new shows, The Playboy Club and Pan Am, promote the fantasy of 1950s woman power as if those days of yore are worthy of a return engagement. Yet, though these shows are wrapped in the guise of “proto-feminism,” at their core, they traffic in the same old messages about beauty and sex as their sole form of currency.

The occasional Susan Boyle notwithstanding, a woman has to be young, beautiful, usually white and, Megan McCarthy notwithstanding, thin to make it in popular culture these days, though overweight Black women seem to be acceptable (sorry if that is un-PC to say). And this “lookism” extends to popular music in spades and is even creeping into classical music as well.

And don’t even get me started on celebrity and fashion magazines! Okay, here I go just a bit. I was waiting to get my hair cut the other day and decided to do a little research. I flipped through issues of People and Us and I can tell you that I didn’t see one page without a photo of a young, beautiful, and thin woman. And what really kills me is that the distaff denizens of these periodicals are vilified for being both too thin and too fat; they have to be perfect. Now that is a bar that no woman shouldn’t be required to clear.

So, where can unattractive women find work in our popular culture these days? Women can’t even just be funny anymore. Back in the day, ugly women could harvest a mountain of jokes from their lives (think Phyllis Diller, Joan Rivers, and Rosanne Barr). These days even female comedians have to be attractive (think Chelsea Handler and Whitney Cummings). Now radio may be the only show-business hope for unattractive women.

Films have historically been a bastion of taste and sophistication among its more crass popular-culture brethren, at least when it comes to portrayals of women. But, with the release of Bridesmaids, women have decided to lower themselves (or they’ve been forced to by the screenwriters) to the same truly inane and moronic level of humor, involving genitals, flatulence, and sexual acts (all guaranteed to get a laugh) that is so popular among the males of our species.

Perhaps this shift is a sign of progress, not a regression, that signals a new level of equality for woman. If this change is any indication, maybe women are finally becoming one of the boys in whose club it is now acceptable for women to get drunkenly stupid, swear like a sailor, and pass gas (okay, fart) with pride. Maybe only when this happens will the boys allow the girls to become full-fledged members of their club with all attendant privileges. But I doubt it. More likely, this decline is simply another step in the subjugation of women for the pleasure and profit of the men who control popular culture.

Now where was I? Oh yes, my daughters. Where does that leave them? Well, my wife and I do our best to shield them from these messages. They don’t watch TV, have seen only a few old-school movies (like Annie), and have only fleetingly seen celebrity and fashion magazines in the supermarket checkout line. And we never talk about physical attractiveness or what they look like at home. Yet, they still get message that looks matter and, yes, even at their age, of sexuality, from their peers and misguided adults.

I guess all my wife and I can do is continue to downplay physical appearance, protect them from inappropriate messages about sexuality, and instill in our girls the values and attitudes about women that will enable them, if they so choose, to rise up to the glass ceiling and perhaps even smash it.

Or, we can pray to the almighty gods that they grow up to be really pretty.

See the photo to the right side of my post? A neighbor of mine, Larry Mansbach, emailed it to me because he thought it would make a good blog post. Well, he’s right.

The photo was taken on a beautiful July Saturday afternoon at the fields and playground of an elementary school in Marin County (please hold the Marin jokes) north of San Francisco. No, it’s not an advertisement for the beauty and serenity of Marin life (beautiful yes, serene no). Rather, it may be an indictment on life in the ‘burbs whether in Northern California or other parts south, east, or north.

Do you notice anything odd about the photo? I feel like I’m in an episode of Twilight Zone (cue music and Rod Serling’s voiceover; I know this reference makes me old) in which everything appears normal except for one glaring omission.

The obvious answer is: The children are missing! That’s what struck my neighbor in sending me the photo: Where are the children? I, of course, can’t provide any definitive answers to my question, but it does make you wonder. In my attempt at answering this question, the only thoughts that come to mind are those that are cynical and decidedly pessimistic. In honor of David Letterman, here’s my top-ten reasons why the fields and playgrounds are empty on a Saturday in July (perhaps the optimists out there can offer some more hopeful explanations for the void of youthful humanity in the photo):

10. At home playing video games.

9. Sitting on a park bench in packs texting rather than talking to each other.

8. Hanging out at the mall.

7. At a soccer tournament in Fresno.

6. At computer camp.

5. Doing an internship at Charles Schwab.

4. Buying crack on the mean streets of San Rafael.

3. Attending a birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese.

2. At their second home in Tahoe.

1. At summer school looking to gain an edge in the academic rat race.

Common sense, defined as “sound judgment derived from experience rather than study,” is one of the most revered qualities in America. It evokes images of early and simpler times in which industrious men and women built our country into what it is today. People with common sense are seen as reasonable, down to earth, reliable, and practical.

But here’s the catch. Common sense is neither common nor sense. There’s not a whole of sound judgment going on these days (though whether it is worse than in the past, I can’t be sure), so it’s not common. If common sense was common, then most people wouldn’t make the kinds of decisions they do every day. People wouldn’t buy stuff they can’t afford. They wouldn’t smoke cigarettes or eat junk food. They wouldn’t gamble. And if you want to get really specific and timely, politicians wouldn’t be tweeting pictures of their private parts to strangers. In other words, people wouldn’t do the multitude of things that are clearly not good for them.

And common sense isn’t real sense, if we define sense as being sound judgment, because relying on experience alone doesn’t usually offer enough information to draw reliable conclusions. Heck, I think common sense is a contradiction in terms. Real sense can rarely be derived from experience alone because most people’s experiences are limited.

In fact, I think that so-called common sense is a fallacy that has been foisted on us by our culture of ideology (any ideology that wants to tell us what we should think and do) that prefers us to be stupid, ill informed, and poor decision makers. Sorry to get a bit political here, but common sense is even used as an ideological cudgel by conservatives in which so-called coastal elites lack common sense and, as a result, are out of touch with “real Americans” who apparently have an abundance of common sense. But, if we use our elected representatives as examples (though I can’t vouch for how representative they actually are), I think it’s safe to say that unsound judgment, that is, the absence of common sense, doesn’t discriminate based on political ideology.

The word common, by definition, suggests that common sense is held by a large number of people. But the idea that if most people think something makes sense then it must be sound judgment has been disproven time and time again. Further, it is often people who might be accused of not having common sense who prove that what is common sense is not only not sense, but also completely wrong. And, by the way, common sense is often used by people who don’t have the real knowledge, expertise, or direct experience to actually make sound judgments.

The unfortunate reality is that trusting common sense, in point of fact, causes us to make poor rather than sound judgments. Perhaps the biggest problem with common sense is that it falls prey to the clear limits of personal experience. Or, we don’t even have any actual experience in the matter and rely simply on what we believe to be true or have been told is true, what we might label “faith-based sense” (in the broadest sense of the word faith). For example, when you’re having a discussion about just about anything that requires taking a stand, for example, the weather, the economy, raising children, sports, what have you, how often do you hear some variation of “Well, it’s been my experience that [fill in the blank]” and the person then draws a conclusion based on said experience? And how often is that conclusion wildly at odds with the facts? More often than not in my experience (though, of course, my experience may be insufficient to draw a truly sound conclusion).

I think we need to jettison this notion of the sanctity of common sense and instead embrace “reasoned sense,” that is, sound judgment based on rigorous study of an issue (which also includes direct experience). Of course, we can’t do an in-depth scientific study of every issue for which we need to draw a conclusion or make a decision. We can’t, in the formal sense, do a review of the literature that includes relevant theories and the scientific findings to date, prepare detailed hypotheses, design a formal methodology, collect data, and employ complex statistical analyses from which we draw conclusions. But we can, and should, apply many of these basic principles of the scientific method in more informal ways to our daily lives.

In fact, I think that a course in scientific thinking and methodology for everyday life should be a requirement for all students. Such proactive education about precise thinking and real sense might reduce the number of truly dunderhead things that subsequent generations will do (the current generations are probably beyond remediation).

Here are some ways in which people can engage in more “sensical” thinking, whether common or otherwise (what does it matter where sense comes from as long as it does truly reflect sound judgment?).

First, we can begin our ” inquiry” with an open mind, something sorely lacking in matters both trivial (e.g., Who’s better, Red Sox or Yankees. Red Sox, of course) and substantial (e.g., how to fix the budget deficit) these days. Without being receptive to answers that we may not want to hear, we might as well just ask ourselves what we want to be true and go with that, which is what many people with so-called common sense (most efficient, but often wrong).

Second, we all establish hypotheses that we would like to see affirmed when we are asking questions in our lives, for example, about relationships (e.g., “I know she likes me.”) or the economy (e.g. “It’s definitely picking up.”). But for hypotheses to be more than just foregone conclusions (e.g., the world is flat; oops!), it’s important to also propose alternative hypotheses (e.g., maybe the world is round or square). Just considering that there might be answers other than the ones we want ensures that any “experiment” we conduct isn’t just an exercise in self-serving affirmation (e.g., drug trials done by pharmaceutical companies).

Third, we can collect a sizable sample of data that is more likely to representative of the population as a whole. So, instead of just asking a few friends their opinions on an issue (which are likely similar to our own), we ask others, particularly those we know to have differing views. Does that guarantee sound judgments? Of course not. But does it make it more likely that whatever conclusion is drawn will be closer to reality? Absolutely.

Fourth, we can analyze the data as objectively as possible. Let’s be realistic. No one likes to see their “theories” disproven. And there’s a cynical saying in the sciences, “If the facts don’t fit the theory, throw out the facts.” Also, don’t forget “GIGO” (Garbage In, Garbage Out) which describes the “failures in human decision making due to faulty, incomplete, or imprecise data” (thanks Wikipedia). The scientific method attempts to prevent both sayings from being realized by using statistical analyses that, at least in theory, don’t allow for the intrusion of human biases (recent research has found this assumption presumptuous, but it’s the best we have at this point).

The bottom line is that if we can learn to think in more open and rigorous ways, we can draw the most accurate conclusions and make the best decisions possible for the myriad of questions, concerns, and issues we face every day, be they mundane or impactful. And we might just all get along a little better too.

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.

What attracts millions of Americans each week to this cultural phenomenon known as “reality TV?” Where did the purveyors of shows such as Survivor, Jersey Shore, and Wife Swap, get the idea (I know, from Europe!), and why do so many of us buy into the idea that reality TV resembles reality in any way, shape, or form? Only in George Orwell’s 1984 reality can people be watched every moment of the day like on Big Brother. Only in William Gerald Golding’s Lord of the Flies reality can people “eliminate” one another on a desert island like on Survivor. Only in Ira Levin’s The Stepford Wives reality are all of the women attractive, shapely, and predominantly white like on the Real Housewives franchise. Only in Andy Warhol’s “fifteen minutes” reality do people whose only claim is that they won a reality TV show make them worthy of the fame and fortune of talk show appearances, book contracts, and speaking tours. Yet this is the “reality” of reality TV to which we are exposed and it is the reality that some of us may come to believe can be our reality.

Reality TV promotes the worst values and qualities in people–and disguises them all as entertainment. Reality TV has made the Seven Deadly Sins–pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth—attributes to be admired. Throw in selfishness, deceit, spite, and vengeance–all qualities seen routinely on reality TV–and you have the personification of the worst kind of person on Earth. Reality TV makes heroic decidedly unheroic values, characters, and behavior.

Why would popular culture want to communicate such destructive values, you may ask. The answer is, because popular culture has no values; it’s amoral. It doesn’t care about us and it has no sense of social responsibility. Popular culture is concerned with only one thing, money, and it will do everything and sacrifice anything to achieve that end, including hurting the society it is meant to serve.

Some argue that reality TV is just giving us what we want. But I don’t recall any demonstrations or picket lines outside of the television studios clamoring for reality TV shows. Admittedly, if viewers didn’t want these shows they would “vote them off the island” by not watching them, thus ensuring cancellation. But doing so would be like driving by a horrendous car wreck and having the strength not to look at the carnage.

The messages that popular culture sends us about success and failure–as communicated through the unreality of “reality” TV–are particularly destructive. Success, as defined by our culture and conveyed through reality TV–wealth and fame, most notably–is so revered, yet, in the reality in which most of us live, so utterly unattainable. We get the message from reality TV that we must become successful at any cost, even if success can be achieved only by dishonesty and subterfuge. The unfortunate results of these messages can be found throughout our culture. We see increased cheating in schools, the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports, and criminal behavior in our youth and, among our adult population, lying on resumes, frivolous law suits, and corporate greed. Anything to become a success! Reality TV obviously doesn’t cause such behavior, rather that it is just another symptoms of the decline of values that used to limit this behavior. And reality TV is now an omnipresent conduit through which these truly atrocious messages are communicated to America. And if you think these message are fundamentally benign, think again. The more people are exposed to any message, even terrible ones, the more likely they will be accepted as the norm.

There is no worse fate in our culture than to be labeled a failure, yet, so narrowly defined by our culture (not being wealthy, famous, powerful, or beautiful), it is almost a certainty for most of us. Failure alone though is not punishment enough for the “losers” in reality TV. They must also be demeaned, dehumanized, and publicly humiliated. These losers must suffer the indignity of banishment from reality TV shows by hosts, such as the cold, yet venerated, Donald Trump–”You’re fired!”–and judges such as the mean-spirited Simon Cowell on American Idol (I realize that these shows differ from other unscripted shows, but no greater authority than realitytvworld.com lumps them all together). Despite this despicable behavior, we are encouraged to feel excitement and glee in seeing others suffer. As we cringe outwardly at the barbs that are thrown at the well-meaning contestants, we inwardly giggle in guilty pleasure at seeing the failing contestants in pain. Most of the joy of reality TV is not in seeing contestants succeed, but rather in seeing them not only fail, but fail in the most humiliating ways. We celebrate every luscious moment of this depravity!

Why do so many of people not only watch reality TV (I understand that everyone has a right to be entertained as they choose), but become so consumed by it that there are Web sites, blogs, magazine and newspaper articles, and constant talk around the water cooler? One answer is vicarious stimulation. Reality TV is exciting when life is often mundane. It is interesting when life can be dull. Reality TV is dangerous when life can be all too secure. It is emotionally powerful–excitement, joy, embarrassment, shame–when life can be emotionally void.  And many of us want it that way because we are loath to take risks and feel so deeply in our own lives.

Reality TV has become the public executions of our times. We sit on the edge of our seats waiting eagerly for the guillotine to fall, yet don’t want the end to come too quickly. We want to savor the lingering death of humiliation and rejection. And when the “execution” finally occurs, we feel conflicted in enjoying others’ “deaths,” yet relief in our continued existences, guilty for the exhilaration we feel, yet giddy in knowing that we are “survivors” of our own reality show called Life. In these times of economic and global uncertainty, thanks to the contestants’ symbolic deaths on reality TV, we can return to our lives feeling somehow better, safer…that we are going to be okay.

Or maybe I’m just overthinking the reality TV thing and the shows are just fun to watch. Just sayin’.

I’ve been having another one of those “end  of civilization as we know it” moments lately. It started when my wife and I began Christmas shopping for our daughters and were overwhelmed by the seemingly unending universe of toys from which to choose (don’t even get me started on how the Christmas season is now starting just after Halloween!). The moment of discomfort became more acute when I read a truly depressing article about toys in a recent issue of The New Yorker. As the writer, Patricia Marx, noted, “So many of them [toys] contain electronic components—one expert puts the figure at fifty percent—that playtime can be a matter of pushing a button and watching as the toy has all the fun.”

The moment was exacerbated by several online lists of the worst toys for girls. The lists included Barbie Totally Stylin’ Tattoos (nothing like sending healthy messages early and often), Pole Dancing Dolly (early career tracking?), Breastfeeding Baby (tagline: “Because you shouldn’t have to wait until you have breasts before you start breastfeeding your baby”), Princess Maid (now that’s an oxymoron), and Future Hooters Girl t-shirts (What?!?!). I could go on and on (and include worst toys for boys), but I’ll leave you with just one more that will entertain your daughters and sons for, well, seconds at best, Playmobil [Airport] Security Checkpoint (insert joke here).

A brief tangent. I’m sorry to bring economic theory into this, but I can’t help it. After seeing the truly appalling toys available to children this Christmas, can anyone seriously believe that the free-market economy still works? So, the foundation of the Friedman economy is that companies will produce goods when there is a demand for them, right? Well, I just can’t imagine any child or even a mentally ill parent clamoring for any of the toys I just mentioned (or the thousands of other truly stupid toys that Santa might be bringing children this holiday season). And do the toy manufacturers really believe that parents would buy these toys for their daughters and sons? They must, otherwise they wouldn’t make them, right? But I digress.

One of four things (at least that I can think of) is happening here. Either kids have devolved to such a degree in such a short time that they have lost the ability to play and entertain themselves. I know I sound like a fuddy-duddy (just using that phrase marks me as one!), but didn’t children used to entertain themselves with things like sticks, boxes, stuffed animals (that just sat there), old clothes, and, well, nothing. Has childhood fallen so far? I just can’t accept that.

Or are parents so pathetic that they are drawn to the inane, yet oh-so-seductive Sirens calls of toy marketers who promise that their children will be so totally enamored and enrapt by this or that toy that parents will be magically transported to those dreamlike days before marriage and children when they actually had time to themselves. My opinion of American parents isn’t always that high, but I can’t even believe that is possible.

Or is it that parents have lost faith in their children. If I were a child, I would be insulted by these toys if my parents bought them for me: “Gosh, Mom and Dad, give me a little credit here. I may be young, but I’m not an idiot. I actually am capable of using my hands, my imagination, my friends, and just junk laying around the house to entertain myself. I understand that you need a break sometimes to bathe, have an adult conversation, or have a vodka martini. But, really, I don’t need this junk. All I need is your love, attention, and time.”

Or I am totally clueless and the toy companies have produced these toys after focus groups have demonstrated them to be guaranteed best sellers? If so, my “end of civilization” moment has become a reality.

I hope I don’t come across as holier than thou here, but, as for my wife and me, no trips to ToyRUs, that’s for sure. And what awaits our girls under the Christmas tree this year? No electronics, make-up kits for little girls, fashion accessories, or anorexic or sexualized dolls. Santa will be bringing a new bike, puzzles, books, art supplies, and clothes. Our daughters probably won’t be the envy of the neighborhood, but at least, hopefully, we’re showing them the respect they deserve and helping them to preserve their childhoods just a little bit longer.

Oh, just so I don’t end this holiday season on such a cynical and dreary note, I wish all of my readers, even the Scrooge-like ones who attack my every word, a wonderful holiday season (whatever your faith) and a new year filled with peace, joy, and jobs…

Disclaimer: I apologize in advance for using the word badass. I realize that it might offend some people. But, right or wrong, it is now a mostly accepted part of our vocabulary, even listed in traditional on-line dictionaries. If you find the word objectionable, please focus on the message rather than on the, for some, inappropriateness of the word.

I was recently contacted by a web site based in Sweden, InterestingTimesMagazine.com, that was interested in exploring the meaning of being a badass in modern culture. Not surprisingly, the editor, who described himself as a “fresh-faced, early-20-something,quasi-curmudgeon,” had images on the site of heavily muscled men slaying gigantic and terrifying beasts, you know, your usual iconic badasses these days. Because of my Ph.D. in Psychology and my work with elite athletes (many of whom would be classified as badasses by most people), he asked me if I would like to write a post about what being a badass means to me and, intrigued, I accepted.

I thought a good place to start was to see how badass is typically defined. Not surprisingly, mainstream and pop-cultural on-line dictionaries viewed the term quite differently. Thefreedictionary.com defined badass as a “mean-tempered or belligerent person.” In contrast, wiktionary.com defined it as “A person whose extreme attitudes, behavior or appearance are admirable.” I will be relying on the “urban” use of the word for the purpose of this post.

I began my musings by considering how a badass is viewed most commonly in our popular culture and some typical exemplars of badasses these days. A badass seems to be a guy with ‘tude, disdain for others, who sees himself as cooler than cool and tougher than tough. He typically spends a lot of time in the gym, often has tattoos, and is likely a big fan of MMA and WWE (because these fighters and wrestlers spend a lot of time in the gym, have tats, and are what aspiring badasses wish to be).

Yes, girls can be badasses too (I use the word girls deliberately because I don’t think women want to be this sort of badass). A badass girl these days is beautiful (or thinks she is), has big breasts (likely augmented), is tanned (even in winter), wears stilettos (hurt me!), and is the grown-up version of the mean girls from high school.

When I think about badasses held up for adoration by pop culture, words that come to mind include narcissistic, arrogant, selfish, shallow, and entitled.

The guys and gals on Jersey Shore, particularly The Situation and JWoww, appear to embody badassness by today’s standards. Other widely proclaimed badasses these days include any MMA fighter, 50 Cent (it is naturally what just about every rapper aspires to be), many characters portrayed by Angelina Jolie (e.g., Laura Croft: Tomb Raider, Wanted, Mr. & Mrs. Smith; ironically, in real life, AJ seems to fit my criteria for being a real badass; see below), TO, and Ocho Cinco, and Barry Bonds (when he was still playing). What so-called badasses can you come up with?

Like most American males wrapped in the usual masculine insecurities and exposed to role models of badassedness, such as Rambo, the Terminator, and John McClane, I too was inspired to badasshood. As a youth, I competed internationally as an alpine ski racer, hurtling down mountains at high speeds. Later in life, I became a second-degree black belt and tournament fighter in karate. Still later in life, perhaps realizing that I couldn’t fight my way out of everything, I became a marathon runner and Ironman triathlete, which allowed me to wear the imprimatur of badass with some pride (it also gave me options to exercise my instinctive fight-or-flight response when needed). But none of these accomplishments made me feel like a real badass because, I later figured out, how most of America seem to think about badasses isn’t even close to what defines a real badass. It wasn’t until I became a father that I finally realized that everything we are told about what it means to be a badass is completely misguided and wrong and I finally understood what it means to be a true badass.

Badassness isn’t about all of the macho and macha things that are commonly associated with being a badass. It isn’t about anything that pop culture says it is because following that crowd, which is what popular culture is all about, goes against everything that real badassness stands for.

A real badass is driven by values such as responsibility, justice, honor, courage, compassion, humility, integrity, and selflessness, which pretty much disqualifies most every self-proclaimed badass out there. A badass is someone who does the dirty jobs, the jobs that other people don’t want to do, for example, our troops and inner-city teachers. A badass does what needs to be done, no matter how difficult it is, without complaint or need for fanfare. A badass doesn’t take the path of least resistance.

A badass is someone who stands up for the weak and oppressed, speaks the truth, and calls out those who lie, cheat, and steal. A badass is someone who takes a “hit for the team,” meaning puts others’ needs ahead of their own, whether a soldier in his platoon, a parent working two jobs to give her children a better life, or a CEO who cares more about his employees than his P & L statement during an economic crisis.

Batman is a badass, not because he is rich, suave, handsome, and has a lot of cool gear (and is portrayed by Christian Bale), but because he suffered in his life and devoted his life to justice. Iron Man is not a badass because, though he has really cool stuff just like Batman (and is portrayed by Robert Downey Jr.), he grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth (though he did have father issues) and is a narcissistic show boater who does what he does for his own self-aggrandizement (because he had father issues). As noted above, the real Angelina Jolie appears to be a badass because of her international philanthropic work. Matt Damon? Badass! Ben Affleck? Becoming a badass. Oh, and Clint Eastwood? Total badass on screen and behind the camera.

Real badasses are, more often, not people you would likely think are badasses. The guy standing in front of the tanks at Tiananmen Square in 1989 was a badass. Whistleblowers are badasses. My mother who, while dying of cancer, kept herself alive long enough to attend my wedding and died shortly after, was a badass. Staff Sgt. Robert J. Miller, the most recent recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, was a badass.

Now that we really understand what a badass is, who are some authentic badasses that you can think of?