In 1971, Dr. Phillip Zimbardo conducted a controversial experiment to test humans’ behavioral responses to captivity, i.e. how humans react when placed in varying authoritative and submissive positions within a controlled environment. This experiment became known as “The Stanford Prison Experiment”—the implications of which have both fascinated and frightened the psychiatric community at large for more than three decades. I’ve included the first part of an excellent documentary for you to watch. After viewing this documentary, I’d be curious to know what you think Zimbardo’s experiment teaches us about the human psyche, if any such lesson can be learned within so-called “controlled environments” like Stanford’s make believe prison. Let us know what you think in the comments section. We’ll talk again soon…
Thanks Ryan, this video was really eye opening and scary at the same time! I watched the rest of the programs. Mr. Rushkoff has a few other programs I plan to watch—all seem interesting.
I shared some of the information with my teenager and we had a nice conversation. The new generation is being raised with a weak set of values making them very vulnerable to the marketing by people who don’t care about their well being. The more aware we are of the tricks being played, the more capable we are of resisting and giving them the tools they need at a young age not to be vulnerable to this kind of marketing.
Thanks again for sharing such thought provoking topics.
The insights of cultural/media theorist Douglas Rushkoff are always contemporary and often prescient. He was deciphering the social codes of the virtual psyche, lifestyle, and marketplace before such concepts were formally identified by the so-called “machine.” TheMerchants Of Cool is a brilliant analysis of the incorporation of youth pop-culture that Ruskhoff created while working as a correspondent for PBS Frontline. This is a very entertaining documentary. You’ll learn a lot too. Let me know what you think in the comments section.
I recently read an interesting book called From Difficult To Disturbed. The author, clinical and forensic psychologist Laurence Miller, presents a number of compelling analyses of workplace psychology and the range of personality types, from the narcissistic to the sociopathic, comprising the fragile dynamic of every workplace environment—even yours. As you read this book, you’ll find yourself profiling your colleagues, sometimes laughing out loud and other times changing your lunch partners, but in either case, I think your job will never look quite the same again. Click on the image above to listen to a fascinating podcast interview with Laurence Miller. I encourage you to share your thoughts after listening to this interview.
Among the many news feeds crossing my desktop, one really stood out–how to make myself smarter! I’m definitely going to read that paper.In a nutshell, Oscar Ybarra of the University of Michigan and his colleagues suggest that human beings are such social animals, that we actually improve our cognitive function after only ten minutes of social interaction [1].Students were randomly assigned to dyads and given the task of discussing a social issue, protection of privacy, for ten minutes. Other participants took a short reading comprehension task, did a crossword puzzle, and completed a figure rotation task. These tasks were designed to give the participants something intellectually stimulating to do that was not particularly social, as the tasks were completed by individuals working alone. Control participants watched a 10-minute sequence of Seinfeld by themselves. Subsequently, all participants completed a speed of processing task (are these dots the same or different?) and a working memory task (object recognition).Based on previous research, it was not surprising to see the participants doing the intellectual activities (figure rotation et al.) showed higher levels of cognitive functioning in the post-tests compared to the TV-watching control group. I have always thought that most TV makes us somewhat brain-dead, and much prefer to see children using any indoors time playing interactive videogames than watching TV. Okay, Stargate and football are obvious exceptions at our house. (more…)
Thanks to dbking for permission to use this Photo.
It was meant to be a special Halloween night episode of the American radio program, Mercury Theatre on the Air. Directed by 23-year old Orson Welles, the program was an adaptation of H.G. Wells’ classic novel The War of the Worlds. The screenplay for the show introduced an unprecedented innovation for American radio: use of a fake newscast to provide listeners with the experience of actually living through an alien invasion.
Broadcast from a studio in New York City on October 30, 1938, the program was presented as an ordinary music program that was frequently interrupted by news bulletins. After first describing strange explosions on Mars (Welles played a prominent astronomer), listeners were then told of the landing of a strange “meteorite” in Grover’s Mills, New Jersey. The meteorite turns out to be a Martian capsule which then destroys hundreds of onlookers with “heat rays”. As the episode continued, more Martian ships land and devastation is unleashed across the entire United States.
Despite military resistance, the Martian invaders prove too strong and unleash terrible weapons including “poison gas” sprayed into the air. New York City is invaded by “great machines” wading across the Hudson River. Coverage of the invasion is provided by a “news reporter” who describes “people dropping like flies” until he is killed by the poison gas himself. The broadcast ends with Welles (in his role as the astronomer) telling listeners about the devastation and how the Martians were destroyed by Earth’s bacteria.
Later reports came out about the”panic” the resulted from the broadcast but there is still debate over how widespread it really was. Although disclaimers that the invasion was fictional were inserted at several points in the program, many listeners were still convinced that the invasion was real . Later estimates placed the number of listeners at six million with 1.2 million believing it to be “genuinely true”. Incidents of actual panic remain scarce although reports of people fleeing their homes or hiding in their cellars to avoid the “poison gas” came out afterward. (more…)
How do we choose a life partner? Magazine articles on choosing the right mate abound. “What should you look for in that special someone?” “What is the ideal man/woman?” Take a minute to think about that. What do you want in a life partner? What words come to mind to describe your Princess or Prince Charming? Whatever you’re looking for, or have already found, the words you have chosen to describe your “ideal mate” are almost certainly personality traits: kind, considerate, funny, ambitious, loving.
Somewhere on your list are probably good-looking and healthy, but even things like health are affected by the personality. The things you want in a life partner are pretty much the same things that everyone else is looking for.
So, do we get what we’re looking for? Generally, we do. But, a better question might be, are we happy with what we get? Well, that depends upon what you were looking for in the first place. You are most likely to be happy if you look for, and end up with, someone who is agreeable, emotionally stable, and open.
The next question that might come to mind is how can we know if the relationship with that special someone will last? Well, for starters you can assume that marrying someone who is the opposite of agreeable, emotionally stable, and open, is probably a bad idea. Low impulse control and lack of dependability also predict relationship breakup. And, finally, relationships seem to work best when the partners are similar in background, religion, goals, education, and personality. Fortunately, we tend to meet people like ourselves, because we gravitate toward certain types of situations that are compatible with our own personalities. Selection of situations, then, enhances our chances for meeting like-minded people. If, for example, you are bookish and quiet, you are likely to spend time in a library or museum, where you will meet other bookish and quiet people.
So, have you found what you’re looking for? Are you more alike or different? Please share your thoughts with our Ashworth University psychology community!
Thanks to auntyevil for permission to use this Photo.
One concept that’s particularly influential in contemporary culture is that of social currency, an abstract exchange value that we’re all unconsciously aware of and have perhaps unknowingly utilized as a tool to gain interactive access to others on a social level. Content is essentially seen as a medium for interaction, not an end in itself, but more importantly a basis for human interaction. A new study was recently published on the “psychology of social networks” and the researchers do an admirable job of piecing together the social puzzle without drawing too many predetermined conclusions. In other words, within an Internet-oriented context, they accept that the network model of human communication can not be studied from a static perspective. The behavior of humans in an online environment does not parallel that of monkeys in a cage, perhaps less due to the complexity of humans than the fact that the virtual cage is always unlocked, permitting us to come and go as we please—as long as we’re never alone of course. Check out this interesting study and please share your perspectives with the Ashworth student community.
Thanks to Boris Anthony for permission to use this Photo.
Marshall McLuhan’s groundbreaking theories on media communications and the psycho-social impact of technological development made him both a very respected and controversial figure beginning in the 1950’s. Seen by many as a prophet of our contemporary media filtered age, McLuhan’s famous “the medium is the message” theory, in which the communications medium itself (microphone, television, computer, letter) is more directly related to the meaning and ultimate impact of a given message than the actual “content” (intellectual/rational meaning) continues to gain depth as the decades pass.
I recently discovered an excellent audio-video archive of McLuhan’s work on the CBC web site. This is a great primer for our psychology students unfamiliar with his work and I strongly encourage you to check this archive out by clicking here. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on McLuhan, a thinker who still truly remains ahead of his time.
Ryan Rode
Interactive Services Manager
Ashworth University Psychology Program
Thanks to Gaetan Lee for permission to use this Photo.
Renowned as one of the most gifted, original, and charismatic thinkers in the world; V.S. Ramachandran is a neurologist with an almost preternatural understanding of the brain’s deepest mechanisms and the nature of consciousness.
Ramachandran’s insights into such facinating enigmas as phantom limb syndrome, synesthesia, and capgras delusion continue to both inspire and puzzle the psycho-scientific community, while his entertaining presentations always promise to dazzle even the most cynical of audiences. Check out the following video from the TED conference. Lose your mind.
Ryan Rode
Interactive Services Manager
Ashworth University
Subscribe to Feed
