Thanks to Paul Goyette for permission to use this Photo.
I just finished reading Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection, which is coming out towards the end of August. The book summarizes, in very accessible terms, thirty years of work by John Cacioppo of the University of Chicago and his colleagues.
It’s initially hard to get past the title. William Patrick, John’s coauthor, relates how a friend reading an early manuscript found the word “loneliness” to be disturbing, even more so than “rape,” “murder,” or “death.” This reaction fits perfectly with the major theme of the book–we humans are a very social bunch, and being cut off from other people, as in solitary confinement, might be the very worst punishment of all.
What I especially liked about the book is the constant, seamless integration of what we call “perspectives” in psychology, harkening back to William James. In other words, the neuroscience, social psychology, and cognitive science is all woven together so that you get the big picture. In other writing, John has compared psychology to a symphony, with the different perspectives contributing to the whole of our understanding just as the score, musicians, instruments, and conductor join together to produce fantastic music. He and William have definitely succeeded in bringing this integration to the study of loneliness. Given the all-too-frequent Balkanization of psychology into little subdomains, this approach is refreshing and informative.
Like William’s friend, I found myself feeling sad at times while reading the book. I don’t consider myself a lonely person, as I am blessed by having a close family and good friends. But I know a lot of lonely people, and reading the various case studies brought these people to mind in a vivid way. The sad mood lifted, however, when John would throw in some of his modest and self-deprecating humor, as in his description of his trip to “Grenada.” Enough said. You need to read the book to find out the rest. (more…)
WOW! Some experiment. Now, as to what the experiment teaches or doesn’t teach is the ultimate question.
It has been 35+ years since that experiment was done. There have been loads of changes in the prison system since the Stanford experiment. So, what happens today when you put good people in a bad situation? Well, there are a lot of factors that affect how that good person will react. For example, I know a person who was an exemplary citizen and that individual ended up serving 2 years in a state facility. That person was considered a model inmate, worked in the law library, and when released became heavily involved in criminal law and the justice system.
So, I think that how a person reacts to that environment depends a great deal on how their inner psyche has developed. I do not believe that most “good” people will deliberately injure someone simply because a person in authority has told them to do so.
I have many examples from a life of military and exposure to criminal inmates that debunk that ideology. But, those are simply my thoughts. GREAT video.
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.
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.
A study reported in the December 2007 Journal of Psychosomatic Research examined cognitive complaints in head-injured patients referred to the emergency department of a level 1 trauma center in the Netherlands. A sample of 79 patients (ranging in age from 18 to 60) who had been admitted for mild traumatic brain injury were followed up over six months post-admission. In addition to a battery of neuropsychological tests and use of the Rivermead Postconcussional Symptoms Questionnaire (RPSQ), patients were also asked to self-monitor their cognitive and memory problems over a 12-day period. Results indicated that 39 per cent of the sample self-reported cognitive problems. These complaints were strongly related to lower educational levels, emotional distress, personality, and poorer physical functioning (especially fatigue) but not to actual extent of injury. Severity of self-reported cognitive complaints was found not to be associated with the patients’ daily observations of cognitive problems or with outcome on a range of neuropsychological tests. The researchers concluded that self-reported cognitive complaints were more strongly related to preexisting personality factors, as well as physical and emotional problems rather than actual cognitive impairments. This would suggest that treatment of emotional distress and fatigue may also reduce cognitive complaints. They also concluded that neuropsychological screening and daily monitoring of complaints is a useful method to gather information about the frequency and pattern of cognitive problems in regular life.
*A man who has lived a fascinating life, Dr. Romeo Vitelli spent fifteen years as a staff psychologist in Millbrook Correctional Centre, a maximum-security prison run by the Ontario government. In 2003, he successfully escaped prison and went into full-time private practice and currently also serves as a Disaster Management volunteer with the Red Cross. He is one of the web’s most respected and trusted sources in matters of psychology. We here in the Ashworth University community are honored to share with Dr. Vitelli’s gifts with our students and would like to express our gratitude to him. Visit Providentia to learn more about the life and work of Dr. Romeo Vitelli.
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
Most famous for his radical theories on language learning and evolutionary psychology, Steven Pinker is a thinker with a vision that tends to provoke strong emotional responses in anyone who will listen. The reason may be rather simple. Pinker analyzes human intelligence from a zero sum perspective in which he meticulously deconstructs the foundations of what’s been established as scientific fact. The following video presentation was made at Google Headquarters. The Google geniuses always seem to bring in other geniuses to make the room smarter. Afterwards, please share your thoughts with the Ashworth Psychology community. Click on the image above to watch this video. It’s good.
Ryan Rode
Interactive Services Manager
Ashworth University Psychology Program
I don’t know what passes for official nowadays. The data is the exact same data that has existed for 30 years. Yes, these authors are acting like they FOIA-ed the second Zapruder film, but let me assure you it’s the same old data. These authors did the exact same study in 2002. So have twenty other groups. This is not new.
But it is news. The question is why.
I have a side question. Why is it that when an article says something works, people are suspicious of bias, but when an article says something doesn’t work, everyone thinks it’s objective science? IT’S ALL BIAS.
People are completely missing the point of this paper and all the other recent re-investigations, the true social and clinical consequences of them. For example: they’re saying antidepressants are no good. Ok. What do you think doctors are going to use instead? Psychoanalysis? Nothing? They’re going to prescribe antipsychotics. Are you listening to me? I’m not even saying this is clinically wrong to do, but do you not see the setup? Abre los ojos, man. (more…)
Subscribe to Feed
