AU Blogspot

 
                    Thanks to Steve for permission to use this Photo.

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

                             Image courtesy of storyspinn. 

Recently I was contacted by an associate producer from the Dr. Phil show. Are they seeing if I’d be a good guest? It certainly appears like that’s a possibility. So, in addition to getting some very desperately needed help from Dr. Phil and his team, I may one day soon be able to give my bastion of loyal readers a quasi-insider’s view of the show and its’ process. All I can say is, pray for me, and, for now, enjoy this correspondence, edited, of course, for privacy reasons: (more…)

                          Thanks to Karen Geiger for permission to use this Photo.

I really enjoyed Seth Woolf’s response to Deb’s solid commentary on his previous post. Since we don’t yet have our comments section clearly displayed on this blog, I’ve posted this conversation as an original post for everyone to see and engage. What are your thoughts?

From Deb: 

Dear Sir — I believe you have missed the point of what Dr. Phil has been trying to achieve. As young people, typically all of us do not realize the consequences of actions. I can indicate to you that as a owner of a company, these kind of posting would stop me from hiring an individual, no so much as their right to participate in such activity, but in that the judgment of said individual is not who I want representing my company. In short…it is that simple and professionally said individuals are limiting their options later in life, as they age and realize that childhood was not meant for public display. 

From Seth: 

It is perhaps true that I have “missed the point of what Dr. Phil has been trying to achieve” but, if so, it is because I find his aims pointless. I simply feel the cause and effect of this situation has been confused. If employers look down on such technological behavior and confessionalism, I think it says more about their own bourgeoise biases, and less about the quality of the candidates. More importantly, I would also like to counter your claim that “As young people, typically all of us do not realize the consequences of our actions.” This is a sweeping statement about young people, one which I do not follow. For one, I don’t see “young people” as a definable, homogeneous group. I’m 22, am I a young person? What about a twelve year old in Auswitz? What about an eighty year old with the mental capacities of a person one tenth his or her age? Is it for individuals to decide, society, or who? Similarly, I don’t see how a person, regardless of age, could realize all the consequences of his or her actions. Everyone, again regardless of age, must simply act with what information they have at a given moment. (more…)

 
                  Thanks to Li Evans for permission to use this Photo.

A recent Dr. Phil episode was all about women posting “inappropriate” pictures of themselves (i.e. sexually provocative or evincing extensive drinking or illicit drug use) on facebook and myspace. Even more than usual, today’s episode exhibited Dr. Phil’s proclivity toward using sweeping generalizations and blatant logical fallacies as the foundation of his analyses, which might better be characterized as arguments, if not Philicies.

The good doctor was especially fond of:

Ad Hominem: “Okay, but you drink and you’re seventeen!”

Appeals to tradition: “You think most people see this as liberating?”

False dilemmas:  ”These girls either don’t know what they’re doing, or are making stupid decisions.”

Guilt by association: “You don’t post the pictures, but you do run the facebook group!”

Slippery slope: “You’re not gonna be able to get into any colleges, or get any jobs!”

Biased sampling: “So, you went into a coma after hitting your head from drinking?”

The straw man: “I don’t look at these pictures and see Susan B. Anthony.”

Beyond these simple, generally theory-less critiques, there are also deep, philosophically disturbing problems with Dr. Phil’s contentions. First of all, there is a large thematic and circumstantial problem with Phil’s approach. For one, though occasionally advised guests and viewers to refrain from participating in wild, compromising behavior, his focus was much more on simply restraining oneself from posting pictures of such behavior on popular internet forums. As such, his argument is not, in fact, about ethics, aesthetics, or everyday behavior as such, but rather the mouthings of a tragically unhip Luddite. A Marxist analysis of this strange parsing is very elucidating. If an individual of relatively simple means and power posts such a revealing picture or written omission, it is quite damaging to job prospects, the social order, and even the rituals of courtship. If, one the other, a major corporation or commercial power (i.e. Harpo productions, CBS, etc.) reveals selective information or negatively portrays someone it is not only said to be permissible, it is in fact lauded as being beneficial.

Consider this simple hypothetical: you are an employer combing through candidates to fill a position in your company. You have settled on two candidates. The first, Ms. A, had a strong interview, resume, and references, but she has a picture on facebook of her clearly intoxicated, and vomiting. The second, Mr. B, also had a strong interview, resume, and references, and though he has no facebook account, he did appear on the Dr. Phil show in an episode that focused on spousal abuse. If you had to choose one of these two candidates, you would probably choose Ms. A. Similarly, one could imagine a website where users can communicate with others, view pictures and even movies of dubious social behavior, and learn potentially sensitive information about a variety of people. Is this website facebook or myspace? Yes, quite possibly. On the other hand, it might just as easily be Dr. Phil’s website. (more…)

 
                 Thanks to Erwan for permission to use this Photo.

After William Enman escaped from the New Jersey psychiatric hospital where he had been serving his sentence, he sent a letter to the governor and hospital CEO protesting that he had earned the right to sign himself out. The 64-year old patient has been serving a sentence for a brutal double-murder hat he had committed in 1974. Although diagnosed as schizophrenic, he has consistently denied the diagnosis and refused to comply with psychiatric treatment. Enman’s September 9, 2007 escape from Ancora Psychiatric Hospital sparked a nation-wide manhunt although he was recaptured without incident 48 hours later. After his rearrest, he stated that he had escaped the hospital to “clear my mind” and that he needed to “get away” from his drug problem. In his letter, he stated that he had “maxed out” the time that he had spent in hospital and was entitled to leave.

In the decades since he was first imprisoned for the brutal bludgeoning deaths of a man and his young son, Enman has committed numerous infractions including having contraband weapons being found in his cell and placing his hands around the throat of his then-wife in 2003. (more…)

 
            Thanks to Kena Takahashi for permission to use this Photo.

Most of us are a bit uneasy about the idea that somebody can influence our thinking without our awareness. We are bombarded by enough obvious persuasive messages as it is, without having to worry about messages we don’t even notice.

Although this example is not exactly subtle, and one wonders if it in fact has any effect on behavior, the PETA brick, purchased at the San Diego Padres’ PETCO stadium, spells out “Boycott Petco” if you just look at the first letter of each word.  

The study of subliminal messages (messages that are “sub” or below our “limin” or threshold of awareness) has a long history. Back in 1956, social psychologist James Vicary claimed that he could boost sales of movie popcorn and Coca Cola by flashing the messages “eat popcorn” or “drink Coca Cola” during a movie. In spite of Vicary’s later confession that he made up his data, not to mention the failure of scientists to replicate his results, many people still believe that subliminal messages work. Americans spend more than 50 million dollars a year on subliminal tapes for self-improvement, and much controversy has surrounded subliminal or back-masked messages in music.

More recently, Vokey has distinguished between a person’s objective and subjective thresholds for awareness [1]. A person responding to a stimulus at the objective threshold will do no better than chance in identifying its presence, and these stimuli appear to have no impact on behavior. However, a stimulus falling between a person’s objective and subjective thresholds will be detected at better than chance levels, and does appear to have the ability to influence behavior. (more…)