My Blog has moved

To see my new posting, go to psychablog.blogspot.com

Blackest Night/Green Lantern

Those comic fans who are following the Green Lantern/Blackest Night story might find this 3-part article about emotions and the different colored Lanterns:

“Interestingly, when you talk about the rainbow spectrum being used here, there is something about these negative emotions that is very intense,” she said. “Intense greed is maybe a funny one in there, but intense fear and intense anger are very real. They really do narrow your focus cognitively. Even your awareness is limited. You’re focused on what’s right in front of you and less on the periphery. And that’s true of your visual awareness and your perception, but it also guides your thinking. You’re not really thinking at all – you’re feeling.

“Hate swamps your emotional system. And that’s true for fear as well, typically. It’s not just specific to rage. But that’s true of any intense emotions. They literally become overpowering,” she said.

For the full articles (Parts 1-3) in Newsarama go to:

Part 1: http://www.newsarama.com/comics/090713-blackest-night-spectrum.html

Part 2:http://www.newsarama.com/comics/090714-EmotionalSpectrum2.html

Part 3: http://www.newsarama.com/comics/090715-blackest-night-specturm-3.html

Is the Joker a Psychopath? You Decide!

On Saturday morning, July 25, at the San Diego Comic Convention, I’ll be joined by Jerry Robinson (co-creator of the Joker), Michael Uslan (Executive Producer of all Batman films), Steve Englehart (Batman comic book writer), and fellow psychologist Travis Langley to discuss whether the Joker is psychopath.

Hope to see you there!

Colbert and Top Down Processing

 

 

The Irony of Satire

Political Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report

Heather L. LaMarre

The Ohio State University, HLaMarre@gmail.com

Kristen D. Landreville

The Ohio State University

Michael A. Beam

The Ohio State University

This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguouspolitical messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert’s political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantlypredicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert’s political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.

 

It appears that viewers–in particular, conservative viewers–expect that their political views will be shared by Colbert, and so they interpret his (mostly) straight-faced extremely conservative coverage of the news in ways that are consistent with their own beliefs. Even when confronted with evidence that Colbert’s conservative views are a put-on (for instance when he laughs while delivering some of his more egregious comments), top-down processing will lead conservative viewers either to ignore those lapses, or to interpret them in some other way–a way that allows them to preserve their view of Colbert as one of them.

 

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Dr Robin on the Radio: Real Life Superheroes

Real-life superheroes walk among us. Today I spoke with Gillian Findlay of the Canadian Broadcast Company about them.

You can listen to it by going to the link to the show, and scrolling to the bottom.

Look for: Part 3: Chapter Three … The Rise of the Real Life Superhero

All of part three is interesting; I’m about halfway into part 3.

Here’s a link to the real life superhero website.

Movie Review: Must Read After My Death

I recently saw the documentary film, Must Reader After My Death. The film consists of audiotapes and home movie footage made by the Dews family in the 1960s. Director (and grandson of the Allis and Charley, the film’s protagonists) Morgan Dews has stitched together a too-intimate look at the dissolution of a family—akin to the 1973 PBS series An American Family, but in less screen time.

Here’s the story behind the film: The Dews family began dictating “letters” between the father (Charley) and the rest of the family (mother Allis and their four children: Anne, Chuck, Bruce, and Doug) when Charley moved to Australia for 4 months on business. They continued the audio letters and diaries upon his return home. It is these diaries and letters that tell the tale of the Dews family’s escalating struggles (with no other narration): Parents with each other, children with their father, parents’ anguish about their children. These tapes were then stored away and discovered by director Morgan Dews upon his grandmother Allis’s death. Here’s a trailer for the film.

Watching the film, I was struck by several elements:

1. When someone in a family is an alcoholic, it extracts a terrible cost from ALL members of the family. Although most people know this intellectually (and some know this first-hand), the role that alcohol plays in this family’s problems is heart-wrenching to see.
2. How generally unproductive it is when people yell at each other. When families or couple come for psychotherapy, usually part of what a therapist will try to do is help members speak (and listen) to each other in more adaptive, constructive ways, so that they can understand each other’s positions and find common goals, positions of compromise, and paths to resolution. Yelling and frequently interrupting each other makes it almost impossible to move a chronic problem toward a solution. (Granted, yelling can signal to the other person that you have strong feelings about something, but the content of what is yelled—rather than stated—often gets tuned out or responded to in anger.)
3. The havoc that unrecognized psychological disorders and problems can wreak. (That’s not to say that once they’re recognized all is well; at least, though, when a problem is named and identified, it’s easier to take steps to remediate it or manage it.) For instance, the oldest son, Chuck, struggled academically for many years, much to the consternation for his parents and himself. It turns out that he had an undiagnosed learning disorder.
4. How frustrating and demoralizing under-employment can be (as was certainly true of Allis and many women of that era). Underemployment refers to someone holding a job that is below the person’s training or ability; underemployment may become even more common in the current economic climate, as folks who are laid off take jobs that are below the level of their previous job, because they need the work. Research indicates that being underchallenged at work brings its own stresses.

Although the film provided a lot of food for thought, I was frustrated by the combination of the lack of narration and the elliptical nature of some of the audio entries—family secrets alluded to but not made clear, problems mentioned but not explained.

If you’re interested in watching the documentary online, the distributor has offered a complimentary pass to the first ten people who send me an email:Robin@DrRobinRosenberg.com. I’ll forward your email addresses to the online distributor who will provide the pass to you.

Whedon’s Dollhouse: Which Barbie for Which Mission?

After watching the first episode of Joss Whedon’s new television show, The Dollhouse, I was struck by the prominence of the concept of personality. If you haven’t seen the episode—or don’t know about the show—here’s a summary from Wikipedia:

Eliza Dushku plays a young woman called Echo, a member of a group of people known as “Actives” or “Dolls.” The Dolls have had their personalities wiped clean so they can be imprinted with any number of new personas, including memory, muscle memory, skills, and language, for different assignments (referred to as engagements). The new persona is not an original creation, however, but an amalgam of different, existing personalities. The end result incorporates some of the flaws, not just the strengths, of the people used as templates. The Actives are then hired out for particular jobs — crimes, fantasies, and the occasional good deed.

And here’s a video summary of the show:

What really stood out for me was the show’s psychological premise: Some personality traits work better than others in a given situation (and so the “dolls” or “actives” are programmed with traits that will best help them accomplish their missions). Of course, on one level, this premise is obvious; we know that certain types of people function better than others in a given situation. But the specifics of what makes a good fit are less clear. In a given situation, which type of personality is a better fit? Which is the best fit? (Or even, is there such a thing as a best fit?)

In The Dollhouse, the puppet masters know the answer to these questions—or at least they think they do. In real life, though, the questions aren’t so easy to answer. Psychologists and people in the employment business have learned which skills or personality traits are associated with better job performance in a given type of job (click here for an example of such matching).

The current state of knowledge may be able to inform us about which skills are advantageous for an ongoing job, and might even be able to tell us what characteristics make for the best hostage negotiator—the job in question in the first episode of Dollhouse. But when a job is a one-shot occasion—a consulting gig, if you will—the situational factors can become more important. And those situational factors can be unpredictable, which makes it harder to identify the best fitting personality traits.

As research on personality shows, global personality traits don’t predict behavior as well as very specific personality traits. So, for instance, someone who is “shy” and goes to a party with friends may become a wallflower at that party. Then again, maybe not. A prediction about a shy person’s party behavior would be more accurate if we could assess shyness “when meeting new people at party where some friends are present.” It may turn out that this “shy” person can be the life of the party when feeling secure, standing near a pal or two.

This line of research suggestions that when a “doll” goes out on a mission, the particulars of the situation will influence which specific personality traits would be the best fit. If the predictions about the upcoming situation in a mission are off the mark, the personality traits programmed into a doll—those thought to be most advantageous—can become handicaps or obstacles. This unexpectedly poor fit might make for interesting television viewing. We’ll see whether that happens as the season evolves.

On Twilight, Vampires, and Romantic Love

As you might notice from some of my other blog entries and my website, I’m interested in superheroes, particularly what their stories reveal about psychological phenomena. “Superheroes” can be defined somewhat loosely, including supernatural heroes, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Joss Whedon’s Buffy is a strong female character: physically strong, plucky, tenacious, direct, and with a dry sense of humor. (To see Joss Whedon talk about his inspiration for Buffy, click here).

Whedon inspired others to create strong female super(natural) heros. So it’s clear that Buffy is the mother, or grandmother, of a whole genre of supernatural female supes. One example is Sookie Stackhouse—the protagonist and selfless hero in Charlaine Harris’s book series  (and also protagonist of HBO’s series, True Blood; I’ve read the Harris books, but not seen the TV show).

I thought that the female protagonist in Twilight, Bella (book by Stephenie Meyer), would be another daughter or granddaughter of Buffy. The film—and the fan hoopla—was getting a lot of coverage in the news, so I thought I’d see what the fuss was about and read the book. (Full disclosure: I haven’t seen the movie.)

Boy was I wrong.

In fact, the character Bella—a teenage girl recently come to live with her father in rural Washington—is far from being a hero, super, supernatural, or “regular.” Although clearly a bright and capable teenager, Bella seems to have little motivation or passion about much of anything except for [spoiler alert] the vampire who becomes her boyfriend.

A little background for those of you who don’t know the story; bear with me. Bella transfers to the small local high school where she meets five very pale high school students who don’t eat. No surprise to the reader—they’re vampires. Girl meets vampire, vampire meets girl. Cue the violins. As the story unfolds, the only thing she’s interested in is her vampire boyfriend. (In fact, though, she doesn’t really “know” her boyfriend all that well, nor does she know all that much about vampires.) Despite these gaps in her knowledge, by the end of the book she wants to become a vampire—for all eternity—so that she can live with her boyfriend, both of them forever physically looking young. Bella feels so little interest in “regular” life—potential careers, relationships with others, the possibility of children—that she doesn’t think twice about relinquishing her life to have a perpetual adolescence with her vamp boyfriend.

As an aside, the five vampires in this story who are high school students are chronologically older than teens; some of them are hundreds of years old. But they became vampires as teenagers, so that’s how old they look; one assumes that they must go to high school forever or get in trouble with the authorities for truancy. Can you image having to go to high school forever? Moving towns and enrolling in a new high school every four years? Endless years of biology, English, and math? Does that sound appealing? [end of spoiler alert]

Back to Bella. Okay, so I was wrong about her being Buffy granddaughter. She’s more like Buffy’s antithesis. She can’t get herself out of jams, doesn’t act heroically, and is generally ineffectual.

What really got to me about this book is its themes of disaffected youth and nihilism. And the public’s positive response to the film, which I assume is at least somewhat true to the book, leads me to feel even more anguish. This book endorses a concept of romantic love (for girls and young women for sure, and maybe for boys and young men) that goes beyond the “I love you so much that you are my life” type of all-consuming but inevitably flawed and unsustainable type of love. It endorses “love” nihilism—that beyond the relationship, life doesn’t really matter. It’s the “I love you so much that I will give up life to become undead with you” type of all-consuming but inevitably flawed and unsustainable type of love. But once that love peters out, the consequences are still there.

It seems to me this love nihilism is a vamp variant of the disempowering notions of romantic love that I had hoped were behind us for good:

• “I love you so much, I don’t want to think about the consequences of my actions—nothing matters but this moment.”
• “I love you so much, I’ll do things that I know are against my self-interest.”
• “I love you so much, I’ll have sex with you even though I don’t really want to because I’m afraid of losing you,”
• “I love you so much, I’ll have sex with you even though you don’t want to wear a condom.”

What happened to role models of female teens who were able to see love without blinders—to have the good sense to realize that life shouldn’t be put on hold because one is in love? That being in love doesn’t mean giving up oneself?

Buffy was strong, practical and pragmatic, and selfless for others.
Bella is weak, impractical and not pragmatic, and selfish.

Can we have Buffy back—please?

What is Reality, Part II: Virtual Reality as “Real Life”?

Most of us would probably agree that task-oriented role playing computer games, such as World of Warcraft and Everquest, aren’t real life. In these games, you play as a “character,” acquire objects and go on quests. Examples are World of Warcraft or Everquest”. (These games are of course a real life activity, but the “experiences” of your character aren’t real in the sense that what happens to them doesn’t happen to you: Your character may go on a quest, but you don’t really feel that you did too.)

 

The line gets a little bit fuzzier with games that are less task focused, and involve activities that resemble real life activities—computer role playing games like the Sims and Second Life. In these games, users create avatars—their representations in the game—who then proceed to do things that resemble real life (with the exception of flying without a plane a few others). Avatars walk around, watch a sunset, travel, meet and interact with other avatars/people, fall in love, have sex, get into fights. In these games, an avatars is, in some sense, the alter ego of the user. Users spend significant amounts of time (and money) perfecting the appearance and style of their avatar. If you’ve never played these types of games, see below for a sample.

People who spend a lot of time in these virtual worlds (is “playing these games” the right phrase?) see their avatars as extensions of themselves, and players report the sense that what happens to their avatars happens to them (Here’s an example of firefighter training in Second Life; each person you see on the screen is controlled by an actual human at a keyboard, directing its actions.

Research at Stanford’s Virtual Human Interaction Lab has found that among  30,000 virtual gamers who spend upwards of 20 hours/week in their virtual worlds, 40% of the males and 53% of the females report that their virtual friends are equal to or better than real-life friends. And, as discussed in my previous post, it’s not only our minds that respond to virtual worlds as if they’re real—our bodies do too. If you’re at the edge of a virtual cliff, your heart rate will increase just as it would at the edge of a real cliff.

 

In an effort to provide us all in the next step in entertainment, it’s only a matter of time until companies create a cost-effective technology that make virtual worlds more authentic and interactive.

 

Nintendo’s Wii is a step in that direction. For those of you not familiar with the Wii, check out this ad:

(If you’re not familiar with the Wii, when people move the white remote, they are controlling what happens on the screen: playing a traditional “computer game,”  virtually conducting an orchestra, or virtually playing tennis or baseball.) If you ask people using the Wii whether their experience is “real”—you might hear more ays than nays. After all, if their bodies and minds feel that they’ve had the experience, does it matter whether the visual portion of the experience occurred on a screen or monitor? 

 

Once the Wii-type devices become even more technologically enhanced in true immersive virtual reality, the question “what is reality” seems to me to have crossed a threshold into an existential realm (or a psychophysical realm), akin to the question “if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it make a sound?”  

What Is Reality, I: Virtual Reality as Part of the Solution

Phobias are excessive fears that interferes with life. People with phobias typically try to avoid the feared stimulus because of the uncomfortable physical sensations that arise—often those of a panic attack: rapid heart rate, irregular breathing or the sensation of difficulty breathing, sweating, a sense of dread. If you avoid flying because of a fear of flying, it can limit your professional life and vacation activities. If you have a spider phobia, you may refuse to enter basements or wooded areas.

 

There’s a very effective treatment for phobias: exposure. Exposure involves allowing yourself to confront the feared stimulus in a planned way for a sustained period of time (about 23-30 minutes) and noticing that nothing catastrophic happened. When you sustain attention to the feared stimulus, the uncomfortable physical sensation dissipate, and you confront head-on any irrational beliefs you may have about the feared stimulus. For instance, when someone with a spider phobia is exposed to a spider, he or she learns that, in fact, nothing awful happens beyond the physical discomfort of the anxiety symptoms, which pass with time. Ditto for fear of flying—beyond the physical discomfort of the anxiety, nothing catastrophic happens because of flying per se. (Of course, any method of transportation has risks: people get hit walking down the street, riding their bikes, in their cars.)

 

In learning that no harm befalls them other than their own physical anxiety, they can rethink their fears: “Hm…so I didn’t go crazy from being around the spider, and it didn’t bite me and turn me into some type of freakish creature…maybe I don’t need to be so afraid of it” or “Hm…maybe my fear and worry wasn’t actually keeping the plane in the air…maybe I can relax a bit and not view the plane ride as a death sentence.” With repeated exposure to the feared stimulus–more time around spiders, more plane flights—the anxiety and physical reactions lessen even more.

 

There are several different ways exposure can be undertaken:

1. imaginal exposure—using your imagination to form mental images of the feared stimulus
2. in vivo exposure—being exposed to the actual feared stimulus. A percentage of people seeking treatment for phobias hestitate to use this method because they feel it will be “too much” for them.
3. virtual exposure—being exposed to a “virtual” stimulus, such as virtual reality of the feared stimulus (on the high-tech end) to photographs or recordings of sounds of the feared stimulus (on the low-tech end). For more about virtual exposure, click here,

 

Here’s an example of virtual exposure to an airplane.

Click here for a video about virtual reality therapy: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/exposure/

 

 

Recent research suggests that as a treatment for some phobias, such as fear of flying and fear of heights, virtual exposure is as good as in vivo exposure. Even thought the virtual world is a bit cartoonish, users are able to confront the feared stimulus and learn that their almost automatic fear reaction is out of proportion to the situation. People were able allow the virtual reality to simulate reality to the point where there was no difference in people’s responses to the two different types of reality.

 

To me, the fact that people respond to exposure with virtual reality as well as if it was “real” is remarkable. In the next blog posting, I’ll talk more about virtual reality as is relates to gaming. 

Civics and Citizenship

Continuing on the theme of civics, as of today, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is offering a revised naturalization test for people seeking citizenship.

Redesign Process
The major aim of the redesign process is to ensure that naturalization applicants have uniform, consistent testing experiences nationwide, and that the civics test can effectively assess whether applicants have a meaningful understanding of U.S. government and history. Following a basic U.S. history and civics curriculum, the redesigned test will serve as an important instrument to encourage civic learning and patriotism among prospective citizens.

You can see all 100 history and civics questions (and answers) here. In a citizenship test, in addition to other components (related to the ability to write in, speak, and read English), applicants must answer orally up to 10 questions randomly chosen from the pool of 100 questions. It would be interesting to know what percentage of US-born adults would be able to pass the naturalization test.

Here are some of my favorites; bulleted points are acceptable answers:

What does the Constitution do? 
▪ sets up the government
▪ defines the government
▪ protects basic rights of Americans

What did the Declaration of Independence do? 
▪ announced our independence (from Great Britain)
▪ declared our independence (from Great Britain)
▪ said that the United States is free (from Great Britain)

What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful? 
▪ checks and balances
▪ separation of powers

What is one responsibility that is only for United States citizens? 
▪ serve on a jury
▪ vote in a federal election

Name one right only for United States citizens. 
▪ vote in a federal election
▪ run for federal office

What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?
▪ freedom of expression
▪ freedom of speech
▪ freedom of assembly
▪ freedom to petition the government
▪ freedom of worship
▪ the right to bear arms

Civic Education and Licensing Journalists

 

With the election coming up and the mainstream media focusing on trivialities and variants of “gotcha,” my recurrent wish for a mandated national civics curriculum reared its head. Consider this: In 1998, 4th, 8th, and 12th graders around the country took a civics test at the behest of the U. S. Department of Education.

Students performed abysmally: A third of the high school seniors—who were or would soon be of voting age–didn’t understand the basics of the American government. How many high school seniors demonstrated that they were proficient–the highest level of knowledge? One quarter of them. And only 9% percent of students could give two reasons why it is important for citizens to be involved in a democratic society.

Here’s what the test was designed to assess:

Students [should] show broad knowledge of the American constitutional system and of the workings of our civil society. They [should] demonstrate a range of intellectual skills-identifying and describing important information, explaining and analyzing it, and evaluating information and defending positions with appropriate evidence and careful reasoning. (from the National Assessment of Educational Progress Civics Assessment Governing Board. Civics Framework for the 1998 National Assessment Educational Progress. US Department of Education, 1998.)

 

Okay, live and learn. Fast forward eight years to 2006, when 4th, 8th and 12th were administered the civics test. How’d they do? As you can see below, the fourth graders did a bit better, but there was no different between this cohort of 8^th and 12^th graders and those from 8 years ago.

 

 

[Source: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2006/2007476.asp]

 

Why might this be? Shouldn’t all high school students graduate with a firm knowledge of civics? Isn’t there a common core set of values all Americans should share? It is important for high school students to enter adulthood (and voting age) with a firm sense of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. It is in the country’s interest for its citizens to look beyond 60 second sound bites or their “gut feeling” when deciding how to cast their vote on a referendum or for a candidate.

Here’s what Center for Civic Education says about why civic education is important:

A free society must rely on the knowledge, skills, and virtue of its citizens and those they elect to public office. Civic education is the primary way our citizens acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for informed and engaged citizenship. While many institutions such as the family, the church and social organizations help forge a person’s civic character and propensity to participate, civic education in the schools is the one common experience American citizens share that helps them acquire and learn to use the skills, knowledge and attitudes that prepare them to be competent and responsible citizens throughout their lives. This is the historic civic mission of schools. A mission considered so important by those who established a free universal system of public education in the United States that they termed civic education as one of the central purposes of education. Unfortunately, as the indicators of civic engagement in our nation are dropping so too is the amount of time and attention devoted to civic education in our schools.

Consider this:

The Policy Research Project on Civic Education Policies and Practices found that on average civics content in states’ social studies standards overemphasize lower-order thinking of identifying and describing positions, stating that “civic statements requiring students to evaluate, take, and defend positions-the highest-order level of thinking-are the least prevalent in most state standards.” (Policy Research Project on Civic Education Policies and Practices. The Civic Education of American Youth: From State Policies to School District Practices. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. Policy Research Project Report, no. 133, 1999)

 

Idea #1: Bring back mandatory national civic education for students. We could even have a national test on civics (not American History per se, but on civics—rights and responsibilities of being an American citizen). We could even have a national debate about whether students must pass such a test in order to graduate high school. (There is an organization, Center for Civic Education, which is devoted to promoting civic education in the schools). 

Idea #2: Consider making voting compulsory. Actually, the voting itself wouldn’t be compulsory—just showing up at the polling place. This is how Australia does it (to see Eric Weiner’s article about the Australian system, click here).  If people had to go into the voting booth, they might just be motivated to exert the mental effort to be informed about the issues.

Even if motivated, though, the skills necessary for true citizenship—”evaluating information and defending positions with appropriate evidence and careful reasoning”—are not skills that are much on display in public discussions of politics and governance. Rather, the “political discourse” consists of sound bites, simplistic arguments designed to tug at emotions rather than reason, and to smear an opposing candidate’s position or character (often falsely or by stretching the truth significantly). Is the mainstream media helping further a civics education for Americans? No.

I’d like to make a proposal (idea #3, below). First, let me explain about professional ethics and licensing for psychotherapists, which I will then use as an anology; this may seem a like digression, but it isn’t.

There are many different types of psychotherapists. In fact, anyone can call him or herself a psychotherapist and hang out a shingle (so to speak). What differentiates the generic “psychotherapist” from a specialized one? The simple answer is training, and then a license. It is illegal for psychologists who evaluate or treat patients or clients to say they are psychologists—unless they have a state license. Otherwise it is “practicing without a license.”

To obtain a license, a psychologist must demonstrate having received the appropriate training and experience (as determined by the state licensing board), and then take a national test plus a test on state legal and ethical matters. If the test score passes the cutoff, the psychologist is given a license. To maintain the license, the psychologist must continue learning—must obtain a specific number of continuing education credits within a specific number of years (the particular numbers vary from state to state) for each license renewal.

If a psychologist is found to have violated the state laws or ethical code that relate to professional conduct, the license can be taken away. (A license is necessary to receive health insurance payment for services, and required for certain jobs.) The licensing process is set up to protect citizens from fraud and from unethical or illegal behavior by the psychologist in his or her professional capacity.

Idea #3: License journalists. Just as psychologists are licensed, let’s license journalists. For this discussion, I’m going to create a distinction between a correspondent (analogous to the generic psychotherapist—anyone can call themselves a correspondent) and a journalist (analogous to a psychologist–whose title conveys a deeper responsibility—for analysis, commentary, accuracy, integrity). The journalist is held to a higher standard, and requires more training (and should, in theory, receive more compensation). If a journalist has engaged in irresponsible reporting or analysis–according to the decision of the licensing board–his or her license could be taken away, and if so, then that individual cannot practice as a journalist. The fact that the licensing credential has been stripped becomes public knowledge. (We can use words other than correspondent and journalist—I’m using those terms to illustrate the concept of the two different types of labels for people who convey news to the public). When we see, hear, or read news through any media, we would thus be able to know whether or not the source was held to a high standard of accuracy and integrity.

 

What about “press passes”? Any organization giving out press passes can determine how many passes to give to correspondents versus journalists. What about freedom of the press? I’m not saying correspondents or journalists should be muzzled. I’m advocating that, as with psychologists, the public should be protected from fraud and a misuse of the professional positions of people in the press. Anyone can say or claim anything they want, but journalists—in their professional capacity—should behave with a sense of integrity and ethics.

Here’s how we might develop such a system.

Step 1: Have the profession develop a national journalistic code of ethics (it has to be specific enough in most cases it’s relatively clear when someone has crossed the line). As with psychology, the goal is to ensure that people who obtain a journalist license understand their rights and their legal and ethical obligations; having such a code allows the public understand those obligations and rights as well.  

Step 2: Set minimum training and work experience standards for someone to be eligible to become a journalist.

Step 3: Once someone meets the minimum standards outlined in Step 2, he or she can take a test to demonstrate knowledge of the profession’s rights and responsibilities (these will be based on Step 1). The cutoff score for passing is determined by the licensing board.

Step 4: Once licensed, the journalist must renew the license periodically, demonstrating continued education by earning continuing education credits (determined by the licensing board). Members of the public can bring complaints against a journalist for violating the ethical code; if the licensing board determines after a hearing that the charges have merit, the journalist’s license may be revoked.

I’m not a journalist (clearly) and so this proposal may be unworkable or naive. But with the proliferation of “news” sources on the internet, in print, and on television, it seems to me that there must be some accountability and responsibility.

Clarifications About the Dark Knight

 

In a response to comment about an earlier blog entry, I noted the cumulative trauma that might explain why Harvey Dent went over the edge to become Two-Face:

his parents and sibling killed, love of his life killed–after she’d agreed to marry him, facial disfigurement, and extreme pain from the fire.

Since that post, I’ve read the “novelization” of the movie , written by former Batman writer/editor Denny O’Neil. (Click here, The Dark Knight, for a link to Amazon’s webpage for the book)

The novelization provided interesting backstories for the events in the movie, and helped clarify a couple of the movie’s more confusing elements. The novelization makes it clear that:

1. The two murdered individuals with “Harvey” and “Dent” identification tags had no family relationship to Harvey Dent;
2. The Joker intended to misdirect Batman when he revealed the locations where Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent were being held. He tells Batman that Rachel is at one address and Dent at the other location. When Gordon then asks Batman which one he was going to, Batman replies, “Dent knew the risks,” and he rushed off to the location that Joker said housed Rachel.  

They have deleted this line from the movie, which is too bad because it makes the subsequent sequence much clearer. And once Batman found Dent rather than Rachel at the location, the novelization explains (page 231):

“He had expected to see Rachel, to free her and get her out of the building. To tell her he loved her and would keep her safe forever. Instead, he saw Harvey Dent lying in a black puddle, bound to a chair. Next to him were two barrels, one on its side, and a timer. Shock and horror flooded over Batman…Rachel, thought Batman. Good God, I’ve failed her…

Dr Robin on BlogTalkRadio.com

Today on Pop Culture America, I discussed with hosts John and Dave possible reasons for the success of The Dark Knight and chat about psychology of superheroes generally. Click on the link, above, to hear the show–my segment begins 30 minutes into the show.

The Colbert Bump–Empirical Data!

If you have watched the Colbert Report, you’ll know about the “Colbert bump” for political candidates, authors, singers and others. Authors who come on the show get a huge spike in sales after their appearance. Ditto performers. Some politicians have had a increase in their poll ratings and an appearance on the Colbert Show seems to have helped nudge a politician into victory on election day, as happened to Rep. John Hall (D-NY). Here’s his first appearance on the show. (After Hall’s victory, he went back on the Colbert Report, this time to sing with Cobert, which is below.)

The American Political Science Association issues a press release about an article in its current journals, Political Science and Politics. The press release (click here) includes this paragraph:

[The author's] analysis finds that Democrats who appear on The Colbert Report enjoy a significant increase in the number and total amount of donations they receive over the next 30–40 days when compared to similar candidates who do not appear on the show. Specifically, Democrats who come on the program raise $8,247 more than colleagues who don’t do so on the 32nd day following their appearance—“a bump of roughly two-fifths over the normal rate of receipts.” Republicans do not appear to benefit at all from appearing on the program; notably, they raise more funds in the month before coming on the program while actually raising less money in the month following their appearance—hinting at a possible “Colbert bust” for the GOP instead.

Although this isn’t mentioned in the press release, the study investigated people who participated in the Better Know a District series, and compared them to politicians similar on various dimensions but who were not on the Colbert show. You can read the study itself (click here). Until reading the article, I didn’t know that interview for the Better Know a District series can take up to 2 hours per representative, and are then edited down to the few minutes that we see in the show.

For additional Better Know A District segments, click here.

I admire the attempt to quantify the Colbert bump!