Do we always have to blame the media?

The study of psychology is largely concerned with studying human behavior and the factors or stimuli that influence that behavior.  We are often obsessed with looking for causal relationships, hypothesizing reasons why someone would behave in a certain way.  This is the basic idea behind scientific study:  what does X do to Y?

Regardless of our specific roles in society, we all seem to be inundated with media of some form. Television, print, internet, gaming, music, and the endless list goes on.  I suppose because of this saturation it is easy, and in many cases appropriate, to tag the media as a cause in many of the causal relationships of human behavior.  As Aronson (2008) writes, we are often influenced by others (including the media) without even being aware of it.  During this grueling political season, we are in no short supply (perhaps without demand) of people trying to convince and persuade us with a variety of mass media tactics.

For the purpose of this discussion I would like to focus on the media and its impact, or rather perceived impact, on the behavior of adolescents and teens.  In my lifetime there has been some intensely aggressive and negative behavior performed by teenagers that has been thrust onto the national stage.  There have been, of course, the numerous school shootings and the various stories of extreme bullying.  Perhaps a most recent example is the group beating of a teenage girl by her friends.  All of these are incredibly awful. Working in a school, I was witness to several bullying acts – physical and emotional – on a daily basis. Some more extreme than others, but nonetheless present.

I must take a moment to touch on behavior that isn’t often emphasized or studied.  On a daily basis I witnessed teenagers doing incredibly kind things to and for one another.  I experienced young people working both individually and in groups to do their part to make the world a little better.  There exists in the teenage world, a lot of people who are filled with hope, compassion, and energy to contribute something and do their part to elicit change.

So how does media play a role in all of this?  Well, it seems to me that we, as a society, are quick to blame the media when it is convenient and fall short of giving it credit at times when it deserves it.  As I stated earlier, as a people (especially students of psychology) we are constantly looking for that cause/effect relationship.  In short, who or what is to blame?  At the risk of sounding preachy, I have to wonder if we are often quick to blame others when things are not going well or not turning out the way we had desired, and  then quickly take credit when the opposite occurs.  It certainly makes sense.  If a child gets in trouble at school for punching another student – what parent would stand up and take the blame?  It’s likely that few, if any, would.  This is a fairly delicate topic.  I want to be certain to clarify that I am not suggesting that a bullying or aggressive child automatically equates to horrible parenting.  It’s not that simple.  However, it is also important to point out that this must also be true of other influences, such as the media.

One could argue that people are exposed to a variety of media throughout a lifetime – positive, negative, violent, loving, etc.  So why then do we blame the media when people are violent, but don’t give the media credit when people are loving and caring?  Hopf, Huber, and Weis (2008) point out in a recent longitudinal study that there are a variety of risk factors that contribute to the development of aggressive and violent behavior in teenagers.  A few of these include: family, media, school, peers, and personality.  Also included in this list and discussed in Aronson (2008) is attitude, specifically attitude about one’s self, violence, and others.  

To me attitude plays a much larger role than we generally give it credit for.  Attitude has a great influence on how one responds to a given situation. Throughout one’s lifetime a multitude of challenging situations and people will present and force a reaction. This reaction is informed by myriad factors and I think it is irresponsible to externalize all of the factors to the point of erasing all responsibility.  I realize that our attitudes and personalities are largely shaped by our experiences (external forces).  But external forces such as immediate environment are often brushed aside to make room for blaming a video game.

This topic is extremely complex and I certainly do not have all the answers or even a few.  I’m not trying to suggest that violent media does not play a role in certain behavior.  It just seems to me that we give it too much credit for undesirable acts and not enough for positive acts.  It’s similar to parents saying that if their child isn’t doing well in school – it’s the school’s fault, but if the child is excelling – it is because they are exceptional parents.  Why can’t it be both environments contributing to either situation?

As we continue to look at the issues of child aggression and violence, I think it is important to be responsible with the amount of influence we give certain factors.  Tagging media as the main causal factor in teenage aggression is an overly simplistic answer and truly does not address an overly complex issue.

I would like to see research start to look at both sides of this issue (positive and negative effects of media).  There is no doubt that media plays a role, lets just make sure that we are striking the appropriate balance between the power of its influence and attitude with which children respond to it.

I’ve tried not to oversimplify this topic and to be sensitive to the wide range of opinions and angles one can have. A great deal more work needs to be done to truly understand the issue, and perhaps that will never be possible. The best thing to do is to have an open mind and understand that there is generally not one simple reason people behave as they do.

Is Western Society Too Idealized?

Does western culture focus too much on the future and not enough on the here and now? Are Americans so caught up in living the “American dream” that they neglect their real selves? These are just a couple of the questions that have been on my mind lately. Karen Horney’s concepts of the real and idealized self helped propel my thinking on these issues to the next level. Whether it’s encouraging or discomforting, I have yet to decide, but I do think I have a better understanding of what may be happening.

According to psychological theorist Karen Horney, children who receive loving satisfaction of their needs develop into productive adults. If they experience the basic evil, inadequate parenting, they stray from their real self and develop neuroticism. Along with neurotic behavior they develop an idealized self, which is a fictitious view of who they should be. It is a distorted view that cannot be achieved. This concept is perhaps the one that has resonated with me the most so far. Horney often referred to the ideal self as the “tyranny of the shoulds.” I would venture to say that almost every person in the United States, several times on a daily basis, uses the phrase, “I should really…”

I do subscribe to the importance of childhood as it relates to development. The first years of life are clearly extremely formative and provide a basis for our hopefully fruitful future. With that said, I would like to take Horney’s theory a step further. Can an individual develop an idealized self even after experiencing healthy childhood development?

I think the answer is yes. While I haven’t conducted any research on those questions, I would suggest that there are a plethora of case studies at our fingertips: American citizens. I think that the pressure to succeed and achieve goals has become a staple of American culture, in some ways to its detriment. The notion of achieving the American dream, owning a beautiful house with a family while holding down a job that brings in at least a six figure salary, is ingrained in the minds of almost every American. We set goals and if we achieve them, we have to set more goals. Essentially, we are never satisfied; we always need more. I realize this isn’t true for every American, but I think a great many.

Some might suggest that there is nothing wrong with setting goals and achieving them. I agree, if the cost to the self doesn’t outweigh the benefits. According to Horney, people who live in accordance with their real selves are on the way to self-realization. The question to ask then is whether this goal-driven society is living in accordance with the real self or the idealized self. I think that people can have a very healthy concept of self while achieving goals in life. However, it seems to me that many Americans might not be on a path to self-realization.

Perhaps my pessimistic view of western culture and its lack of emphasis on the real self is a bit much for some people to take, but I do think it is a genuine problem, especially in the United States. My suggestion is that we take some advice from Horney and try to live in accordance with our real self. That might mean slowing down and actually spending some time with our own person and getting to know him or her. It would certainly do us all some good.

Someone recently asked me...

how do you suppress bad thoughts? In order to address this topic one first has to define "bad" thoughts. There are several ways to approach the concept of bad thoughts and depending on your background and values these approaches can be quite varying. I might suggest that there is a continuum of "badness" on which our thoughts might lie. There are the extreme thoughts of harm and deviancy that are essentially indisputably bad. But then there are the thoughts of yearning or pride, which while some consider bad, others might say are actually fairly good.

For the sake of this discussion, let us assume we are speaking of the indisputably bad thoughts. So how does one go about repressing such thoughts? I would say that one should not. Attempting to suppress one's thoughts is essentially volunteering to create psychological problems due to repressed emotions. Individuals spend thousands of dollars in therapy trying to uncover their repressed thoughts. People with dissociative identity disorder have suppressed their thoughts to the point of creating alternate personalities to deal with the thoughts. But people are wondering how to actively suppress bad thoughts? I would warn that this should be a practice to avoid.
Rather than suppress these thoughts, why not be as aware of them as one is able? Western culture, for years, has been creating a society of repression in regards to freethinking. So little value is placed on self-awareness and development of the true self. We are almost forced to conform to the notion that taking care of your true self first is a selfish act, when in fact it could easily be argued that the only way to truly care for others is to care for yourself first.

By being aware of bad thoughts that enter one's conscious, one is able to reflect on these thoughts and attempt to determine what it is that is causing these processes to occur. I tend to think there is an explanation for most things; if you are having negative thoughts about something, isn't it best to examine the situation and figure out why these thoughts are occurring rather than pretending they don't exist? The risk of suppressing such thoughts is too great. The only way to truly know one's self is to consciously be aware of one's thought processes - suppressing these ideas can only lead to a path of unhappiness and possible destruction.

Is it really a dilemma?

Existentialists refer to the human dilemma or object-subject dichotomy as people being both the object and the subject of their existence. Humans have the capacity to themselves as objects to which things happen, as well as subjects who act on their experiences. In many way, this is what sets humans apart from other animals; the ability to step outside of ourselves and see ourselves acting in the world as well as being acted upon. Is this a dilemma or rather a healthy understanding of self?

I suppose it depends how far you take it on either end of this continuum of object or subject. You have behaviorists who advocate that humans are objects with little to no subjectivity. This is such an extreme stance and for me, very difficult to subscribe to. I certainly understand that a lot of behavior is learned and much of what we do or who we are is a product of our environment. However, to say that is the essence of who we are is placing us in the same category as every other animal on earth. Do behaviorists put themselves in this category? It’s hard for me to believe that they themselves think they are not free thinking individuals.

On the other end of the spectrum would be someone like Rogers (whom I love). He perhaps focused too much on subjectivity. The idea that our idea of self is developed only from our subjective view of our phenomenological field is again, a bit too extreme. This suggests to me that humans all live in their own little world and essentially choose what they want to be aware of. Perhaps there is some truth to that, but I would argue not to the extent in which Rogers thought. I think there are many stimuli from physical reality that have great influences on us, whether we are aware of or not.

It seems as I continue to write, I am aligning with May, who believed it a mistake to stress one side of the dichotomy over the other. It’s all about balance, which tends to be in a theme in all aspects of life. Once people are aware that they are both the object and subject of their existence, they can use that in their pursuit of self-actualization. The only way to become self-actualized is to be aware of one’s self, understanding not only one’s desires, but the also the motivations behind those desires. If you don’t have the ability to self-relate, this could be a difficult task.

With all that said, I would suggest that there are a great number of people living amongst us today who are simply the objects of their existence. Existentialists argue that all humans have an inherent need for meaning. This may be true, but I think that a lot of people perhaps haven’t yet realized that need. They go about their daily business, always looking for something new, something that might give them a sense of contentment. They seem to use material objects as a means for defining that sense of contentment or perhaps providing is a better word, while never taking a moment to ask themselves, “What is it that I really need?’ I think it is a sense of meaning they are looking for; they just don’t know it because they haven’t taken the time to be subjects of their existence.

So where do I sit on this continuum of object-subject? Well, at this point, I would lean towards the subject pole, while realizing the importance and large impact that the objectivity pole has on existence. I think to be extreme on any stance in life can be irresponsible. There aren’t many things that are cut and dry (although it sure would be nice if there were!), but having a balance and truly understanding the impact of all influences is crucial to succeeding in the pursuit of happiness.

Strangers to Ourselves, or not?

I have spent a great deal of time lately considering unconscious versus conscious processes. This is mostly likely due to a book I recently read, Strangers to Ourselves, by Timothy Wilson. The focus of the book is the adaptive unconscious, its processes, and how to adjust our behavior through understanding the goals of the adaptive unconscious. While reading the book and everyday since I finished it, I continue to ponder the importance or rather the power of the unconscious. Wilson uses several analogies to illustrate the varying points on the continuum of unconscious control of the self. I’m still trying to figure out which point on that continuum I subscribe to.

On one end of the spectrum is the extreme of the unconscious essentially controlling all aspects of whom and what we are while the conscious plays a very small, minute role in daily functioning. At first reading I thought this idea to be a bit too extreme, but upon further reflection is didn’t seem all that crazy to me. Perhaps our unconscious is so powerful and manipulative (maybe too strong of a word) it leads our conscious to believe that it is making the decisions, when in actuality the unconscious has already decided what the decision will be. According to Wilson, the goals of the unconscious are strong and are hard to break. If we are unaware of these goals, I suppose it is possible to move through life aimlessly directed by motivations that you are completely unaware of. This idea might explain why people occasionally (or maybe too often in some cases) act in strange, unexplainable ways. In attempting to explain why someone did something, the individual might suggest that he really doesn’t know; that he was acting outside of himself. If they are so unaware of their unconscious goals, that certainly may be true.

On the opposite end of the continuum the unconscious and conscious trade roles. The conscious is in complete control while the unconscious is there to perform basic tasks that the conscious can’t be bothered with. I think this would be the perspective that most people would and do subscribe to. The notion of being in complete control is often comforting, however I think to dismiss the idea that there are unconscious goals that push us in certain directions is dangerous. Do we really want to have all of the responsibility of controlling out destiny? Is it possible for our conscious to process, evaluate, interpret, and draw conclusions on all that we take in as humans? I would say no, it is not possible, and I think almost every scholar of psychology and neuroscience would agree. So it seems at this point, I’m leaning towards the other end of the continuum (I really didn’t feel that way when I started reading the book!)

There is one last point on the continuum that Wilson discusses. On this point the conscious and unconscious are a team, they work together evaluating and interpreting information. They divide and conquer, one working with specific information and processes, while the other does the same with another set of information. It often takes both to make an informed decision. This idea might be the most comfortable to me, but I’m not sure if it’s the most accurate. I think that I’m making a decision about what I want to have for dinner, but how can I be certain that my unconscious hasn’t made that decision?

The best conclusion for me at this point is that the roles of the conscious and unconscious lie somewhere in the middle of the continuum. This is a very interesting topic for me and I look forward to consuming more research and perhaps doing some of my own. Will we ever know the truth on this matter? It’s hard to imagine at this point.

Set in stone at 5?

Would the profession of psychology be where it is today without Freud? Of course that question is near impossible to answer, but it is certainly safe to say that Freud's contributions to psychology are perhaps some of the most important. Today's theorists have drifted a bit from the extremes of Freud, but in many respects his basics are still represented. There are many aspects of Freud's theory that resonate with me, but I do have some difficulty digesting some of his ideas.

Perhaps one of Freud's most extreme theories was his psychosexual stages of development. Through these stages, Freud believed that the adult personality was formed by the end of the fifth year of life. I'm sure that I'm not the only person to ever take issue with this, but I'd like to take my turn. I find it so odd that an adult, who clearly was bright and creative, would make such a statement.

Whenever I read something of Freud that seems a bit too extreme for me, I can't help but wonder if his own issues weren't the reason for some of his claims. I'm not sure if anyone else has even wondered this, and by doing so maybe I'm disgracing the roots of psychology. I do believe that childhood plays an important roll in the development of the self and one's personality, but to say that development is concluded at the age of 5 is almost a defeatist statement. For me, one of the most exciting aspects of life is personal growth and the constant development of self and understanding that one goes through on a daily basis. It seems to me that Freud might suggest that this isn't necessary since we are who we are going to be at the ripe age of 5. My question then to Freud would be, what is the point of living after age 5? Perhaps my take on Freud's theory is just as pessimistic as his view on human life, but I can't imagine living a life without growth and development past the age of 5.

In contrast to Freud's view on this particular issue was Jung's. According to Jung the most important stage in human development occurred around age 40 and beyond. These are almost two extremes. Freud didn't put enough weight in the possibility of development in later years, while Jung seemed to look past the early years. While I do think childhood is a very important time in one's development, the idea that there is so much more to look forward to is quite refreshing. Jung's concept of the goal of self-realization is extremely appealing to me. At this point in life, it seems to me that it should be the ultimate goal for all of us to understand life to the fullest extent possible and resolve who we are to be as individuals.

While I may not agree with certain aspects of Freud's theories, I do have a great deal of respect for many of his contributions and the enormous effect he has had on almost every facet of human life. I am interested to see how my views change as we explore more theories. Perhaps I will come to agree with Freud's notion at some point. I doubt it though.