PsyÂchÂCenÂtral has postÂed its list of the ten best psyÂcholÂoÂgy videos availÂable on the web. Below, we have postÂed links to the videos themÂselves. But if you want a quick descripÂtion of each clip, then defÂiÂniteÂly read through the origÂiÂnal post. Thanks to Kottke.org for bringÂing this to light.
Back in 1971, Philip ZimÂbarÂdo, a StanÂford psyÂcholÂoÂgy proÂfesÂsor, set up an experÂiÂment that quickÂly and now famousÂly went awry. Here, ZimÂbarÂdo had underÂgradÂuÂates play the role of prisÂonÂers and prison guards in a mock prison enviÂronÂment. Meant to last two weeks, the experÂiÂment was cut short after only six days when, as The StanÂford Prison ExperÂiÂment web site puts it, the guards “became sadisÂtic and [the] prisÂonÂers became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress.” For ZimÂbarÂdo, the way things played out says a lot about what hapÂpens when good, averÂage peoÂple are put in bad sitÂuÂaÂtions. And it speaks to how torÂture sceÂnarÂios, like those at Abu Ghraib, become posÂsiÂble. (For more on the parÂalÂlels between the prison experÂiÂment and the torÂture in Iraq, you may want to check out ZimÂbarÂdo’s recent video-capÂtured talk at GoogleÂplex.
Below, we’ve postÂed a video that offers a quick verÂsion, with origÂiÂnal footage, of how the prison experÂiÂment went down. If you’re interÂestÂed in underÂstandÂing what he calls the “Lucifer Effect,” the title of his new book (which, by the way, was just reviewed by Martha NussÂbaum in the Times Online), then it’s worth your time.
Human behavÂior is notoÂriÂousÂly comÂplex, and there’s been no shortÂage of psyÂcholÂoÂgists and psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal theÂoÂries venÂturÂing to explain what makes us tick. Why do we get irraÂtionalÂly jealÂous? Or have midlife crises? Why do we overeat to our own detriÂment? Why do we find ourÂselves often strongÂly attractÂed to cerÂtain physÂiÂcal traits? NumerÂous theÂoÂries abound, but few are perÂhaps as novÂel and thought-proÂvokÂing as those sugÂgestÂed by a new book with a long title: Why BeauÂtiÂful PeoÂple Have More DaughÂters: From DatÂing, ShopÂping, and PrayÂing to Going to War and BecomÂing a BilÂlionÂaire — Two EvoÂluÂtionÂary PsyÂcholÂoÂgists Explain Why We Do What We Do. WritÂten by Satoshi KanazaÂwa and Alan S. Miller, the book finds answers not in ids, egos and superÂegos, but in the evoÂluÂtion of the human brain. WritÂten in snapÂpy prose, their arguÂment is essenÂtialÂly that our behavÂior — our wants, desires and impulsÂes — are overÂwhelmÂingÂly shaped by the way our brain evolved 10,000+ years ago, and one conÂseÂquence is that our ancesÂtral brain is often respondÂing to a world long ago disÂapÂpeared, not the modÂern, fast-changÂing world in which we live. This disÂconÂnect can lead us to be out of sync, to act in ways that seem inexÂplicÂaÂble or counter-proÂducÂtive, even to ourÂselves. These arguÂments belong to new field called “evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy,” and we were forÂtuÂnate to interÂview Satoshi KanazaÂwa (LonÂdon School of EcoÂnomÂics) and delve furÂther into evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy and the (someÂtimes dispirÂitÂing) issues it raisÂes. Have a read, check out the book, and also see the relatÂed piece that the FreakoÂnomÂics folks recentÂly did on this book. Please note that the full interÂview conÂtinÂues after the jump.
DC: In a nutÂshell, what is “evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy”? (e.g. when did the field emerge? what are the basic tenets/principles of this school of thinkÂing?)
SK: EvoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy is the appliÂcaÂtion of evoÂluÂtionÂary biolÂoÂgy to human cogÂniÂtion and behavÂior. For more than a cenÂtuÂry, zoolÂoÂgists have sucÂcessÂfulÂly used the uniÂfyÂing prinÂciÂples of evoÂluÂtion to explain the body and behavÂior of all aniÂmal species in nature, except for humans. SciÂenÂtists held a speÂcial place for humans and made an excepÂtion for them.
In 1992, a group of psyÂcholÂoÂgists and anthroÂpolÂoÂgists simÂply asked, “Why not? Why can’t we use the prinÂciÂples of evoÂluÂtion to explain human behavÂior as well?” And the new sciÂence of evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy was born. It is premised on two grand genÂerÂalÂizaÂtions. First, all the laws of evoÂluÂtion by natÂurÂal and sexÂuÂal selecÂtion hold for humans as much as they do for all species in nature. SecÂond, the conÂtents of the human brain have been shaped by the forces of evoÂluÂtion just as much as every othÂer part of human body. In othÂer words, humans are aniÂmals, and as such they have been shaped by evoÂluÂtionÂary forces just as othÂer aniÂmals have been.
DC: EvoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgy porÂtrays us as havÂing impulsÂes that took form long ago, in a very pre-modÂern conÂtext (say, 10,000 years ago), and now these impulsÂes are someÂtimes rather ill-adaptÂed to our conÂtemÂpoÂrary world. For examÂple, in a food-scarce enviÂronÂment, we became proÂgrammed to eat whenÂevÂer we can; now, with food aboundÂing in many parts of the world, this impulse creÂates the conÂdiÂtions for an obeÂsiÂty epiÂdemÂic. GivÂen that our world will likeÂly conÂtinÂue changÂing at a rapid pace, are we doomed to have our impulsÂes conÂstantÂly playÂing catch up with our enviÂronÂment, and does that potenÂtialÂly doom us as a species?
SK: In fact, we’re not playÂing catch up; we’re stuck. For any evoÂluÂtionÂary change to take place, the enviÂronÂment has to remain more or less conÂstant for many genÂerÂaÂtions, so that evoÂluÂtion can select the traits that are adapÂtive and elimÂiÂnate those that are not. When the enviÂronÂment underÂgoes rapid change withÂin the space of a genÂerÂaÂtion or two, as it has been for the last couÂple of milÂlenÂnia, if not more, then evoÂluÂtion can’t hapÂpen because nature can’t deterÂmine which traits to select and which to elimÂiÂnate. So they remain at a standÂstill. Our brain (and the rest of our body) are essenÂtialÂly frozen in time — stuck in the Stone Age.
One examÂple of this is that when we watch a scary movie, we get scared, and when we watch porn we get turned on. We cry when someÂone dies in a movie. Our brain canÂnot tell the difÂferÂence between what’s simÂuÂlatÂed and what’s real, because this disÂtincÂtion didn’t exist in the Stone Age.
DC: One conÂcluÂsion from your book is that we’re someÂthing of a prisÂonÂer to our hard-wiring. Yes, there is some room for us to maneuÂver. But, in the end, our evolved nature takes over. If all of this holds true, is there room in our world for utopiÂan (or even mildÂly optiÂmistic) politÂiÂcal moveÂments that look to refashÂion how humans behave and interÂact with one anothÂer? Or does this sciÂence sugÂgest that Edmund Burke was on to someÂthing?
SK: Steven Pinker, in his 2002 book The Blank Slate, makes a very conÂvincÂing arguÂment that all UtopiÂan visions, whether they be motiÂvatÂed by left-wing ideÂolÂoÂgy or right-wing ideÂolÂoÂgy, are doomed to failÂure, because they all assume that human nature is malÂleable. EvoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂcholÂoÂgists have disÂcovÂered that the human mind is not a blank slate, a tabÂuÂla rasa; humans have innate bioÂlogÂiÂcal nature as much as any othÂer species does, and it is not malÂleable. Paul H. Rubin’s 2002 book DarÂwinÂian PolÂiÂtics: The EvoÂluÂtionÂary OriÂgin of FreeÂdom gives an evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal account of why Burke and clasÂsiÂcal libÂerÂals (who are today called libÂerÂtarÂiÂans) may have been right.
As a sciÂenÂtist, I am not interÂestÂed in UtopiÂan visions (or any othÂer visions for sociÂety). But it seems to me that, if you want to change the world sucÂcessÂfulÂly, you canÂnot start from false premisÂes. Any such attempt is bound to fail. If you build a house on top of a lake on the assumpÂtion that water is solÂid, it will inevitably colÂlapse and sink to the botÂtom of the lake, but if you recÂogÂnize the fluÂid nature of water, you can build a sucÂcessÂful houseÂboat. A houseÂboat may not be as good as a genÂuine house built on ground, but it’s betÂter than a colÂlapsed house on the botÂtom of the lake. A vision for sociÂety based on an evoÂluÂtionÂary psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal underÂstandÂing of human nature at least has a fightÂing chance, which is a much betÂter than any UtopiÂan vision based on the assumpÂtion that human nature is infiÂniteÂly malÂleable.
Once upon a time we told you about TED Talks, the annuÂal conÂferÂence that brings togethÂer the world’s “thought-leadÂers, movers and shakÂers.” These talks have been availÂable on iTunes in both audio (iTunes — Feed) and video (iTunes — Feed). And now you can apparÂentÂly find some on YouTube. Below we highÂlight a few.
First up, Dan Gilbert, a HarÂvard psyÂcholÂoÂgy proÂfesÂsor who recentÂly wrote StumÂbling On HapÂpiÂness, a book that uses psyÂcholÂoÂgy, cogÂniÂtive neuÂroÂscience, phiÂlosÂoÂphy and behavÂioral ecoÂnomÂics to show how our imagÂiÂnaÂtion — our unique abilÂiÂty to preÂdict the future — usuÂalÂly interÂferes with our basic abilÂiÂty to be hapÂpy. Here you get some kerÂnels of thought from the bestÂselling book, and some insights into why a paraÂplegic is often as hapÂpy as a lotÂtery winÂner. Good stuff here.
Next, we give you Al Gore doing a litÂtle stand-up comÂeÂdy (no kidÂding) and speakÂing on globÂal warmÂing, much as he does in An InconÂveÂnient Truth. No othÂer introÂducÂtion is needÂed.
The latÂest issue of StanÂford MagÂaÂzine feaÂtures an intriguÂing artiÂcle worth a litÂtle bit of your time. CarÂol Dweck, a psyÂcholÂoÂgy proÂfesÂsor at StanÂford, has spent much of her career lookÂing at the psyÂchoÂlogÂiÂcal underÂpinÂnings of sucÂcess, and her research has pointÂed to one broad conÂcluÂsion: Those who believe their intelÂliÂgence is fixed — who think they’ve either got it or they don’t — tend to have difÂfiÂculÂty overÂcomÂing adverÂsiÂty and reachÂing their full potenÂtial, whereÂas those who see their intelÂliÂgence and abilÂiÂty as fluÂid, as being the by-prodÂuct of effort, end up being more resilient and betÂter able to excel. And this applies just as much to young stuÂdents in school as to adults in the workÂplace, or anyÂwhere else. That’s just a quick sumÂmaÂry, and there’s obviÂousÂly a bit more to it. Click here to dig a bit deepÂer. Or check out DweckÂ’s new book called MindÂset: The New PsyÂcholÂoÂgy of SucÂcess.
SepÂaÂrateÂly, you can lisÂten in here on a podÂcast interÂview with Dweck and her thoughts on the pscyÂholÂoÂgy of sucÂcess.
Back in 1971, Philip ZimÂbarÂdo, a StanÂford psyÂcholÂoÂgy proÂfesÂsor, set up an experÂiÂment that quickÂly and now famousÂly went awry. Here, ZimÂbarÂdo had underÂgradÂuÂates play the role of prisÂonÂers and prison guards in a mock prison enviÂronÂment. Meant to last two weeks, the experÂiÂment was cut short after only six days when the guards, as The StanÂford Prison ExperÂiÂment web site puts it, “became sadisÂtic and [the] prisÂonÂers became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress.” For ZimÂbarÂdo, the way things played out says a lot about what hapÂpens when good peoÂple are put in bad sitÂuÂaÂtions. And it speaks to how torÂture sceÂnarÂios, like those at Abu Ghraib, become posÂsiÂble. (For more on the parÂalÂlels between the prison experÂiÂment and the torÂture in Iraq, you may want to check out ZimÂbarÂdo’s talk at a recent conÂferÂence called “ThinkÂing HumanÂiÂty After Abu Ghraib.”
If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newsletÂter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bunÂdled in one email, each day.
If you would like to supÂport the misÂsion of Open CulÂture, conÂsidÂer makÂing a donaÂtion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your conÂtriÂbuÂtions will help us conÂtinÂue proÂvidÂing the best free culÂturÂal and eduÂcaÂtionÂal mateÂriÂals to learnÂers everyÂwhere. You can conÂtribute through PayÂPal, PatreÂon, and VenÂmo (@openculture). Thanks!
We're hoping to rely on loyal readers, rather than erratic ads. Please click the Donate button and support Open Culture. You can use Paypal, Venmo, Patreon, even Crypto! We thank you!
Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.
