Psychology

Freethink Media’s Dan Hayes tweeted about a great NPR article about a lasting ambivalence inherent in modern music:

Six years ago, Glenn Schellenberg decided to do an experiment. …

“Happy-sounding songs typically tend to be in a major key, and they tend to be fast, [with] more beats per minute,” he says. “Conversely, sad-sounding songs tend to be slow in tempo, and they also tend to be in a minor key.” …

But while the grad student had no trouble finding fast, happy-sounding music in a major key when he looked at older musical eras — from the classical period up through the 1960s — it got a lot harder when it came to contemporary pop music.

There were plenty of fast-tempo songs, but almost all of the songs he found were in a minor key, and didn’t sound unambiguously happy; they were more emotionally complicated than that. …

The question, of course, is why? Why would consumers connect more to conflict and sadness now than they did in the ’60s and ’70s? Schellenberg says he doesn’t think it’s because people today are any sadder.

“I think that people like to think that they’re smart,” he says. “And unambiguously happy-sounding music has become, over time, to sound more like a cliche. If you think of children’s music like ‘Twinkle Twinkle Little Star’ or ‘The Wheels on the Bus,’ those are all fast and major, and so there’s a sense in which unambiguously happy-sounding songs sound childish to contemporary ears. I think there’s a sense in which something that sounds purely happy, in particular, has a connotation of naivete.”

Personally, that’s an understandable but unsatisfying explanation.

The pace and focus of life has radically changed. We’re more connected now than ever before. This fundamentally changes our instincts regarding self-awareness, and our self-centered conception of the world.

Today’s society is intensely self-aware. Therapy and mind-altering medications from adderall to xanax are all widely accepted, and we have creative outlets for all of our internal thoughts, down to the most inconsequential tweets and instragram photos.

At the same time, we’re intensely connected, through many of the same avenues. In real time you have access to most anything you could imagine, be it art or politics, a favorite comedian’s best joke, and what your co-workers are having for lunch.

It’s no wonder we approach emotional messages with a higher degree of sophistication than prior generations. We’re more aware of our own reactions to these inputs, while also being more aware of outsiders perception of our reactions. Emotionally complex inputs allow us some measure of psychic guardedness. It becomes more and more difficult for others to completely or definitively interpret our inner state. It gives our emotional state a protective ambiguity, which is part of what John Cusack discusses in High Fidelity.

In writing this, I thought about art that mean something to me, and what they’re trying to say. The stuff that I cherish most, like The Avett Brothers, Laura Marling, and Mumford & Sons, are all freighted with questions and ideas that are complex, and I think, important. Songs like The Once and Future Carpenter or Timshel ask questions about what it means to be good, to be happy, or fulfilled. I feel these ways only occasionally, and I frequently churn these questions over and over. So maybe it’s just basic solipsism; we listen to the music that makes us most comfortable in our heads?

I don’t think the comfort contention is necessarily true, because I know very smart people who regularly deal with heavy thoughts, but also enjoy emphatically vapid songs like Party Rock or Call Me, Maybe. It could be escapism, or a vehicle for aspirational emotional states, that is, the opposite of John Cusack’s question. I listen to the Black Keys to make me happy.


The Black Keys – Gold On The Ceiling (Official… by Warner-Music

Buy The Avett Brothers The Carpenter

Buy Mumford & Sons Sigh No More

Buy The Black Keys El Camino

{ 0 comments }

I don’t drink alcohol or take any drugs recreationally, and never have. I realize that that puts me in a fringe minority of the population, especially because it’s not for any kind of religious reason. The drive to use psychoactive substances is nearly universal, so I’m an outlier. Why do I value personal teetotalism?

I consider Penn Jillette an inspiration for this decision. Penn’s libertarianism obviously doesn’t imply personal or political teetotalism, but personal teetotalism does offer a solid rhetorical point for libertarianism: that one can choose not to consume even a legal substance like alcohol highlights that the primary basis of a choice to use a drug isn’t the law. Having this rhetorical point isn’t a reason for Penn or me to choose teetotalism, but it is an additional compatible argument that disconfirms the omnipresent claims that libertarians advocate for drug legalization only out of a selfish, personal desire to use drugs.

One core reason for Penn’s teetotalism is simply that he wants to be smarter, and using psychoactive drugs recreationally obviously makes you stupider, even if just temporarily. James Randi, who is an inspiration to Penn Jillette for his scientific skepticism, is also a teetotaler. Randi articulates part of my justification for teetotalism: having control over your mind and understanding and addressing reality as accurately as possible. This is a big part of my justification. Once you study a bit of the literature on heuristics and biases, you’ll realize that your own map of reality is already hopelessly flawed. It seems base to me to handicap myself even more.

It is often said that the young drink to rebel. I just never picked up this habit. Maybe it was just to express my own individuality, rebelling against the popular notion of youthful rebellion? I have always been weirded out by conformity.

It’s not just that as a utilitarian I want to appreciate and understand every precious moment of my own existence. It’s also that as a materialist atheist I recognize that consciousness arises from a physical process in the brain only. Taking a psychoactive substance isn’t modifying the access point to the mind; it is modifying the mind itself.

How does this play out socially? I find that drinkers roughly fall into two categories, those who use alcohol as a substitute for experience, and those who use alcohol as a complement for experience. I should caveat that obviously one person can be a different kind of drinker at different points in time.

Some people drink as a substitute for meaning and happiness. Unsatisfied with their classes, jobs, careers, or personal lives, they drink for a temporary escape. These kinds of drinkers have little to look forward to other than a break from an otherwise unfulfilled life.

Others use drinking as a complement to their own lives. Already having attained, or at least successfully striving for meaning, purpose, and value in their lives, personal and professional, they use alcohol to enhance their lives, enjoying the physiological effects for their own sake, enjoying the taste of the drinks for their own sake, and perhaps using alcohol as a social lubricant.

I think that substitute drinkers often suffer low self-esteem, and that they have a hard time socializing with principled teetotalers like myself. In a social situation, a substitute drinker feels threatened by a composed, happy teetotaler who doesn’t use alcohol as a crutch. By juxtaposition, the teetotaler’s very presence calls attention to the substitute drinker’s void by not validating the substitute drinker’s behavior. Since they’re Insecure, substitute drinkers more often seek to socialize with other substitute drinkers to validate their decisions. Humans, after all, do have biological drives for conformity.

There’s a habit among substitute drinkers to use the nuances of drinks as a vehicle for vacuous conversation. I find excessive deliberation about a drink’s attributes, or talk about what a drink says about a person, endlessly insipid.

Complement drinkers on the other hand, well-adjusted and secure, can socialize with teetotalers quite well, because complement drinkers are not threatened by teetotalers. Complement drinkers can be interesting, can abstract, and can carry on conversations about more interesting things than the drink they’re holding and what exists only in their immediate vicinity.

Exclusively socializing with other non-religious teetotalers would be a quixotic task, since there are too few, so I do my best to seek out complement drinkers instead of substitute drinkers.

Cross-posted to The Paltry Press

{ 3 comments }

Reader V.A. Luttrell writes in to correct a mistake I made in the last post on gender neutrality in children:

1. I think you are conflating, based on this sentence and the surrounding paragraph, gender and sex. They are, in fact, two different if related things.

She’s right, I did mean “sex” instead of “gender”. And admittedly, by saying sex is mostly binary, I was trying to sidestep the whole issue of the sexual spectrum and intersexual folks. Mostly out of laziness, but also because it’s secondary to the point of the post.

Gender identity is a construct, but sexual typing is a fact. That’s not to imply that sexual identity is a fact, or even necessarily tied to sexual typing. I’m all for experimenting with social constructs (creative destruction, baby), but it seems like the parents here are combating the identity problem by confronting the typing issue.

Of course the toys one buys children will have an impact on how they see the world, and their place in it. But the answer isn’t to shelter your child from influence, or to coddle them from the very real existence of gender stereotypes and roles. It’s to provide them alternatives, and a framework for evaluating how important those assumptions have been to them. Consider a boy child picking up a clearly feminine doll, like a Barbie or that new creepy doll that simulates breastfeeding. If that is the only available toy it’s a much less meaningful choice than if he walked past or rejected a hyper-masculine army man to get to it.

Concerning the impact of implicit gender roles, there’s some evidence that implications are much less weighty than one might think. Chaz Bono talked in the Old Grey Lady about his innate feeling of ‘wrongness’ when confronted with his nominally female identity:

I knew my whole life something was different. As a small kid, I could be one of the boys, playing sports, fitting in. When I hit puberty, I felt like my body was literally betraying me. I got smacked everywhere with femaleness. That was really traumatic.

The things we’re given and the ideas we’re saddled with aren’t what determine us, unless we abdicate the unique set of responsibilities and thoughts we all have. These parents are trying to make a grand indictment of some “system” at the expense of their child, when they could achieve the same result by nurturing Storm’s creativity, imbuing Storm with a sense of both responsibility and possibility, and gifting Storm with a questioning mind unsatisfied by assumptions or the status quo. That is, they could achieve all they’re trying to prove by being good parents, but soldiering away like that wouldn’t get reporters in the house or give them a stage for their sweeping pronouncements.

Everyone keeps asking us, ‘When will this end?’” says Witterick. “And we always turn the question back. Yeah, when will this end? When will we live in a world where people can make choices to be whoever they are?”

V.A.’s whole comments are worth reading, and admittedly I tried to talk about gender without invoking the sexual identity spectrum because that is a broader, murkier, and less interesting discussion. You should feel free to behave how you like, as long as you don’t hurt anyone. That goes for sex, politics, how you conduct your business, and what you put in your body.

{ 1 comment }


Relevant

A couple in Canada are raising their third child without disclosing its sex. To anyone.

“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” says Witterick, bouncing Storm, dressed in a red-fleece jumper, on her lap at the kitchen table.

“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.

When Storm was born, the couple sent an email to friends and family: “We’ve decided not to share Storm’s sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm’s lifetime (a more progressive place?).”

Some thoughts:

1) Gender may arbitrarily limit us in our dealings with others, sure. How valid is ambiguity? Is it responsible parenting?

2) I don’t agree with the parents that 18 month old children can make “meaningful choices”. Choice is all about context, context provides all basis for a meaningful choice. To make a well-informed choice, one must appreciate the scope of the alternatives, and the opportunity costs of choices forgone. One should also appreciate just how much one doesn’t know. Kids aren’t equipped to handle such complex comparisons.

3) The mother writes: “When faced with inevitable judgment by others, which child stands tall (and sticks up for others) — the one facing teasing despite desperately trying to fit in, or the one with a strong sense of self and at least two ‘go-to’ adults who love them unconditionally? Well, I guess you know which one we choose.” She’s making lots of assumptions there, although I’d like to think she’s right. But is hiding a basic fact like gender necessary to be a ‘go-to’ adult? As a self-identified, openly gendered individual, I doubt it.

4) The whole thing strikes me as overwhelmingly sad, because it’s such an overwrought conceit. Gender does impact us all in some way, but whatever rewards these parents are hoping to instill in their child are wildly out of proportion to the inconvenience, notoriety, and potential harm they’re inflicting on the kid. This seems to be the point, in typical self-aggrandizingly over-thinking-it intellectually-masturbatory fashion.

5) That brings a different focus to the issue of parental responsibility. Given that kids will face pressure to conform for many reasons, doesn’t it seem like you should take some of that pressure off your children, instead of ensuring their path is more tough than strictly necessary?

6) True, I’ve mostly side-stepped the main issues of gender-identity, but only because I think they’re uninteresting. Gender is, more or less, a basic binary fact. What you choose to do, who you choose to be, and how you conduct yourself, in private, in society, and in the various markets we all occupy are the far more interesting questions, and kids can’t meaningfully participate. Raising a child to use their mind, to be a fully functioning moral person, is the ultimate parental responsibility. These Canadians seem to be missing that, instead opting for something both superficial and lesser, which is sad.

{ 8 comments }

Does TV make you dumb? Does it make you think? I don’t watch much television. A few shows regularly, Justified, Archer, Modern Family, South Park, and a few things here or there as I catch up on email or clean my bedroom or something. But I know an embarrassingly wide variety of stuff about tv. The sheer amount of tv-centric knowledge I absorb, or actively seek out, is wildly out of proportion to the actual footprint of my television viewing.

Partly that’s because stories are endlessly fascinating. If the writers have minimal storytelling chops, I feel obsessively compelled to reach the ending. This is empty and joyless, the way Maude Lebowski describes nymphomaniacs’ sex lives, with just a hint of grim satisfaction. And then there is the sense that television is, somehow, a large conversation going on all the time. This is generally the same fascination with twitter; at every possible moment, someone is talking about any thing. In some sense, someone is talking about everything. Always. And it’s distinct from episodic news or iterative media, such as blogs or newspapers or books, where an idea has been considered, revised, and released on a semi-predictable timetable. It’s an ongoing, ever-changing narrative, even if the authors, the actors, and the producers constantly change roles.

Which brings me to (or rather, what started this train of thought was) this passage, from David Foster Wallace’s A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again, discussing the relationship of television to fiction writing:

TV is the epitome of Low Art in its desire to appeal to and enjoy the attention of unprecedented numbers of people. But it is not Low because it is vulgar or prurient or dumb. Television is often all these things, but this is a logical function of its need to attract and please Audience. And I’m not saying that television is vulgar and dumb because the people who comprise Audience are vulgar and dumb. Television is the way it is simply because people to be extremely similar in their vulgar and prurient and dumb interests and wildly different in their refined and aesthetic and noble interests. It’s all about syncretic diversity: neither medium nor Audience is faultable for quality.

The type of people who have “Kill Your TV” bumper stickers and aggressively conflate the synecdoche with a conspiracy seem to forget that you should never ascribe to malice what could be caused by stupidity. TV doesn’t make us dumb, our dumbness is depressingly common, and vulgar, and basic. Which is why these emotions and tastes are so ill-regarded. We come to tv to share in this, in the same way the Romans went to the Forum, or the Victorians swilled Gin. If Wallace is right, perhaps it means that people are stronger, in themselves, and less susceptible to outside agency, than the busy-body improvers-of-mankind believe.

{ 0 comments }

Chuck Klosterman is the author of numerous books and essays on pop culture. In his bestselling Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs; A Low Culture Manifesto, he had an interlude piece titled “23 Questions I Ask Everybody I Meet In Order To Decide If I Can Really Love Them”. I’ll be answering those questions in a series of posts. Feel free to chip in your thoughts or answers. See also: Parts III, and III.

10. This is the opening line of Jay McInerney’s Bright Lights, Big City: “You are not the kind of guy who would be in a place like this at this time of the morning.” Think about that line in the context of the novel (assuming you’ve read it). Now go to your CD collection and find Heart’s Little Queen album (assuming you own it). Listen to the opening riff to “Barracuda.”

Which of these two introductions is a higher form of art?

I haven’t read the novel, unfortunately. Without the context, I don’t really have an answer. Heart’s opening riff is the best part of the song; the imagery is simplistic, the lyrics are wooden, and the singing is frankly shrill. Even the awesome guitar line is repetitive and eventually boring. However the plot description of the novel seems to allude to the same structural flaws. The second person address would seem to wear thin quickly. Do any fans of the book have thoughts?

11. You are watching a movie in a crowded theater. Though the plot is mediocre, you find yourself dazzled by the special effects. But with twenty minutes left in the film, you are struck with an undeniable feeling of doom: You are suddenly certain your mother has just died. There is no logical reason for this to be true, but you are certain of it. You are overtaken with the irrational metaphysical sense that–somewhere–your mom has just perished. But this is only an intuitive, amorphous feeling; there is no evidence for this, and your mother has not been ill.

Would you immediately exit the theater, or would you finish watching the movie?

The only movie I've ever walked out of.

I would finish watching the movie, for several reasons. First, if the intuition is that my mother has died, there is nothing I would be able to do about it. My mother isn’t Schroedinger’s Cat; she is either alive or dead, and the state of her existence doesn’t hinge on my tardiness. Second, I would prefer to be wrong, and at worst, delay terrible news. Third, this kind of intuition, if correct, would be so far outside of my normal frame of reference that I would appreciate time to digest and reflect on it, separate from the emotional chaos and personal turmoil of grief. Reacting immediately would seem to impair such distance or remove. Finally, there’s something about stories that compels me to finish them, to get to the ending. Stories are important, because they are the mechanism we use to shape our lives. We tell ourselves stories all the time, and we learn about other people through the stories they tell of themselves. Somehow understanding stories, both as a form and in their particulars, is important. If my mother died while I was watching a movie, it’s unlikely I’d ever see it again; I tried to watch Eternal Sunshine after a particularly bad break up and have still never made it more than ten minutes deep. Given that the posited movie is ‘dazzling’, and this is likely my only opportunity to finish it, I’d do so.

12. You meet a wizard in downtown Chicago. The wizard tells you he can make you more attractive if you pay him money. When you ask how this process works, the wizard points to a random person on the street. You look at this random stranger. The wizard says, “I will now make them a dollar more attractive.” He waves his magic wand. Ostensibly, this person does not change at all; as far as you can tell, nothing is different. But–somehow–this person is suddenly a little more appealing. The tangible difference is invisible to the naked eye, but you can’t deny that this person is vaguely sexier. This wizard has a weird rule, though–you can only pay him once. You can’t keep giving him money until you’re satisfied. You can only pay him one lump sum up front.

How much cash do you give the wizard?

Like question ten, this is hard to answer without reference to the particular subjective material at issue. So let’s mix up the question’s premise a little bit. Instead of thinking in dollar terms, let’s think about opportunity costs.

It’s easy to look at oneself in the mirror and think “I wish this were different, these soft parts gone, and my stomach were flatter”. What’s standing between oneself and the desired self is nothing but energy, time, and effort. The only thing stopping us from putting in that time and energy is, well, everything. Reading and television and video games and drinks with friends and the joy of indulgent food and the entertainment of a baseball game and the solitude of writing and the birthday cake at the office. Our time is finite, and our energy spent in so many little niggling ways, taken and stolen and freely given every moment of every day. Doing any one thing means choosing to do only that thing, and nothing else. So workouts sometimes (or often) get put aside or half-assed. So what I’d pay the wizard would be equal to the extra hours I should be sweating, the time I wish I had to myself, without sacrificing anything, everything, else.

(Ed – Not to get all inside-baseball here, but as anyone who’s ever read Terry Pratchett or played RPG’s knows, magic has side-effects, and unintended consequences. There’s also the issue of willpower. If I pay more, will I be able to eat shitty foods and still be attractive? Is this a one-time boost, or a continuous effect? God, what a nerd. Please forget you ever read this final note.)

{ 0 comments }

People Aren’t All Bad – Cheating Case Study

March 7, 2011

In the video we featured Friday, Harvard’s Jeffery Miron says that libertarians generally distrust government attempts to force people to be better. There are lots of reasons for that, for instance institutional problems of regulatory capture, classic rent-seeking, and many, many others. There’s also a more positive reason to be suspicious; people just aren’t as bad [...]

Read the full article →

Cool Video: Language As A Window Into Human Nature

February 21, 2011

Steven Pinker gets the RSA Animate treatment, and Harry Met Sally gets a reference.

Read the full article →

J.D. Salinger Meets Comcast

December 28, 2010

Most people are forced to read Catcher in the Rye during awkward adolescent periods of rebellion. People either love it or hate it. Either you think Holden, with his existential angst, is a whiny bitch, or you understand the kind of dark void that youth can see looming behind the grown-up world and responsibilities. As good as Catcher [...]

Read the full article →

Don’t Ask, DO Tell

December 22, 2010

I’ve written before about my buddy Alex. He’s a war hero, a freedom fighter, and a Marine. He wrote me with some of his thoughts on the recent Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal, and asked to share them with you. Congratulations, Congress. It’s sad it took so long. For you tender hearts, there’s a dick [...]

Read the full article →