Saturday, October 22, 2011

Occupy LA: A Wake-Up Call for the Rest of Us


            It takes a particular type of individual with a unique constitution to stand out from the masses and speak out against injustice.  To stand up when others feel helpless and to stand in the face of strong opposition – that is what demonstrates how dedicated a person is to their cause.  Such is the fiber of the people who make up the Occupy movements that have become a worldwide phenomenon over the course of the past few months.  Yet, realistically these protesters have done little for their cause, and yet participants in the Occupy L.A. protest continue to camp in front of City Hall.
            The protesters incessant calls for change, despite their meager influence, serve as a reminder to the public that certain individuals are still willing to step outside of their comfort zone to seek what is right.
            The Occupy demonstrations have been going on for nearly 5 weeks now, with no sign of slowing down.  Despite the fact that some of the protesters have been picketing since the demonstration’s inception, the protesters have done little for their cause.  The Occupy L.A. demonstration claims to represent “the 99%” of American citizen whose wealth drastically contrasts with the wealth of the top one percent.  Protesters want to change financial landscape of the nation and ask the top one percent to give more of their money to the federal government in the form of taxes.
            While their motivation is clear, what’s not clear is their solution.  Countless interview after interview with protesters reveals no real plan for their envisioned end result.  Yet they persist in their demands and have become a real pest in over 70 cities in the U.S. and over 600 internationally.  The protesters’ invariable resolve to continue picketing is what demonstrates their commitment to this cause.  In psychology, clinical insanity is diagnosed when a patient repeats the same behavior over and over again, expecting a different result.  Though these protesters meet the criteria for clinical insanity, their commitment should be taken as a statement of how dire their cause is.
            On the other hand, the movement comes off as somewhat contradictory.  While the protesters seem to stand at odds with the top one percent of tax payers in the nation, their envisioned result asks that distanced group to rejoin the masses.  Essentially, they are asking them to bequeath the “extra” income that they have to the government, and live humbly like the rest of the nation.  Don’t think that the one percent is jumping out of line to rejoin the rest of the nation.
            If there is one thing that this movement lacks, it’s a clear sense of a tangible solution.  I agree that the top one percent of Americans should give more in the way of federal taxes than the rest of us, but it would be unwise to ignore what fuels the American economy.  What drives Americans to continually innovate and push the boundaries farther than previously established is the well-engrained competitive nature of our country.  To take away the rewards of breaking into the top one percent of our wage earners could have devastating and unforeseeable repercussions.  It is a simple psychological equation that when you take away the rewards of a certain behavior, you can expect the behavior to deteriorate immediately.
            While I may not personally agree with the motivations of these protesters, I cannot disregard their resolve.  It is true that there is a growing divide between the rich and poor in our country, and that if the divide continues to expand we may one day see a new kind of civil war on our hands.  The type of conflict that we see unraveling is a complicated issue and the dedication of these protesters is a wake up call for the rest of the nation.  While their solution may not be the most advantageous, it is time for the rest of us to start searching for a new and appropriate solution.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

American Exceptionalism and The City on the Hill



For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.” – John Winthrop on board the Arbella, 1630

These words were originally spoken by Governor Winthrop in a sermon to soon-to-be Massachusetts Bay colonists, warning them that the eyes of the world would be upon them.  The actual influence of his sermon is debatable, but Governor Winthrop’s mentality is one that has pervaded almost every aspect of what it means to be American.  The idea that the United States of America is somehow different than other nations is something that many Americans take for granted. 

Perhaps it’s because the United States was formed not by cultural ties or backgrounds, but by an ideological likeness – that every man has the right to the preservation of life, liberty, health, limb, or goods of another, as John Locke put it so eloquently.  Perhaps it’s because America was the ultimate religious experiment, established as a true City on a Hill. 

Thomas Paine echoed Locke’s ideas in his pamphlet Common Sense over one hundred year later, in 1776:

We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now.”

Or moreover, perhaps the mentality that the United States is an exception is linked to the notion of Manifest Destiny, which was proposed an exclamation of American virtue, mission, and destiny (Weeks).

Why do Americans feel that they are different – that somehow the seemingly binding laws of culture, country, love and war don’t apply?  The idea can be distilled into one topic: American Exceptionalism.

American Exceptionalism

The concept that has come to be known as American Exceptionalism is the belief that the United States is qualitatively different from other nations because it was founded on a distinctly different ideology.  Josef Stalin was the first person to use the term in 1929 when he berated members of the American Communist Party in the United States for thinking that their take on Communism should be anything different than the laws dictated by Karl Marx.

The roots of the notion of American Exceptionalism stem from the Puritan view that New England was humanity’s second chance at salvation.  John Winthrop’s “city on a hill” metaphor is used often as a marker of exceptionalist feelings.

In his essay American historian Howard Zinn writes, “The idea of a city on a hill is heartwarming. It suggests what George Bush has spoken of: that the United States is a beacon of liberty and democracy. People can look to us and learn from and emulate us” (Zinn).  The idea of the America as a beacon of hope is a truly uplifting concept – so much so that U.S. Presidents can’t help but use the coined phrase. 

John F. Kennedy used the expression in his last address to the public before assuming office.  It was meant to be empowering in the darkness cast by the Vietnam War.  Ronald Reagan used the expression to cast hope into the American hearts, dampened by the fear of a Cold War.  He stated: “Four years ago we raised a banner of bold colors – no pale pastels.  We proclaimed a dream of America that would be ‘a shining city upon a hill.’”

Zinn combats the idea that the peoples of America were a shining light for the rest of the world by demonstrating the cruel atrocities that Americans were responsible for over two centuries.  Just years after Winthrop’s famous words, the Puritans laid siege to the Native Americans, in an effort to cleanse the Earth.  Two hundred years later American soldiers slaughtered 600,000 Fillipinos in the Spanish-American War (Zinn).  These are just two of the countless examples Zinn offers to paint a rather bleak impression of American foreign policy.

Zinn argues that American Exceptionalism has been used to justify wars in which the United States has been the bully, and other nations have been victim.  The threat of Soviet Russia’s widespread influence was the United States’ justification during the Cold War.  Afterward, communism was transformed into terrorism, and the perceived threat continued to justify expansion.  Zinn contends that the threat of terrorism does exist, but that it was exaggerated to the point of near-hysteria.  To this end, the United States government has justified its continued foreign “power plays” and deftly maneuvered increasing sphere of influence.

While the idea of American Exceptionalism has hampered American progress in some regards, it has also led to the progress of many American businesses.  Ed Feulner states that the accomplishments achieved in the lifetime of Steve Jobs are uniquely American. (Feulner).  He argues that the boldness to create a new type of technology is a characteristic that is American and that is bred here.  It is hard to argue that the notion of American Exceptionalism alone created the success that was Steve Jobs.  He certainly was a special person, and a national hero in many ways.

Perhaps the idea of American superiority is best summed up by Seymour Martin Lipset:

“In Europe, nationality is related to community, and thus one cannot become un-English or un-Swedish. Being an American, however, is an ideological commitment. It is not a matter of birth. Those who reject American values are un-American” (Lipset).

Where does the notion that American values breed American excellence come from?

Lake Wobegon Effect/Illusory Superiority

A commonly known psychological phenomenon known as Illusory Superiority actually gained attention in the 1970s and 80s because of a well-known radio program hosted by Garrison Keillor, called A Prairie Home Companion.
The show was set in fictional Lake Wobegon, where “all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.”  The Lake Wobegon Effect, came to be known as the cognitive bias that causes a person to overestimate their abilities.  This is the same phenomenon as Illusory Superiority, however the Lake Wobegon Effect is the more commonly-used name.
One of the most commonly used studies is that of comparison to the mean.  In one such study of MBA students at Stanford, 87% ranked themselves as above the average student (Zuckerman).  The pathology of the phenomenon is unknown but it has been linked to an overestimation of ability and potential failure.
So are Americans just the victim of uncontrollable pathologies of their brains?  Did the United States insert itself into Vietnam in the 1960’s with false confidence?  Are Americans just doomed because of the phenomenon known as Illusory Superiority? 

Not likely, since humans across the world are subject to the same brain pathology as Americans.  For now, Illusory Superiority will have to serve as an aside, but continued research into this topic may one day hold the key to cognitive self-bias.

American Narcissism

Dr. Jim Taylor, a professor of Psychology at the University of San Francisco, recently wrote an interesting article on the occurrence of advancing narcissism in the United States.  Taylor points to the replacement of “us” and “we” with “I “ and “me” in literature.  He also points out vain and egocentric personalities in Hollywood like Charlie Sheen and Kanye West (Taylor).

The advent of American narcissism can be directly linked to a wired age.  Posted messages, pictures, and videos al are available for friends to offer instant feedback.  And as we all know, bad attention is better than no attention.  It’s no surprise either that American families are becoming increasingly nurturing to their young sons and daughters.  Gone are the days when parents would let their children play in the streets unattended by an adult.  Perhaps all of the attention that children are getting when they are young creates a hunger for the same levels of attention later in life.

Perhaps some element of this narcissistic trend has overflowed into the United States persona.  It is a well-known fact that the United States is not viewed as the most courteous nation, and other countries tend to loathe American tourists.  But Americans don’t seem to care.  Is it simple ignorance or arrogance by choice?

As is done with any aversive trait, the first step in weeding out this trend is awareness.  I do believe that Americans are becoming more aware of their general dislike by the rest of the world.  I think that this is a problem that can be solved slowly.

Conclusion

It’s hard to say definitively that the concept American Exceptionalism is a bad thing.  It is true that the United States is in no way exempt from political ideals that govern the rest of the world, but is it so bad to think that it is in some way better?  Sure, foreign policy shoudn’t reflect apathy towards the woes of other nations, but national confidence isn’t something to shy away from either.

The United States, though entrenched in national debt, is still one of the strongest economies in the world, and investors around the world continually invest in the American dollar.  Perhaps this confidence has crippled us in many ways, but in other ways it has given us the boldness to take bold economic risks, to have the confidence to declare war on most powerful entities in the world.

All in all, the concept of American Exceptionalism is slowly dying, especially in regards to superiority.  It is going to be hard for even the most devoted Americans to justify why the United States is the best nation in the world when it is eventually eclipsed by the growing economies of China, India, and Brazil.  However, it is to the credit of the notion of American Exceptionalsim that has gotten the United States to its current place of prominence in the world.  If the world wasn’t watching after John Locke spoke those famous words, then it certain was when it became the international peace-keeper in the 20th century.







Works Cited

Feulner, Ed. "Steve Jobs and American Exceptionalism." Wilson County News. 14 Oct. 2011. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://www.wilsoncountynews.com/article.php?id=38739>.

"It's Academic." 2000. Stanford GSB Reporter, April 24, pp.14–5. via Zuckerman, Ezra W.; John T. Jost (2001). "What Makes You Think You're So Popular? Self Evaluation Maintenance and the Subjective Side of the "Friendship Paradox"". Social Psychology Quarterly (American Sociological Association) 64 (3): 207–223.

Kennedy, John F. ""City Upon a Hill" Speech." Miller Center. 9 Jan. 1961. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3364>.

Lipset, Seymour Martin. "American Exceptionalism: A Double Edged Sword." The Washington Post. 1996. Web. 15 Oct. 2011.            <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/americanexceptionalism.htm>.

Locke, John. "Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 2." Index. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm>.

Paine, Thomas. "Common Sense." Ushistory.org. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense6.htm>.

Reagan, Ronald. Speaking My Mind: Selected Speeches. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004. Print.

Taylor, Jim. "Narcissism: On the Rise in America?" Huffington Post. 28 May 2011. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jim-taylor/narcissism-america_b_861887.html>.

Weeks, William Earl. Building the Continental Empire: American Expansion from the Revolution to the Civil War. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee, 1996. Print.

Winthrop, John. A Model of Christian Charity. Diss. 1630. The Religious FreedomPage. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/charity.html>.

Zinn, Howard. "The Power and the Glory: Myths of American Exceptionalism." Boston Review (1995). Boston Review. Summer 2005. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://bostonreview.net/BR30.3/zinn.php>.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

The Psychology of Watching Sports

It has always made me wonder why we watch sporting events with such zeal.  Sure, there are many people out there that couldn't care less who wins games on a weekly basis or who has been traded to what team, but the fact is, a lot of people watch sports so frequently that it has literally created a business out of sports broadcasting agencies like ESPN and CBS Sports.

Evolutionarily speaking, it makes little sense why we care so much for athletes.  Ultimately, the athletes that we watch on TV play little to no roles in our personal lives, so why care?  They don't know who we are, so why should we care about them?


Ultimately, I realize that sports are all about entertainment value.  We cheer for the underdog not because we care about their ultimate fate, but because we care about the little man triumphing over the oppressive spirit.  In some way we are always able to relate to the underdog.


In Jesse Bering's article he discusses the importance of sports in terms of evolutionary terms.  He states that we care about the athletes who clearly showcase their most evolutionarily important attributes—strength, intelligence, endurance, speed and litheness.


This makes some evolutionary sense.  We admire those who possess the most skill to advance their genetic material.  So, to play to the stereotype, guys watch sports because they appreciate the Darwinian values that athletes possess.


The concept is somewhat frustrating, but it makes sense.  Sporting events allow us to  cheer for those who clearly exemplify what it means to be "evolutionarily fit".  Perhaps it's a case of evolutionary jealously...

Saturday, October 1, 2011

What Would You Do?

I recently discovered a show on ABC called What Would You Do?, where host John Quinones examines how passerby's react to uncomfortable situations.  An interesting segment that I watched was a scenario where a driver hits a parked car while parallel parking and then walks away, seemingly unaware of the damage caused.  Some passerby's on the street did nothing, while others went so far as to hold the person under a citizen's arrest and then proceeded to call the police.

What is interested about this scenario is that it is a reflection of the battle between personal and community justice.  Some people felt that they had no obligation to the victim of the damage car and thus made no effort to stop the getaway.  To them, an intervention would have been an injustice to them, as their obligation to the victim does not exist.

Others, however, felt an obligation to the victim and made an effort to make the perpetrator cognizant of the wrongdoing.  When the perpetrator seemed not to care, some passerby's gave up while others pressed the issue.  Such is an example of the spectrum of social responsibility people have.  Passive subjects think: "Sure, it would benefit society if everyone was punished for their wrongdoings, but why is it my obligation to make sure vigilante justice is served?"

Especially with a faceless victim, why confront a person and force and uncomfortable encounter?  Not my problem, many would think.

I'm not sure I have an overall message or that there is some great takeaway, and the program didn't really have one either (which I found mildly disappointing).  I found the segment an interesting cross-section of the topic of social responsibility and how people act when they think no one is watching them.