Dr. Robin on the History Channel

The History Channel aired a segment called Batman Unmasked: The Psychology of the Dark Knight. I spoke about Bruce Wayne, the trauma he experienced in watching his parents' murder, and how it has transformed him.


Here are links to riffs I've given on other superheroes:

Superheroes generally (in the Boston Phoenix) and movie reviews of the first Hellboy and Hulk movies.

The Power of Imagination

Last week, Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling spoke at Harvard University's commencement exercises (for the full text of her speech, click here; you can also see it). In her moving speech, Rowland made explicit the links between imagination and empathy, and between empathy and social action:

Amnesty mobilises thousands of people who have never been tortured or imprisoned for their beliefs to act on behalf of those who have. The power of human empathy, leading to collective action, saves lives, and frees prisoners. Ordinary people, whose personal well-being and security are assured, join together in huge numbers to save people they do not know, and will never meet. My small participation in that process was one of the most humbling and inspiring experiences of my life.

Unlike any other creature on this planet, humans can learn and understand, without having experienced. They can think themselves into other people's minds, imagine themselves into other people's places.

Of course, this is a power, like my brand of fictional magic, that is morally neutral. One might use such an ability to manipulate, or control, just as much as to understand or sympathise.

And many prefer not to exercise their imaginations at all. They choose to remain comfortably within the bounds of their own experience, never troubling to wonder how it would feel to have been born other than they are. They can refuse to hear screams or to peer inside cages; they can close their minds and hearts to any suffering that does not touch them personally; they can refuse to know.

I was incredibly moved by her speech and, as a psychologist, I thought the links she made with empathy were profound insights into human nature: by imagining ourselves in other people's shoes, we develop a heightened empathy for them. In turn, this heightened empathy moves some of us to act on behalf of others. Her remarks also left me wondering about the implications for people with autism and Asperger's disorder, disorders that are typically marked by low levels of empathy. Did their difficulties with empathy mean that they also had difficulties imagining? It turns out that Rowling was on to something: children with autism have less imaginative play--they have difficulty generating novel ideas, particularly those that involve language (click here for an abstract about this work). Thus, some of the implications of her observations are supported by research.

What Makes Iron Man So Good?

I just came back from seeing Iron Man, and it's been years since I've seen a superhero movie as good. Within the first 30 minutes I was hooked. (Truth be told, I was hooked within the first 5 minutes.) I sat in the theatre drawn in to the story, but also trying to hang back enough to figure out what the director, writers, and actors had done to make the film work so well. Here's what I came up with.

First, the film has wonderful character development. Tony Stark's character—his personality and motivation—come to life within minutes, but in a way that feels closer to three-dimensional rather than two-dimensional. We see that he's incredibly brilliant and bored hedonist, playing out the role smart and smart-ass industrialist without a real purpose in life. The first 30 minutes of the film don't feel like a superhero film because the characters are so well explicated and the relationships among them so clear. Unlike many superhero films, Iron Man shows the relationships among the characters rather than simply tells the viewer about the relationships through narration or embedded in dialogue.

Second, the story arc of Stark's transformation from a smart-ass hedonist into a superhero is believable. No science fiction needed—no aliens, no superpowers, no genetic mutations. Just a brilliant and creative engineer motivated to save himself and destroy his captors. (I suppose if I were an engineer I might think that the technical aspects of the story were beyond the realm of possibility, but I'm not, so the story didn't seem outlandish to me.)

Third, Stark fights two sets of enemies—one set that is clearly the "bad guys" (his captors) and the other is someone close to him. I won't give away too much here in case you haven't yet seen the film. But because Stark has enemies who are not quite so easy to spot, the story is less black-and-white than some other superhero movies where the villain is clear from the outset, such as Spiderman I.

I could go on, but I urge you to see the movie and make your own analysis.

Superheroes: Fashion and Fantasy

I just returned from the new Superheroes: Fashion and Fantasy exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

One thing that struck me about the "fashion" part of the exhibit—that is the runway costumes, not the actual superhero costumes—is that the women's attire generally looked horribly uncomfortable to wear, whereas the men's runway costumes looked much more comfortable. For instance, in the photo above, Batman's costume (from this year's The Dark Knight film) is on the left, then there are two male fashion versions, and three women's fashion versions.

Would you rather wear the male or female costumes if you were going to be out all evening?

Of course I really shouldn't have been surprised by the difference in comfort and utility between men's "costumes" and women's "costumes". It's true of fashion in general. Men's clothes are built for comfort and practicality—ample deep pockets that can safely contain important objects (cell phones, keys, wallet) without danger of falling out or spearing buttocks when the wearer sits down.

In contrast, women's clothes are generally built to show off the women's shape in the best light, regardless of comfort: tight dresses and skirts that make it impossible to take long strides when walking; high heels that make standing or walking for even moderate periods of time painful, no functional pockets so that purses are required (and another opportunity for the fashion industry to make money with accessories!). I often wonder how men would react if men's suit designers did away with pockets so that men would need to carry some type of satchel for the important belongings.

But I digress…back to the Superheroes fashion exhibit and the utility of a costume. One more example—the "armor" section that includes the costume for Iron Man, and then a women's fashion version (on the right, in case you couldn't tell the two apart):



More of women's armor fashions are below. If I needed armor, I'd go for complete coverage.

Brave New World, Part III: Instant Communication and Regulation Problems

(This is the third of three blog entries about possible cultural ramifications of growing up in the age of instant communications)

One upside of the instant communications (phone, texting, and Internet including email and instant messaging) is that it makes it easier for people who are experiencing emotional turmoil to obtain information and resources to help them, such as social support—from friends and family, even from strangers on the Internet through websites and chat rooms.

This instantaneous knowledge and support has a downside. Consider that when someone is angry or frustrated, it's almost too easy to vent those feelings:
• Directly and privately to the person via email, texting, or phone;
• Indirectly and privately by communicating with others about the person via email, texting, or phone;
• Publicly, by posting the negative feelings via a website.

These rapid communications mean that people no longer have to "sit with" uncomfortable feelings: If we're annoyed by the service at a restaurant we can, with our web-enabled phone, rant about it on our blog or as a "reviewer" on a food website. If we're upset about a transaction with a friend, we can call most anyone to talk about it via our cell phone (and theirs), or send a long email about it. As soon as we have an uncomfortable emotions, instant communication technologies allow us interactive outlets to try to transform these negative feelings.

Before instant communications, people coped with life's emotional vicissitudes in a variety of ways:
• We talked to a friend or family member in person;
• We tried to distract ourselves with activities;
• We wrote, in a diary or in a letter to a friend, family member, or to the person who aroused the feelings in us, to vent or better understand our feelings;
• We thought about and reflected on our feelings, the events that precipitated them, and the effects of possible courses of action.

What these activities had in common is that they typically require some effort and sometimes some patience and ability to tolerate our feelings until we could transform them or act on them in a significant way—we had to find the people we wanted to talk to (no cell phones or pagers) and we might have had to wait until they were available to speak to us; we had to work a bit at distraction—leaving our homes or offices, or at least leaving our chairs (rather than districting ourselves with the internet on a computer always at hand). And thinking or writing about what had transpired gave us pause to reflect without acting on our feelings.

People can still cope in these ways, or with their modern communication equivalents; however, these newer modes of communication require significantly less effort and let's face it--why not go with the easier path? Moreover, the speed of our ability to express ourselves, and obtain a response, is much faster. This speed can be a good thing, minimizing the time that people experience discomfort without relief. But it also has a downside: People have less experience or practice managing their emotions without acting on them rapidly. Unfortunately, the instant aspect of these communications seems to discourage deep reflection and encourages immediate reaction, leading instead to simple venting or "look at me" type communications—profile updates and photos, comments on blogs or websites, and youtube videos—that are less an attempt to share considered, reflective thoughts and images.

For each of us, these new technologies can become, in essence, extensions of ourselves that help us regulate their emotions. Feeling blue? We can shop (or window shop) online, communicate with friends, find solace and support in a chat room, post a comment on a website. Angry? Vent your anger in a call, email or post (in which you can be anonymous).

We've become used to acting quickly in response to uncomfortable feelings; we've become less adept at being able to manage or regulate our feelings without acting. Then, in cases where instant communication fails us (either technologically or emotionally—because our feelings are so powerful or the instant communications don't work sufficiently), we are less able to tolerate or regulate the uncomfortable feelings. And when we're emotionally aroused, we become jangled and less able to reason and use to use our good sense. The combination of being used to acting instantly, in combination with being less able to reason things through, lead us to be more likely to act impulsively, without thought for the long term consequences.

Are my speculations in this three-part missive merely the typical grumbling of someone from an "older generation" complaining about the change arising in with the times and affecting newer generations? I don't think so. Neuroscience research has accumulated to the point were we know that brain development is affected by the patterns in our emotions, thoughts, and behavior. The new instant communications now available are influencing the ways that our brains develop--particularly younger generations who grew—or are growing--up with the new technologies during formative years. We just don't yet know the specific ways that brains and behavior are being affected.

We can't unplug the internet, nor should we. I just think that we should try to anticipate the unintended but predictable consequences, some of which I've laid out, and then try to prepare for their negative effects—a less reflective, more action-oriented (and perhaps impulsive) populace, with a greater desire to be seen and heard than previous generations, who have at their disposal an ever-increasing smorgasbord of ways to obtain attention.

Brave New World, Part II: The Objectification of a Generation

(This is the second of three blog entries about possible cultural ramifications of growing up in the age of instant communications)

The internet is a powerful communication tool that allows us express ourselves and to respond to other people's expressions by sending emails or posting comments on websites (theirs, ours, or some other website). Our self-expressions are shared through the internet with friends and family, and often with a nameless, faceless audience.

Combine this communication power with the uncommonly strong desire of young people to be seen and heard—to be noticed and to have an effect. To feel as if they're having an effect, teenagers may skirt (or cross over) the edge of appropriate behavior just to see what happens: Will anyone notice? And if people do, what will they do? On top of it all, teenagers are constantly "connected"—it's almost as if they think they don't exist if they're not connected. When they post photos of themselves or (yet again) update their profiles, it's almost as if it's more about being seen by other than about how they actually feel or how they experience themselves. That is, it's about being an object rather than a subject.

I think that that the way these new tools are used promotes a way of thinking about themselves predominantly as "seen by others"—from the outside—and less based on an internal awareness of themselves. This process is referred to as objectification, where the experience of being treated as an object results in coming to see oneself that way. Objectification theory was originally conceived of as primarily pertaining to females (original article by Barbara Frederickson and Tomi-Ann Roberts in 1997 is here:).

Unfortunately, the internet is propagating an extreme focus on appearance and the objectification of males as well as females. Both sexes are increasingly undergoing medical procedures to alter their appearance. Consider that in 2007 almost 11.7 million cosmetic procedures were performed compared to 2.1 million in 1997. Although females receive most of the procedures, the number of men is increasing (nearly 1 million in 2007), and will undoubtedly continue to increase.

It's not only about appearance; it's about being noticed in any way—standing out in the cacophony of the crowd. And what's clearer then it's ever been is that there's no such thing as bad news. Talking heads get noticed by being ever-more controversial and outrageous. When people want to comment on some topic, they may not necessarily set out to write/say what they think; instead, they write/say to make other people notice. So they're thinking about their own opinions as object rather than subject.

What this means is that a generation (and likely subsequent generations) may well develop a self-concept that is more about how they appear to others than how they feel inside to themselves. Current internet-based communications amplify the tendency for teens to be exhibitionists; they are reinforced—with attention—for being revealing. The attention, in turn, keeps them focused on how they are seen by others. They thus are less likely to "know" themselves--What they like, need, how they work best—except through the eyes of others.

I'm reminded of the old philosophy question: If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it make a sound? Will those raised in the wake of the internet feel they don't really exist if they are not seen/heard (online)? Are we raising a generation of exhibitionists—people who only feel alive when they are observed or heard by others? And if so, will that lead to an ever greater cacophony of "self-expression," with increased outrageousness in order to be noticed above the din? What can we, as a society, do to help upcoming generations feel alive even when no one is seeing or hearing them?


Coming up in Brave New World, Part III: Is the Internet raising a generation of people who will have problems regulating their feelings and impulses?

(Click on "Subscribe" at the bottom of the page to get an RSS feed so you'll know when the next entry is posted.)

Brave New World, Part I

(This is the first of three blog entries about possible cultural ramifications of growing up in the age of instant communications)


Stories abound in the news and among parents of teenagers and young adults about revealing risqué or possibly self-incriminating information through new technologies: On websites, in emails and instant messages, in text messages. Teens and young adults may put online or in other communications descriptions or photos of themselves involving sex, alcohol, or drug use (even if feigned). Although older adults try to caution them that, like plutonium, these communications are around forever, many young people don't seem to understand that even if they remove the a photo from their website, it's still exists in someone's—or some company's—hard drive. Even when admonished about possible college admissions or job offers rescinded, troubles with their schools or their parents, or even the fact that it may come back to haunt them years later, many teenagers and young adults continue to parade their inappropriate behavior in public or incautiously write about matters that shouldn't be public. Why do they persist?

I think there are at least three factors at work:

1. Young people tend to underestimate the risks that their own actions will lead to negative events. Research on perceived risks and health-related behaviors reveal that young people particularly tend to underestimate the risks of untoward events happening to them. For instance, they tend to underestimate their risk of developing a sexually transmitted disease from unprotected sex. The good news is that when they do think they are at risk, they are more likely to take action to prevent the untoward event. (Neil Weinstein, now at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, has done extensive research on the subject of risk perception and preventative health behavior, such as smoking, vaccination, and screening for medical problems.)

I'd venture a guess that a similar process occurs with the new technologies for communication: Young people (under)estimate their risk of negative consequences from their edgy electronic communications. Such communications include posting risqué profiles or photos about themselves online, and sending emails or text messages that could be make trouble if forwarded to the wrong hands.

2. They are used to immediate gratification. The current generation of young adults and those that follow after that have received levels of immediate gratification previously unknown. There are very few things the youngsters of this generation have had to wait for, except perhaps to grow up. Consider that during the childhoods of most Americans currently alive, people had to wait until summer to be able to eat "summer" fruits and vegetables. Similarly, most markets and stores were closed on Sundays (so you or your parents had to plan ahead for necessities or do without that day). If the stores near you didn't have the item you wanted, you probably couldn't get it unless you special ordered it, and that could takes weeks. And when people were out and about their business, away from a land-line phone, there was no other way to reach them short of physically going out and looking for them. Waiting was a part of life.

Not so for the current generation of young adults. These children have had little training in waiting—in delaying gratification or developing a tolerance for frustrated desire. Technology provides the possibility of instant knowledge, instant communication, and instant purchases (with overnight delivery!). You can answer most any questions by a Google search (although the answer isn't necessarily correct). You can reach out and electronically "touch someone" in seconds: cell phones, text messaging, emails, instant messaging, and GPS locators. And you can purchase your heart's desire over the Internet; even the basest longings can find a quick outlet via the Internet. No need to wait--at least not for very long.

Moreover, this generation may well have grown up with family interaction patterns that amplify the experience of immediate gratification: Parents who inadvertently promoted their child's reliance on immediate gratification. Many boomer parents avoid setting limits with their children to minimize conflict, for a variety of reasons. They may want to be "friends" with their children, sometimes forgetting that children need clear limits and that it's important for children to learn that their actions can have negative consequences for them. Or parents may simply be too emotionally drained to set limits that they don't feel able to enforce: A tired, harried parent has a harder time saying "no" than does one is isn't emotionally spent at the end of the day or week. (Why so tired? More families now have both parents working outside the home, and the jobs are more demanding and may require longer hours; more parents are also likely to be separated or divorced. All these factors make parents more emotionally spent.)

When I was a kid and expressed my impatience about something, my father would say, "patience is a virtue." As a child, I had no idea what he was talking about it—why would it be a virtue? It's not only patience that he was advocating; he was trying to help me develop a tolerance for waiting—for wrestling with the urge to get something I wanted "now." It seems to me there's a lot less wrestling going on these days.

So if next generations are being gratified with less delay, it makes sense that they'll send their electronic communications right away—they don't even have to wait until they get home. They can post the photos they took with their cell phones directly to their blogs via a web-enabled phone. Think it would be a blast to post these drunken photos online? Do it now. Even if they "understand" that the Internet is forever, they don't want to be deprived of the satisfaction of seeing themselves or their words sent out into the world for others to see. They don’t want to be deprived of the pleasure of sharing the photo, the joke, the edgy communication with friends. They want to be noticed, and don't want to wait.

3. They have immature frontal lobes. Research from psychologists and brain scientists found evidence that adolescents, and even young adults, may not have brains that are as mature as their bodies. Teenagers' frontal lobes—the area of the brain involved in planning, foresight, inhibition and judgment—aren't as adult-like as we may have previously thought. (For an overview on teenagers and brain development, see the PBS show on the subject: Inside the Teenage Brain) So young adults may have a harder time figuring out what the most prudent course of behavior is in a given situation; even when they know, they may have a hard time inhibiting themselves from the pursuing the most immediately gratifying path.

Back to why a teenager might post information (or send an email or text-message) that could later come back to haunt them. In sum, I think it's because it's hard to exercise good judgment and inhibit yourself from doing something you want to do when: (1) you think that bad consequences are unlikely to happen to you; (2) you really want to do it and you're used to instant gratification; (3) your brain's development is such that it is harder to gauge the possible consequences of an action.

I'm not saying we should do away with the Internet or cell phones (as if we could!). But I think there are unforeseen and unintended consequences of the cultural changes wrought by the new technologies. I'm suggesting we try to glimpse ahead to some of those changes and consequences so we can be better prepared for them. I'm reminded of China's one child policy: an unintended consequence was that it created a generation of significantly more males than females, creating a dating and mating problem for men, which in turn can lead to angry young men "competing" for women—a potentially unstable political situation. (How'd this happen? In a culture that valued males, female infants (first borns) were sometimes killed or abandoned, and some of those abandoned girls were adopted by foreigners. China's changed their adoption policy, creating very stringent criteria for foreign adoptions, ostensibly to protect the orphans, but more likely to prevent a continued shortage of females.)

Let's try to glimpse the future downstream so we're better prepared for the repercussions that will inevitably arise from the changes in communication.

Coming up in Brave New World, Part II: Is the Internet raising a generation of people viewing themselves as objects rather than subjects? (Click on "Subscribe" at the bottom of the page to get an RSS feed so you'll know when the next entry is posted.)