Civic Education and Licensing Journalists

With the election coming up and the mainstream media focusing on trivialities and variants of "gotcha," my recurrent wish for a mandated national civics curriculum reared its head. Consider this: In 1998, 4th, 8th, and 12th graders around the country took a civics test at the behest of the U. S. Department of Education.

Students performed abysmally: A third of the high school seniors—who were or would soon be of voting age--didn't understand the basics of the American government. How many high school seniors demonstrated that they were proficient--the highest level of knowledge? One quarter of them. And only 9% percent of students could give two reasons why it is important for citizens to be involved in a democratic society.

Here's what the test was designed to assess:

Students [should] show broad knowledge of the American constitutional system and of the workings of our civil society. They [should] demonstrate a range of intellectual skills-identifying and describing important information, explaining and analyzing it, and evaluating information and defending positions with appropriate evidence and careful reasoning. (from the National Assessment of Educational Progress Civics Assessment Governing Board. Civics Framework for the 1998 National Assessment Educational Progress. US Department of Education, 1998.)

Okay, live and learn. Fast forward eight years to 2006, when 4th, 8th and 12th were administered the civics test. How'd they do? As you can see below, the fourth graders did a bit better, but there was no different between this cohort of 8th and 12th graders and those from 8 years ago.

[Source: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2006/2007476.asp]

Why might this be? Shouldn't all high school students graduate with a firm knowledge of civics? Isn't there a common core set of values all Americans should share? It is important for high school students to enter adulthood (and voting age) with a firm sense of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. It is in the country's interest for its citizens to look beyond 60 second sound bites or their "gut feeling" when deciding how to cast their vote on a referendum or for a candidate.

Here's what Center for Civic Education says about why civic education is important:

A free society must rely on the knowledge, skills, and virtue of its citizens and those they elect to public office. Civic education is the primary way our citizens acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for informed and engaged citizenship. While many institutions such as the family, the church and social organizations help forge a person’s civic character and propensity to participate, civic education in the schools is the one common experience American citizens share that helps them acquire and learn to use the skills, knowledge and attitudes that prepare them to be competent and responsible citizens throughout their lives. This is the historic civic mission of schools. A mission considered so important by those who established a free universal system of public education in the United States that they termed civic education as one of the central purposes of education. Unfortunately, as the indicators of civic engagement in our nation are dropping so too is the amount of time and attention devoted to civic education in our schools. 

And consider this:

The Policy Research Project on Civic Education Policies and Practices found that on average civics content in states' social studies standards overemphasize lower-order thinking of identifying and describing positions, stating that "civic statements requiring students to evaluate, take, and defend positions-the highest-order level of thinking-are the least prevalent in most state standards." (Policy Research Project on Civic Education Policies and Practices. The Civic Education of American Youth: From State Policies to School District Practices. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. Policy Research Project Report, no. 133, 1999)

Idea #1: Bring back mandatory national civic education for students. We could even have a national test on civics (not American History per se, but on civics—rights and responsibilities of being an American citizen). We could even have a national debate about whether students must pass such a test in order to graduate high school. (There is an organization, Center for Civic Education, which is devoted to promoting civic education in the schools). 

Idea #2: Consider making voting compulsory. Actually, the voting itself wouldn't be compulsory—just showing up at the polling place. This is how Australia does it (to see Eric Weiner's article about the Australian system, click here).  If people had to go into the voting booth, they might just be motivated to exert the mental effort to be informed about the issues.

Even if motivated, though, the skills necessary for true citizenship—"evaluating information and defending positions with appropriate evidence and careful reasoning"—are not skills that are much on display in public discussions of politics and governance. Rather, the "political discourse" consists of sound bites, simplistic arguments designed to tug at emotions rather than reason, and to smear an opposing candidate's position or character (often falsely or by stretching the truth significantly). Is the mainstream media helping further a civics education for Americans? No.

I'd like to make a proposal (idea #3, below). First, let me explain about professional ethics and licensing for psychotherapists, which I will then use as an anology; this may seem a like digression, but it isn't.

There are many different types of psychotherapists. In fact, anyone can call him or herself a psychotherapist and hang out a shingle (so to speak). What differentiates the generic "psychotherapist" from a specialized one? The simple answer is training, and then a license. It is illegal for psychologists who evaluate or treat patients or clients to say they are psychologists—unless they have a state license. Otherwise it is "practicing without a license."

To obtain a license, a psychologist must demonstrate having received the appropriate training and experience (as determined by the state licensing board), and then take a national test plus a test on state legal and ethical matters. If the test score passes the cutoff, the psychologist is given a license. To maintain the license, the psychologist must continue learning—must obtain a specific number of continuing education credits within a specific number of years (the particular numbers vary from state to state) for each license renewal.

If a psychologist is found to have violated the state laws or ethical code that relate to professional conduct, the license can be taken away. (A license is necessary to receive health insurance payment for services, and required for certain jobs.) The licensing process is set up to protect citizens from fraud and from unethical or illegal behavior by the psychologist in his or her professional capacity.

Idea #3: License journalists. Just as psychologists are licensed, let's license journalists. For this discussion, I'm going to create a distinction between a correspondent (analogous to the generic psychotherapist—anyone can call themselves a correspondent) and a journalist (analogous to a psychologist--whose title conveys a deeper responsibility—for analysis, commentary, accuracy, integrity). The journalist is held to a higher standard, and requires more training (and should, in theory, receive more compensation). If a journalist has engaged in irresponsible reporting or analysis--according to the decision of the licensing board--his or her license could be taken away, and if so, then that individual cannot practice as a journalist. The fact that the licensing credential has been stripped becomes public knowledge. (We can use words other than correspondent and journalist—I'm using those terms to illustrate the concept of the two different types of labels for people who convey news to the public). When we see, hear, or read news through any media, we would thus be able to know whether or not the source was held to a high standard of accuracy and integrity.

What about "press passes"? Any organization giving out press passes can determine how many passes to give to correspondents versus journalists. What about freedom of the press? I'm not saying correspondents or journalists should be muzzled. I'm advocating that, as with psychologists, the public should be protected from fraud and a misuse of the professional positions of people in the press. Anyone can say or claim anything they want, but journalists—in their professional capacity—should behave with a sense of integrity and ethics.

Here's how we might develop such a system.

Step 1: Have the profession develop a national journalistic code of ethics (it has to be specific enough in most cases it's relatively clear when someone has crossed the line). As with psychology, the goal is to ensure that people who obtain a journalist license understand their rights and their legal and ethical obligations; having such a code allows the public understand those obligations and rights as well.

Step 2: Set minimum training and work experience standards for someone to be eligible to become a journalist.

Step 3: Once someone meets the minimum standards outlined in Step 2, he or she can take a test to demonstrate knowledge of the profession's rights and responsibilities (these will be based on Step 1). The cutoff score for passing is determined by the licensing board.

Step 4: Once licensed, the journalist must renew the license periodically, demonstrating continued education by earning continuing education credits (determined by the licensing board). Members of the public can bring complaints against a journalist for violating the ethical code; if the licensing board determines after a hearing that the charges have merit, the journalist's license may be revoked.

I'm not a journalist (clearly) and so this proposal may be unworkable or naive. But with the proliferation of "news" sources on the internet, in print, and on television, it seems to me that there must be some accountability and responsibility.

Clarifications About The Dark Knight

In a response to comment about an earlier blog entry, I noted the cumulative trauma that might explain why Harvey Dent went over the edge to become Two-Face:

his parents and sibling killed, love of his life killed--after she'd agreed to marry him, facial disfigurement, and extreme pain from the fire.

Since that post, I've read the "novelization" of the movie , written by former Batman writer/editor Denny O'Neil. (Click here, The Dark Knight, for a link to Amazon's webpage for the book)

The novelization provided interesting backstories for the events in the movie, and helped clarify a couple of the movie's more confusing elements. The novelization makes it clear that:

1. The two murdered individuals with "Harvey" and "Dent" identification tags had no family relationship to Harvey Dent;
   
2. The Joker intended to misdirect Batman when he revealed the locations where Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent were being held. He tells Batman that Rachel is at one address and Dent at the other location. When Gordon then asks Batman which one he was going to, Batman replies, "Dent knew the risks," and he rushes off to the location that Joker said housed Rachel.  
   

They have deleted this line from the movie, which is too bad because it makes the subsequent sequence much clearer. And once Batman found Dent rather than Rachel at the location, the novelization explains (page 231):

"He had expected to see Rachel, to free her and get her out of the building. To tell her he loved her and would keep her safe forever. Instead, he saw Harvey Dent lying in a black puddle, bound to a chair. Next to him were two barrels, one on its side, and a timer. Shock and horror flooded over Batman…Rachel, thought Batman. Good God, I've failed her…

Dr Robin on BlogTalkRadio.com

Today on blog talk radio Pop Culture America, I discussed with hosts John and Dave possible reasons for the success of The Dark Knight and chat about psychology of superheroes generally. Click on the link, above, to hear the show--my segment begins 30 minutes into the show.

A Cohort Effect to The Dark Knight Experience?

I just returned from my second viewing of The Dark Knight, which I saw in an IMAX theatre. Let's get the IMAX part out of the way---Wow! The aerial scenes were breathtaking, literally. As a viewer, I felt that I was in the helicopter that housed the camera, flying above the city. And close-ups of the Joker were terrifying—it felt as if he had me in a stranglehold and was forcing me to look at him, as he did with Rachel Dawes.

I quickly habituated to the IMAX features of the movie (except for the aerial shots), and focused on the movie itself—plot, story, visual aspects, message. During my first viewing, I must confess that during the last third of the film, I was expending a lot of energy trying to keep up with the fast-paced twists and turns of the plot, and the cuts between different characters and storylines. The first time, I didn't quite get some of the quietly spoken words, and didn't understand some of the quick visuals. I was still be processing the implications of one scene—in terms of the plot, the character development, the emotional consequences—when I was ripped from that scene to the next complex scene.

There were times when I wished that I could press a pause button so that I could fully digest a scene before moving on to the next one. It was frustrating. I felt as if I was on a treadmill that would sometimes shift into a faster pace than I was prepared for, and it was all I could do to keep up and not fall off. In the last third of the film, rather than feeling energized, the pace left me fatigued. The younger people that I know who saw the movie did not feel this way, and they seemed to understand most everything that happened. And they didn't feel tired during the film, only afterward, when the adrenaline rush stopped.

In my second go-round with The Dark Knight, I could appreciate the finer details of the story that I missed this first time (such as the extent of Dent's grudge against Jim Gordon and Dent's use of his coin before versus after his kidnapping).

After this second viewing, my adult companion who had not seen the film before commented that he felt overloaded by the last third of the film. As with my first viewing, his cognitive and emotional energy to handle the film diminished with its length and the horror the Joker wrought.

Why the different responses between older viewers (I'm guessing the dividing line is at around 40+ years old) and younger viewers? You could chalk it up to an age difference—that younger people, but virtue of their age, are better able to track fast paced events, and so don't become particularly tired by it. I don’t think that's the answer, though. Rather, I think it's because people who are in their 20s and younger have been exposed to things that my generation wasn't exposed to as children: computer and console games, extreme multitasking with instant messaging and internet surfing, and fast passed television shows and movies. That exposure has influenced how this younger generation processes and responds to information. Had my generation been exposed to these technologies in our formidable years, I think we wouldn't be fatigued by the end of The Dark Knight either.



Psychologists call this a cohort effect: The impact of a common event or experience on a group of people, compared to those who do not share the event or experience. My hypothesis is that there is a cohort effect in how tired people feel after watching The Dark Knight. Younger viewers, by virtue of their technological and media experiences during their formidable years, experience the film differently than do older viewers.

There's an easy way to test my hypothesis about the cohort effect: Assess the reactions of two types of The Dark Knight viewers: Compare young viewers who grew up with significant a amounts of computer, gaming, and media exposure with those young people who did not. I welcome any comments you have about my hypothesis!

[On a related note, younger people in general are "smarter" than their elders: IQs scores have been increasing by, on average, 3 IQ points every 10 years. This finding is called the Flynn Effect, named after the social scientist, James Flynn, whose research revealed the increase. There are various explanations for the Flynn effect, including increasingly better health and nutrition in children, increased familiarity with IQ-type questions, and an increasingly complexity in the environments in which children are growing up. These are discussed in his most recent book, What is Intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn Effect. To read Malcom Gladwell's article about the Flynn effect, click here]

Can the Joker Be a Psychopath and Have Antisocial Personality Disorder?

In a brief review in Creative Loafing, I discussed whether the Joker was antisocial—whether he had antisocial personality disorder. The answer was "yes." In a previous blog entry, I discussed whether he was a psychopath. The answer was "yes." Are the two terms the same? No. What the difference between the two, and can he be both a psychopath and antisocial?

Antisocial personality disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM, fourth edition). The DSM includes 10 different personality disorders, each of which involves a different set of maladapative behavior patterns. The criteria for antisocial personality disorder require a pattern of at least three types of criminal behaviors (e.g., repeatedly breaking the law, even in small ways, such as disturbing the peace) or somewhat related behaviors, such as being impulsive, irresponsible, aggressive, or lying. To see the complete set of diagnostic criteria, click here. Note that when I said that the Joker had antisocial personality disorder in my 300-word review (!) I was was addressing criteria A1-A7 but not criteria B-D, as Jared's comment, below, rightly points out (thanks, Jared!).

People can engage in these behaviors for any number of reasons: hanging out with the "wrong crowd"; going through a period of being angry at "society" and not caring about the future; being temperamentally driven to seek out stimulating activities, some of which are illegal; or finding the suffering of others to be amusing. The diagnostic criteria are limited to the behaviors themselves, not the underlying reasons for the behaviors.

In studies, about 50-80% of American male prisoners meet the criteria for antisocial personality disorder. (I'm limiting this discussion to males because males are three times more likely to have this disorder and there is much more research on them than females with the disorder.)

In contrast, psychopathy (the "disorder" of psychopaths, although it is not listed in the DSM; the term sociopath is used interchangeably with psychopath) focuses less on behavior than on underlying traits that contribute to antisocial behavior patterns. These traits and behaviors can be categorized into two broad factors, and in brackets I note whether each characteristic seems true of the Joker:

Interpersonal/emotional, characterized by:

• Superficial charm [true]
• A grandiose sense of self-worth [no, because his sense of what he can do—what he's worth—seems accurate]
• Pathological lying [true]
• Tendency to manipulate others [true]
• Doesn’t feel guilt or remorse [true]
• Shallow feelings [hard to say for sure]
• Lack of empathy [true]
• Doesn't accept responsibility for his or her actions [true—although he "claims" responsibility, he seeks to evade any negative repercussions of his actions]

Social deviance, characterized by:

• Getting easily bored and needing frequent stimulation [Hard to say—he was able to plan and carryout capers and murders that would be difficult for someone who got bored easily. However, his escalating crimes suggest that he does "need" increasingly outrageous crimes]
• No realistic long-term goals [no; his long-term goal was to get the Batman, and he planned out a series of crimes in order to do so]
• Impulsive behavior [no]
• Having difficulty controlling behavior [doesn’t seem to be the case]
• Irresponsibility [true]
• Behavioral problems that arose at an early age, possibly with juvenile delinquency [unknown at this time]
• Engaging in different types of criminal behavior [true]

So the Joker has almost all the interpersonal and emotional qualities of a psychopath, but fewer of the socially deviant qualities. It would be interesting to know which of the Joker's various origins stories Nolan had in mind when developing the script and directing Heath Ledger, or perhaps Nolan created a new origin story. As a viewer I wanted to know more about how Joker came into being, when and how he crossed the line from being a criminal or mob boss (as in the Jack Nicholson/Tim Burton incarnation of the Joker) to the wildly sick and sadistic individual in The Dark Knight.

Back to the relationship between antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy: Only a minority of people (less than 40%) of men with antisocial personality disorder are also considered to be psychopaths. But over 80% of men with psychopathy also have antisocial personality disorder. And lest you think that prisons are overrun with psychopaths, that's not the case—only 15% of males in prison meet the criteria for psychopathy.

[The psychopathy factors are based on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, developed by psychologist Robert Hare, who has studied psychopathy extensively. Two of his books on the subject are Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work and Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us.]

The Dark Knight--A Psychologist's View

This second installment of Christopher Nolan's vision of Batman and his world offers a psychologically rich and multi-layered portrayal of characters struggling with all-too-real issues of responsibility, trust, betrayal, the role of physical appearance in forming impressions of people, and of psychopathy unleashed. Whereas Batman Begins explores Bruce Wayne's evolution from anxious child to the Caped Crusader, The Dark Knight brings us a matured Batman battling against a terrifying psychopath whose main motivation appears to be similar to two-year but with deadlier consequences: he does "stuff" just to see what happens.

This film is really about the Joker. We're lured in to his world, where we learn what he's capable of and what he cares about—what motivates him. Learning more about him is like watching a car accident unfold, but worse and more frightening, because it feels like you might be hit next. Nolan's incarnation of the Joker, and Batman's reactions to him, seem so real that The Dark Knight doesn't feel like a superhero movie, but like a documentary on the emergence of a terrorist-cum-serial killer.

I was repeatedly struck by the Joker's cleverness and restraint: [spoiler alert!] He planned three simultaneous murders, Godfather style. [end of spoler alert] That takes extraordinary planning abilities, meticulous attention to detail, and the ability to defer gratification. Sound like anyone else in the movie--like Batman? This Joker is neither impulsive nor capricious, although he may appear that way at first blush. Just as with Batman, the Joker's actions are designed to create a particular impression, an impression that puts his adversaries at a disadvantage: that he's weird and unpredictable. That you never know how far he'll push something, so take him seriously. This, too, is part of the impression that Batman tries to create. But the Joker's got Batman's number because he knows that Batman isn't entirely unpredictable—Batman lives within certain self-imposed and societally-imposed rules. Because of those rules, Batman becomes predictable…at least to the Joker. Two men with similar talents, but in the Joker's case, his talents are used to create anarchy for his own amusement. Is he a psychopath? Let's investigate.

A psychopath is someone who displays personality traits that involve more than simply engaging in criminal acts. A psychopath:

(1) can be superficially charming and manipulative. The Joker is that. Imagine him without his clown makeup—imagine him with a handsome face doing and saying what he does in the film. He'd make a compelling—versus repellant—figure to some, wouldn't he?
(2) is emotionally callous, without remorse or guilt. The Joker lies freely when it suits him (he gives two different stories for how he came to have his scars, both likely untrue). He doesn't feel badly about his dastardly deeds—the lives he taken or ruined.
(3) has a socially deviant lifestyle. Not only is the Joker a criminal, but he seeks out the excitement of his life of crime. His crimes act as a drug and he needs the regular fixes of the intense stimulation his actions bring. Unfortunately, he seems to develop tolerance to the drug, wanting ever-increasing "doses" and so planning increasingly sadistic and elaborate capers.

Hats off to Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan, and the cast and crew. Heath Ledger's performance deserves an Oscar.

For more about my take on Batman, look for me on the History Channel's Batman Unmasked: The Psychology of the Dark Knight and an essay wrote about "What's the Matter With Bruce Wayne?" in the anthology, "Batman Unauthorized."

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.