TED Talk: Ronson and his Psychopathic Symptoms

Once upon a blog post assignment, Mrs. Genesky told us to watch a TED Talk.  This is the one I chose:

Jon Ronson: Strange answers to the psychopath test

Jon Ronson believes that psychiatry diagnoses people with normal attributes psychological disorders by only judging the extremes of people (which we do as human nature).  This TED Talk is about a man who begins his story with himself, Ronson, visiting a friend's house and noticing the DSM manual on a shelf.  Very curious to see if he had any psychological disorders, Ronson decided to look through it and self-diagnosed himself with twelve different disorders.  Ronson believed himself to be an extremely normal thing, and these characteristics were parts of himself that he believed to be normal.  He spoke to a Scientologist on this topic and this Scientologist (Brian) was able to get Ronson an interview with a man named "Tony."  Tony was sentenced to five years in prison, so in order to avoid harsh punishment, he faked being mentally insane.  He faked being insane quite well and went to the harshest medical treatment center, Broadmoor.  Ronson spoke with Tony and, following the interview, Tony was perceived to be quite a normal man by Ronson so Ronson contacted the hospital's doctors and asked them why he was still in there.  The doctors told Ronson that Tony didn't have the afflictions he claimed to have, but he was in there instead for being a psychopath.  After becoming trained in recognizing psychopaths, Ronson begins to see the psychopath in everybody, particularly those who are succeeding in a capitalist economy.  Eventually, Tony was let out of prison because the jury decided (during his tribunal) that one cannot be judged based on a checklist.  

Here's the psychopathy checklist:

• glib and superficial charm
• grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
• need for stimulation
• pathological lying
• cunning and manipulativeness
• lack of remorse or guilt
• shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)
• callousness and lack of empathy
• parasitic lifestyle
• poor behavioral controls
• sexual promiscuity
• early behavior problems
• lack of realistic long-term goals
• impulsivity
• irresponsibility
• failure to accept responsibility for own actions
• many short-term marital relationships
• juvenile delinquency
• revocation of conditional release
• criminal versatility

I believe the purpose behind Ronson giving this TED Talk is to make the audience more open minded about perceiving other people, and be very careful about putting people in boxes.  He even states:  "you shouldn't define people by their maddest edges."  He points out flaws in the psychiatric practices, and in his practices as a journalist:  we take the most exaggerated moments of someone's life and personality then judge them based on it. 

I find his argument to be credible because he has clearly done his research on the topic.  He took classes on psychopathy spotting, and even did his own field work in which he found out how to interpret the checklist he was given and understand the hiccups in the information he learned. In addition, I find his exploration of different perspectives, from scientologist to psychiatrist to give him a well-rounded argument.  (Side note:  this sounds like a really good ToK paper).  Conversely, his argument could be discredited because he is a journalist, and therefore would not have the extensive knowledge that developed the psychiatrist's perspective in the first place.

Ronson's argument is strong because, as stated above, his research was extensive.  He used a wide variety of resources for his claims, and was clearly knowledgeable on the topic.  Ronson also constructed his story in chronological order, which really helped me (the audience) follow along.  This type of structure and the ease at which the audience was able to follow really helped the soaking and recollection of the main points of his argument.  It was very interesting how he had a main story (Tony's) and in the middle he added a sub-story (Al Dunlap).  The structure and the ease at which Ronson integrated the information into his TED Talk appealed to the logic of the audience.  Ronson would also make a claim and prove it through his real-life experiences and research on the claim.

A large part of Ronson's presentation was humor.  I must admit, I did laugh when Ronson was describing Al Dunlap's home as "Narnia."  He used humor that fit really well with the parts of his experiences he was describing, which only reinforced and made his argument more persuasive.  The lack of dirty humor really makes Ronson a more believable person.  He does push feelings from happiness and relief to sadness and disappointment by describing Tony's arc of freedom and re-incarceration.  The effects of these make the story more enticing and more believable.  Without some of these details, the story may have been received with more skepticism.

I found this talk extremely interesting!  Part of what made me choose it was the concept of the title, and it made me think, what composes a psychopath?  I really enjoy learning what makes people tick and what interesting perspectives this man would reveal to me.  Also, there were around 3.8 million views, which implies that this is an extremely good story.  This story, as a whole, relates to me because I tend to organize and label people without fully analyzing what composes them as a whole. What really intrigued me throughout the story was Tony's duality in nature.  In some parts of the story, I could see the non-psychopathic reasoning behind his actions, and in others I could absolutely discern the psychopathic tendencies in him.

I highly recommend watching this TED Talk!

Heroes in Double Indemnity?

An American film noir published in 1944 and directed by Billy Wilder, Double Indemnity, features a car insurance salesman being conned by a beautiful woman to murder her husband.  The insurance claim placed on the husband makes people working in the insurance company wary of this event, and some are suspicious of the wife murdering her husband along with an accomplice.  Because of the film genre, or because I'm not just looking deep enough into the characters and their motivations, I cannot find what I consider to be a hero in this story, except for the man who reports talking to Mr. Dietrichson (Jackson).  In order to explain my thoughts thoroughly, I will pull definitions some definitions into consideration.

Is our protagonist really a hero?

After a quick Google search of the phrase "definition of hero" these are the three primary definitions I found:

a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.

This is the definition I agree with the most, as it addresses the idea that anyone could potentially be a hero.  Under this definition, our protagonist Walter Neff, began as a hero because he resisted Mrs. Dietrichson's temptations, but ended as a non-hero because he fell under her charm.  In addition, he ended as a non-hero because he murdered somebody (two people!), which is not considered to be a very noble thing to do.  Keyes stands out as a hero under this definition because he perseveres through a lot to find out what actually happened to Mr. Dietrichson.  Another reason I agree with this definition is that it immediately rules out Mrs. Dietrichson (very manipulative), Neff's boss Mr. Norton (arrogant and choosing to be ignorant of the facts Keyes presented), Lola Dietrichson (helpless), the Dietrichson maid (annoying), and Zachetti (violent).  The only character I found with completely noble actions is Mr. Jackson, and that is why he is my only hero.  He reported what he saw because that is what he interpreted as the right thing to do.

the chief male character in a book, play, or movie, who is typically identified with good qualities, and with whom the reader is expected to sympathize.

Under this definition, the only person who can be considered as the hero is Walter Neff.  Neff in the beginning of the film is seen as a nice and honest man, but he suppresses those qualities when he encounters Mrs. Dietrichson.  The audience is capable of sympathizing with him, but he still does commit horrendous deeds.  I do not agree with this definition, even though it does bring into play the motives behind Neff's actions which I find extremely valuable when interpreting this film.  

(in mythology and folklore) a person of superhuman qualities and often semidivine origin, in particular one of those whose exploits and dealings with the gods were the subject of ancient Greek myths and legends.

Do I have to talk about how I disagree with this definition in regard to this film?

In this film, all of the characters seem to be a bit twisted in a way, appear to be helpless, or are not a major part of this film.  Not including any obvious heroes into this film established this story as more dark.  With all of this darkness surrounding the story line, there was no character that gave me (a part of the audience) a sense of relief, as I always felt tension.  If the goal of the film was to create tension and reflection into the lives of the audience (for which of us are truly heroes?), then the director and writers succeeded greatly.