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.

Hecate's Netflix Narrative

Me, myself, and I

Upon my recent introduction into the magical modern media known to the mortals as Netflix, I have discovered many works in which (witch?) I see aspects of myself.  I have done what is referred to as a "Netflix binge," where the viewer religiously watches a series, with each episode back-to-back for hours.  My only interruption consisted of the pestering pop-up question inquiring to whether or not I was still watching my picture. The following is a brief synopsis of the titles and how they relate to me.

***Spoilers***

Mean Girls:

This is a picture in which a bold, outsider girl joins the popular crowd in order to find out all of their dirty little secrets.  When the girl, Cady, actually becomes popular, I noticed similar manipulative qualities to which I also possessed.  Seeing her take control of the popular crowd (and eventually the school), reminded me of the ways I manipulated Macbeth through the witches.  The only thing I would change is the end. I was very disappointed when Cady gave up all of the power she had attained in order to be friends with the losers.

Breaking Bad:

In this popular series, a middle-aged chemistry teacher, upon his diagnosis of terminal lung cancer, concocts a flawless method to create an influential (and rather expensive) potion known as methamphetamine.  The chemistry teacher, Walter White, has a minion by the name of Jesse Pinkman who helps Mr. White in the brewing of his concoction.  While they do have a business relationship, Walter White does attempt to guide Jesse in his day-to-day life, specifically, overcoming the obstacle of addiction.  While this goal is more of a positive one, it does mirror my attempts to help the witches kill Macbeth. 

Parent Trap:

In this flick, two very different girls discover that they are twins, and with that knowledge they discover that they have the same parents who have been separated their whole lives.  The girls attempt to reunite their parents through a variety of schemes, and in the end, they lead their parents to each other.  Their deceit and manipulation reminds me of my own, as I told to witches to trick Macbeth into thinking he had the upper hand in the conflicts that were to follow.  

High School Musical:

This is a motion picture in which the many social groups of ambitious teenagers are represented as driven to pursue science, music, or athletics.  The social standards are shaken when two teenagers from different social groups decide to pursue an activity that neither of their previous cliques prescribe as the "status quo."  I compare myself here to the character of Taylor, who shows the same ambition I do in reference to pursuing her goals. Taylor is in fact so ambitious, she stages a fake encounter between the protagonist and his best friend that ends up separating the aforementioned teenagers. Her hopes in doing this were that upon their separation, as Gabriela would assist her in winning the Science Olympiad. 

Cabin in the Woods:

In this, the last of my recommendations, a group of college-aged students find themselves in a (you guessed it) cabin in the woods.  In the beginning of the film, the audience is led to believe that the cabin is just an ordinary cabin that is located in the woods, but, as the movie progresses, the audience begins to learn that the cabin is an alter used for a ritualistic sacrifice to save the world.  As the curtain is pulled back the differences between appearance and reality are shown in their true nature.  This type of outsider deception is exactly the same as that to which I influence the witches in their interactions with Macbeth.  However, unlike the weak mortals that sought to deceive in this flick, no mere child could ever thwart the great Hecate.   

Power corrupts?

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Action

Shakespeare has written numerous plays about crazy kings or kings going crazy.  Prime examples of this claim are King Lear, Hamlet, and Macbeth, all of whom begin as (debatably) sane human beings, but by the end, they have gone mad.  Even in Romeo and Juliet, the parents of the two are overstepping their bounds and becoming overly involved when addressing the topic of marriage of their children.  Shakespeare writing multiple stories on the topic of "good people gone bad" supports the idea that Shakespeare agrees with the idea that power corrupts.

The best example of Shakespeare's work to pull from is Macbeth.  (There will be spoilers, but this work has been out for about four-hundred years, so I really am not spoiling anything.)  Once upon a time, Macbeth was completely happy with where he was in life, and then these witches told him he could have more power.  Enthralled, Macbeth decided to pursue this prophecy and, with some persuasion from his wife, killed King Duncan.  With this new-found power, and the shock of killing someone, Macbeth goes a little bit... mad.  In order to maintain the throne, he hired other people to kill his friend, Banquo, whose sons are also a part of the prophecy.  He also indirectly (but purposefully) kills Banquo to cover up his crimes.

I think it's important to note that Macbeth hires other people to do his dirty work.  Before, when he was in the right mind and had less influence, Macbeth killed King Duncan himself with great moral distress.  By involving other people in his crimes, he was able to divert some of his guilt.  A part of Macbeth's downward spiral is his intense amount of paranoia, but he was only able to act upon this paranoia quickly with the power he had.  Therefore, Shakespeare's work, especially Macbeth, supports the idea that he believed that power corrupts.

I also agree with this statement.  In history, we can look back at the different ways in which countries were run, and the governments in which all of the power was concentrated in one person are usually remembered because the reins were horrendous.  Some examples of these people are Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Lenin.

An example drawn from my personal life is found on the track, more specifically, in pole vault.  In the sub-culture of pole vault, we have all of the new people (also known as the "rookies") do all of the dirty work.  By dirty work, I mean removing the mat cover or cleaning out the water-filled pit.  When I was a rookie, I was pressured to do all of the work by the more experienced participants, but now, starting my fourth year, I am the one applying the pressure.  Now that I don't have to do the work, the underclassmen are being forced to by myself.  As I have gained more influence and power in the world of pole vault, I have definitely put in less effort towards the maintenance of the area, and forced that effort upon others.

All in all, I definitely agree with the idea that power corrupts.

Con(not so)temporary Art

Within the past couple of weeks, my high school's IB Diploma Programme (yes, programme) took a field trip to the local Contemporary Art Museum of Raleigh.  More specifically, we were visiting the exhibit called Limited Visibility, where each artist displayed a lack of image, rather than a whole, to allow the audience to reflect upon perception. I thought it was pretty nifty, as we were able to watch videos and participate with the art.  The non-crowded, open atmosphere of the museum combined with modern architecture made the museum itself a work of art.

The exhibit:  Limited Visibility

One piece of art that I found interesting was titled "Blind self portrait listening to the beetles while scratching a notched stick so to invoke, the universal magic of the power of destruction," created by Abraham Cruzvillegas in 2013.  I couldn't believe the title when it was first dictated to me, so here are two pictures: the label of the piece, and the piece:

                        

To be frank, my initial thoughts were: I could totally do this.  All the art was composed of was acrylic paint on top of pages with images, cut into various quadrilaterals, and hung up on a wall (169 in total).  But, if I were to create this, I would not have created a meaning behind it (I would have made the curtains just blue).  In order to fully interpret this piece, the title must be analyzed. 

The "blind self portrait" portion could mean that the audience is "blind" to the "self portrait," and the "self portrait" could mean the secrets or life of an individual.  When sketching this piece, I decided to color it, and when I realized the yellow wasn't just pure yellow (I needed to add some brown), I had a revelation:  each of these squares symbolizes someone's life.  Adding some brown to the yellow made it look like an exotic skin tone; as a result each of these squares now symbolize a person to me.  This is a representation of how I look into a crowd of people: on the surface they all appear the same (or extremely similar), but in reality each of them has life story that is unknown to me.

To build upon my "every square is a person theory," these squares are various shapes and sizes, with no two identical.  This could be because each person has a unique shape, whether it is tall or short, or a little heavy or a little light.  It can also be observed that the edges of some of these squares are a little ragged or have an imprint of the image covered, people are the same way.  Distinguishing physical characteristics can allow some of a person's story to bleed through a thin cover.  A unique scar, a cool tattoo, or even a wild hair style could allow an observer to make correct assumptions about another's past.

The droop of the rectangles could symbolize the burden of life that each of us possess, but at this point I should just assume that the curtains are just blue.  

It's really strange how something that appears so simple could be that complex.

~

To close, I would like to show off my amazing drawing of "Blind self portrait listening to the beetles while scratching a notched stick so to invoke, the universal magic of the power of destruction."

Yes, I am the next van Gogh.

Anatomic Advertisements

CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc., 2005.
Source URL: http://www.thekarachivoice.net/business--charity/category/hardees

            This is a Carl’s Jr. (Hardee’s for us from the East Coast) advertisement for the “Super Star” burger.  The ad predominantly features Paris Hilton dressed scantily (in black) eating a burger on the right of the image, and a giant burger on the left of the image.  Not as clearly seen, there is also a large black truck in the background.  There are two suggestive phrases on the advertisement, which are “She’ll tell you size doesn’t matter.  She’s lying” and “It’s gonna get messy.”  Both of these phrases are located on the left of the image, the former is located above the burger, while the latter is located below the burger.  The second quote (“It’s gonna get messy”) is located next to the logo of the company, while the first quote (“She’ll tell you size doesn’t matter.  She’s lying”) is larger and stands out more in the advertisement.

            This advertisement is doing what all ads do:  Sell its product.  The way in which the ad intends to do this is by implying that this burger will help men get women.  The featuring of Paris Hilton’s body in a provocative manner enforces the idea that sex does sell.  The intended audience of this image is predominantly heterosexual men, who are more likely younger or college aged.  This audience is taught that the exposure of a woman’s skin is considered attractive.  An alternate audience could be women who want to have a body similar to the one displayed in the image, and who have been taught that this is the ideal body type.  Unintentionally, this ad perpetuates stereotypes of women, causing women to feel insecure about themselves, while simultaneously causing men to expect all women to look, feel, and behave in this manner. 

            The deadly sin displayed in this advertisement is lust. 

Canterbury Comparison

Freebie!