Deadly Assumptions: When the World Is Shattered

Originally published on The Huffington Post, December 18, 2012

For over 30 years, I have consulted with regard to and studied virtually every type of crisis imaginable (man-made and so-called natural disasters, criminal, environmental, ethical, financial, PR, shootings, terrorism, etc.). As a result, I am the least of all persons to dispute or downplay the horrible carnage and trauma that far too many crises leave in their wake. To be sure, this is their most immediate, visible, and onerous consequence. Nevertheless, one of the least acknowledged and least studied aspects of all crises is the extreme havoc they wreck with the innumerable taken-for-granted assumptions we make about our selves, others, and the world in general. In a word, major crises like the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut shatter our world in multiple ways.

From the standpoint of assumptions, no matter how unalike they are on their surface, crises are eerily alike. For instance, in studying the aftermath of the 1995 bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, it suddenly became clear to me that three major, taken-for-granted, and largely unconscious assumptions were completely torn to smithereens by the horrific tragedy. That is, not only was the building and even worse the bodies of innocent people blown up, but at a deep level, the assumptions that we use to guide our lives were blown up as well:

1. Terrorism does not happen in the heartland of America; terrorism only happens in Europe and the Middle East.

2. An American would not commit an egregious act of terrorism against his or her fellow citizens.

3. And innocent men, women, and worst of all, young children would not be killed to make some unfathomable point or further some senseless cause.

Sadly, the preceding types of assumptions are perfectly general, and therefore, with little change, apply to Sandy Hook as well:

1. Our town and schools are exempt, protected, etc. from horrendous catastrophes.

2. One of our own — a member of our community — will not go on a rampage.

3. And worst of all, the most vulnerable members of society will not be killed right before our eyes in the worst possible ways.

In short, the basic assumptions that all of us depend on and use daily to make sense of the world are in far too many cases completely shattered (“blown apart” is not an overstatement). In the most general terms, these are: the world is stable, orderly, and predictable; we can trust our fellow citizens; we are safe in our homes, schools, and in public generally; etc.

Of course a completely safe, orderly, and predictable world is not given to humans. But this is beside the point. The fact that we can’t prevent all crises is no excuse for not doing all that we can to lower both their chances of occurrence and their disastrous consequences.

All of this is of course a prelude to our culture’s completely out of control addiction to guns and violence. With regard to guns in particular, I believe that the time for talking to gun nuts (not “responsible gun owners”) is over. By definition, gun nuts will never be open to reasoned argument. The fact that the odds of killing a family member as well as the chances of suicide increase exponentially if one has a gun in one’s home is completely lost on gun nuts. All that matters is their self-centered reasons for owning guns. The lives of young children pale in comparison. As a result, I’m through trying to reason with them or counter their fear and paranoia, let alone respond to their narcissism.

If ever the time was ripe for political action, it is now. If this isn’t a tipping point, then God help us. Among many things, the time is now for responsible gun owners to found a new organization that can counter the NRA.

We have to do everything in our power to break the deadly grip of the most dangerous guns so that we don’t have to go through the repeated cycle of endless deaths and the crash of our most fundamental assumptions.

Originally published on The Huffington Post, December 18, 2012

Posted in Blog, Crisis Management, Media + Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Enough Is Enough: It’s Time to Get Tough on Organizations That Involve Children in Any Form or Manner

Originally published on The Huffington Post, November, 28, 2012

For over 30 years, I have consulted with regard to and studied virtually every type of crisis imaginable (manmade and so-called natural disasters, criminal, environmental, ethical, financial, PR, terrorism, etc.). I have particularly studied the general lessons that all crises have to teach. I want to apply a few of these lessons to one of the most egregious of all crises: child abuse.

Whether we are experiencing an “actual, real epidemic” of child abuse or because of the overwhelming presence of the media we are just more aware of it is beside the point. What is not beside the point is that some of the most important and highly esteemed organizations have not only engaged in serious cases of child abuse, but engaged in concerted and repeated actions to protect and/or shelter those guilty of committing abuse. These include: 1. The Catholic Church; 2. The Boy Scouts of America; 3. Penn State; and 4. BBC. To add to the list, recently, the voice of Elmo supposedly had a sexual relationship with a then-underage boy. As a result, he abruptly resigned from The Sesame Street Workshop in order to protect the organization from further unpleasant publicity.

In short, some of the most highly esteemed organizations and institutions have engaged in nothing less than the worst kind of betrayal of the public trust.

Since the cases are well-known and have been covered extensively in the media, I shall not bother to review the livid details. Instead, I want to cover what my years of studying crises lead me to suggest.

The first and primary lesson that it is never ever the case that no one in an organization knows or knew what was going on or occurred. Instead, out of obedience, misplaced loyalty, or fear, they are pressured to keep it to themselves. Or, if they do report it to a higher-up, they are assured that the situation will be dealt with firmly and promptly. When they see that nothing is done and/or that those who report it are dealt with harshly, they soon learn to turn a deaf ear and blind eye.

The second primary lesson, which is strongly related to the first, is that, no matter what the particular kind of crisis, the vast overwhelming majority of organizations cannot be trusted to monitor themselves. (This is one of the other lessons that crises teach.) For this reason, I insist in no uncertain terms that at their own expense organizations and institutions that involve or serve children in any way be monitored for any hints and possibilities of child abuse at least once a year by outside organizations specifically equipped and trained to do so.

I am extremely well aware of what I am calling for. It will not be cheap or easy. But then, it will cost substantially less that the cost of a full-blown crisis. (This is another of the other lessons that crises teach. Crises always cost more than preparation and/or mitigation efforts.)

To be perfectly clear, I am calling for trained interviewers to conduct broad open-ended interviews with a broad cross-section of the members of organizations to probe for potential cases and indicators of child abuse. Under no circumstance are the interviews to be designed to seek out and punish gays and/or consenting adults for whatever they wish to engage in the comfort, privacy, or security of their homes. It goes without saying that whatever the practices, they are not to be engaged in at work.

I am well aware of the response of civil libertarians to such ideas and proposals. For this reason, the individuals and organizations that conduct such interviews have to do everything in their power to respect and comply with the privacy of individuals. Indeed, to avoid their own crises, they must do everything they can to seek out and work closely with civil libertarians to design interviews that will meet their standards. Whether they can meet those standards or not, I still recommend that such interviews be performed.

As a social scientist, I am of course well aware that nothing is perfect in assessing the behavior of individuals and/or organizations. But then crisis management also teaches us that perfection is not the standard. Despite our best intentions, we can’t prevent all crises. But this doesn’t relieve us from doing everything in our power to lower the chances of crises.

In balancing the rights of adults versus those of children, I am obviously squarely on the side of children. Those who choose to work in organizations and institutions that involve or serve children have no alternative in my mind but to subject themselves to greater scrutiny.

Finally, it is to their benefit that organizations allow themselves to be monitored. How else can they not merely protect but ensure their reputation? If not, then they had better be prepared for severe losses in financial support and membership.

Originally published on The Huffington Post, November, 28, 2012

Posted in Blog, Media + Politics, Philosophy + Systems, Sociology | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Big Bird And Mister Rogers Are Not Just For Kids: We Need Their Wisdom More Than Ever

Originally published on The Huffington Post, October 22, 2012

Even though the news has obviously moved on, it’s still important to correct a common, and dangerous, misperception that lies at the root of Mitt Romney’s expressed desire to terminate funding for Big Bird and PBS — that they are solely for kids and liberals. Therefore, not only are they expendable, but they need to be gotten rid of. In short, they are corrupting influences.

First of all, Big Bird is not just for kids. No matter what one’s age, the values for which Big Bird and PBS stand for speak to our better nature.

Adults don’t watch Big Bird just because they have kids. They watch him because they enjoy his humor, and yes, his wisdom as well. That’s why adults who don’t have kids are also loyal fans of Big Bird and Sesame Street. The same was true of Mister Rogers.

Second, like Mister Rogers, Big Bird is a cultural icon. Indeed, Mister Rogers and Big Bird are integral parts of this nation’s cultural repository. That’s why in getting rid of Big Bird, we’d also be getting rid of the legacy of Mister Rogers.

Third, some of the primary values of Mister Rogers are precisely those that are needed to succeed in the global economy. Thus, in getting rid of PBS, we’d also be getting rid of one of the primary sources of education for the new skills that are required to compete in the global economy.

Fourth, is anyone naïve enough to believe that any network other than PBS would run Big Bird and Mister Rogers for as long as it has? No, it’s not the paltry sum of money why conservatives want to get rid of Big Bird, Mister Rogers, and PBS. It’s the values for which they stand.

For this reason alone, it’s important to take a deeper look at the values of Mister Rogers, the particular character we’ve studied the most and therefore know best.

Seven Key Principles: The Seven C’s

We’ve captured the gist of Fred’s values is in terms of the following “Seven Key Principles.” Each is illustrated through a direct quote from Fred himself:

  1. Connect: “A person can grow to his or her fullest capacity only in mutually caring relationships with others.”
  2. Concern: “Setting rules is one of the primary ways in which we show our love.”
  3. Creativity: “Play is the expression of our creativity, and creativity, I believe, is at the very root of our ability to learn, to cope, and to become whatever we may be.”
  4. Communication: “In times of stress, the best thing we can do for each other is to listen with our ears and our hearts and to be assured that our questions are just as important as our answers.”
  5. Consciousness: “Take good care of that part of you where your best dreams come from, that invisible part of you that allows you to look upon yourself and your neighbor with delight.”
  6. Courage: “One of the greatest paradoxes about omnipotence is that we need to feel it early in life, and lose it early in life, in order to achieve a healthy, realistic, yet exciting sense of potency later on.”
  7. Community: “All of us, at some time or other, need help. Whether we’re giving or receiving help, each one of us has something valuable to bring to this world. That’s one of the things that connects us as neighbors — in our own way, each one of us is a giver and a receiver.”

Although we’ve summarized Fred’s values and wisdom in the form of principles, Fred didn’t expound abstract principles. Instead, he told countless stories and created original fables to forge deep and personal connections with each of his viewers. This is another reason why PBS is invaluable. It’s not that other networks don’t tell stories. Of course they do. Rather, it’s the particular kind of stories that Fred told that made him and us special.

Stories and fables are how one engages and holds the attention of young children. They are also one of the main ways in which one gains the attention of adults. But, they are even more basic. Humans are the only creatures that invent and listen to fables and stories. They are the essence of what make us human.

Through the use of fanciful characters, animals, and magic, fables take us out of everyday reality, transport us to places and situations that are sharper and larger than life, and thereby teach us profound moral lessons. Fables impact us as few forms of communication do because they hit us squarely in our guts and souls. Because they apply to every aspect of life, they are as relevant to business as they are to our lives in general.

Consider for example “The Bass Violin Festival,” which is one of the many stories from the “Neighborhood of Make-Believe” (NMB), the magical place that Fred took viewers to visit during every show. The purpose of the fable is to help readers understand better the nature and the process of creativity (Principle 3).

In the story, King Friday (the stand-in for today’s CEOs) tells all his subjects (employees) that they must be prepared to play the bass violin (a skill at which he is an expert) at an upcoming festival (corporate meeting). To help them, he gives each of them the latest violin (technology). But as is so often the case, the latest technology only frightens them even more because it reveals their inadequacies. Only when the subjects take the time to play creatively — that is, figuratively and not literally play the violin — do they come up with solutions that enable them to conquer their fears of not having the technical expertise (job skills) to complete the assignment (task). For example, one of the characters dresses up in a violin costume. She thus “plays at being a violin.”

Only in this way, can they then contribute to the festival (meeting) by using their individual, unique talents. The principles and lessons embedded in the story thereby show how everyone can step back from a difficult assignment, reframe it, overcome their fears, and produce creative solutions.

This is precisely what we need to do if we are to overcome the countless anxieties associated with the difficult and rocky transformation to the new global economy. The new economy requires people who can think creatively, and hence, exercise critical thinking. While many aspects of blue-collar and even white-collar jobs are already completely automated, creativity and critical thinking will never be. As a result, these can never be outsourced. They are the only true and lasting competitive edge.

Consider another one of Fred’s priceless stories about consciousness (Principle 5). Garbage has piled up so high that the kingdom is literally drowning in it. King Friday denies and ignores the crisis in the hope that it will just go away, which of course it doesn’t. Instead, it only gets worse. Once again, King Friday tries to solve the problem by ordering his subjects, in this case, to put on nose muffs that will supposedly block the smell. As before, he seeks a purely technical solution to the problem. Only when the subjects confront the King with the fact that his so-called “solutions” only make the problem worse and come up with their own that are environmental sound is the problem truly solved.

Fred told stories because he wanted to speak directly to the child’s inner drama. Indeed, in early childhood, the inner drama is perceived and experienced as real and literal. For instance, young children actually worry that when taking a bath they could be literally sucked down the drain along with the water. When we reach adulthood, the inner drama is figurative or metaphorical. Nevertheless, the root of the fear, or inner drama, is lodged in deep, unremembered fears from childhood. This is precisely why Fred continues to speak to us from childhood through adulthood. His messages are so finely honed to the inner dramas of our lives that we can continue to respond them at different levels of development and the stages of our lives.

We cannot stress enough that throughout the forty years of creating programs for Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, Fred and his team told hundreds of stories. Many of the stories dealt with the issues of everyday life — how things work, how people make the things we use, where things come from and so on.

The stories are so beautifully crafted that they speak to the basic inner dramas of human existence in ways that transcend the age of the listener. This is why Fred’s wisdom resonates from childhood to adulthood. The stories in the NMB can be read and reread by children and grownups alike. Whatever a person’s age, they speak to our hearts, our souls, and our spirits. They have lessons to teach us over the course of our lives.

In sum, Big Bird and Mister Rogers are more than for kids alone. Indeed, as put with regard to Fred: “He helped you when you were a kid; he can help you now that you’re an adult!”

Co-authored with Donna Mitroff

This article is from a forthcoming book, Donna and Ian Mitroff, in association with the Fred Rogers Company, “Fables and the Art of Leadership; Bringing the Wisdom of Mr. Rogers to the Workplace.”

Originally published on The Huffington Post, October 22, 2012

Posted in Blog, Media + Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

On Mixed Minds: Liberal-Conservatives and Conservative-Liberals

Originally published on Nation of Change, September 27, 2012

In a previous op-ed, “When Liberals Deny Reality: Demonizing Conservatives While Idealizing Liberals.” (Nation of Change, Saturday, September 22, 2012), I praised a recent book by Chris Mooney (The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality, Wiley, 2012). In spite of this, I was nonetheless highly critical of it.

There is no question whatsoever that I basically agreed with Mooney’s characterization of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are generally fearful of and highly resistant to change, have an obsessive need for order and predictability, prize individual differences (money, status, etc.), and believe in hierarchy over community and egalitarianism. In short, they are closed-minded and don’t believe in science, especially if it conflicts with their deep-seated religious and social beliefs.

In sharp contrast, liberals generally believe strongly in reasoned argument, logic, and science. They are not only extremely open to change, but to learning from their own errors, and from the views of others.

Nonetheless, as much as I agreed with Mooney on the key differences between conservatives and liberals, I parted sharp company with him with regard to his overly simplistic and highly idealized characterizations of academics and scientists. While academics and scientists may be liberals politically, they are not necessarily when it comes to their day-to-day work. Indeed, they are generally very conservative. Having been a university professor for over 45 years, I know this for a fact!

In short, Mooney was seriously wrong if he thought that academics and scientists were “the shinning model for liberal thought.”

None of this meant that I didn’t regard science as one of the best ways of ferreting out error that humankind has ever invented. Science is! Indeed, I have no regard whatsoever for those who don’t respect science. Still my basic point was that science was done by humans who weren’t always the epitome of objectivity.

In spite of this, my previous critique only skimmed the surface. There is a much deeper point to be made, one that penetrates more fundamentally to the underlying nature of conservative and liberal thought.

Nowhere in his otherwise generally excellent analysis does Mooney even hint at the existence, let operation, of unconscious, psychodynamic factors. For instance, in his primary use of social psychology, Mooney mainly treats conscious, explicit factors that account for the extreme differences between conservatives and liberals. While these “factors” are not wrong per se, they are incomplete in accounting for the complexity of the human mind.

Thus, Mooney is not able to consider (or only barely) that while one may be quite liberal on the surface, one can be rather conservative and even authoritarian unconsciously. Conversely, one may be conservative and authoritarian on the surface, yet have real strands of liberalism underneath. (The latter is the true meaning of a “compassionate conservative.”)

While both of the aforementioned “strange couplings” (“liberal authoritarians” and “conservative liberals”) are most easily seen in extreme groups, they are not confined to them. Indeed, it helps to explain why any number of liberal groups that believe in respecting differences are as hateful and intolerant as can be when it actually comes to living with staunch conservatives. I know this for a fact, for in all honesty, I’m one of them!

On the surface I’d like to believe that I’m very tolerant, but deep down, I know that it’s a very different story. No wonder why the great psychoanalysts talked again and again about the tug of war that occurs between the “two or more minds that make up the human psyche.”

There is all the difference in the world between (1) conservatives that are conservative at both the conscious and the unconscious levels (they are scary consistent), and (2) conservatives that are conservative at the conscious level, but deep down at the unconscious level have a touch of liberalism, and hence, often experience considerable conflict within, which is not always a bad thing. There is also a big difference between (1) liberals that are liberal at both the conscious and the unconscious levels (this can also be scary consistent), and (2) liberal at the conscious level and conservative at the unconscious.

Humans are too complex to be conservative or liberal through and through. Thank god we are not.

We liberals constantly say that we don’t want to put people into tight, narrow boxes, and yet we often do precisely this.

I know that being a “mixed type” (liberal on the surface mixed with underlying elements of conservatism”) allows me to appreciate and understand conservatives far better that if I were perfectly consistent.

If we really want to understand conservatism and liberalism—indeed, anything human–we have to give up simplistic consistency. If the human mind is anything, it is a boiling pot of “hot inconsistency.”

Originally published on Nation of Change, September 27, 2012

Posted in Blog, Media + Politics, Psychology | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Standing Up To Political Bullies

Originally published on Nation of Change, September 20, 2012

For years, I have taught courses in Interpersonal Dynamics to undergraduate and graduate business school students alike. The prime purpose of the courses has been to help people better understand themselves and others. To accomplish this, I have had people take countless personality tests to show them how and why they literally “see highly disparate realities,” experience and handle conflict very differently, have diverse learning styles, varied aims and aspirations, etc.

One of most powerful ways of helping people learn about themselves and others is to put people into different groups based on their personalities. Thus, all the people with the same personality type are put into a common group. In this way, there are as many different groups as there are different types.

Next, all of the groups are then given the same assignment to see how they respond. For instance, each group is given the same issue of a popular magazine. Each group is then asked to cut out images from the magazine that best represents their group’s idea of their “ideal organization.” Making a collage, giving it a name, and listing as many characteristics as they can of their ideal organization allows people to literally “see” and compare an internal disposition such as personality.

A key component of the course is dealing with difficult people, whether at work, play, home, with family members, etc. One of the most powerful ways of doing this is not just to have people merely read about different kinds of difficult people and proven strategies for dealing with them, but to engage in actual role-plays. Thus, people take turns role-playing a certain type of difficult person while another person role-plays how best to cope effectively with that type.

Without a doubt, one of the most stressful types of difficult people to role-play and with whom to cope effectively is the “Sherman Tank.” In his 1981classic, Coping with Difficult People (Dell, New York), Robert Bramson introduced the term Sherman Tank and wrote masterfully about it. What could be more powerful than being run over and crushed by a Sherman Tank, which is precisely what they want? It’s not surprising that just thinking about a Sherman Tank makes most people cringe.

If one has a Sherman Tank for a boss, then no matter how well one has prepared for an important presentation, then no more than 20 seconds into it, if even that, the Sherman Tank stands up and shouts something like the following, “That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard!” The effect is generally immediate and devastating. The victim usually slumps down and sulks away feeling totally worthless and utterly defeated.

In his many travels around organizations, Bramson found that there were a small number of people who knew instinctively how to stand up successfully to Sherman Tanks. As soon as a Sherman Tank got through shouting—more often than not, a person generally had to cut in to stop the Sherman—they said super calmly, “I hear that you don’t think much of my presentation, but please allow me to continue. If at the end, you still don’t think much of it, then I want to hear your criticisms.” If the Sherman continued to shout and even hurl abuse, the person stood his or her ground typically saying something like, “Excuse me, but I don’t respond well to being shouted at or called names. I would appreciate your not talking to me that way.”

In many cases, but not all, this defused the Sherman, especially in front of a group. Most people, even Sherman Tanks, are dependent upon group support.

One of Bramson’s main points was that one never won by being a Bigger Sherman. Indeed, the worst thing one could do was to attempt to out-Sherman a Sherman. This only made a Sherman even madder. After all, they were a master at their own game.

Of course, by standing up for oneself in this or in any other way, one could very well be fired. One had to be prepared for this going in. But Bramson pointed out that if there was any way of coping with a Sherman, it was by doing the exact opposite of them, i.e., by being exceedingly calm. One’s goal was to cope with a Sherman, not change them. That was for their therapist if they were wise to see that they needed help.

All of which brings me to my main point. If the Democratic Party needs anything, it needs to take a crash course in standing up to Republican and right wing bullies. Whether it is the so-called Republican “leadership” or out-and-out demagogues like Rush Limbaugh, Democrats need to hold their ground calmly, simply, and repeatedly. If taking on bullies directly doesn’t always work, then neither does ignoring them altogether. It’s not part of their make-up to just go away.

For instance, Democrats do themselves and the country a great disservice by being bullied and therefore by not confronting to the repeated Republican lie that the stimulus was a complete failure. The fact is that the stimulus saved thousands of jobs and kept the economy from failing altogether.

In the highly toxic environment in which we find ourselves, politics has unfortunately become the art and science of coping with overpowering bullies. To a certain extent, it always has. I hope fervently that Democrats learn this sooner rather than later.

Originally published on Nation of Change, September 20, 2012

Posted in Blog, Media + Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Unconscious Choice: The Forces of the Dark and Light Sides

Originally published on Nation of Change, September 8, 2012

Make no mistake about it. This election is about the choice between two worldviews that are as psychologically different and far apart as any two could possibly be. The choice is difficult not just because so much is riding on it—this much is obvious–but like most crucial things in life, much of it rests on factors that are largely unconscious. The later is far from obvious.

On the one side is the Republican view of the world (the Dark Side) that is as mean and repressive as anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. On the other hand is the Democratic (the Light Side), which while far from perfect, shows real signs of humanity and maturity. With no apologies whatsoever for my clear bias and partisanship, let me explore the psychological differences between these two worldviews. Hopefully, this helps to illuminate the unconscious factors that play a major role in what people vote for and why. To do this, let me discuss very briefly: 1. Jungian psychological types; 2. ego psychology; and 3. American mythology. All three interact in powerful ways to produce the enormous, and unfortunately, unbridgeable differences between the current versions of Republicans and Democrats.

As long ago as 1921, Jung identified, among many others, the psychological differences between: 1. Sensing and Intuitive, and 2. Thinking and Feeling personality types.

Sensing types instinctively break all problems down into separate and independent parts for which they then proceed to gather “hard data” or “facts” that “measure precisely” the “exact status or performance” of each of the parts. In addition, they are anchored firmly in the “here-and-now.” In short, if you can’t see, feel, hear, smell, taste, or measure something in the here-and-now, then it’s not real, let alone important.

In contrast, Intuitive types instinctively look at the big picture, the whole system. They are not concerned with parts per se, but only with how they all fit together. Indeed, by themselves, the parts have no meaning or existence. In addition, they are concerned primarily with future possibilities, not with imperfect things as they are today. If they believe in measuring anything, it is the “state of the whole.”

Thinking types are primarily concerned with analyzing things impersonally in terms of logic and science. Feeling types are concerned with people’s feelings.

Putting these together in all possible ways results in four basic personality types: 1. Sensing-Thinking; 2. Intuitive-Thinking; 3. Intuitive-Feeling; and, 4. Sensing-Feeling.

Next, let me say a very brief word about ego psychology. Ego psychology postulates that there are at least three characters or voices in everyone; 1. Parent; 2. Adult; and 3. Child.

The Parent is the character that sets rules and lays down laws of acceptable versus unacceptable behavior. It is the voice that says, “Do this!” Or, “Don’t do such and such because if you do, then you will have to suffer the consequences!” The Child is the character in all of us that forever wants to play and have toys and goodies right now with no consequences whatsoever. The Adult is the character that has to mediate between the immediate, incessant demands of the Child and the harsh strictures of the Parent. The Adult says to the Child, “If you eat all your broccoli as your Mother and Father want you to do, then you can have your cookies!”

As I listen to the current Republican mantras, Sensing-Thinking and Sensing-Feeling are the dominant personalities that literally occupy center-stage. But more than this, they are Sensing-Thinking and Sensing-Feeling overlaid with a very strong Parent. The Parent Sensing-Thinking measures success solely in terms of monetary wealth alone. It disparages all occupations other that of a CEO. No wonder why the super-rich are raised up to exalted status and revered as gods. It also consigns women to secondary roles and issues harsh dictates regarding women’s rights and what constitutes “legitimate rape!” As the “natural heads of the family,” men have been “chosen by Nature to rule over women and children!” And, if “they know what’s good for them, they will obey without question!” The Parent Sensing-Feeling regards his or her immediate family or tribe as the only social entity worthy of consideration, i.e., human feeling.

Although the Democrats have more than their fair share of the Parent as well, their personalities lean more toward the Adult Intuitive-Thinking and Adult Intuitive-Feeling. The Adult Intuitive-Thinking finds expression in their concern for the “health of the planet,” which the Republicans sneered at haughtily at their latest convention. (Republicans were also conspicuously silent when at the end of his acceptance speech, Governor Romney called for compassion towards the poor and unemployed.) The Adult Intuitive-Feeling finds expression in the Democrats concern with a much broader expanse of humanity, e.g., working people, the middle class, poor, etc. In spite of their great differences, Republicans and Democrats are united in their endless chant and use of the myth that “America is the greatest nation on Earth.” It’s not that America is not great. Rather, a truly great, i.e., mature, country would not need to prop up its flagging self-esteem by ignoring and washing over its great problems, e.g., the large numbers of uninsured, incarcerated prisoners, gun violence, poverty, etc., etc.

But here again, Democrats are much more able and willing to face harsh problems than Republicans. The real tragedy is that all four personality types need one another. Intuitive-Feeling types need Sensing-Thinking types to “ground them.” And, Sensing-Thinking types need Intuitive-Feeling types to see the “larger human picture.”

Intuitive-Thinking types need Sensing-Feeling types to literally see real, concrete human beings. And, Sensing-Feeling types need Intuitive-Thinking types to see the bigger, whole system. But this is possible if and only if the Adult governs each of them. One of the strong characteristics of the Adult is that no matter what its particular Jungian personality, it says to itself, “So I’m a Sensing-Thinking type; so what!; I need all the others to complement the weak sides of my personality; we all need to work together.” However, from a psychological perspective, don’t count on it at the present time. When one party is primarily in the Parent stage and the other is in the Adult, communication, let alone cooperation, are almost impossible.

My prime recommendation to the Democrats is don’t waste your breath with the Republicans. Keep saying what you’re saying, but in the clearest, most succinct stories you can muster. No matter what one’s psychological type, stories are what move us to great feats.

Finally, as a strong Intuitive Thinking and Feeling type myself (one can be more than one), I say, “Never give hope.” As dire as things are, I believe with all my heart that the Adult eventually will prevail. This is the ideal by which I choose to guide my life.

Originally published on Nation of Change, September 8, 2012

Posted in Blog, Media + Politics, Psychology | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Corrupt to the Core

Originally published on Nation of Change, August 26, 2012

This is a rant. I make no apologies for it because sometimes that’s the only thing that can help cleanse one’s soul.

Norman Mailer was once asked why no good literature ever came out of the Third Reich in WWII. He responded–I paraphrase–“The whole philosophy was so garbled such that if you tried to write it down, all you got was complete nonsense.”

Mailer’s perceptive remark captures perfectly the essence of the whole Todd Akin fiasco. Even more, it captures the complete idiocy, if not deeply psychotic nature, of the current Republican belief system. Yes, I said “psychotic.”

To view, as Akin would like us to do, his crazy remarks merely as a “poor choice of words,” is only to compound the original crime. Words don’t come out of thin air. They are always reflective of an underlying philosophy or world-view, in this case, a deeply distorted and sick one. This is also why we must not take Akin’s outburst as an “isolated aberration” as the Republican leadership would like us to do.

Getting rid of Akin will not cause the basic illness to go away. Indeed, it only prolongs and makes it worse. To believe otherwise is merely to commit the latest form of what I call The Hazelwood Defense, the label I associate with Joseph Hazelwood, captain of the ill-fated Exxon Valdez that went aground and spilled thousands of gallons of oil in the Bay of Valdez many years ago. Exxon wanted us to believe that it was just the fault of “one bad apple,” i.e., Hazelwood, when it was a whole “bad system run amuck.”

In a way, Akin has done us a public service—I wouldn’t dare call it “great” by any means–but not in the usual ways that Liberals and Progressives are calling it, i.e., his staying in the race almost ensures that Republicans will not take back the Senate.

Not that we really need any more evidence, but Akin reveals once and for all the complete bankruptcy, if not sickness, of contemporary Conservative thought. It is so garbled that one can’t express it in any form.

The great philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once famously said, “Of what we cannot speak, we must be silent.” A reverse dictum now applies to Conservatives. They must be silent because they cannot speak coherently.

Originally published on Nation of Change, August 26, 2012

Posted in Blog, Media + Politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Economics: The Psychologically Naïve Science

Originally published on The Huffington Post, August 9, 2012

I admire Paul Krugman. I really do.

Having won the Nobel Prize in Economics, Krugman is not only a great economist, but he is a wonderful and witty writer. His many columns in The New York Times and books (for his latest, see End This Depression Now) are a testimony to his ability to explain arcane topics in terms that the layperson can understand. To accept his ideas is another matter.

For instance, why do Republicans violently oppose any form of a government stimulus even though that’s precisely what The Great Depression supposedly taught us in order to get the national economy working again? Yes to be sure, any stimulus big enough to do the job will in the short run add substantially to the deficit (even this is debatable), but in Krugman’s pithy words, “The time to save water is not when your house is on fire.” The time to pay down debt is when the economy is doing well, not when it’s strapped.

Again, why the nasty and fierce opposition to such ideas? That they are somewhat counterintuitive is only part of the answer. The deeper answer lies outside of economics.
If the government can successfully attack the recession — what Krugman rightly calls a “minor depression” — then when the recession is over, government will be empowered to attack a host of never-ending societal problems. According to Republicans, this not only breeds greater dependency on government, but it eventually unleashes greater restrictions on business and hence on our “freedoms.” Worst of all, it would cause billionaires to pay more in income tax for the “greater good of society.” And this in turn means giving support to those who are viewed as “freeloaders and undeserving.”

Consider another. Why do those at the very bottom rungs of society often oppose, again in the most violent terms, government health care? Because, if one accepts such aid, then one finally has to admit that one is indeed at the very bottom. And that is far too painful to do.

Irrational? Perhaps.

Notice that we have been steadily moving from the land of so-called “rational economics” into the lands of politics, psychology, and sociology.

Now Krugman is very good in acknowledging that the acceptance of his and the ideas of other leading economists is more often than not a matter of politics than it is of economics. Still, unfortunately like the great body of economists, Krugman is not good in acknowledging that, no matter what the field of human endeavor, all of our ideas rest on a foundation of deep psychological and sociological assumptions and predispositions.

This is precisely why I not only view economics as the “dismal science,” but as one of the many “psychologically naïve sciences.” This is also why in my many previous op-eds I have stressed in particular the role of psychoanalysis in helping us to understand political behavior. Yes, to its credit, economics has finally developed “behavioral economics.” But, one, it took far too long to do it, and two, the type of psychology that behavioral economics sweeps in is still not deep enough to account for the seemingly irrational complexities of human behavior.

I don’t know how to get the very poor and the very rich to change their attitudes and behavior. But, one thing I do know: If we Liberals and Progressives want all of us to change, then we’ll have to learn to tell more compelling stories that appeal to our hearts and emotions, not just our brains.

Originally published on The Huffington Post, August 9, 2012

Posted in Blog, Philosophy + Systems, Psychology | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Psychoanalytic Politics: The Roots of Current Dysfunctional Political Behavior

Originally published on Nation of Change, July 30, 2012

What does the behavior of British children in WWII possibly have to do with today’s fractious politics? More than one would ever imagine! Indeed, it explains the unconscious roots of much of the current dysfunctional behavior on both the Left and the Right. In WWII, by being placed or lodged either in hospitals or massive care facilities, an overwhelming number of children were separated from their parents for weeks, months, and even years on end. Worst of all were those who were permanently housed in orphanages.

When they first arrived, the children cried for hours and days on end. When they eventually stopped, they became zombie-like in that they showed virtually no emotion whatsoever from that time on.

To help understand the horrific damage done to children that he witnessed daily, the British psychiatrist John Bowlby created Attachment Theory. Bowlby and his colleagues found that two key dimensions were key to explaining the emotional state of a child: Avoidance and Anxiety. Both were directly traceable to and the direct result of the emotional state of a child’s primary caretakers. During Bowlby’s time, the primary caretaker was of course the mother, if not throughout most of history. Whether the primary caretaker was either high or low on Avoidance and Anxiety had a tremendous effect on the child’s emotional development.

By means of the mother’s intense and frequent interactions—how she held, looked at, and attended to her child’s cries and general discomfort–the mother subtly and not so subtly communicated her emotional state to her child. In short, she communicated how comfortable versus how anxious she was in fulfilling her role as a caretaker.

Since the interactions took place from the moment of birth, they were largely preverbal and hence unconscious. In this way, the mother not only passed on, but influenced significantly the child’s subsequent emotional development and state, most notably one’s basic sense of trust and comfort with other people. In fact, a host of longitudinal studies have shown that the effects last a lifetime unless of course a person has undergone significant therapy.

Since one can be either high or low on Avoidance and Anxiety, there are four primary combinations or states: 1. High Avoidance and High Anxiety; 2. High Avoidance and Low Anxiety; 3. Low Avoidance and High Anxiety; and, 4. Low Avoidance and Low Anxiety. State 1 is labeled Anxious-Avoiders; state 2, Avoiders; state 3. Anxious; and, state 4. Secure.

Those who are high on Avoidance exhibit, at least on the surface, little need or regard for other people. In the beginning of life, they were saddled by a caretaker who showed little regard for them as a person. In short, their basic needs were met superficially at best. As a result, at a very early age, they gave up expecting anything from other people.

Those who are high on Anxiety were saddled by a caretaker who, while he or she wanted to meet the basic needs of their child, experienced noticeable anxiety with regard to their capability of being able to do so. As a result, they are anxious around others because they are afraid they will either be abandoned or ignored. In short, they are needy.

Again, on the surface, Avoidants have little if any need of others and experience little if any anxiety in ignoring others. On the other hand, Anxious types want desperately to be around and to be liked by others but are terribly afraid that they won’t. In a sense, Anxious types are perpetually striving to recapture the love of a caretaker that showed, or was afraid to show, little emotion toward them. Where Avoidants have basically given up, Anxious types are perpetually seeking to regain what they never had.

Where Anxious-Avoidants share the worst of both worlds, Secure types have the best. Secures not only want to be around others but are comfortable in doing so.

Studies have shown that a significant number of top corporate and government executives are Avoidants. Avoidants radiate strength and fearlessness, the very qualities our culture admires in leaders.

It should come as no great surprise that Conservatives exhibit many of the qualities of Avoidants and Liberal Progressives those of Anxious types. Indeed, Avoidants correspond most closely to George Lakoff’s Stern Father; Liberal Progressives to Lakoff’s Nurturing, if not Anxious, Mother.

Attachment Theory sheds special light on the extreme views of the Right in general and the Tea Party in particular. Even though Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman and others have argued cogently that the federal deficits are not the worst problem facing the U.S. and other European countries in the short run, and thus it would be better to incur more debt in order to get people back to work, debt horrifies the extreme Right. The very thoughts of, one, “being owned by others,” who of course they can never trust, and two, “others getting something for which they have not worked,” goes against every grain of their psychic makeup. This is precisely why no set of logical facts or arguments will ever be enough to convince them otherwise.

But, by the same token, because deep down Liberal Progressives have a need to be loved, and believe that their values are universal and thus shared by everyone, they cannot get it through their heads that logical facts or arguments are never sufficient to sway anyone, including themselves.

If ever we needed Secure types to come forward and to present good stories that can overcome the deep-seated fears of Conservatives and Liberal Progressives alike, that time is surely now.

We ignore the deep, unconscious basis of politics at our peril.

Originally published on Nation of Change, July 30, 2012

Posted in Blog, Media + Politics, Psychology | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Your Call: How should we respond to mass shootings?

On July 26, 2012, I was a guest on the radio program Your Call on San Francisco local public radio station KALW. I spoke about the recent mass shooting in Colorado and how we should be responding. What could we do, as a society, to prevent gun violence? Listen online here.

Posted in Blog, Media + Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment