The Purple Koolaid Playtime Show!

The Trap

The Trap, yet another Adam Curtis documentary, examines game theory, anthropology, evolutionary psychology and the notion of perceived freedom.  Can human beings, as social creatures, ever truly attain individual freedom?  As one system of control and heirarchy is phased out, another steps in to take its place.  Part 1  Part 2  Part 3a  3b   3c

Richard Dawkins: "Nice Guys Finish First"

This film explains that "survival of the fittest" does not necessarily mean "...of the strongest", but of the perpetuation of the most successful reproductive strategies.

More Timeless Fables

...from a modern-day storyteller

Most of us are familiar with the whimsical children's stories of Dr. Seuss, but before he embarked on his career as a famous children's author, he had been a political cartoonist as well as a writer for "Private Snafu", a series of Warner Brothers cartoons created for the U.S. Army. Given Seuss' background in politics, it's really no surprise that many of his stories also play out as sociopolitical commentary.

Seuss was ahead of his time -- in this story, identifying memetic trends and clique behavior before the term was even coined. Note how he's distinguishing bird-brained mentality vs. the more clever manipulator, portrayed as a primate.

(I didn't produce this video, by the way. It was either this or the longer song-and-dance animated production that was posted on YouTube).

Versus

Mental JPEGS and the Evolution of the False Dichotomy

Al Sharpton was in the news yet again, this time for his defense of the stripper who accused several Duke University lacrosse players of rape.

Why were the Duke lacrosse players so widely presumed guilty before being proven innocent? Is it because many automatically equate "white, male" with "oppressor" and "black, female" with "oppressed"? Is it because "lynch mob mentality" really knows no color?

So many others are commenting on this case that yet another entry in the blogosphere would be redundant. So let's move on to a more thematic topic.

For any reader who assumes these past two entries have been about defending white guys while criticizing blacks, or have been making any presumptions about my race, sex, place in the political spectrum, etc. then you probably haven't been thinking outside your personal Crayola box.

In the book "Blink", Malcolm Gladwell discusses how the human mind has been programmed to make "snap judgments"; which are often based on earlier learning experiences. Our minds grasp a learned concept; it is compressed into a kind of shorthand form of information and then stored in memory for quick reference. I'll refer to these here as "mental jpegs". As with jpegs, complexity, nuance and details often get lost, and in addition are usually contaminated with personal bias of some sort. This is the brain's way of economizing energy, which really came in handy back in the days when snap judgments were more of a matter of life or death.

Mental jpegs are roughly defined as a subset of ideas, assumptions, traits or characteristics. Conversely, a partial or incomplete set of ideas or characteristics can elicit a mental jpeg label with the assumption that all other ideas, characteristics, etc. are associated with them. (For instance, assuming that someone who discusses evolution also votes Democratic.)

One of the shortest shorthand forms of thinking is "us vs. them". Either something is "on our side", or it's "against us". Judging from the universal popularity of sports, video games and other forms of competitive behavior, we are seemingly programmed to react in such a manner so we can enjoy combat or sparring of some sort. Or perhaps, too, this is rooted in our social/tribal makeup, based on an instinctual need for group solidarity. ...In fact, neuroscientists more recently performed a study that demonstrated that partisan thought is rooted in the unconscious. Note this particularly glaring example of "affiliation over idea".

The power of this kind of reflexive mental jpeg has been demonstrated time and time again throughout the course of human history. It appears to be an innate part of our nature and nobody seems to be immune to it no matter what political party, nationality, race, sex, educational background or affiliation. It appears to arouse a certain irrational combative mode of behavior and often gets in the way of problem-solving.

If we really need to harbor any particular dichotomies, perhaps they should be: "is this thinking, or is this reacting?"

Friday Entertainment Picks

"What's going on in the world of today's marketers and advertisers? What are the new and surprising methods they're using to decipher who we are and what we want? And, where is this taking us?"The Persuaders", a Frontline presentation and another video on the PurpleKoolaid.com must-see list.

The New York Dolls live! Click the link to see the video Dance Like a Monkey! (I know, the YouTube upload had been featured on P.Z. Myers' blog earlier, but this link leads to the record label site and a crisper, cleaner version. Can you spot the Flying Spaghetti Monster?)

Irony and Hindsight: Pre-9/11 Discussions about Osama Bin Laden

Google Groups has provided an invaluable tool for research into human dialogue and behavior. It's preserved an archive of Usenet discussions dating back to the network's earliest years.

One interesting experiment is to go to Google Groups "Advanced Search" and look up names and phrases such as "Osama Bin Laden" or "weapons of mass destruction" for the dates prior to 9/11, and especially before Bush took office. Here, we can see blazing examples of the human political bias in action!

Very interesting. Very ironic. Note how the commentary by critics of the former president very closely matches some of the criticism leveled at the current President and administration.

Some highlights:

8/22/98:

Clinton vs. Osama Bin Laden

"It is clear that Clinton needed a diversion from his troubles with the
grand jury and pending impeachment.
It is also clear he needed a punching bag to vent his frustration and
pent up anger.
I and most Americans support the retaliation on Islam terrorist, as
being long over due.
But in committing to an open war with them, Clinton has caused many more
pro terrorist, outside the terrorist organizations, to give their
support and contribute to their cause. "

08/23/98:

"my wag the dog theory"

10/06/98:

"Clinton Wags the Dog!"

12/16/98:

"The Dog Is In Position"

"We can expect bombs to start falling on Iraq today. The dog is in
position and about to be wagged. To any reasonable, clear thinking
person, this latest "incident" in Iraq is clearly an orchestrated
attempt by Clinton to avoid impeachment.

[...]

"Clinton, this clever fellow, knows Americans would never fault him for
bombing evil characters like Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. He
also knows the Congress will never criticize a military operation
unless its a Democratic congress and a Republican president. Clinton
knows he can rally the people, the very simple minded, stupid people,
if he finds a common enemy for them to hate...."

[...]

[someone else replies]:

"How time has changed the landscape of America. In the 60's it was the
left that was against war now it is conservatives that are against this
action in Iraq at this time and it is the left that is calling for more
bombs....my how times have changed... "

12/17/98:

It was definitely WAG THE DOG

[...]

"The only way to get at Iraq's weapons programs is to completely disarm
Iraq's military, so that inspectors will have "free reign". The only
way this will happen is for the United States to declare war on Iraq,
but that's not going to happen. Its also not going to even put
together another coalition to do that either.

"So, indeed, it was WAG THE DOG, because Clinton's efforts are and will
continue to be useless against Iraq.

"Continue the impeachment process! "

12/14/98:

Another Excuse?

[...]

...But the Laden scare also is being felt domestically, intelligence sources tell TIME they have evidence that bin Laden may be planning his boldest move yet--a strike on Washington or possibly New York City in an eye-for-an-eye retaliation. "We've hit his headquarters, now he hits ours," a State tells TIME.

03/06/99:

"HENTOFF - AN ENTIRELY NEW IMPEACHMENT CASE

By Nat Hentoff
The Washington Post
March 6, 1999

Last November more than 400 American historians placed a full-page
ad in the New York Times. Calling themselves Historians in Defense
of the Constitution, they fiercely opposed the impeachment of the
president. Organized by professors Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and the
James Carville of academia, Sean Wilentz, the historians claimed
that if the president were convicted, the presidency would be
"permanently disfigured," thereby "undermining the Constitution."

[...]

The new petition declares: "Impeach Bill Clinton for the Right
Reasons: Not for Lewinsky, but Rather for the Illegal Bombing of
Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan." This proposed indictment was first
circulated during the Jan. 7-10 meeting of the American Historical
Association in Washington.

[...]

In the Nov. 14 New York Times, reporter James Risen quoted Defense
Secretary William Cohen as saying that the United States had been
"going after" bin Laden and his associates. The lead to Risen's
story declared: "One of the clear but unstated objectives of last
August's raid on Afghanistan was to kill Osama bin Laden and as
many of his associates as possible, Administration officials now
acknowledge."

[...]

08/08/99:

Bin Laden not the problem, Clinton the Problem

> > bin Laden is the excuse that Clinton is using to take away our freedoms.

> May I dare ask how and which one(s)?

Sure. Osama bin Laden is being held up as a "great satan" to justify
excessive security on airplanes, at Federal buildings, and in embassies
abroad. Just chant the "bin Laden" fear-mantra if you want more funds, more
guns in Federal agent's hands, and more anti-tank barricades around Federal
buildings. Just chant "bin Laden" whenever you want to trample on civil
rights, then it's ok.

[...]

09/02/99:

Saddam secretly making weapons

Saddam secretly making weapons
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Iraq is continuing secret work on nuclear, chemical and
 biological weapons and missiles that are banned under United
 Nations sanctions, according to a White House report sent
 recently to Congress.

"We are concerned by activity at Iraqi sites known to be
 capable of producing [weapons of mass destruction] and
 long-range ballistic missiles, as well as by Iraq's long-established
 covert procurement activity that could include dual-use items
 with [weapons] applications," the report said.

[...]

Survival of the Sexiest: Another Reason Why the Right Succeeded...

...and Why the Left Can't Return to Old Tactics

Generally speaking, cultural and political movements succeed one another based on which has the more potent form of symbolic sexual power. "Symbolic sexual power" is any kind of vital force or energy that might improve or advance one's population. It need not imply sex per se; promiscuity, etc. -- even conservative religious movements are a kind of sexual power, because they can represent order, solidarity, strength in numbers -- all ways to advance one's population. To summarize:

- Id represents our unconscious drives; our irrational "gut feelings" rooted in ancient primal instincts. We often tend to be directed or motivated by what our gut feelings tell us.
- Remove the Id force, and your side will fall out of favor.
- Rebellion against a repressive power is sexy.
- Whatever reminds you of your parent's generation isn't as sexy as the newer generation.

The success of the Left in the 60's, as a cultural force, succeeded in its day because of the climate that preceded it.

The cultural zeitgeist of the prior era was to repress the sexuality of both men and women -- but especially women. The "American Dream" of moving into a box-like house in a bland suburb created a homogenous, overly-domesticated atmosphere devoid of sensuality or individual expression. The "ideal role" promoted for women at the time was to be a wife and mother, and media imagery everywhere portraying women as little more than cheerful, brainless housemaids.

At the time, the Republican Party was represented by fogeys and neurotics, whereas JFK represented a fresh, youthful direction for the Democrats and the country.

Baby Boomers rebelled against what they perceived as a stultifying conformity and embraced a culture that celebrated sexuality and rebellion. Feminism became a political force to be reckoned with after books such as Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique" and Germaine Greer's "The Female Eunuch" -- which described women's frustration with being confined to narrow social roles -- became best-sellers. The Left became the dominant political force from the late 60's onward.

However, one of the many mistakes the Left made in the 1970s was to embrace the philosophy of certain feminists that there were no differences between men and women; that traditional roles should be downplayed. The effect of trying to make everything more "equal" resulted in a desexualization of both men and women. This time around, it was the feminists who tried to repress men's sexuality, and so men predictably ended up rebelling.

After the failure of the Carter Administration to secure the hostages in Iran, the right wing shifted back into power by identifying with the masculine Id. The United States, as represented by the Democratic Party, as represented by Carter this time was seen as ineffectual and impotent, unable to stand up against a much smaller country. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was suggestive of the "cowboy" archetype -- in American mythos, an image symbolizing a rugged, potent masculinity.

Because the Democrats/left wing have been more concerned with "civil rights" and other protectionist policies, the Democrats have been defined as the "Mommy Party" while the Republicans are the "Daddy Party". Metaphorically speaking, a "Daddy" is always going to be viewed as more potent than a "Mommy", and a masculine Id is always going to be viewed as a more potent force than a feminine Id. Because of this, the Left cannot return to old slogans and strategies that might have worked in a previous era. The right-wingers have even tried to caricature left-wingers as little more than children, further symbolically emasculating them.

The cultural climate of the GWB era identifies with a very primitive, alpha-male type Id: "Might makes right, and we will stomp on you in order to secure resources and be King of the Hill." Not surprisingly, this is also the reason the ultra right's favorite targets are those which symbolically undermine the country's metaphorical virility (e.g. gays and abortion). The female cheerleaders of the Ultra Right have tapped into a similarly primitive female Id. These "new" right-wing women aren't passive June Cleaver-like housemaids happily pushing the vacuum around. These women have embraced their inner She-Wolf: "we will attack and kill anything that dares trespass onto our territories, threatens our security or attempts to harm our children." It's a primitive Truth that strikes a primal cord in many.

A tribe at war will return to its more primal behaviors because it can't afford not to. When an enemy doesn't want to follow more civilized rules, then there is often no other recourse but to fall back on the "Might is Right" principle. The New Right almost gets the formula right, were it not for their often transparent and ham-handed approach (see: Bill O'Reilly, etc.)

I digress on the idea that the current crop of right-wingers have been the "Daddy Party" -- more like the "school bully party" with their dishonest tactics, bullying, blame-shifting and inability to owe up to accountability. A man of real maturity and character would be more concerned with solving problems along a far more rational and objective course.

Why "Purple Koolaid?"

Followup to the previous entry

One of the main themes of this blog is examining our more irrational motives and how those in power manipulate our irrational sides.

Purple Koolaid, of course, refers to the fate of the followers of cult leader Jim Jones, founder of the Peoples Temple. In this video clip, a follower underscores what made Jones so attractive to his flock. He offered to fill the role of their "friend... father... God..."

Such promises appeal to people on several levels by offering comfort, guidance and protection. Humans being tribal by nature, we instinctively seek an "alpha leader" to direct us -- most usually someone with an exceptional level of outward confidence and vision. A charismatic "alpha" leader will appeal to a population even if they're complete psychopaths underneath the surface, because their outward display of confidence and chutzpah suggests they would maintain a certain strength and stability in times of crisis.

Fortunately, most charismatic leaders aren't psychopaths, but it's worthy to examine the reasons behind why large numbers of people might be drawn to certain kind of individuals, even if that person might otherwise be diagnosed with various psychiatric disorders on the couch. Politicians, preachers, actors, and anyone trained to address crowds of people learn to exude a certain kind of power and energy that automatically draws attention.

Some articles on charisma:
The X-Factors of Success

The Science of Savoir Fair

Charisma, Crowd Psychology and Altered States of Consciousness

Free Enterprise: Love It or Hate It

The Corporation: Canadian documentary that examines the history and inner workings of what has become the dominant institution of the free world.

Economist Milton Friedman talks about the strength of the economy.

Globalisation is Good Johan Norberg examines the positive effects of free trade and enterprise on what had once been impoverished countries.

Roger and Me, Michael Moore's memorably sardonic docu-diary that made him the darling of the left wing.

New Documentary, "Suicide Killers", To Be Released

Freud Would Have A Field Day With The Muslims, Too...

"Pierre Rehov's feature examines the phenomenon of suicide bombers through interviews with their family members, along with prisoners whose bombing attempts have been thwarted. The film's revelations about the bombers' true motivations are both surprising and shocking....

Rehov was interviewed by the Counterterrorism Blog on the making of the film.

[excerpt]:

What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know?
I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil. Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution.