Subscribe
I'm reading Gabor Maté's In the realm of the hungry ghost, and I'm completely taken by the business of attunement, so I'm going to briefly discuss what it means for parenting. Dr. Maté wrote that a baby needs nutrition, physical security, and consistent emotional attunement (I summarize) for healthy survival and nourishment. Attunement, in particular, is about the ability of parents to communicate feelings in a way that allows the baby to feel accepted, understood, and mirrored. Sometimes, parents can not help how they feel (stress due to loss of work, divorce, mental illness, or war, etc.), and despite their best effort, they pass their unfinished emotional business to their children, often by just being human and reacting to their own struggles. This is because infants, even from the time they are in the womb, develop as guided by their environment (epigenetics). Even if the baby does not have the verbal processing / memory in the womb and right after birth, her biopsychological development is still affected by the caregiver's mood, which is affected in turn by the greater social environment at large, including the caregiver's partner and immediate situation (e.g. social status).
Due to no fault of any single person most of the time, a caregiver under duress may not be able to provide the baby with consistent emotional attunement (to be differentiated from love or physical attention). And a baby lacking in this department may grow up feeling unseen, unwanted or lacking in self-esteem, even if she can feel loved. And she will do many things to correct the course, including addiction. If your origin was under duress, you may want to ask yourself, how have you tried to remedy what wasn't there? And if you're a parent under duress, how will you try to tune into your child now?
On a personal note, I felt like this today:
The girl probably needs to get out more. And, friends.
Showing posts with label Personality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Personality. Show all posts
Attunement: a note for parenting
Tweet
Inglourious Basterds: nigh time for a Jewish revenge fantasy
Tweet
Title: Inglourious Basterds
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Language: English / French / German
Year: 2009
Critical Reception: Raves from Chicago Sun's Roger Ebert, TIME's Richard Corliss, Village Voice's J. Hoberman; Sketical reviews by Salon's Stephanie Zacharek, Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt; Award nominations/wins: Golden Globes for Best Picture
Psych Index: Social Relations
In Brief: As far as vengeance and spaghetti escape films go, [Basterds] was unusually weighty, even with its exaggerated effects and humour. The sensitivity surrounding the subject may deter the production of a Jewish revenge fantasy, despite it being such a great premise for a revenge film (great real world injustice with clear baddies and no satisfying resolution or absolution is as ripe as it gets). Perhaps such a story may have needed a removed but interested storyteller, who would treat it with equal giddiness and respect, brusque and sophistication, and a clear grasp on the power of stories to create and recreate. Tarantino, the filmmaker known for synthesis and meta-reference, may just have been the director of choice for such a feat, and he delivered Basterds with much aplomb. Its status as his masterpiece (as he referred to it twice in the film) may be debatable, but the brilliant ending of Basterds had to be one of the most insane, layered and perfectly appropriate sequences committed to film.
Comment (SPOILERS ALERT):
My name is Shoshanna Dreyfus… and you’ve seen the face of Jewish vengeance. – Shoshanna Dreyfus
Chris Rock, a politically incorrect comedian with little regards for niceties, once defended the use of a derogatory term for its function of striking the perpetrator where it would hurt the most. I don’t condone violent means of communication, and I don’t think there’s justice in vengeance. I do, however, believe that the desire for justice by violent means is a natural, human, deep seated emotional reaction to a great perceived injury. We are as much the communal rats as we are the killer hawks – our aggression may be channeled through less murderous venues, but it is not a disease to be cured. The high road can only carry us so far before we become completely removed from one of the most impassioned, naked, and organic parts of ourselves. Obviously we can’t have people going around wreaking vengeance however they see fit; eye for an eye makes the world blind, right? We count on our justice system and sometimes karma to give us some closures, but the business of come-uppance isn’t satisfaction-guaranteed. However, what we may not be able to get through non-fiction, we may still be able to get through our fiction, in this case, cinema. That’s where Inglourious Basterds (Tarantino, 2009) came in: delivering the Jewish anger upon those who were most responsible for the great injury. Quentin Tarantino made sure that everyone knew it was a gift born of love for cinema and desire for a good story, and in his good story, come-uppance came with a bloody satisfaction-guaranteed seal.
Although the basterds carried the title of the film, it was equally (if not more) the story of Shoshanna Dreyfus as the Jew survivor cum theatre owner and film lover. After a very intense and thoroughly terrifying opener (uncharacteristically of a serious nature), Tarantino’s latest mash up began its twisted journey with the scene of Shoshanna running for her life, scared, hurt, but determined. The Jews from then on escaped victimhood and proudly proclaimed their stake in a deathly tango with the Nazis. The picture glided along by conversations as much as actions, though discussions of cinematic details may interest only the handful of film enthusiasts in the audience taking delights in seeing recreations of famous spaghetti cinema bits (e.g. The Searchers door). Nevertheless, with Brad Pitt leading the pack of charming cast, Basterds should have no trouble entertaining its mass audience – I should know, having seen it separately with a North American and a French audience, and seeing it equally embraced by both.
As far as vengeance and spaghetti escape films go, the film was unusually weighty, even with its exaggerated effects and humour. The sensitivity surrounding the subject may deter the production of a Jewish revenge fantasy, despite it being such a great premise for a revenge film (great real world injustice with clear baddies and no satisfying resolution or absolution is as ripe as it gets). Perhaps such a story may have needed a removed but interested storyteller, who would treat it with equal giddiness and respect, brusque and sophistication, and a clear grasp on the power of stories to create and recreate. Tarantino, the filmmaker known for synthesis and meta-reference, may just have been the director of choice for such a feat, and he delivered Basterds with much aplomb. Its status as his masterpiece (as he referred to it twice in the film) may be debatable, but the brilliant ending of Basterds had to be one of the most insane, layered and perfectly appropriate sequences committed to film.
Basterds was not for the squeamish or the bleeding heart – there was a scene involving the Bear Jew and a Nazi sergeant that was reminiscent of the gang beating in A Clockwork Orange. Coming from a director who loves women, as indicated by his previous films, it was also a bit surprising to see what happened to the women in this film. Yet, the objectives were clearly far from invoking the most outrage from the audience. I can just imagine Tarantino explaining his film in his usual nerdy excited manner: “it’s a film about hate, alright? But there’s love too, alright? My great, great love, cinema, is used to redress a great act of hate that had no street justice ending. But it’s not going to be nice; it’s going to be thrilling and fun, but also dirty and over the top and emotionally honest. You’re going to enjoy it.” And there are plenty of things to enjoy, unless, of course, you are squeamish or in possession of a serious bleeding heart. Everyone involved on screen seemed to relish the opportunity to flesh out their at once cartoonish and memorable character. If even Diane Kruger could seem interested in her role as the double agent Bridget von Hammersmark, you know this id-driven avenger could not be denied.
Clip:
What your music taste says about you
Tweet
In a recent Psychology Today article based on Sam Gosling's book, Snoop: What Your Stuff Says About You, different types of personality were used to account for different tastes in the arts. As often is the case with general interest articles discussing human behaviour, the nuances of research findings were lost in the shuffle, or buried in the last few paragraphs that may be too late to counteract the conclusions made on the first 8/10 of the article. Half way through the article and the inner rebel in you may have come up with a laundry list of qualities about yourself that would make exceptions to their restrictive categories. Alternately, it may shoot itself in protest of the outrageous conclusions being made about who you are based on what you like, or what people maybe based on what they like (because you are the advocate for the people).
Witness the following claim:Less open people, meanwhile, may be stuck on the tastes of their youth, watching nostalgic movies on Nick at Night and listening to classic rock.
If that doesn't rile you up, you are just way too accepting.
Of all the categories discussed (Taste Hunters, Thrill Seekers, Self Medicators, and Art as decoration-ers), I found most commonalities with Thrill Seekers, especially this little bit about extroverts:Another hallmark of extroversion is the need to connect with others, which drives extroverts to rock concerts, dance clubs, and movie theaters—environments that are both highly social and highly stimulating. That's also why extroverts particularly enjoy music with vocals. "They're drawn to the human voice," explains Gosling. "They want to connect."
However, being also part taste hunter and part self medicator means that I do listen to and love some instrumental music - I just don't find consistent pleasure in vocal-less music as someone who is a bit more introvert might.
And this is just the kind of nuance that got lost in the article (the author tried to introduce some reservations at the end, rather unsuccessfully): people are not just one thing and never the others, and that these categories are "tendencies" rather than absolutes. I, too, as many extroverts would surely attest to, can enjoy character development in films as much as any introvert would, especially if said introverts have very little interest in films as art compared to more serious film enthusiasts like me. It was a bit contradictory to assume that introverts would be more concerned with character development while extroverts would be more taken with explosions, in light of the definition of an extrovert as someone energized by people.
As for self medicators, who hadn't turned to art to help alter their mood (interesting that therapy came in dead last as something people would turn to in order to help with their mood - therapists so need better PR)? The exact songs may differ, but even my mother - not one to indulge in music - has a mood-elevating song. This is not to dismiss the category, for there are people whose preference for the arts to soothe and affirm their being and identity is stark clear. Rather, my point is that these categories should not be held as absolutes to the point of either complete conviction or complete dismissal. I may be a neurotic person, but I'd rather plant a tree than pollute my space with "inspirational" maxims like "until you spread your wings, you'll never know how far you can fly."
The Dark Knight: A probability game or a morality tale?
Tweet
Title: Batman: The Dark Knight
Director: Christopher Nolan
Language: English
Year: 2008
Critical Reception: Metacritic rating of 82
Psych Index: Social Psychology, Milgram's Experiment on Obedience, Evolutionary psychology
In Brief: Batman (Christian Bale) is on his way to be mythologized as the dark knight in his pursuit of a manic, psychotic serial killer who goes by the name of Joker (Heath Ledger). The city's righteous people (lead by Lt. Gordon, played by Gary Oldman, and an idealistic politician Harvey Dent, portrayed by Aaron Eckhart) try to prosecute all criminals related to the mobs in Gotham city. Batman, a. k. a. billionaire Bruce Wayne, shares a common love interest (Rachel Dawes, portrayed by Maggie Gyllenhaal) with Harvey, though he would rather see Harvey succeed him in his 'work' life as the hero of Gotham instead of his love life. It seems like the Joker does not have much of a clear motivation for Batman to take advantage of, and it drives our hero to the edge of his own moral box. There may be a method to his madness yet.
Comment (SPOILERS ALERT):
Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiment in the 1960s (Milgram, 1963) to investigate the extent to which ordinary citizens can forgo human compassion in the name of obedience. In this landmark psychological study, participants were told to give increasingly severe shocks to another person in another room (who was part of the research design). More than half of the participants administered the highest shocks on the generator, despite agonizing screams heard from the next room (you can check out the video here). The authors concluded that under the right circumstances, ordinary citizens can commit acts that could be construed as inhumane, a possible explanation for the behaviour of ordinary folks who sold out their Jewish neighbours during World War II. The study was not without controversies concerning both its method and ethics. Regardless, it served as a startling reminder of human capacity for cruelty when the context or social structure facilitated its process.
The Dark Knight's morality tale rests on a social experiment in similar vein, crudely conducted by its villain, The Joker (Heath Ledger). Despite his claim of being a non-schemer, his experiment is too deliberate and well thought-out to not be construed as a scheme. As often is the case with mythological moral plays, the dichotomy of good versus evil in the film is painted in broad, black and white strokes, with emphasis on symbols rather than literals. Even though the film clearly intends for Batman and The Joker to share more commonalities with each other in a post-modern effort to connect the two opposing sides, these two characters differ significantly in their view of humanity. Bruce Wayne (a. k. a. Batman, a, k. a. The Dark Knight - you know you're a mythical figure when you take on as many names as your multiple persona would allow) views humanity as basically compassionate and good, whereas the Joker sees people's true identity to be that of cowards who could be easily pushed to do 'uncivilized' acts out of selfish survival instinct.
The apex of the film's moral play culminates in the sequence at the end in which a boat full of criminals is pitched against a boat full of upstanding citizens. Each is given a choice to eliminate the other to survive. This dilemma is used as an artificial restriction to induce decisions that would then be ascribed to our basic human nature. While both Bruce Wayne and the Joker reach some rather simplistic conclusion about humanity, the Joker's betting hand may fare better in the game of probability. In Evolution Biology, altruism - defined as behaviour that benefits others at the cost to self - has been a puzzle all its own. To explain the evolutionary benefit of altruistic behaviour, Darwin (in The Descent of Man, published in 1871) in the early years believed that while an individual's altruistic behaviour may be disadvantageous on a personal level, it is perhaps evolutionary beneficial to the group (group selection). However, later on, Darwin would note the weakness of this group selection hypothesis: even if a group is composed exclusively of altruists behaving nicely towards each other, it only takes a single selfish mutant free-rider to bring an end to this idyllic existence. Considering the fact that the probability a selfish mutant will arise and spread is very high (due to the shorter individual's generation time compared to group's), the selfish tendency should soon dominate the group and out-live altruistic tendency.
Of course, kin selection (altruistic behaviour towards genetically similar individuals) would tip the balance of this trend. On a genetic level, an individual with genes that favour altruistic behaviour may behave altruistically towards individuals that approximate its genus in the immediate environment. Sometimes, this may result in altruistic behaviours towards neighbours rather than kins, since animals do not necessarily make conscious calculations to behave altruistically towards their kins. Furthermore, from Prisoner's Dilemma (game theory), it is predicted that individuals from different groups may still be altruistic towards each other, depending on their frequency of interaction and expectation of return benefits (the higher the interaction and expectation of return benefits, the more likely the altruistic behaviour is - this sets up beautifully for animals living in groups including humans).
In the film, these people on the two boats are, presumably, not related to one another directly. They may not expect to interact with or be the recipients of some return benefits from one another. It may make sense (according to the Prisoner's Dilemma game theory) for either boat to eliminate the other one, to take the first strike. However, humans are also ruled by things other than direct biological instinct (conscious thoughts and culture play a huge part in our own evolution). Moreover, we are not perfectly logical as a whole (psychological studies would tell you that we behave mostly via rules of thumb and deductions from past patterns), so it is possible that this may not be the first automatic choice. As seen in the film, the ordinary citizens take a democratic vote, and most vote for their own survival (the conscious, logical choice). Where the film takes a strange (from a psychological and biological point of view) turn is in the depiction of every last person refraining from acting on this logical choice. It is at once contrived and refreshing to have this much faith in groups' collective moral behaviour.
The Joker makes an astute observation that falls in line with group psychology concerning altruistic behaviour: people's 'good', noble, compassionate behaviour is facilitated by some predictable structure. When thrown under chaos, anxiety and most probably fear may lead people to engage in 'bad', cowering, self-interested behaviour - not in all cases, but the probability that someone in a group might behave as such is quite high, considering our diversity. The Joker obviously banks on the very real probability of just one individual to behave in such a way in chaos to draw conclusions about the defect of humanity. His premise / view of the world would then be affirmed, illogically, from a highly probable scenario (just because one person's selfish act can determine an outcome for a group does not mean the person represents the whole group - this biased mentality is unfortunately assumed by many individuals who would go on to terrorize groups based on some individuals' behaviour). Bruce Wayne, on the other hand, acts on his faith that nobody would try to survive at the cost of another, even in the face of the high probability that someone would. The fact that the film favours the hero's betting hand to make a point, even if there is an extremely low probability of such a scenario (nothing is completely, absolutely improbable), reduces the believability of the situation. It seems like such a strenuous stretch to make in order for this morality tale to work. The filmmaker does not seem to trust the rather logical conclusion that even if the outcome turns out to favour the Joker's bet, it does not mean he is right in his assumption about humanity. It may have been too complex to translate to the screen clearly and cleanly, but it would have been the more probable and logical conclusion.
It is unfortunate that in this morality tale, such broad strokes are made concerning human behaviour, reducing humans (or, more specifically, the mass) to a group of like-minded two-act individuals. Diversity and variability are perhaps too complicated to figure into a mythological tale (and this is, if nothing else, a story concerning mythology). Comments regarding chance and probability are muddled, even if their symbolic representation is as simple as a coin. Harvey Dent, the symbolic two-faced, pretends to allow chance - or fate - to play a role in his decisions. He controls his decisions, with or without an external force (the coin acts as the same external agent of pretend-fate, even when one of its side by chance changes its complexion). In the film, it is neither fate nor chance that determines outcomes, as Dent would try to convince others; it is all about our control imposed on external situations.
The film resembles something of a pseudo-intellectual exercise, though it is successful in appearing serious at its task. There is an elegance to how duplicity and dichotomy play out repeatedly in the film. Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight films, on a meta level, cinematically reflect the villains that test its hero. The Dark Knight ultimately falls somewhere tonally alongside Two-faced character than either Batman or Joker, though it could be argued that this is essentially the product of these two latter characters' fusion. Unfortunately, Aaron Eckhart does not have the acting chops or right presence to convey a convincing transition (not that the script allows it). Maggie Gyllenhaal lacks chemistry with both her lovers; her portrayal of Rachel Dawes is simply too measured and understated for this hyped up tale. It does not help that the film calls for her to be nothing more than a plot device. Christian Bale is serviceable in his role, even though he is at times overshadowed by Heath Ledger's Joker. The late actor's performance benefits from the feel of the film, which is built around his manic, yet melancholic figure.
There are some rather beautiful shots and camera work (the Batman flight is quite exhilarating, as is the scene in which the Joker enjoys the air in silence while driving a police car). The tension is as taut as the string that takes down the police helicopter in the most exciting chase sequence in the film. However, there is not enough time allowed for the more dramatic moments to fully develop, thereby decreasing the emotional impact of the film. The fights leave much to be desired, though the action sequences are quite thrilling (it must be said that the bat two-wheel is the stuff bikers' dreams are made of). The film clearly aims to be taken seriously as a dramatic entry in the comics-turn-films genre; it fails to completely be convincing in depth, but it is still an admirable effort yet.
------------------------
References
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
Thoughts in point form:
- View on humanity - good vs. evil
- Idea that people behave well when there's structure and when things are going according to plan
- lack of chemistry between lead actress and both Bale and Eckhart
- morality of the film rests on the two boats not blowing up - flimsy
- does not leave enough time for dramatic moments to sink in, thereby decreasing its emotional impact significantly
Clip:
