OK, so
the last time we were here we got maybe a third of the way through this story
the story of Pinokio and the transformation of a marionette into something hypothetically real
I'm gonna backtrack a few slides and it'll get us into it again
so you remember that the blue fairy, so I would say that the benevolent element of mother nature
in the schemata that we are going to use to investigate mythology
was more or less allowed her entrance because Gepetto was a good guy and he wished for the right thing
and so in some sense... here's a way of thinking about that... you know
genetic / environmental studies on children's temperament have revealed something quite interesting
which is that the shared environment that children have within a family
so that would be what's the same about your environment and your brother's environment, the same
doesn't have that much effect on your temperament or his temperament
'cause the presumption always was that within a family there is a shared environment, right?
and something was common about the environment to every child within that environment
but there isn't much of a shared environmental effect on temperament
so then you can say, well that makes it appear as though isn't that relevant in relationship to the development of temperament
but you could also suggest something else
you could suggest that if parenting is occurring properly, the effect of the shared environment should be very close to zero
and the reason for that is that you establish an individual relationship with each child
and the environment is actually a microenvironment that's composed of your observations of this child and that specific child's interaction with you
like to some degree, if there is a shared environment, that means that you're forcing the same principles on every child
so my suspicions are, although I don't know this, and the research hasn't been done
that in bad families there's a shared environmental effect, but in good families that minimizes
so that lets the child's biological predisposition, roughly, manifest itself with support and in some positive manner
well, I don't want to extend the analogy too far, but you can imagine
that, and this is what this film proposes, if you aim properly in relationship to your child
what you're trying to do is to establish an individual relationship and to allow them to move towards
whatever their particular expression of individuality happens to be
and that's... that would be the same as allowing nature to take its course in some sense
at least nature in its positive guise, and that's exactly what happens here
the other thing that happens, of course, is that the cricket, for reasons that aren't clear, precisely
is knighted by the blue fairy and serves as Pinokio's conscience
although he isn't very good at it, which is a very peculiar thing, and quite a marked point that the film is making
that that conscience actually has something to learn, too
and there's actually a Freudian element to that, you know, because Freud thought of the superego
as the internalization, roughly speaking, of the father,
and it could be very severe, the superego, so like a really strict father, really tyrannical father inside your head
although I think it's better to think about the superego as the internalized representation of society at large
mediated to some degree through your parents, 'cause it's not as if your father, even assuming he's tyrannical
is the inventor of all those tyrannical rules, he's the propagator of them
but he's actually a proxy voice, even if it's just for the harsh side of society, he's the proxy voice for society
and because we're social creatures, the utility of having an internal social voice to guide you
although, again, you seem to be able to follow it or not follow it, which I also find spectacularly interesting
because, obviously if it was an unerring guide, you could just follow it
and if it was an unerring guide, you wouldn't need free will either, because you could just act out the dictates of this internal representation
that isn't what you do
so anyways, the proposition here is that the conscience exists, but it's a relatively flawed entity
it needs to be modified as well by nature
which is quite interesting, 'cause the blue fairy knights him, 'cause you also might think of the conscience as only something that's socially constructed
right, which is the more typical viewpoint, but I don't buy that for a second
because I believe firmly, and I believe the Piagetian interpretation of child development
more or less bears this out, is that there are parameters within which conscience has to operate
and it's sort of like this, it's like, it's the same parameters that govern fair play, we'll say that
and so you can say there's fair play within a game, and there's fair play across sets of games
and the set of games is pretty much indistinguishable from the actual environment
if you think all the things you do as nested games, at some point the spread of that is large enough so that it encompasses everything you do
which includes the environment, and so I believe that you're adapted to the set of all possible games, roughly speaking
all possible playable games, something like that
and that you know the rules for that, which is why, we talked about this a little bit, why you're so good at identifying cheaters
we have a module for that, according to the evolutionary psychologists
and not only you identify them, but you remember them, it really sticks in your mind
and there's other evidence, too, one piece of evidence that I love, well, there's a couple
one I would derive from Frans de Waal, who's a famous primatologis, and he studied the prototype morality that emerges in chimpanzees
and it's very much nested in their dominance structures
you know, because you could think of morality in some sense as the understanding of the rules by which the dominance hierarchy operates, right
and so you could say, well, the biggest, ugliest, meanest chimp...
and the male dominance hierarchies in chimps seem to be the predominant ones, although the females also have a dominance hierarchy
it's not quite so clear in bonobos, which seem to be more female-dominated
but in any case, the primary chimp dominance structure is male
and you could think, well it's like the caveman chimp who's biggest and toughest who necessarily rules, and who rules longest
but that isn't what de Waal found; see, the problem with being... mean, lets say
and not negotiating your social landscape, and not trading reciprocal favors
is that no matter how powerful you are as an individual, two individuals three quarters your power could do you in
and that happens with the chimps fairly regularly; if the guy on top is too tyrannical
and doesn't make social connections, then weaker chimps, males, make good social connections
and when he's not in such good shape, they take him down, and viciously too
de Waal has documented some unbelievably horrendous acts of, let's call it, regicide
among the chimpanzee troupes that he studied, mostly in the Arnhem zoo
the big troupe there, that's been there a long time
but he's very interested in prototypical morality, and here's some other examples of prototypical morality
emerging among animals, there's many of them, but one is
you know, if two wolves have a dominance dispute, again that would be more likely among the male wolves
but it doesn't really matter, they basically display their size, and they growl ferociously
and they puff up their hair so they look bigger, and you can see cats do that when they go into fight or flight
not only do they puff up, including their tail, but they stand sideways
and the reason they do that is because they look bigger
right, 'cause they're trying to put up the most intimidating possible front
so anyways, if two wolves are going at it, what they're really trying to do is to size each other up
and they're trying to scare each other into backing off, fundamentally
because, see, the worst-case scenario is like, you're wolf number one, and I'm wolf number two
and we tear each other to shreds, but I win, but I'm so damaged after that wolf number three comes in and takes me out
so, like, there's a big cost to be paid even for victory in a dominance dispute, if it degenerates into violence
and animals, and human beings, but animals in particular, have evolved very, very specific mechanisms
to escalate dominance disputes towards violence step by step
so that they don't... so that the victor doesn't risk incapacitating himself by winning
so what happens with the wolves is that, you know, they growl at each other and posture display, and maybe they even snap at each other
but the probability that they're gonna get into a full-fledged fight is pretty low
and what happens is, one of the wolves backs off, and flips over and shows his neck
and that basically means: "all right, tear it out," and the other wolf says:
though of course he doesn't, "well, you're kind of an idiot, and you're not that strong, but we might need you to take down a moose in the future
and, you know, despite your patheticness, I won't tear out your throat"
and then they've established their dominance position, and then, from then on, at least for some substantial period of time
the subordinate wolf gives way to the dominant wolf
but at least the subordinate wolf is alive, and, you know, he might be dominant over other wolves
and so, everyone in the whole hierarchy has sorted that out either through mock combat or through combat itself
and, you know, the low-ranking members aren't in the best possible position, but at least they're not getting their heads torn off every second of their existence
so there's even some utility in the stability of the dominance hierarchy for the low-ranking members
'cause at least they're not getting pounded, getting threatened, which is way better
I mean it's not good, but it's way better than actual combat
and then there's the example of rats, which I love, this is Jaak Panksepp's work
and he wrote a book called affective neuroscience, which I highly, highly recommend
I have a list of readings, recommended readings on my website
it's a brilliant book, and he's a brilliant psychologist, really, one of the top psychologists as far as I'm concerned
both theoretically and experimentally, a real genius, he's the guy who discovered that rats laugh when you tickle them
they laugh ultrasonically, so you can't actually hear them, but if you record it and slow it down
then you can hear them giggling away when you tickle them with an erase, which is sort of like their mother's tongue
it's often what lab people use as a substitute for the licking of the little rat by the mother
so, and he discovered the paly circuit in mammals, which is like a major deal, right
he should get a Nobel prize for that, that's a big deal to discover an entire motivational circuit
whose existence no one had really predicted, you know, apart from the fact that obviously mammals play
and even lizards maybe, some of them are social lizards, seem to play
so, anyhow, what Panksepp observed, and I think this is a brilliant piece of science
is that, first of all, juvenile male rats in particular like to rough and tubmle play
like to wrestle, and they actually pin each other like little kids do, or like adult wrestlers do
they pin their shoulders down, and that basically means you win, and so, OK, so that's pretty cool
but what's even cooler, I think, well there's three things, one is:
the rats will work for an opportunity to get into an arena where they know that play might occur
and so that's one of the scientific ways of testing an animal's motivation, right
so imagine you have a starving rat and it knows that it's got food down in the end of a corridoor
you can put a little spring on its tail and measure how hard it pulls, and that gives you and idication of its motivational force
now, imagine the starving rat that's trying to get to some food, and you have a little spring on its tail, and you waft in some cat odor
so now that rat is starving and wants to get out of there, he's going to pull even farther towards the food
so getting away plus getting forward are separate motivational systems, and if you can add them together it's real potent
and part of the reason why in the future authoring exercise that you guys are gonna do as the class progresses
you're asked to outline the place you'd like to end up, which is your desired future
and also the place that you could end up if you let everything fall apart
so that your anxiety chases you and your approach systems pull you forward
you're maximally motivated then, and it's important, because otherwise you can be afraid of pursuing the things you wanna pursue
right, and that's very common, and so then the fear inhibits you as the promise pulls you forward
but it makes you weak, because you're afraid; you wanna get your fear behind you, pushing you
and so what you wanna be is more afraid of not pursuing your goals than you are of pursuing them
it's very, very helpful; and lots of times in life, and this is something really worth knowing
you know, and this is one of the advantages to being an autonomous adult
you don't get to pick the best thing, you get to pick your poison
you have two bad choices, and you get to pick which one you're willing to suffer through
and every choice has a bit of that element in it, and so, if you know that it's really freeing
because otherwise you torture yourself by thinking: "well, maybe there's a good solution to this, compared to the bad solution"
it's like, no, no, sometime's there's just risky solution 1, and risky solution 2
and sometimes both of them are really bad, but you at least get to pick which one you're willing to suffer through
and that's... that actually makes quite a bit of difference, because you're also facing it voluntarily then
instead of it chasing you, and that is an entirely different psychophysiological response
challenge vs threat, it's not the same, even if the magnitude of the problem is the same
and so putting yourself in a challenging, let's call it, mindframe, you can't just do that by magic
putting yourself in a challenging mindframe is much easier on you psychophysiologically
'cause you don't produce... you don't go into the generalized stress response to the same degree
and you're activating your exploratory and seeking systems, which are dopaminergically mediated, and that involve positive emotion
so if you can face something voluntarily, rather than having it chase you, it's way better for you psychophysiologically
so, that's partly why, well, it's worthwhile to go find the dragon in its lair instead of waiting for it to come and eat you
so, and especially if you also add the idea that if you go find the dragon in its lair
you might find it when it's a baby, instead of a full-fledged bloody monster that is definitely gonna take you down
and so that's part of the reason why... well there's a whole bunch of things that emerge out of that observation
like: don't avoid small problems that you know are there
face them, because they'll grow into big problems all by themselves
and you can think about... imagine the tax department sends you a notification, you owe them, like, 300 dollars
well it's, you know, that's annoying, maybe you don't even wanna open the letter
or maybe if you do, you just put it on the shelf, but that damn thing doesn't just sit there like a piece of paper on the shelf
right, you ignore that for 5 or 6 years, it's gonna become attached to all sorts of horrible things
and if you ignore it long enough... you get the idea, it's gonna turn into something that's completely unlike the little piece of paper that it's written on
and many, many problems in life are like that, you'll see that they pop their ugly little head up, and you know
and you might wanna turn away, you might not want to think about it
which is the easiest way of turning away, right, you just don't attend to it
it's not like you repress it or anything like that, you just fail to attend to it
and that's a... really, as a long-term strategy it's dismal
it's also something, I think, that's more characteristic of people who are high in neuroticism and high in agreeableness
'cause agreeable people don't like conflict
and people who are high in neuroticism, or high in negative emotion, are hit harder per unit of uncertainty or threat
and so, you know, and that's partly why in psychotherapy a lot of times the people you see need assertiveness training
so that would be the opposite of agreeableness, or they need help to get their anxiety and emotional pain under control
those are not the only reasons, there's antisocial behavior, but you can't fix that in therapy in all likelyhood
there's alcoholism, there's lotsa, lotsa other reasons, but those are two major reasons
so anyways, there is a... that was all to telly you that... oh yes, back to the rats
so okay, the rats are pulling on... you can measure rat motivation by how hard they pull on the spring, let's say
and they're more motivated if they're running away and they're running towards, but let's go back to play
so, you can take juvenile rats who haven't been able to play for a while, maybe they've been isolated
or maybe they just haven't been able to engage in physical activity, like many schoolchildren that you might be thinking about
neither allowed to play nor engage in physical activity, and there's a reason I'm telling you that
so anyways, you get one of these little rats, and you can measure how hard he'll pull to go out and play
or how many buttons he'll push, you know, and that gives you an indication of his motivation
so anyways, you can see that the play-deprived juvenile rat will fight harder to play than a non-play deprived juvenile rat
and so you can infer that the rat wants to go play
and, you know, you do that... you do the same measurement with everyone around you
if they wanna do something, you're gonna poke and prod at them to see what sort of things they're willing to overcome
in order to go and do that, you'll object even if you don't really object
it's like... it's a measurement device, and if they're willing to overcome a bunch of your objections
then you think: "oh, well, maybe they really want to"
and that's another thing to really know: if there's something you want, you need about five arguments about why you want it
because the probability that the person who's opposing you will have five arguments about why you should't have it is very low
they just won't have thought it through enough; so the other thing that happens in the future authoring exercise
is that you're asked to articulate the reasons for all the goals that come out of your vision of the future
so you're asked like: "why would it be good for you? why would it be good for your family? why would it be good for broader society?"
so that gives you three levels of argumentation right there
and if you have it articulated down into detail, and it's related to other important goals
they you're a hell of a thing to argue with, because people just aren't that deep
by which I mean that they just don't have that many levels of explanation or objection
and it's also really useful in relationship to your own mind, because if you want to do something that's difficult
and that requires energy, a lot of different subsystems in your mind are gonna throw up objections
it's like, "well, maybe that isn't what you should be doing right now, maybe you should be doing the dishes
or vacuuming, or watching TV, or looking at YouTube"
if you're really sneaky, when you're trying to do something hard, what your brain does
is give you something else hard to do that 's not quite as hard, so that you can feel justified in not doing the thing you're supposed to
'cause you're doing somethig else useful, and if you give in to that temptation, which you often will
then it wins, and because it wins, it gets a little dopamine kick, and it grows stronger
anything you let win the internal argument, grows
and anything you let be defeated, shrinks
'cause it's punished, it doesn't get to have its way
so that's another thing really to remember, don't practice what you do not wanna become
and because those are... they're neurological circuits, you build those thing in there man, and they're not going anywhere
you can build another little machine to inhibit them, that's the best you can do
once they're in there, you can't get them out, so... and then the one's you built to inhibit can be taken out by stress
and the old habits will come back up, so you gotta be careful what you say and what you do
because you build yourself that way; so anyways, back to the rats
okay, so the little rat gets to go out there and play, now imagine one little rat is paired with another rat
but the other little rat is 10% bigger, 10% in juvenile rats is enough to attain permanent dominance
so the 10% bigger rat will win the first wrestling, and so that's what happens
and then... so the little rat gets pinned, and maybe they play a bit, and then they're done with it
and so you separate them, then you let them play again, and the next time what happens
is that the subordinate rat does the invitation to play
and that's like, you know, like a dog does when he wants to play
you can recognize that, it kind of splays its feet apart, and looks up and looks interested
and then it sort of dances around; you can do it with any kid that has a clue, you know
that hasn't been destroyed by adults, if your little 3-year-old, or 4-year-olds are better for this
if you go like this, like, they know exactly what's gonna happen, you know, they're ready to dart back and forth
and they'll usually smile, and kids love rough and tumble play, which is now basically illegal in all daycare
seriously, it's seriously is, kids need it so desperately, 'cause it teaches them the limits of their body
and your body, and it teaches them what's painful and what isn't
and it teaches them the dance of play, and without that they're just little disembodied blobs
like, they have no finesse, that's what you're checking out when you dance with someone, you know
you're seeing if they have that fluency and facility for mutual reciprocal action
embodied in them; and if they're kinda like this, you know, and don't have any sense of rhythm and don't pay any attention to you
and all of that, you have reason to question whether they actually inhabit their body
and whether they can engage in a mutual interaction, physical interaction that's going to be reciprocal and mutually satisfying
it's really important to check out; and a lot of that rough and tubmle play, even interactions between a child and its mother
if you have a happy mother and a happy infant, and you videotape them, and you speed up the video tape, you'll see that they're dancing
so one responds, then the other responds, then the other responds, it might be just with eye gaze, and movement, and all of that
but there's a dynamic interplay, which you don't see with depressed mothers and their infants
so, okay, so back to play, so the little rat, who is the subordinate one, he has to do the invitation
and then the big rat can agree to play, 'cause he's in the dominant position
but if you pair them repeatedly, and this is really worth thinking about
because, you see, morality emerges out of repeated interactions
because, you might say, if you only interact with someone once, you might as well just take advantage of them and run off
that's what a psychopath does, by the way, and there is room in the environmental niche for psychopaths
but they have to keep moving around, 'cause otherwise people figure out who they are
so they just move around, and they can take advantage of one person, you know, maybe five times, or ten times, or something
and then the reputation spreads, and they gotta get the hell out of there
but... so it's not a good long-term strategy, unless you can't think of a better one
so anyways, if you repeatedly pair these rats, unless the big rat lets the little rat win at least 30% of the time
the little rat will not ask the big rat to play
and that is... it's a staggering discovery, it's a staggering discovery
because you've got the emergence there of an implicit morality, essentially
that's even incarnated in rats, that emerges across multiple play sessions
it's like, yes, exaclty, that's exactly what Piaget said about the emergence of morality
it's exactly the same idea, at the rat level, so it's a massively...
and the fact that there's a circuit, a separate neurophysiological circuit
that's actually specialized for that sort of thing is also a big deal
now the other thing Panksepp figured out is that if you deprive juvenile rats of the opportunity to engage in rough and tumble play
their prefrontal cortexes don't develop properly
and they become impulsive and restless, and then you can fix them with methylphenidate or ritalin
and those are the drugs that are used to fix hyperactive kids, most of who are male
and that's because, well, really, you're gonna take your six-year-old, your five-year-old
you're gonna put them in a desk, you're gonna get them to sit there for six hours, that's your plan, right?
that's a stupid plan; and they're denied the opportunity to engage in play
and that means that their ability to become social is being impaired
it may cause neurological impairment, that's what the rat evidence suggests
and then you suppress that with amphetamines, 'cause amphetamines actually activate the play circuit
they activate a different circuit, which will suppress the play circuit
so it's very, very... it's not very wise, and I'm not gonna go off on that tangent
because I could tell you why the school systems were set up that way, which I probably will at some point
because it's quite and interesting story in and of itself, and it's the reason all you guys are sitting in desks right now
somebody laughingly referred to this once as grade 15, that was pretty funny, given the look of the bloody place, you know
hideous... okay
so, now, this is an interesting thig, so you got the emergence of morality in, say chimps
you got the emergence of morality in wolves, you got the emergence of morality in rats
and the morality governs sequential interactions or group interactions, they have to repeat
because, because it's an emerging property of social or repetitive interactions
that's why, you can't just localize it in one instance, it's repeated
and there's been computer simulations of this
they help you figure out how you might attain victory across games, across time
maybe you need a strategy, and there's a very simple strategy, which, I believe is called "modified tit for tat"
so if you're nice to me, I'm nice back, and if you do something bad to me, I do something bad back
but imagine you run that out in sequences of behavior, and see who does with what strategy across time
or an alternative strategy... [?] here's the best strategy: I trust you, you trust me, we start interacting
you screw up, I whack you, and then I forgive you, and we start again
that's modified tit for tat, and so...
it's a very simple algorithm; no one has come up with a better algorithm in a computerized simulation of game space than that particular strategy
so it's like: trust but don't be a pushover, if someone violates the rules, you gotta nail them
but then you don't hold a grudge, you open the door to further interactions
so, pretty smart, pretty smart
and, okay, so anyways... so what this means, 'cause rats can't talk, and wolves can't talk, and chimpanzees can't talk
and what that means, just as Piaget suggested, was that the morality, the development of the morality
precedes the development of the linguistic ability to describe the rules for the morality
he said exactly the same thing about kids, right, is that they learn to play games before they know what the rules are to the games
and so, you see that when you're playing peek-a-boo with a kid, they can pick that up really young
they get that right away, and there's... you can play with kids almost immediately after they're born, if you play simple enough games
so they've got that deep, and they're unbelievably playful
so, they've got that circuitry ready to go right off the bat, and it's one of the things that makes kids so much fun
because they just like to play all the time, and so if you... if the play circuit in you hasn't died
which is a bad thing, then you can use that a lot with your kids, and it's one of the things that helps you love them
so that's a good thing, so, okay
so, the point is that the damn morality emerges before the representation of the morality
it's a big deal to know that, and that it emerges as a consequence of repeated social interaction
so it's not a top-down thing, it's a bottom-up thing
now, Piaget says: well, it's not just bottom-up, because what happens with human beings is that they learn to play the games...
one of his experiments was: watch seven-year-olds, I think that's the right age, play marbles
and then he noticed that they can play with each other, and that they can follow the rules
but that if you take the individual seven-year-old out of the game, and you say: what are the rules?
they give incoherent and incomplete explanations of the rules
so what that means is they don't really represent the rules, but they can act them out
and have a partial representation of what they're acting out
now, when they get older, the rule representation starts to fall into alignment with the actual rules of the game
and you can imagine that's why [?], because when they're playing something like marbles, they're gonna have discussions like: you're cheating
or: you're not allowed to do that, 'cause they're always gonna be pushing the envelope a little bit
and then the group is gonna render a judgment on whether or not that's appropriate
and out of that the rules are going emerge, but they're not rules to begin with, they're patterns of behavior
it's not the same thing as a rule, a rule describes a pattern of behavior
but a pattern of behavior is a pattern of behavior, it's something that's acted out
so, there's the individual within the group and then the interactions of the individuals within the group produce a hierarchical arrangement
or multiple hierarchical arrangements, those are games, roughly speaking, or stories
nested iside an overarching story, which is the fundamental culture
right, and that's nested within a whole bunch of competing cultures that have some commonalities
or they would just be at war all the time, which, you know, to some degree they are
so, okay, now, you see that... back to the movie, you see that happening in the movie
I mean it's very, very quick, but the blue fairy turns the bug into the conscience
and then the bug tries to explain to Pinokio what the rules of morality are
but the thing is the bug doesn't know, because he's just a bug, and you know, he's just not omniscient, so
the best he can do is to come up with, like, a propagandistic semantic, verbal representation
that's internally contradictory, and when he tells Pinokio, Pinokio has no idea what he's talking about
and neither does the bug, that's the thing; and so...
so what happens is this, the cricket says: well Pinok, maybe you and I had better have a little heart-to-heart talk
and the puppet says: why? and the cricket says: well, you wanna be a real boy, don't you?
alright, sit down son, now you see the world as full of temptations
- temptations? - yes, temptations, they're the wrong things that seem right at the time
but even though the right things may seem wrong sometimes, sometimes the wrong things may be right at the wrong time
or vice versa, understand? - no!
no, and neither did the cricket, and that's actually very nicely done in that piece of the movie
because you just wanna slap him as soon as he starts talking like that
because he gets up on his little matchbox and lectures, and he's dull and tyrannical, both at the same time
and so there's nothing genuine about what he's saying, he's imitating something that isn't him
so he's really acting like a puppet at that point, too, and it doesn't work at all
and so Pinokio says: I'm going to try to be a good boy; and the cricket says: well that's the spirit, son
and then away they go, so...
alright, so then we're at the next day, 'cause this all happens in one night
we're at the next day, and you know, it's a nice day, and there's these birds flying around
that's actually, that's a bit of foreshadowing there, you know
so, um, you have to remember, when you watch something like this movie
not a single bit of it is random or accidental, none of it
because, you know, they had to draw I don't remember how many frames per second these things are
thirty, maybe, if it's high-quality animation; so someone had to paint thirty pictures to get a second of this
you're not doing that accidentally, it's really expensive, and everyone has to agree on exactly what's going to happen
and you might say: well, do the people who are doing this consciously know what they're doing?
and the answer to that is: well, sort of, just like you do, it's yes, they know, and no, they don't
and they know because they're really smart and gifted, and all that, but they don't know, because it's not all articulated
plus they're working in a group, so they know and don't know, just like you do when you're watching it
and so... and when you do anything else...
now, they're also guided by what you might call... they're guided by their unconscious
in the Freudian, and in the cognitive way, partly because
your unconscious value structures determine the direction and content of your perceptions
so it's built right into the way you move your eyes, 'cause you tend to look at things you value
right, or at things you're afraid of, like you look at things with valence
and part of the decision about what has value is dependent on the implicit structure of your moral system
because morality is about what's good, and what isn't
and that's been partly a conscious construction of you, but it's partly partly something you've been...
you've picked up by interacting with people like mad since you were born
you don't know all the rules anymore than the damn cricked did
you just don't, and you can't, 'cause you're too complicated, but you act them out
and then you also have representations of how people act, in your imagination
that's what a dream is, that's what a fantasy is, that's what that little movie that plays inside your head when you remember what you did is
and you only remember the gist, you know, so even the imagistic representation of your behavior in your past, which is basically your episodic memory
it's already selecting, and molding, and turning it into a relatable story
it can't help but do that, it's the only way you can represent it
and so you don't know how you do that or why you do that, but part of it's governed by this implicit morality
it's part of your procedural memory, part of the way you act, part of the way you move your eyes, and listen to things, and focus on them
that's all been instantiated inside of you because of your biology, but also this immense social project
that you're continually engaged in
and so, that informs what you remember, it informs what you imagine, it informs what we collectively imagine
it informs what we can collectively understand
and partly what you're doing while you become conscious of yourself is to map the implicit structures that already constitute you
from society into explicit representation
that's what self-understanding means; and you know, when you have that moment of insight about something you've done
it's like you're watching this repetitive behavior that you've manifested, probably that got you in trouble
you know, it's your characteristic way of falling accidentally into chaos
and you talk about it, your problems, you talk about them with your friends, you talk about them
and maybe you have dreams about them, and you're trying to relate them
and you have memories about them that you can't get rid of, 'cause they're negatively toned
so you talk about them, and then someone comes up with a little statement that links them together causally
and you thing: aha! that's what I'm doing; and then maybe you can stop doing it
or at least maybe then you can thing of some strategies for not doing it anymore
but it's not like you know, it's like you're acting it out, you know it that way
but until the representation matches that pattern, that click of insight doesn't occur
and that's like a revelation, it's a really good way of thinking about it
because the knowledge is there in its implicit form, and all of a sudden, bang! it's been made explicit
as a fantasy maybe, or also as a set of semantic statements
you know, maybe you have a crush on someone and you don't notice it
and maybe you find yourself having a fantasy about them, you think: oh! that means something!
maybe you don't want to know that that's what you want, but the fantasy will tell you
and one of the things Jung suggested, and this is sort of out of the freudian tradition of free association
is: watch yourself, watch your fantasies, because they're always happening, and they'll tell you something
and so, one of the things I do when I'm interacting with my clients is we'll have a discussion, and then their eyes will drift a little bit
and I'll know that something's flitted through their mind, you know
and that means we've touched on something that has a multiplicity of elements
and so I'll stop and say: look, I noticed that you... maybe you teared up, that's another thing to really watch
or maybe you laughed, or you drifted at least, it's like... it's because some other thought has entered your field of consciousness
and if you can get the person to grab those thoughts, to notice them
then you can often figure out the avenues along which that particular conversation might unfold
that's a complex, that's a Jungian complex or a psychoanalytic complex
it's like, there's an emotional core that produces a whole range of associated ideas
and that thing's got a life, it's like a micropersonality, and it might have resentment in it, might have anger
it's often negative emotion-tinged, because negative emotion-tinged episodes are still problems
and they will emerge automatically, 'cause you're threat detection systems force them onto your consciousness, essentially
so you watch, and when you drift... you'll drift, and the fantasy is partly a representation of of the problem space
you know, that happens when you wake up at three in the morning and you're worried about things
right, 'cause actually what happens is you wake up during threat processing
and if you're depressed, actually that gets so intense, you can't sleep, so then you just lay there all night, worrying
not fun, and those are fantasies about the negative elements of your past, present and future
and the fantasies can also breed solutions, and that's partly why Freud regarded dreams as wish-fulfillments
it's partly... and he wasn't... that was where he stopped; it's not correct
it's partially correct, it's like the fantasy will provide you with a problem and a potential solution
but they're more like problem-identification mechanisms, the fantasies, with the possibility of a solution built in
and so, a way of thinking about that is that you can generate potential futures
so they're like each segregateable environments, according to the rules of your fantasy
then you can generate little avatars of yourself that inhabit each of those little universes, and you can run them as simulations
and then you can watch what happens in the simulation, and if it's a catastrophy, then you don't have to act it out
and that's exactly, not exactly, that's akin to what you're doing when you go watch a movie
except that is much more coherent and well thought-through, than just a dream, which is often quite fragmentary
that's partly 'cause the dream is willing to sacrifice coherence to play with category structures
you know, and that's why in dreams things can change one thing into another really weirdly
or scenes can change from one scene into another without a logic, the logic gets loosened
so that the expanse of your thinking can widen
and it's dangerous to do that, and that's partly why you do it while you're asleep and paralyzed
you know, you don't run around and act out your pseudopodal fantasies, where you're stretching yourself out into the world
there's no risk, exactly, although it can be bad enough so you'll wake up in terror
but that's better than being in a crocodile's mouth by a large margin
anyways, back to these birds, these are used later in the movie as manifestations of the Holy Spirit, roughly speaking
and of course that's a standard Christian symbol, although, as I mentioned
the dove often represents the Holy Spirit, and we'll talk about that later
but this movie has very strong pagan elements in it, as I mentioned before
as opposed to strictly Christian symbolism
but that's foreshadowing, and what it foreshadows is that, well, a new day has dawned
it's the emergence of new consciousness, and everything last night went well, really well
everything in the... let's call it the unconscious, say, after time stops, that all went well, and so the new day is full of promise
and so, the birds are singing, and the sun is shining, and, like, hurray
this is the next scene, right, so it sets the tenor for that scene just like the introductory song does
so anyways, then you see all these kids playing and enthusiastic, so they're off to school
which is presented in a positive light, and so that's where you get socialized
so Pinokio's ready to go beyond the boundaries of the familial home
and he's ready because his father prepared him, and his mother prepared him
and so he goes off, and he's not going off alone, he's going with his conscience
you can think about it, again, as the internalized representation of nature and society
and so he's not going out there alone, even though he's not very good at it
he's pretty excited about it, and so is Gepetto; see, Gepetto isn't standing there paralyzed with terror
and the kid isn't phobic of the outside world, and so he's treating it as an adventure
even though, well, it's an adventure, but adventures can be dangerous
you can imagine a kid, especially one who's, like, high in neuroticism, who hasn't been encouraged sufficiently to overcome that, let's say
their primary idea might be: well, what if the other kids don't like me
that's a big one; what if the teachers don't like me, what if the other kids won't play with me
it's like, yeah, what if, that's rough, man, and if you're not a playful kid, it could easily be the case
so... but that's not Pinokio, he's like, spinning out, ready to go
and so... good, good, he's got... naive, but enthusiastic, ok, well at least that gets the ball rolling
now, you've got these two evil creatures here, the fox and the cat
I think this one's based on one of the Marx brothers, actually, Harpo Marx, who, I believe, never said anything
but, be that as it may, they're these ne'er-do-well characters, the fox in particular
now fox is standard trickster animal, right, it's a... classic animal, maybe because it's good at hiding, and it's good at hunting
I don't know exactly why, but coyotes are like that, too
they're classic trickster animals, he's kinda like Wile E. Coyote, in fact
you know, the Warner Brothers character who's genius at large, and whose arrogance continually gets him wallopped
and this character has a lot of features like that, but he feigns being an English gentleman of the 1890s
and pretends to be educated, and has a kinda high-blown way of talking, and he's a fraud through and through
and he's got this sidekick who's barely there at all, and he doesn't treat him that well
but he's got someone to lord it over, so that keeps his dominance hierarchy thing going well
and the fact that he's like a second-rate companion, well, he never really notices that
although he'll treat him contemptuously whenever he gets a chance
so anyways, they're walking down the street, and the fox is bragging away about some crooked thing that he's done
how he pulled the wool over someone's eyes, and he confuses that with wisdom and intelligence
and one of the things that you see, this is worth knowing too, because
if you're preyed upon by a psychopath, which you will be to some degree at some point in your life
the psychopath, who will be narcissistic, will presume that you're stupid
and that you deserve to be taken advantage of, because you're naive and stupid, so it's actually a good thing that he's doing it
and his proof... and I'm saying "he," because there are more male psychopaths
the proof that you're stupid and naive is that he can take advantage of you
and so, like, if you were wiser, you'd be a, you know, you'd know his tricks
then it wouldn't be morally necessary for him to show you just exactly who knows what about what
and so, the psychopath will use his ability to fool you as proof of his own grandiose omnipotence, omniscience, and narcissism
and the problem with that is that you can be fooled by a psychopath, and virtually anybody can
so that Robert Hare, for example, who's studied psychopaths for a long time
and interviewed a lot of them, like hundreds of them, and videotaped many of the interviews
he said when he was talking to the psychopath he always believed what they were saying
and then he's watch the video afterwards, and see where the conversation went off the rails
but, you know, the proclivity to be polite in a conversation is very strong
and if you're polite, you don't object to the way that the person unfolds their strategy, you know
and psychopaths are pretty good at figuring out how to manipulate, obviously, how to manipulate people
and the probability that you will be immune to that is extraordinarily low
go watch Paul Bernardo being interviewed by policemen on the Youtube
that's bloody... that's enlightening, man, Paul Bernardo, he's like the CEO of a meeting in that video
he gives the cops hell, he gives the lawyers hell, he protests his innocence, he basically tells them that they're rude and untrustworthy
because they don't trust him, because he did a few little things seventeen years ago
and he gets away with the few little things, right, I mean he killed a bunch of people, including the sister of his girlfriend at the time
and you know, he was a repeat sexual offender, and murderer
but he basically goes: you know, that's a long time ago, it's like, we're past that, aren't we?
I mean, I'm having a discussion with you, I'm trying to help you solve some crimes, which, by the way, I committed, but we won't bring that up
you know, and you're accusing me of being a liar, you're not playing fair, what's up with you?
and then when they answer, he looks at his fingernails, which is, like, that's a lovely little manipulative thing
'cause it basically means: whatever happens to be under my fingernail at the moment is much higher priority than your foolish story
and you watch, you'll see people do that to you, and then you get a little insight into what they're up to
he's very good at that; or he looks outside, or he just looks at his hands, or he looks out the window
immediately dismissive in his nonverbal behavior, it's brilliant
the courts were forced to release that, by the way, look it up, Paul Bernardo on Youtube
wow, it's jus mind-boggling, he's so good at what he does
and he's good-looking, and he's charismatic, and, you know, he can really pull it off
and you can't tell what's happening with the cops and the lawyers, whether they're just letting him play his routine to get some information from him
or whether he's actually setting them back on his heels, and I suspect it's a bit of both
but it's a masterful performance; if you didn't know who he was, and you were watching it without the audio
you'd think he's the CEO of some company giving his employees hell for not being up to scratch
that's all his body language, his eye contact, everything, just speaks that, it's amazing
so anyways, you got these two-bit hoods here, who think they're really something
and they also think they're tough and dangerous, and they're not, they're just, you know, cowardly corner dwellers
and they confuse their unwillingness to abide by reasonable rules with an indication of their heroic courage
which is something else that low-rent hoods like to do, you know
and it's partly because lots of people who just attend to the law do do that because they're cowardly
which is a Nietzschean observation, are you good? or are you just afraid?
let's start with afraid first, before we proceed to good, and that the reason you follow the rules is that you're afraid of getting caught
yeah, well, you know those kids who... often university kids who are in a hockey riot
and breaking windows, and stealing things, you know, they get nailed for it, and afterwards they're really blown away by their own behavior
it's like, well, they're in that camp, they think they are good people, but they're not, they're just never anywhere where you could be bad
and as soon as you put them somewhere, where they could be bad, it's like, out it comes, just like that
and that's really worth thinking about, 'cause most of you, many of you, but not all of you, I suspect
have never really been somewhere that you could be really bad and get away with it
and so you might think, well, you wouldn't do it, but people do it, all the time
so anyways, they're talking about some exploits, and
then they see that this character named Stomboli, he has a puppet show, right
and he's kind of a wheeler-dealer too
remember, I showed you that mas that was glaring at Pinokio when he got his voice?
it's like, Stromboli is one of his manifestations, the fox here is another one of his manifestations
all the negative characters throughout the movie are manifestations of the same thing
it's partly the adversarial individual, and it's partly the tyrrannical aspect of society
it's the negative masculine, that's one way of thinking about it
so, and you know, when men go bad, they often go bad by being antisocial and tyrrannical
there's way more antisocial men than there antisocial women, which is why there's twenty times as many men in jail as there are women
so each gender, let's say each sex has it's own characteristic pathologies
and there are some antisocial women, you know, and there are some high-neuroticism guys
or some guys who are really agreeable as well, but they're rare
so anyways, he sees this poster advertising Stromboli's puppet show
so Stromboli's a puppet master; now that's really worth thinking about, because that's an archetypal theme
or it's at least attached to an archetypal theme: something's behind the scenes, pulling the strings
and everyone always wonders what that is, what's actually going on; what's actually going on with Trump?
who's actually in control? is it Putin? I mean that's the fantasies of the left, it's Putin
it's like, well, the question always is, what's going on behind the scene
right, and the question is... that's the case certainly on the political landscape, business landscape, interpersonal relations
what are you really up to, everyone's always wondering that, right, it's why they're watching you eyes
'cause your eyes point at things, and they can infer what you're interested in, and what you're up to by looking at what you look at
and that's why your eyes have whites, it's so that we can see where you're pointing them, 'cause gorillas don't
and so what that means, roughly speaking, is that all of your ancestors whose eyes couldn't be reliably tracked
were either killed or didn't mate, it's a big deal for us to see where people's eyes are pointed
and so we're always watching each other's eyes, constantly; what are you up to, what are you up to?
what are you looking at? what do you want? I wanna know, because if I know what you want, I can predict how you're gonna behave
and that also means I can cooperate with you, or I can compete with you, or I can lie to you
but all the information is in the eyes, surrounded by the facial display, right, 'cause that's also an indication of motivation and emotion
our eyes are so good at that, that for you guys sitting there in the back, I can tell if you're looking at my eyes or at my chin
and the deviation in your eyes is so tiny, that it's a kind of miracle that we're capable of making that perceptual observation
it's really important to us, so and we have really good eyes, so that's another thing about us
so anyways, what's going on behind the scenes? well, if you look at Stromboli, you might be thinking:
it's not clear he's someone you'd want to have pulling your strings
there's a little bit of, forced ethusiasm, let's say, there, and he's just not a very savory looking character
so anyways, the fox knows him, and they start talking about Stromboli, that old joker
how they could possibly involve him in some sort of scam, because he's back in town
and then they see the puppet, and the fox does his equivalent of thinking
which is, you know, pretty sad and nasty, but that's what he does
and then they see this puppet with no strings, and they think: hey man
a puppet master would pay a lot for something that is capable of semi-autonomous movement like that
it would be kind of a miracle; and so they decide that they would take him to Stromboli
and so they grab him, and, hah, he's got an apple to take to the teacher, which, I think it's the cat, promptly eats
and the fox acts out this false enthusiasm about what Pinokio is up to, and pretends that he's his friend
which is of course what your typical pedophile will do, and so this is in the same kind of category
and it truly is; one of the things that's interesting to know about pedophiles is that they're predatory, right
and so they don't go after kids that are assertive and likely to be noisy
they watch, and they watch to see if they can find a kid who's defeated, and...
that's good enough, who's defeated, and who's gonna need a friend, and who's not going to object
and so when they check out... these are the ones who do the stranger abductions, which are, by the way, extraordinarily rare
they look for a victim type, they look for a kid who's gonna be easy to take down
and so, you know, that's one thing you don't want... so you might think, well...
one of the things that was really big, it's probably even worse now, when I was a parent of young children
was to teach your kids how to be afraid of strangers, it's like, uh, no, wrong, that is not what you teach them
because all you do is teach them then to be timid and fearful, and the real predatory types, they're pretty much thrilled about that
'cause you'll also make them sheltered and naive
you make your kids courageous, and you get their damn eyes open, and that's the best thing you can do against people who are truly dangerous
so, none of that terrifying... it's not a good idea
anyways, the fox befriends the puppet, and then they come up with this evil scheme to get him off to Stromboli, the puppet master
and away they go, and they sing a little song about being an actor, "an actor's life for me"
this took me along time to figure out, I thought: they're taking Pinokio away to be an actor
now why in the world are actors getting such a rough time in this movie?
it's like, it's a Hollywood movie, you know, it's acting, obviously, the voiceovers and all of that are acting
it's... why is this thing about being an actor? and then I thought: oh, I get it, I see what's going on
they sing to Pinokio about the delights of unearned celebrity
so he doesn't have to go and get an education, he doesn't have to take the difficult route
he can take the easy way to dominance... to success, to dominance success
he can circumvent all the hard work and go right to the top, you know, and when you think about phenomena like the Kardashian family
and how popular they are, part of that is this desire that people have for unearned celebrity
because you can ge to the top without any sacrifices and without any work, and if you're really cynical
you know, you think that the people at the top are just there by accident anyways, and it might as well be you
of course, there's a lot of naivety in that as well, and a fair bit of, you know... a fair lack of wisdom and all of that
but the actor idea here is that you can pretend to be something you're not
and that that's the proper route of anyone wise to success, it's the ultimate in cynicism
and it's a nihilistic perspective as well, and that's how they entrap him
they say: look, why are you bothering to go to school? that's gonna take 18 years
with all of your talents you could just go on the stage, your name will be up in lights, you'll be at the top in no time
and what does the puppet know? plust he does have some talents, he is, after all, a semi-autonomous puppet
now, he doesn't exactly know how special that makes him, but the fox can obviously see something in him
and he's good at playing that naivety off, and then offering these false promises
but, see, the thing is... one of the things that Carl Jung said, that I thought was really interesting
when he was talking about the Edipal situation in families, I never forgot this
so the Edipal situation, roughly speaking, is when - I'll lay out the classic story -
is when a child is seriously overprotected, usually a male child by his mother
now, the reverse can be the case, and it can be a female child by the mother, and all of that
but I'll just talk about the classic case to begin with
now, what Freud observed was that there were usually not very good boundaries in families like that
and so, the relationship between the husband and the wife was either strained or nonexistent
and the wife would often turn to the child to be what she isn't getting from the husband
and so, there's a great South Park episode about this, a wonderful South Park episode
where... I don't remember that horrible little guy [student: Cartman] yeah, that's him
his mother brings in the dog whisperer to train him, and it's a brilliant episode
if you want to learn about the freudian edipal situation, you watch that, you've got it down cold
because she brings in this expert, who then she wants to have an affair with, so that's a boundary issue
and he basically separates her son from him [sic], and imposes the same discipline on him, that he would impose on a bad dog
although he also trains the dog's owners all the time, because maybe it's not the dog, maybe it's the owner
there's a horse whisperer movie, too, about the original horse whisperer that does a beautiful job of laying that out, too
'cause he's very good at fixing problem horses, and unbelivably good at diagnosing psychopathology on the part of the owner
he's got a gift for it, but...
anyways, what happens in the South Park episode is that the dog whisperer gets Cartman straightened out
and he starts, like, dressing properly, and doing his homework, and...
and the mother is pursuing an affair with the dog whisperer, but he's professional
he keeps his distance, he keeps boundaries around him
and then he leaves, and then the first thing that she does when he leaves
is bribe Cartman, basically, out of doing his homework, so that he can accompany her to, I don't know, a fast food restaurant or something like that
and so, the reason she does that is 'cause she's lonesome, and doesn't have anybody else around
and, you know, maybe she's also deeply, deeply, deeply terrified that if she helps that boy grow up, he will leave
and she'll have nothing
you know, and so, mothers who don't have something, say, outside their infants
not merely their children, are more likely to fall into that, and it's no wonder
you know, you gotta think that through; and lots of women, most women, really fall in love with their babies
and so, even if they start growing into larger children that can be threatening
because when the child... when the infant turns into a toddler, the infant is dead
the toddler is there now; and you can radically interfere with that process, that happens all the time
that's the classic Freudian oedipal nightmare
and that episode is brilliant, it's bloody brilliant, it just nails it
some of you've been in my personality class and watched "Crumb", the documentary "Crumb"
and that's another staggering exposition of exactly that kind of pathology
anyways, one of the things Jung pointed out...
so I knew this guys once, who had a mother who basically was trying that trick
and she was very smart, and had lots of tricks up her sleeves, and there was just no way he was gonna go for it
he rebelled at every possible moment, and he basically became, I would say, somewhat hypermasculine in response
which is an interesting lesson with regards to the hypermasculinity that boys often develop when they're raised by single mothers
'cause they tend to go one of two ways
and he just fought her at every step of the way, and it didn't happen
but one of the things Jung said, which I loved, and you can really see this in the "Crumb" documentary
is that the oedipal mother basically entices the child, she says: look
here's the deal, you don't have to do anything, but you don't get to leave
and if you don't leave, and you don't to these difficult things, then I'll take care of you
and the child has a choice, all the way along there, I mean, obviously he's outclassed in some sense, but it's not as obvious as you'd think
little kids are tough, and they make decisions all the time
and so Jung thought about it more as a conspiracy than as something imposed on the child by the mother
and I really like that, it's actually a conspiracy between mother, father, and child, actually
and I think that's a good way of looking at it, even though it's really rough, 'cause
well, should you hold the child responsible? well, yes, but judiciously, and not completely
'cause then if you deal with someone like that as an adult, and they're trying to escape from it
you have to go all the way back and figure out how the hell it happened
they have to figure out where they opened the door, like inviting a vampire in
'cause they can't come in unless you invite them in, so don't invite them in
'cause once they're in they're really hard to get rid of, and they'll take all your blood
so that's a cautionary tale
so anyways, Pinokio doesn't know any better, and he's got the egotism of youth
he's offered the easy way to success, which is exactly what the fox tells him, and off they go to see Stromboli
so this is this song, I'm not gonna read it all
it's great to be a celebrity, an actor's life for me
you sleep till after two you promenade a big cigar you tour the world in a private car
you dine on chicken and caviar an actor's life for me!
it's all this idea of wealth and public exposure
and zero attention whatsoever to anything regarding responsibility or discipline or learning
and so it's a dual attraction, right, you get everything you want, and you don't have to do anything
geez, what a deal; and so that's what the actor represents, it's a liar, fundamentally
it's someone who's acting out a deception, they're a persona in the Jungian sense
so the persona is the mask you wear in public that you might even think you are. but you're not
it's this mask, and that's the actor, that's the persona
so the fox and the cat are inviting the puppet to only become a persona
see, for Jung, you start as a persona, and then, when you start to investigate the parts of you that don't really fit in that persona
and that would be the shadow, then you start understanding who you really are
and that's shocking, because the persona contains everything, roughly speaking, that you think is good
and maybe even that your immediate culture thinks is good
and then the shadow contains everything's that's not part of that
and some of that's really bad, but some of it is good disguised as bad
and you can't break out of the persona and transcend it until you incorporate a lot of what's in the shadow
and so, for example, it you're and extrordinarily compassionate person, let's say 98th percentile
you're going to be sacrificing yourself to other people all the time
and there are people who will find that extraordinarily endearing
and it will be, under some circumstances, but the problem is that you will sacrifice yourself
and that's a really bad attitude to have, for example, towards adult males
it's a great thing for infants, but for adult males it is *the* wrong approach
you will get taken advantage of continually by people who are looking for someone like you, until you grow some teeth
and you'll think: no, no, that's the opposite of compassion, being able to bite hard is the opposite of compassion
which it is; and so you'll have that pushed into the predator category
"I'm not doing that, I'm not getting angry, I don't like conflict"
until you bring that out of the depths and put it on, so you can use it, you're gonna be in trouble
and that's kinda Nietzsche's idea of the revaluation of good and evil
you have a sense of what's good, and a sense of what isn't with your conscience, but it's not very smart
it's got things in the wrong boxes, even nature itself
a lot of the things that you accept as untrammeled goods, like compassion, let's say
have a very dark side, first of all, and second, are not enough to get you through life
you need the opposite virtues, too, and so you have to develop them
you get outside the persona to do that
but anyways, Pinokio's invited to be a false persona to take the gains of celebrity
without having to do anything to be educated, he's just gonna go right to the top from right where he is
and you know, people are kinda fascinated by that idea, that's why you watch America's Got Talent
or the X-Factor, which shows I actually love, by the way
you never see narcissism in its purer forms than you see it when you watch people who display an absolute lack of talent
and become homicidal when someone dares point it out
accusatory and homicidal, instantly, it's really something
and then, now and then, you do see one of these people who's so introverted, and so out of society
and have this unbelievable gift, which is also something really remarkable to see
and it's no wonder these things are so popular, they're psychologically extraordinarily interesting
so that's the actor, first of Pinokio's temptations, and of course it's the first one, because he's entering the social world
and the temptation in the social world is to be exactly what other people want you to be
and the thing that's cool about that is that is what you should be doing
when you go out in your peers, you should be not subjugating your individuality to your peers, 'cause that's not exactly right
that's kinda based on an inhibition model, you've got aggression, you've got bad habits, they have to be inhibited
you learn that by interacting with your peers; it's not the right model, that's a Freudian model
Piaget was correct about that, he basically pointed out that what should happen is
let's say, with your aggression, and hopefully you have some, is that it gets socialized
you learn how to play games, but you don't drop your drive to win, you integrate that in the games
you try to win, you try to play hard, but if you're defeated or you hit something negative, you don't respond negatively
and you can keep that all bounded within being a good player, a fair player
and that means what's happened is you learned how to play a game or a set of games
that also includes the darker parts of you, and they actually become part of your force of character
it's way better if you can pull that off, and that's what you definitely wanna do as an adult
all you people are gonna have to learn to negotiate on your own behalf, and that's really hard
it means that you have to know what you want, you have to be able to communicate it, and you have to be able to say "no"
and to say "no" you have to be built on a solid foundation, you have to have options
so you gotta remember that as you go through your life
if you don't have options, you can't negotiate with someone, and if you're not willing to use them, they win, period
because if you're asking your boss for more money, say, the answer is no
because he doesn't have any spare money lying around that he can just give to you, and lots of other people are asking
so some of that zero-sum stuff, not all of it, because often you cooperate with people, and the whole pot can grow
but some of it's zero-sum, and so you better have a case made
"here's how much money I should have, here's why, here's the benefit to you if you do it
here's the consequences if you don't, they're actually real, they will cost you, and I will do them"
then you can negotiate, and you don't do that rudely, but those arguments, you better have them in order
for example, if you're gonna negotiate for a raise or a status shift
you better have your resume at hand, all polished up, and know where else you're gonna look for a job, and you better be able to get one
'cause otherwise you're weak, and you will not win the negotiation
and if you're too agreeable, so your conflict-avoidant, you will make less money across time
that's already been well established, and that's because you don't have teeth, not enough
and so, in the little micro-contest that you're going to have every day
you're going to incrementally lose to people who are more aggressive
who have bigger teeth, and that's what happens, so don't let that happen
you place yourselves so you can negotiate, 'cause otherwise you're just a facade
and in a real battle a facade is just torn down right away
well, the cricket, he's supposed to be helping the puppet out, but he overslept
that's just another indication that he's not everything he could be yet, and that's really...
that took me a long time to puzzle out with regards to interpreting this movie
I could not figure out, I told you this, if the bug is the person who opens the hero narrative
and who can guide the transformations of time and who has the same initials as Jesus Chris
and is knighted by nature herself, why is he such an idiot?
it's a very difficult thing to figure out, but the idea that the conscience isn't omniscient
even though it has that voice of, let's say, common sense
and that fits very nicely in with the Freudian idea of the superego, again, because the superego can be flawed
it can be too harsh, it can not be properly developed
you see that often with people who are orderly, so they're high in conscientiousness, conscientiousness fragments into industriousness and orderliness
orderly people like willpower, they're very judgmental, and they like things to be exactly where they're supposed to be
but they're also very self-punitive; conservatives are much more likely to be orderly, by the way
it's one of the best predictors of conservatism; low openness is the best predictor, but right after that is high orderliness
and it's associated with disgust sensitivity, which is really an amazing thing, we'll talk about that later
anyways, the cricket, he falls down his first day on the job
he's not as conscientious a conscience as he should be
so he's feeling pretty stupid, he's got his little millionaire clothes on, but he's really not living up to them
he does catch up to the fox and the puppet, however, and tries to dissuade Pinokio from going down this road
and of course, the cat, well, you can see what the cat's doing there, he's got a big hammer
big mallet, and he's... it also shows you just exactly how much of a clue he has
he's gonna wallop the bug who's sitting on the fox's hat, which I think he actually does
then the fox can't get out of his hat, and has to talk through his hat, which basically he's doing all the time anyways
so, this I really like, you see on the left here that the cricket is speaking inside this flower
and like I said, there's nothing accidental in these representations
these are artists who were coming up with these compositions, and their fantasy has a structure
so the cricket is speaking out of this flower that has, well, you could think about it as... it has a sexualized element
so you could think about that as a phallic part, and that part of the feminine part of it, they are flowers, after all
they are the sex organs of plants, and that's very much the same over here, this is the yoni and lingam
this is from Hindu culture, and you see there's a snake wrapped around that, so that's masculine and feminine
with a snake wrapped around it, and that's a holy representation, a sacred representation
and it represents the deepst reality, that's one way of thinking about it
like chaos and order, surrounded by the snake, it's exactly the same idea
so the cricket speaks out of that; well we already know that, 'cause it is the conscience
and he's been awakened in part by Gepetto and the good father, and awakened in part by the good fairy and nature
so he speaks with those voices, and he's also a manifestation of the underlying chaos itself
because nature and culture spring out of chaos
I already showed you that schematic representation
I'll just end this scene, and then we'll have a 15-minute break, okay?
anyways, the cricket tires to make a case for why Pinokio shouldn't go off to be a celebrity
but, you know, it's a hard case to make, because the fox is very manipulative, and Pinokio is naive
and it sounds like a good offer, and also the fox is actually quite forceful, he basically takes him by the hand
so the temptation is, and this is something else I like about the movie
you can't just say: "well, the puppet gets what he deserves"
'cause he's little and naive, and what he's facing is really malevolent, truly malevolent
and physically overpowering, and so the movie does a nice job of not minimizing the threat that's posed by this particular temptation
and that's part of what makes it art
so we'll stop there, we'll have a break for 15 minutes, and then we'll start with the stage
alright, so here we are, at the big event, and Pinokio is off to be a celebrity
and the cricket is watching, and Pinokio basically...
well, he's got some natural talent, because he's a puppet, but he doesn't have strings
he goes on stage with strings, and then he drops his strings, and the whole crowd is amazed
and the crowd should be amazed when that happens; you can imagine when a kid goes to school
and shows some independence, that that's actually gonna... people are gonna notice that
his peers are gonna notice that, the teachers are gonna notice that
maybe it's too much independence even, but it's still a... it is a remarkable thing, too
it's so interesting, you can see marked signs of independence in children, well, right from the time they're born, basically
because one of the things that's really funny about the infants, is when they're crying, you always think:
"oh, the baby's sad", it's like, no, a lot of the time that baby is angry
and the way that we know that is because you can do facial expression coding on infants, just like on adults
and you can tell what emotion they're expressing, and very frequently...
like when a kid starts to recognize his mom explicitly
'cause he or she knows the smell right away, pretty much, and the sound of the voice, but visually
if someone comes in and it isn't who the baby wants, so generally it isn't mom
the baby will start to cry, but it's not 'cause the baby's sad, generally, it's because it's angry that mom didn't show up
and that's an early sign of will, it's like this kid wants things
and it's perfectly willing to tell you about
and of course a two-year-old who's having a temper tantrum is in some sense doing the same thing
it's poorly integrated will and independence, obviously, but it certainly runs contrary to what you want
you don't want your two-year-old having a temper tantrum in the middle of the toy store
it's extraordinarily embarrassing for you and... well, for you, but it's also embarrassing for the two-year-old
this is one of the reasons I think that that sort of thing should be carefully socialized rapidly
because it's actually humiliating for the kid, 'cause other people don't like that
and they're very judgmental about it, they won't say anything, usually, but sometimes they will
but they're not happy about the fact that that's happening, and they will judge the child negatively
so you don't want your child to be behaving in a way in public that makes other people think badly of them
it's really, really not good, and so part of your job as a parent is to not expose your child to that sort of experience
especially not repeatedly, it's really hard on them
or they get narcissistic, which is also rally hard on them
it just takes a lot longer to manifest itself
so anyways, he's off on stage and Stromboli introduces him and talks about how wonderful this is going to be
and Pinokio comes out on stage with the strings on, and drops them
and then he falls down the steps and puts his nose into a hole, makes a fool out of himself
and that's the first time Stromboli shows his true character, 'cause he just really yells and screams at him
and he has his back to the audience, Stromboli, while he's doing this, so he's not noticing how the audience is reacting
typical tyrannical parent, right, who's not noticing that society is reacting a different way than him
he's not happy about it, and Pinokio of course is dazed and feels like a fool, and he is a fool
so that's appropriate; but then Stromboli hears the crowd laughing, and as soon as he turns around he's all smiles again
so that's the first time you get insight into what sort of puppet master he is
he's there to please the crowd and that's all, and he's there to look good in public, but fundamentally he's a tyrant
and I guess that's the problem with false celebrity, that the negative spirit of the crowd becomes your master
because to be a celebrity, you have to be a crowd pleaser, and if you're pleasing the kind of crowd who likes a celebrity like you
which is... and there's not much reason for that, then it's not exactly like you're appealing to the proper side of the crowd
and you've become its puppet one way or another, and maybe it's rewarding you with wealth, perhaps
and with attention, but fundamentally it's not something I would recommend
if you want to stay reasonably psychologically healthy for any reasonable amount of time; you're gonna sell yourself out
and I don't mean that in any casual way, you know
all right, so anyways, Stromboli changes from the tyrant to the good father in half a second
he gives Pinokio a pat on the head despite the fact that he's made a mistake, looks all kind
and the show continues; now, the cricket is not very happy about this
he's sitting in the stage, watching, he's very angry and, let's say, disgusted by what's happening
partly because Pinokio is making a fool of himself; now that's an interesting thing
human beings blush, in fact, if I remember correctly, the name Adam, you know, like Adam and Eve
is related to the capacity to blush; now that comes from something I read a long time ago, and that might be wrong
but Adam does manifest shame in the sight of God, so there is a relationship there
but anyways, people do make foold of themselves for public display
and you can tell you've done that in some sense, not always, if you blush
because you've either said something you shoulnd't've and you realize that
which is more like you've tried to be funny and gone a little bit too far, and sometimes that can be really funny
or you've said something you know to be false, manipulative, deceitful, beneath you
any of those things, and you'll have an automatic response to it, you'll be ashamed and blush
one theory about that is you can trust people who blush, because you know that their conscience will betray them
and so that even if they are lying, they tell you; it's an interesting theory
because blush is definitely... like it's a facial display, it's right out there, where people can see it
you know, maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, but it's kind of an interesting idea
anyways, the cricket is not happy with what's going on, he's not happy about Stromboli
and he's not happy about the willingness of Pinokio to make a fool of himself to support this false celebrity
I actually think that's why celebrity types like that often get narcissistic and arrogant
it's because they aren't paying attention really to what's happening inside them, they drown it out
because the glory and the money, and all that is so attractive and enticing
they refuse to notice what price they're paying for it
and they magnify up their grandiosity and their arrogance to keep that stuff all under control
and then of course they get surrounded by sycophants, which is a really bad thing
they get surrounded by people who will tell them exactly what they wanna hear
and that's really bad if what you wanna hear from other people is not good for you
to surround yourself with people who won't offer you genuine criticism, or even genuine reward, it's the same thing
you want from me that I differentially reward and punish you in approximately the way that the good part of the crowd will
that's what you want from all your friends
because then your interactions with them can generalize out to the broader community in a productive way
and so a good friend... your friends tend to be on the supportive side, and perhaps that's appropriate
assuming there's reciprocity; but a good friend will also tell you when one way or another
when your behavior is starting to tilt in a direction that's going to make you unpopular with them
and likely unpopular with other people; and that's the prime job of a parent, in my estimation
like: "don't do that, other people will hurt you if you do that
by exclusion, by threat, by failure to offer you an opportunity, bad things will happen to you"
so you can't do that; and then you're a representative of the social situation
which is exactly what you should be, not a friend
or at least not precisely a friend, that doesn't make you an enemy, it makes you better than a friend
so Pinokio's on stage making a fool out of himself, and then he gets all tangled up in other puppets' strings
that's what happens to him, and then it all ends rather badly with everything being a tangled mess on stage
but it also turns out to be rather funny; it's funny, 'cause he's surrounded by angry Russians
you could kind of view that as a potential lesson, that if you're a puppet on a stage, and you mess around too much
you just might get tangled up with a bunch of angry Russians, these are Cossacks, that's exactly what happens
of course, no, that's not what's happening here, but it's still funny
so Stromboli is not happy with the tangled mess, but then the crowd reacts very positively
and that confuses the conscience, because he thinks: "well, look, this is horrible, this guy's a tyrant, Pinokio's making a fool of himself
everything turns into a tangled mess, but the crowd goes crazy"
being a fool, that can be entertaining, right?
so it's hard to tell when a crowd, especially at a spectacle, 'cause this crowd is at a spectacle
you just don't know exactly why it is that they're responding positively, but you've definitely given them what they want
you can see this look on Stromboli's face, it's like this false false kindness and generosity, public facing
anyways, the conscience is very confused, and I really think this is an important thing
'cause I've often thought... I spent a lot of time thinking about Hitler, and I was thinking:
how do you get into a state like that? and you think: he's a dictator, and he led his people down a bad path
that's not right, that is not what happened; they had a conspiracy together, and went down a bad path
think about it this way: if one person thinks something about you, it's like whatever, right?
but if 5 people tell you that, then to start not taking that seriously is kind of narcissistic
and if it isn't 5, let's say it's 15 people tell you the same thing or act the same way towards you
it's like probably you should clue in; well, what if you're a politician
and you're trying out a bunch of different ideas, and you're good at interacting with a crowd
you're charismatic, you watch the crowd, but you're not necessarily all that articulate
you don't have your values all straightened out, but you're kinda angry, too
and maybe that's 'cause you spent a bunch of time in World War I in the trenches, which was like no joke
and all your friends got blown up; and then you were unemployed
and then you tried to be an artist, and that didn't work out, even though you were moderately talented
and then maybe the economy fell apart completely on you, hyperinflation
and then maybe there was a communist menace coming in from the east, and there genuinely was
so you're not the world's happiest clam at that point, and you're talking to people who aren't that happy either
'cause they were also badly defeated in World War I, and they had a terrible treaty they had to sign, and they lost part of their territory
and so the crowd's not happy, and neither are you, and there's reason for it; and so you start talking to them
and you don't know what you're upset about, and neither does the crowd
so you start to articulate some things about why you might be upset, and some of them fall flat
but you're paying attention to the crowd, so you stop saying those things
and some of the things make the crowd really wake up and listen, and so you start saying more of those things
it's an unconscious dialectic between you and the crowd; it's mediated by consciousness
but it's not like you're sitting there, saying, although you might be: "I'm gonna tell this crowd more of what it wants to hear"
it's more sophisticated than that; and so you do that a thousand times, and you do that to ever-increasing crowds
and the crowd really starts to go mad, and they basically tell you that you're the savior of the nation
how many bloody people have to tell you that before you start to believe it?
I would say, with a typical person, a hundred would do it
that'll get you going, man, if a hundred people tell you specifically why you're special, you're gonna be thinkin'...
even if you're humble to begin with, you're gonna be thinking: "geez, there's gotta be something to this, man"
but if it's a million people, and they're roaring their approval, well...
and then when it's a whole nation, good luck withstanding that
there's just not a chance, how are you going to withstand that?
now, you could be like Ghandi, and you could've taken that into account beforehand, because he did
he read Tolstoy, by the way, he was a student of Tolstoy, and that's very interesting
because Tolstoy developed the techniques of non-violence that Ghandi used; and Tolstoy was also a deeply religious writer
apart from his novels, which are not, I wouldn't say, really in the religious category, although they're profound
Tolstoy stressed humility with non-violence, he really stressed it, and that's what Ghandi took to heart
so he lived a very, very, very simple, bare-bones, ascetic life
and that was to kinda see if he could keep his damn ego tapped down while the groundswell was building behind him
you know, and he dressed really simply, and he didn't own much, and he ate very simply
and he just tried to stay away from the whole materialistic success element
that would be an element of what would turn him into an actor, and also inflate his ego
he seemed to do that pretty well, he certainly...
well, he led a non-violent revolution that resulted in the independence of India
it also produced a terrible civil war in the separation of the Muslim Indians from the Hindu Indians
but I don't think you can precisely lay that at the feet of Ghandi
but what I'm saying is that you have to be an extraordinary person, you have to be extraordinarily wise
and you have to take ridiculous precautions if you're gonna put yourself in the public sphere like that
and expose yourself to that kind of adulation without becoming a puppet of the crowd
and that's what happened to Hitler; I mean it's not like he wasn't also a conscious manipulator
and surrounded himself by people who were propagandists, and all of that
so there was a conscious element, but... you gotta think these things through, and see how that dialectic develops
he learned how to appeal to the darkest fantasies of the crowd, he was really, really good at it
and that was a dialectic process, right, the crowd told him what they wanted to hear...
and the crowd's a mob at that point, so I don't have to take responsibility
for the fact that I'm screaming my approval when I'm surrounded by a million people
so I can scream my approval for whatever I want, for whatever dark, revengeful fantasy might be playing out in my imagination
because I'm not gonna be held accountable for it
anyways, the cricket's confused, and it's no wonder, it's like the public has rendered its judgment
and the judgment is positive; so when I wrote the book on which this course is based
I was thinking: "how am I gonna judge success?" and I thought: "well, there's sort of four... there's a two by two matrix of success"
you could say: it's a great book, no one reads it; that happens, what do you do about that?
Nietzsche sold virtually nothing in his life time, and you know that's happened to lots of artists
then: it's a terrible book, and everyone loves it; that happens too
and then: it's a great book, and everyone loves it; and then: it's a terrible book, and everyone hates it
that's probably a better category, actually, than "it's a terrible book and everyone loves it"
I mean, you wouldn't pick "a terrible book that everyone hates" if you had a choice
but at least the quality and the response match, at least it's truthful, like: "great book, good response"
but the problem with those four categories is you can't really tell which category your production falls into
because how do you know?
I think you should assume "horrible book, bad response," because that's the most likely
of all four of those categories, that's the most likely to be true, purely on actuarial grounds, let's say
so, all right, so anyways, the cricket wanders away, because he obviously...
not only was he late for work that day, but he turned out to be wrong about everything
so he lets Pinokio go off on his adventure; and Stromboli puts him in this little touring wagon
and away they go; and the cricket thinks: "well, the consciensce isn't needed anymore on this journey towards unearned celebrity"
well, meanwhile, back at the ranch, as they say, the puppet is supposed to come home after school
but he doesn't, he doesn't show up
and the kitten, and the fish, and Gepetto are all waiting there for him, ready to eat
but he doesn't show up
and so Gepetto goes out into the rain to look for him
and he can't find him; and then we see the inside of the traveling show cart
and Stromboli is having a snack, and counting all the money that he's made from tonight's performance
and hypothetically dividing it out with the puppet, so we've got this little stack of gold, and some of it's false
somebody paid with a... looks like a little washer, mechanical washer, and it's bent
and so he curses about that for a while, even though, it's interesting, eh, because he's made all this money
he's been really successful, but this one little error is enough to enrage him, which is very ungrateful and tyrannical
look, you got a hundred gold pieces, someone's slipped you a fake one
you could've had 101, it's still a pretty good day, all things considered
you know, you gotta make a bit of allowance for error, which is something a tyrant does not do
and that's perfect, because if you don't make allowance for error at all, then people are always guilty of something
and if you're a tyrant, that's exactly what you want; and people *are* always guilty of something
so the tyrant who is willing to exploit that is always on solid ground
anyways, he doesn't share with Pinokio
and he puts him in a bird cage, a jail, and he also shows him this other puppet that has an axe through him
that was the previous puppet, who didn't precisely perform as he was supposed to
so there's a big threat there, it's like: "you stay in that jail, you do exactly what I want
or it's off to the wood pile for you, to be burned"
well, that's just worth thinking about, 'cause that's kind of what happens with tyrants
and literally, not just metaphorically
so the cricket is basically wondering what in the world he should do
and then the cart rolls by, and he gets an inking or hears, I don't quite remember this
that Pinokio is in there, and might be in trouble, or he thinks that up, I'm sorry, I can't remember that
but he ends up inside the cart, he finds that traveling cart, and he goes inside
and then he tries to pick the lock, 'cause he's a bug, he can climb inside
he tries to pick the lock, he tries to get Pinokio out of the jail that he sort of collaborated himself into
it's interesting, because if you read, for example, if you read Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago
which I would highly recommend, one of the things you find is that if you were arrested by the KGB
the secret police in the Soviet Union, and you were hauled off to a... like a tribunal, before a judge
they wanted you to admit that you were guilty, you had to, they'd torture you until you confessed
or you could just confess, and I always found that so mysterious
they kick down your door, they know perfectly well that they haven't got anymore on you than they've got on anyone else
and yet you have to go through the damn trial, and you have to admit that they're right
why do they even bother with that? why don't they just throw your sorry ass into the camp?
which is essentially what's gonna happen anyway; why do they need your collaboration?
you know, I never quite figured that out, I think it's partly because they're not willing to let you stand in opposition to the rules
because the mere fact that you'll do that means that you exist as something that is allowed to exist outside the rules
and they're not having any of that, so that's part of it
but there's more to it, there's more to it than that, it's like the drama of collaboration
one of the things I learned about societies like the Soviet Union, and this is true of all tyrannical societies
is that the idea that that's top-down, and that people are just following orders, they're good people, but they're just following orders
you can forget about that, that's a stupid theory
when a society becomes tyrannical like that, the tyranny exists at every single level of the society
you tyrannize your own conscience; so let's say you're a true believer in Marxist utopia, let's say
or a national socialist Third Reich, that's gonna last a thousand years and be racially pure, and you really believe that
and that's supposed to be a perfect state, and that's already been delivered to you
so what that means is that insofar as you're a true believer, your own suffering becomes heretical
because to the degree that you're suffering, you're living proof of the fact that the system is not delivering what it promised to deliver
and so you have to suppress that, you have to become your own tyrant, you can't admit that anything's gone wrong
and of course you can't talk about it to your family, because one out of three of them are government informers
just like one out of three of everyone, and you're certainly not going to mention it in the workplace
because unless you're a devout communist party member, you're not going anywhere
and if any of your ancestors were land owners or bourgeoisie, you're done, you're done
class guilt, man, you're not going anywhere
and then every single level of the bureaucracy is exactly the same as that, and on the top there's a tyrant
but the tyrant is everywhere, everywhere from the peak to the soul
it's all tyranny, and everyone participates in that by lying about everything
and that's why you see what happens next in the movie
Pinokio's in jail, and he's there because he was naive, and he allowed himself to be enticed
and because he did something that would've run contrary to his conscience; but the movie does not put up straw men
the poor damn puppet got tangled into this, his conscience wasn't even around, so you have to have some sympathy for him
but it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter
because he ends up in jail and he can't get out, and the fact that in some ways it wasn't his fault
doesn't change the fact that he's in jail, and he can't get out
and then his...
I was watching Louis CK the other night, and he was talking about children lying
he was talking about his 9-year-old daughter lying, and he said: "it's no wonder children lie
no wonder it's impossible for you to stop them
because you're talking to someone whose head would scrape the roof, they weigh three times as much as you
and they're capable of force, and they're intimidating; and they say to you something like:
"did you take that last cookie after I told you not to?"
and you're thinking: "oh no, I took the cookie, what am I gonna do?"
and then you get a genius idea in your head; smarter children learn to lie earlier
children with high IQs learn to lie younger; and CK says:
"well, it's like you've just been handed a magic get out of jail free card
you can just say: "no, I didn't take that cookie"; and worse than that, it works in every single situation
if you get away with it; and now you're supposed to learn not to do that
well, great, that's the thing about comedians, they tell you the underlying truth, which is why people think they're so funny
like the jester at the king's court, he's the only one who's allowed to tell the king the truth, 'cause he's beneath contempt
that's what comedians do
so what happens is Pinokio is not very happy about this, it's really breaking him up
and the blue fairy appears again from the star, same way
so what this means is, and I think this is right, this is something Jung talked about, it's also extraordinarily brilliant
he said that it's one thing to break a rule when you don't really know the rule
for whatever reason you seem to get a bit of a free pass for that
but if then you know the rule, and then you break it anyway, you get hit a lot harder
and I know that's true, and I even think I figured out why it was true at one point, but I can't remember at the moment
but there's something about... it's like the severity of the moral error isn't quite as massive if you're genuinely ingorant and unconscious about the rule
and maybe it's because you're not violating your own belief system as much when you engage in the misactivity
it's something like that
so Pinokio is in there, and he's partly at fault, at least because he's naive
and he's very desperate about it; but it's also because his conscience isn't functioning very well
so he has his reasons, and so whatever, the blue fairy shows up again, mother nature steps in
to aid him; and that is true, I would say, it's not like you get walloped
or killed every time you make a mistake, which is kinda interesting
and especially that's the case with kids, we have more leeway for them
whether nature does, that's a different issue, but I would say yes, because kids are really cute
and they're appealing, and they're naive, and they're kind of helpless, they have those motions even
that indicate helplessness, and that's associated with a natural apprehension of cuteness
cuteness is basically: big eyes, small nose, symmetrical features, baby-like features
helpless movements; that elicits sympathy and compassion, and it does it cross-species
and so does the cry; my roommate when I was in college had a niece who was quite young, about a year and a half old, I think
and we had a cat, a wild cat, it was a really fighty cat, partly because of me, because I would always play with it
and I let it fight with me quite a lot, so it was a fighty cat
that little girl would come over, and you know, maybe she'd cry, and that cat was there right now, trying to figure out what was wrong
the cat would use its claws on me, but it would never use its claws on the little kid
and I thought, that's an indication of that cross-species cuteness
you're all attracted to that, more or less, and the more maternal you are, the more you're attracted to such things
but you know, you see something on YouTube, and you go "aww", and "that's so cute"
yeah, it is, it appeals to exactly this concomitation [sic][possibly meant combination] of infantile features
and it brings out compassion unless you're psychopathic, so it's a good thing
but it can be manipulated, that's for sure, women actually manipulate it with makeup
which is quite sneaky, and good of them
anyways, the Blue Fairy shows up, so that's nature, so what I'm saying is nature will cut kids a break
if you think of nature in the guise of their mother, for example, but even the biology of other people
'cause we're wired to accept behavior from children that we wouldn't accept from other people
so nature will forgive; so she shows up in her heavenly guise, and says:
"what's going on?" and Pinokio, again because he's naive, but also because he's not good
he's not evil either, he's neither or both, depends on how you look at it
he also has no idea how smart he is, and how smart he isn't, or how smart the person he's talking to is
and instead of admitting what he's done, he lies about it, and that's interesting
because it does suggest that he understands at some level that he set himself up for this
because he could have just told the truth, "this horrible fox kidnapped me, and sold me to this slave holder"
which is true, it's a lot more true than the story he tells, he tells a story about some monster
a fictional monster; he could have told even three quarters of the truth and had it work, but he doesn't
he just obscures the story entirely; and this is the part of the movie that people remember
and I edited this out for years when I was talking about this movie, I forgot why it was so significant
his nose grows, and it grows to ridiculous length
and why is that?
I think it was Mark Twain, Samuel Clemens, who said:
"one of the advantages to telling the truth is that you don't have to remember what you said"
and that, God, that's worth listening to, because...
there's a bunch of things that I learned as a clinician
and one of them is... 'cause you're often in really weird situations if you're a clinician
'cause things happen that don't happen normally, and you don't know what to do
so what I've learned is I just say what's happening, whatever it is
regardless of what it is, I'll just try to describe it as accurately as I can
and don't worry in some sense about the consequences
I'm not going to go out of my way to cause trouble, but if you're in a really...
and I'm telling you, this could save your life at times, especially if you're dealing with someone's who's paranoid
who's really paranoid; you do not lie to someone who's paranoid and violent
because as soon as you lie you're aligned with the forces that are persecuting him
and they're gonna be watching, because paranoia makes people hyper-vigilant, like they're on amphetamines
in fact, you can make people paranoid by giving them enough amphetamines
and you can make paranoid people more paranoid by giving them amphetamines
so they're hyper-vigilant, because they feel that everything is predatory, and against them
and so they're watching you like you would not believe, way more than you're watching them
and if you flicker a lie while you're talking to them, and they're really on the edge
you're done; so it's one thing to know if you're ever in a really bad situation
and you don't know what to do: you tell the truth, minimally, don't disclose too much, that's just another lie
you tell the truth minimally and carefully, and hopefully
and you might get out of it, you might get out of it
but if you falsify it, look the hell out
so the truth is a real mechanism of protection in dangerous situations
if someone's trying to intimidate you, and you think they might be violent, and they ask you if you're afraid
then you tell them that you're terrified and that you hope things will go okay
or you say... I'll give you an example
one time I was in an airport, and we're in this lineup to fly back to Canada that said "international flights"
it's a long lineup, like 50 people, I got about 3 [people] from the front, there's still like 40 people behind me
and the guy behind the counter decided that he was just gonna shut down the line
and we could all go to this other line, which was like 300 people long, and I suggested that he not do that
because we'd been standing there for half and hour, and that he could just deal with the 20 of us that were left
and have a clue; and he called the sheriff, right away
and this was down in Florida, and it wasn't that long after 9/11
and so these guys came up, and they were armed, and they came, and looked at me
because of course he told them that I was causing trouble, which I wasn't, I was just trying to not...
let, what would you say, an arrogant bureaucratic scumrat [sic] take advantage of me
which is not the same as causing trouble; as soon as the cops came up, I said: "look
I'm going to do exactly what you tell me to do right now, and I'm not gonna cause any trouble
but I would like you to hear what actually happened," that's a good example of a situation like that
if someone's got you, no bravado, it's a very bad idea
and I was going to do exactly what they told me, because they didn't know who I was
and I didn't know what they had been told
anyhow, the problem with lying is that it's a hydra, and kids find out this very early
'cause you tell one lie, and what happens is it has one of the consequences you'd expect, maybe you get away with it
but it has 3 or 4 others that you don't expect, and it's like it grows some complexity
and then you have to tack a lie on each of those little complexity outcrops, and then they grow three more complexities
and soon this little lie turns into a great big ball of lies, and at some point it becomes painfully evident to everyone
and by that time you're in such... you see this with politicians, like that guy who was sexting
Anthony Weiner, and perfect name for him, man, it's so funny
I shouldn't make that comment 'cause it's so obvious, but it's still funny
but that's exactly what happened to him, it wasn't even so much the event
because people are stupid, they make mistakes, and actually the public is somewhat forgiving
if you say: "yeah, geez, I'm a real moron, like really, seriously, how could I do that? but I did
I'll try not to do it again"; but what happens with politicians is... and I'm not speaking specifically of politicians
they'll make an error and it gets exposed, and then they'll make three others, trying to cover it up
it happened with Nixon, for example, and then the whole thing turns into a complete scandal
and maybe they could've got out of it at the beginning by just telling the truth
"yes, I'm an idiot, I'll try not to do it again"
that isn't what happens in this case, and Pinokio grows this elaborate series of lies
and the fairy is willing to be a little generous to him, because he's little and cute, and he's still a puppet
and she tells him not to do that
and that she's gonna give him a pass this time, but that she isn't gonna be able to intervene on his behalf again
and that's partly... one of the things that's quite interesting about people who have Rousseauian ideas about children
so: children are all good, and they get corrupted by society, which is half true
because they're also not good, and they get shaped and disciplined by society
but the Rousseauian types often are very interesting when their kids hit teenage years
or when they're judging, say, criminal teenagers
it's like the child is perfect until they hit like 11, then they turn into a teenager, and the they're like thugs
so they go from good to thug in one move; and you often see that in families, too
that have treated especially their daughters like a princess, and then they hit puberty
and the parents who have princessed them to death have no idea what to do with them
so then they become demonized, so the overly good child turn into the overly wicket teenager
and sometimes they'll act that out, too, one of the things I've seen with girls who are held in princess esteem when they're little
and their parents have to tight [sic] a grip on them, and too much of a demand for good behavior
is they'll find some nasty character associate with, who will tear them out of the family, bikers are really good for that sort of thing
and especially if you have some vengeful thoughts towards your parents, a nice biker is your perfect solution to that problem
okay, we'll go through this scene, and then I think we'll call it a day
so now Pinokio's gone free, he's been reunited with his conscience, he's learned a couple of lessons
1. don't be an actor, 2. and don't lie, and those things are quite similar
and especially once you're caught in your actor trap, don't lie to get out, 'cause that will just make it worse
so that's the first of his trials, his moral trials on the road to becoming real
now here we're at a different place, we're at this... I think it's called the Red Lobster Inn
and it's a shadowy place, kind of cave-like, it's an underground entrance to somewhere that's not good
and it's a foggy night, and you can't really see, so everything's murky and gloomy there
inside we see the coachman and the fox and the cat
and the coachman's a bad guy, he's that mask that we saw first of all
he's the archetype of that mask that was judgmental about Pinokio having a voice
one of the things Jung said about the shadow, and this is, I would say, one of the primary impediments to enlightenment
is that if you start looking at your motives for misbehaving, and I mean by that something very specific
I don't mean that you're misbehaving by someone else's standards, I don't mean that
I mean: when you know by your own standards that you're doing something that devious or malevolent or underhanded
you know it, and you still do it, so it's your own judgment you're bringing to bear on yourself
if you look at why you're doing that, the longer you look at it, the deeper a hole you dig
this is the motif of Dante's Inferno, fundamentally
Dante's Inferno is a story about, I can't remember his name, unfortunately; might be Dante, in fact
I don't remember; he's led into hell by Virgil, who is an ancient philosopher, thinker [he was a poet]
and hell has levels, so the outer level is... and this is a christianised version of hell, because there's hells of all sorts
but this is a christianised version; on the outermost levels of hell, which is sort of like normal life
are the ancient philosophers, and they're still in hell, because they weren't christian
but it's like cheap motel hell instead of the full pit thing
so then Dante goes deeper and deeper into hell, until he gets right to the bottom of it
it's been a while since I read it, but if I remember correctly, Satan himself is encased in ice at the bottom of hell
surrounded by people who betray others; so Dante's notion was that worst of all possible violations of moral behavior
was betrayal, they're in the deepest levels hell, and I really like that idea, I think it's true
because if you trust me, then you're manifesting the necessary courage that puts someone through life
if you're smart, you don't trust me 'cause you're naive, you trust me knowing that I'm full of snakes, and so are you
but maybe we can cooperate, and move things along nicely
we can reduce each other to our word, and we can cooperate
but you're awake, and then I betray that, then I'm undermining your necessary faith in life and humanity
and you can really hurt someone that way; sometimes it's self-betrayal
but you can really do someone in, you can really traumatize them, so that they can't recover
so it's a really terrible thing to do to someone, and maybe it's the worst thing, and that was Dante's idea
and it's tied in... that makes very interesting reading, if you read it at the same time as Milton's Paradise Lost
because those metaphysical explorations, this is what they are, they're metaphysical explorations of the terrible places you can end up
and that people do end up, and also a metaphysical explanation of what spirit takes you there
'cause you might ask: "well, why do you betray someone?" and that is a deep question
so you'll have your specific reasons, but under that there'll be some other reasons
and under that there'll be some other reasons, and under that there'll be some other reasons
and if you all the way to the bottom, you come up with the ultimate reasons why you betrayed someone
and when you look at that, that will not be pretty
that's when your proclivity for evil, let's say, unites with the general human proclivity for evil
and you discover just exactly what you're capable of
Jung's notion was that that was a full encounter with the shadow, which is I suppose partly what this course is about
because one of the things I believe I told you at the beginning was that I was going to try and help you understand
how it might be that you could be an Auschwitz guard
and to really understand that, that's a horrifying thing to understand
but I'll tell you, if you wanna grow some teeth, that's a really good thing to understand
so we were talking about your capacity to negotiate before, if you aren't a monster, you cannot negotiate
but if you've got that under control, then you don't have to be a monster
it's really paradoxical, so if you're just naive, well, you end up in jail, and a marionette master has control over you
that's not helpful, so that's not good, that just means you're useless, and you can be manipulated
you won't go out of your way to be malevolent, but it's mostly because you just don't have the skills
the organizational skills, or even the depth to do that; you're good because you're harmless, that's not good
that's easily manipulated, so you think, well, how do you get out of that?
partly, you watch people, because you know what they're like, because you know what you're like
but you also know what you could do, and would do if you were pushed
you don't have to show much of that when you're negotiating with someone for them to take you really seriously
it's a strange thing; but one of the things Jung pointed out, too, was that what you most need to know will be found where you least want to look
and that's 'cause you haven't already looked there
it's a little different for everyone, right, 'cause your particular place you don't wanna look isn't gonna be the same as your place
but you're gonna have a place you don't wanna look, and what you haven't discovered, that's where it is
that's partly going to be discovered by you looking at what you're capable of, what you're truly capable of
people, especially on the compassionate end, think: "I could never be brutal like that"
and that could be true, but you can kill people with compassion, no problem, that's the Freudian oedipal situation
so think about working in a nursing home, there's actually a rule of thumb, which I also use
to guide my interactions with children, and also with my clients, and I would say with people in general
*do not do anything for anyone that they can't do themselves,* you just steal it from them
so imagine you're working with really elderly people, they have Alzheimer's, it's really easy to do things for them
because, well, "easy", 'cause it's really a hard job, but it might be easier to do something for them than to let them struggle through it
but you just speed their demise by taking away the last vestiges of their independence
you do the same thing with kids, it's like: "struggle through it, man"; did you ever see "My Left Foot?"
that's a great movie, it's about this author whose name escapes me at the moment, brilliant movie
the person who played the part, Daniel Day-Lewis, I think he won an Academy Award for it
it's about this author in Ireland, I think he had cerebral palsy, and he could really do was use his left foot
that was it, the rest of him was pretty spastic and not controllable
but he was there, he was very intelligent, he was with it, and his dad would not help him
he had to drag himself um the damn stairs with his left foot, he just would not help him
and what happened was, he learned how to live, he could function
the book and the movie is called "My Left Foot", and it does a lovely job of laying that out
but you have to be one hard-hearted son of a bitch to let your son crawl up the stairs with his left foot over and over
think about that; but what's the alternative? if he would have been... and of course he lays this out in the book
if he would have been catered to, he would have ended up just like you'd expect someone who was always catered to
so it's a very nice lesson in the triumph of fostering independence over too casual compassion
that's what I would say; so you look at the Coachman here, kind of looks like a demented Santa Claus
doesn't have a beard, but... it's a nice touch on the animators' part, he's even got a pipe and the red suit
and so he's listening to the fox and the cat brag about how much money they made selling Pinokio to the Puppet Master
and how evil and terrible they are, they're bragging away, and he's the real thing, eh
he's the real thing, and he can see through their little petty, narcissistic, grandiose tales of quasi-criminality
and has nothing but contempt for, and you can see that in his facial expression, it's like he's sitting back a bit, thinking:
"keep talking, bucko, pretty soon I'm gonna have you right where I want you"
the fox and the cat are drinking beer and smoking cigarettes, and talking about how evil they are
and bragging about how they got one over on like a four-year-old; real impressive, guys, real impressive
and the Coachman is thinking up his own nefarious schemes right now, what he might do with that puppet if he got his hands on him
so that's when he reveals himself, so what you see... the filmmakers just do it for a second
and that's an archetypal trip, you've got the fox and the cat, they're sort of petty examples of criminality and evil
and then you've got the coachman, and he's the real thing, but he's not really showing anybody who he is
and then in one scene in the bar he lets his guard down, and he lets them see what he's really like
and so you see this: all teeth and predatory eyes and glee all at the same time
that's a bad combination, "I'm going to eat you, and it's going to make me very happy"
that's insanity, you do not wanna see that look on someone's face
so that's the look; and the fox is traumatized by that
he thinks he's a bad guy, and he's not, he's just... he just can't be a good guy
he hasn't got the talent to be a bad guy; and then he's talking to the coachman and bragging
and the Coachman's had enough of it, he shows his real face, and it's like that's not good, the Fox gets a real glimpse into hell
and that just terrifies him; and the other thing the Coachman does is revel his plans
and his plans are to kidnap Pinokio along with a bunch of other boys, and to take them to this place called Pleasure Island
and the Fox knows what's going on there, it's the foreshadowing of the next stage of the adventure
after the Fox and the Cat are terrified, the Coachman, who takes you along with him
has a little chat with them, and they describe exactly what they're going to do next
and the Fox and the Cat know perfectly well that they're over their head
but at this point in their misadventures there's no pulling back
and I think we'll stop there, even though it's a little early, because that was a lot of material, and this is a really good place to stop
I'd be happy to take some questions if you guys have some questions
we could take questions for like 10 minutes, and then we'll call it a day
and you can ask me a question about anything you want
[student] this goes back to the beginning of the lecture, but how does morality go from
[student] who's stronger and who's weaker to what's good and what isn't?
we'll, I think it depends to some degree on what you mean by stronger
so physical strength is one element, if you look at mythological heroes...
imagine that the stories of heroes are fragmented elements of the archetype
and so one kind of archetypal hero, obviously, is someone who's physically strong
there's a great movie that you could watch about this, it's called Hitman Hart
it's one of the best documentaries I've ever seen, and it's about this guy named Brett Hart
and Brett Hart was for a while the most famous Canadian on the planet
and he was a World Wide Wrestling Foundation? what do the call it? WWF?
[WWE - World Wrestling Entertainment] yeah, he was their lead good guy
... I love the documentary, 'cause when I was a little kid, like 4 or 5, I used to to watch his father, whose name was Stu Hart
who ran this channel, this wrestling confederation in Alberta
and Stu Hart had I think 8 boys, and he trained all of then to be pro wrestlers
and part of the movie is extraordinarily funny, 'cause Stu Hart is in it, and he's really old
he's like 85, and he's just barely... can you imagine he was like a pro wrestler for 40 years? every joint is broken
and he's still big, but he's just barely moving, and this kid and another kid come over
and Stu is telling the story about how he used to take his boys into the basement and toughen them up
I think Brett called that the journey to pain or something like that
his father would take all these kids down there and wrestle with them, and push them right to the edge of their pain tolerance, constantly
and anyways, they grew up tough, there's no doubt about that, and all his daughters married pro wrestlers, too
and I think he has 7 daughters, so he's quite the character
anyways, these two kids, they're late adolescents, early adulthood, come over
and one of them is pretty damn cocky, and he's listening to Stu, and he says something smart
like "well, you know, you were pretty tough in the old days, eh?"
and Stu looks at him and says: "why don't you come down to the basement with me?"
and he says: "look, I don't wanna hurt you, old man"; so the filmmakers follow them into the basement
and they're kinda standing there, that old guy grabs him in a headlock, he's like a snake, eh?
he's got him in a headlock so fast, the kid doesn't what to do, and then...
Stu, he knows how to put a headlock on someone; he's flexing his forearm, which is still not so bad a forearm
and this guy's face is just... it's like he's stepped in a bear trap, plus he's absolutely shocked that this old guy got him
so he's kind of gasping, and Stu says something like:
"you watch, if I flex this muscle just right, you can see this vein on his forehead start to pop out"
it's extraordinarily funny [Peterson misremembered the scene in some key points, watch it for yourself]
anyways, Brett Hart plays out the good guy archetype, and Brett's...
he's a solid guy, but I would say he's not particularly sophisticated, and I'm not being cruel about that
I mean he had a great career, and he's tough as a boot, so good for him
but he plays out this good guy archetype and he gets tangled up in it
now, I don't remember your damn question, but I am trying to answer it, tell me the question again
[student] so I was wondering how in morality you go from to who's strongest and who's weakest to what's good and what's bad
oh yes, exactly; one of the things I really liked about this movie was it showed me why people watch wrestling
and I couldn't... because certainly they're not appealing...
and I'm not being... there are different strata of conception of abstraction that any entertainment process has to appeal to
and most people don't go to movies, and that actually... it really is because movies operate at a level of sophistication that is too high for many people
just like novels, hardly anyone reads; 15% of the population, might be 20%, cannot read well enough to follow written instructions
and there are people, maybe it's 15% of the population or 10%, who have never finished a book, never
and it is that high; but the archetype still needs to manifest itself on different levels
and so it manifests itself in wrestling; but even there, where it is physical force, it's not just physical force
it's a drama between good and evil, and you can see this so clearly in the Brett Hart documentary
'cause he's the good guy; the bad guys are really over-the-top bad, it's a real drama
it's good versus evil in the ring every time, and hopefully good wins, but good often gets...
maybe the bad wrestler brings two of his friends in, and they bring in chairs, and they bash the hell out of the good guy
and the whole audience is just outraged by this, and the documentary does a lovely job of showing that
so even at the level of physical combat, let's say, you can't reduce what's good to what's strong
it's just one element of it; better to be strong than to be weak
and so you can have strong hero, because it's better to be strong than to be weak
but it's better to be strong and kind than to be strong
and it's better to be strong and kind and wise than to be strong and kind
and that's true not only in human beings, but it's even true, let's say, at the wolf or chimpanzee level
because one of the things you see with the chimp dominance hierarchies, and I think I mentioned this before
is if the leader, the dominant male, is really good at fostering social relations and being reciprocal in acts like grooming
and also paying attention to the females and their offspring, his dynasty will be much more stable
and so, strong might be good for one battle, it might be good for two battles, but for 50 battles it's not optimized
especially because no matter how strong you are, someone can take you out
so what happens is the idea of what's ideal becomes increasingly complex across time, multifaceted
and so: strength, wisdom, intelligence, vision, all these things are amalgamated into a single being
and we'll talk a lot about that, because I wanna show you how that happened in Mesopotamia
because that's one of the first places where we have documentation about how that ideal emerged
they had a god called Marduk, and Marduk had 50 names
and as far as I can tell, the reason for that was that Marduk was an amalgam of the tribal deities of at least 50 tribes
and when the tribes were brought together, and civilized, each of their gods, who were ideals-
had to be amalgamated into something that was a single dramatized representation of value
or there was no way that all those people could have lived together
their different value structures would have fragmented them, and they would have stayed in a state of war
so the question is... it's the question you're asking: if it's not strength, then what is it?
well, strength is an element, but the Egyptians figured out that it was vision, it was actually the capacity to pay attention
that was paramount, and the Mesopotamians had that figured out more or less too
because their god Marduk had eyes all the way around his head, he could see everywhere
so seeing was a critical element of what should be on top, and the other thing for the Mesopotamians was the ability to speak
so by the time of Mesopotamia people had already dramatized the idea
that cardinal human attributes are vision and the ability to speak
and the ability to speak the truth, too, not just speak
other questions?
[student] so, I wasn't really aware of what you just said that most people don't watch movies
[student] because I've probably watched [unintelligible] so is that why we sort of consider... 'cause we were talking about celebrity career
[student] that different levels of abstraction of celebrity are respected more? like reality TV probably lower than ... Cumberbatch, than like a theater actor, then like a novelist
[Peterson] sure, yes, that's exactly why, because, you see
the less sophisticated the genre, the more the genre is like real life
and the more sophisticated it is, the more it has abstracted out across instances of real life the fundamental lessons
and that's what makes something profound and deep, it's abstracted from multiple sources
and it applies across multiple dimensions; 'cause that's what you want, and here is why
fundamentally, you have a problem, but that's not the problem, the problem is that there are problems
so the problem is a metaproblem: there are problems
you need a solution to that, that's not a solution to a problem, that's a metasolution to the class of problems
right, and that's what people have been trying to figure out ever since we were able to actually figure things out
it's not: "how do you solve a problem", it's: "how do you act so that you solve the problem of problems"
and that's basically the complexity of life and the fact that you're mortal and vulnerable
[student] so then a follow-up question, from your book you have this sort of strata
from play all the way up to religion and beyond that, sort of looking back retroactively with philosophy and rationality
[muted]
well that's a good one, because I would say [muted]
if you really wanna think this through, the best way to do that is to read Nietzsche and Dostoevsky at the same time
now, I'm sure there's other ways of doing this; but Nietzsche was actually quite heavily influenced by Dostoevsky
more than people knew, although their thought runs very parallel
Dostoevsky is like the ultimate dramatist, he embodies his ideas, and he has them act out in a dramatic space
it's literary; whereas Nietzsche has taken that up one level of abstraction, to the semantic
he says: "well, here's what's going on" in an articulated way, but he doesn't embody it in a story
and you might say: "well, that's higher", but it's only higher in a way
it's more abstract in that it's more like words
whereas what Dostoevsky does is half words and half images
because when you read a novel what happens is that... people say, postmodernists say: "where the hell is the meaning in that novel?"
it's not in the word, it's not in the phrase, it's not in the sentence, it's not in the paragraph, where do you localize the meaning?
great question, their answer sucks, bu the question's great
but what happens partly when you're reading a book, a novel, is that the words trigger representations in your imagination
a lot of what you extract the information from is actually your imagistic representation of the words
and that imagistic representation is richer than the words, because it's informed by all of your knowledge about people
you know this happens, because you go to a movie, like the Harry Potter movies, and you say: "that's not how I imagined it"
the probability that there'll be a 1:1 correspondence between your internal representation of the book
and the movie is 0; and usually the movie is less rich than the book
I love movies, and they have their own place, that's for sure, but...
well, miniseries, the series now are more approaching the complexity and depth of literature
because they can extend across 20 hours, they don't have to compress a 12-hour reading experience into 2 hours of action
what I was trying to do with that hierarchy was to show how the knowledge moved
first of all it's kind of implicit in your biology, and then it's distributed into society
and then by imitating society you make it part of your procedures, and then you watch your own procedures
and start to build a representation of them, and then you can articulate that representation
and it's a bootstrapping process, too, because once you've made the representation, that can affect the way you behave
so they start to loop; so here's one idea, imagine that there's a type of male who tends to win dominance hierarchy contests
and to emerge at the top, well that's the case, and that's why you're the way you are
so what's happened among human beings, this is so cool
is that human females are choosy maters, so about twice as many men fail in their reproductive efforts as females fail
but the men who succeed are more successful; so women are on average more successful
and men are on average more failures and more successful
and I'm talking strictly about reproduction here, although it generalizes to other areas, but I'm talking about reproduction
so how does it work, exactly? well, the women have a real problem with mate selection
who the hell are you gonna have as a mate? it's too complex to work out, so women in their genius don't
they let the men compete, and then they peel from the top
acting out the assumption that the man who wins is the best man, and it's a good assumption
because if you have a bunch of men competing, especially if they're competing across competitions
and someone pops up at the top, you can think: "well, they may not be worth much,
but they're better than anyone else at whatever it is that they're doing"
and that makes men at the top of dominance hierarchies very attractive to women
an then the women accelerate that, so you can imagine they're more likely to reproduce
so what happens is the proclivity to emerge at the top of the set of dominance hierarchies
becomes inbuilt into the biology across time, and the women exaggerate that by differentially allowing the men to reproduce
and that's also why they're mother nature, they really are mother nature, it's not just a metaphor
then the representation and the biology start to tangle together
and that's like, well, that's the difference between a meme and an archetype, a meme is this idea that propagates itself
but an archetype is an idea that has propagated itself across such a massivespan of time that it's actually shaped the course of evolution itself
and men, I can tell you already... it isn't necessarily that you even have to compete with other men
in order to see who wins; as soon as you admire someone, and that'll happen unconsciously, you won't be able to stop yourself
you've already elevated them in the dominance hierarchy contest, the act of admiration is your recognition
that you've met someone who's better at whatever it is that happens to be driving your admiration than you are
and that's partly the manifestation of just the idea as the, what would you say, as the representation of the ideal
kids do that all the time, they hero worship other kids, usually like a 4-year old will latch on to a 6-year old
who he or she will just follow everywhere, and do exactly what they do
why? because that person represents to that child their next ideal, their conceptualization of the place forward
any other questions? or should we maybe call it a day?
[student] you said when the guy was smiling the thing was predatory glee
[student] which is insanity, how do you define insanity in this context?
well, let's call it what you don't wanna encounter alone in an alley at midnight
and leave it at that, that is what I mean in this context, that's exactly what I mean
and then not only is the person there waiting for you, but they're looking forward to whatever might happen
[student] sure, I just mean in a psychological context, using that word has all kind of connotations
[student] I was making sure I wasn't interpreting it in a wrong way
no, well the movie provides the frame for the interpretation in this particular situation
so he's the thing that hauls naive young boys off to their doom; OK, so that's bounded
yes [student] could you elaborate on... you mentioned the process where people do the thing that's less hard but still hard?
[student] facing the shadow [peterson] that's actually a really productive way of procrastinating, although it comes with its own problems of rationalization
[student] that reinforces certain circuits ... [inaudible] bring up inhibitory circuits, and I was wondering if you can elaborate
well, I've derived that partly from my study of addiction and also from my study of recovery from post-traumatic stress disorder
but let's talk about addiction, so there's a series of actions that occur before you take your cocaine
some of those are local, they are the things that happen immediately before, and some of those are distal
they're farther back in the chain of events; and when you have a hit of cocaine, it produces a dopaminergic burst
and that feels really good, but it also makes the circuits that were immediately active before that grow
that's what reinforcement is, and then the growth is proportionate, not linearly
but it's proportionate to how long before that event occurred, the closer it is, the stronger they're gonna get
but even the ones that are somewhat distal get some reinforcement
because you might say: "well, what did you do before you found your latest fix?"
and the answer is: "how long before?"; well, the closer, the more reward
what happens then is that if you take that person out of the normal environment and you put them into a treatment center
they're off they're physical addiction, which is a weird thing in the case of cocaine, but...
like not that long, a week will do it, two weeks for sure, even heroin, and alcohol for sure
if you can get them through the seizure part without dying; and so they're done, they're not physiologically dependent anymore
but you let that person go, and the first thing that happens is his old friend who is always doing drugs with shows up
and bang! he's craving like mad, and that's because that thing in there is not dead at all
and it's activated by the cue, and it's a circuit... it's not, it's a personality
it only wants one thing, it wants cocaine, it's gonna suppress any non-related thoughts
and it'll use lies, that's no problem, especially if lies have been reinforced, which they certainly have
"where are you off to, son?" you know, you'll have a lie for that, and then 10 minutes later you have your drug
that little lie has just grown; or maybe you think... you try to quit, you think: "to hell with it!"
and every time, 10 minutes before you take your drug, you think "to hell with it", and you do that a 1000 times
well, believe me, that "to hell with it" circuit, that sucker is strong, it's alive
and it's not like it just disappears, it can't, it's you, it's grown in there
now, you can build another circuit to shut it down, and you can help it decompose across time by not giving it what it wants
but you're gonna have to not give it what it wants in all of the multiple contexts that you've already associated with the drug
some of you have probably smoked, and then tried to quit smoking, and what you see is
you get a craving when you have a cup of coffee or when you finish dinner, when you're done having a phone call
when you first get up in the morning, or whenever you regularly had the drug, whatever you had the drug in relationship to
even complex things, like ending a conversation will produce a cue of craving
then that can extinguish over time if you punish it by either punishing it or not letting it get what it wants
but a lot you have to build another circuit to just shut it down
and then that circuit's kinda fragile and stress can often disrupt it
[student] that can be mediated by [?] people read about quitting smoking or things like ibogaine
oh sure, well, ibogaine's a whole different thing, because it seems to have a direct physiological effect
but the addiction has a cognitive component, it's full of thoughts and desires and wants
you know, you may have to rebuild your whole personality in order to get that thing cornered
religious conversion, for example, is a really effective treatment for alcoholism
that's partly why alcoholics anonymous works for the people for whom it does work
but religious conversion, which is total personality conversion, is actually one of the few things that we know of that's an effective treatment for alcoholism
we don't know how to induce it, although that's not exactly true either
because the early work with LSD... LSD was quite promising as a treatment for alcohol addiction
and there's recent work with psylocybin showing that if people have a mystical experience when given psylocybin
their success rate of quitting smoking is about 80%
which is way higher than any pharmacological intervention for smoking has ever been
alright, we should probably call it a day, we'll see you in a week