Optical Allusionist

Philip Zimbardo is a renowned author, social psychologist, and Stanford professor. He is best known for his direction of the Stanford Prisoner Experiments, but is a well-known expert on the psychology of evil and "situational force".

And he wrote me.

Well, I wrote him first, but he wrote me back. I was pretty dorky when I wrote him, and my friend Kellie said, "Uh, Shelly, you have something on your nose... something brown." Hahaha. Yeah, I did brown-nose him a bit, but hey, we're talking about PHILIP ZIMBARDO!! For a golf fan, this would be like being written by Tiger Woods. For a NASCAR fan, Jeff Gordon. For a Chicago Bulls fan, Michael Jordan. You get the picture. It's practically the same as being written by FREUD! He may not be as famous in the general public as Freud, but he IS as well known within the behavioral science department. And he wrote me. Very friendly man. He must be pretty old, but he says he's "traveling the world"... Here's a copy of my email to him, and his response. It was short, but it was a good enough response. :D


Hello Phillip Zimbardo!

Okay, so this may sound really weird, but because of the way my sociology and psychology teachers taught about you, I thought... until an overjoyed today... you were.. sadly, dead. I hope no hard feelings are carried out though. So, um, emailing you today is like having the ability to write Freud. I have been reading The Lucifer Effect and I find it very interesting.

So, I would like to sound really smart, because I really am-- especially in terms of behavioral sciences, but I don't really have any questions so far, and I have no astounding comments to make. I'm just glad you're alive.

I don't want to fawn over you too much, because you're just another human being like me. But if I could have a simple "Hello" or a "hi. How are you" or even if youi could spare the time, a little bit of an email to tell me what your favorite food or color or book is, I would love it. I was enthralled when I learned about you in sociology, and the idea that I can email you is almost too much to bear.

You are a famous author, social psychologist, and professor, but if it isn't too much to ask, could you email my psychology/sociology teacher and say hi, at mrmckell@gmail.com.

Thanks for your contributions to the world,

Shelly Steele


This was his response:

SS
thanks for the support of my work and I too am glad to discover that rumors of my death are premature
alive and kicking and traveling the world spreading the message of the Lucifer Effect.
see my other sites as well as Lucifers, many goodies there.

Cordially,
Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Stanford University

See these web sites:
www.LuciferEffect.com
www.Zimbardo.com
www.PrisonExp.org

www.Shyness.com
www.TimePerspective.com

www.CIPERT.org
www.EveryDayHeroes.org

www.PsychologyMatters.org



All I have to say is... Oh my gosh.

2 Comments

There is a man who has contributed to changing "the way humanity views itself" in ways humanity itself does not yet understand (Brians). Although his theories are not as popular as they have been previously, many psychologists have used and still use his methods and theories in therapy and elsewhere. Dr. Cornelia Wilbur, the psychoanalyst of Sybil Dorsett, is one of these many successful therapists (Sybil: The Art of Shirley Mason). This vociferous group does not understand the meanings of, and the truth within Sigmund Freud's beliefs. Next to Marx, the presumed inventor of the communist economic system, this man is one of the most misunderstood men of our time.
Born into the Victorian era, this man lived in a time where sex was suppressed, oppressed, and repressed. When he began to hypothesize concerning theories that directly and indirectly claimed we all were sexual human beings, opposition roared against him. This opposition has become a tradition, passed generation to generation. Often people hear the mention of this man, and loudly proclaim him a fraud and a pervert.

Because of Freud's focus on pleasure and sex, he's thought of as a fraud, but there is much truth to his basic teachings. His therapy and personality theory reflects and focuses on the unconscious and self. His psychosexual stages of development have the purpose of pointing out our pleasure-seeking nature, and accurately depict how one could be affected by a block of progression. Neither his sexual focus, nor his chauvinism make him ignorant of how our unconscious affects our everyday lives.

Freud uses the arts of free association, dream interpretation, Freudian slips, and emphasized the importance of childhood experiences and unconscious thoughts in therapy (Freud File). Another important aspect of therapy with Freud was his personality theory. A Freudian slip is an "extreme simple slip" that more accurately represents unconscious opinions. Free association occurs when the client tells the therapist anything and everything that comes to their mind, no matter how seemingly trivial or embarrassing. His dream interpretations reflect his belief that "dreams are the royal road to the unconscious" (Freud, Interpretation of Dreams). The art of therapy he used focused heavily on the unconscious part in each of us.

His personality theory dealt heavily again with the unconscious. There are, he said, three major parts of each personality. These are the Id, the Superego, and the Ego. The Id is the part of our personality that looks out for us, with no thought to others. It tells us we should eat because we're hungry, or sleep because we're tired. The Superego is the part of our personality that looks out for others, with no thought to ourselves. Often, it's referred to as our conscience. The Ego is the balancer of the Superego and the Id. It directs us to food, without having to steal it in order to obtain. Both the Superego and the Id are extremes, and without the Ego, we would be nonexistent.

A plausible argument concerning free association is that the client may say something in order to lead the therapist, or that they may skip things that come to mind, and there will be no way to tell. Although this happens, it is neither true free association, nor can it last. Eventually the client will say something that will reveal a part of him or herself that is needed for more effective therapy.

There are those who believe that Freud's dream interpretations are too wild because they deal so heavily with sex, pleasure, and the reproductive system. Dreams, however, are a reflection of the unconscious. They provide, whether through explicit or symbolic material, "material which is in part neither remembered nor used in the activities of waking thought" (Freud, Interpretation of Dreams). When the society is either extremely suppressing or extremely encouraging a certain aspect of life, it will show up in your unconscious beacon: your dreams. Of course, in the words of Freud himself, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (Brainy Quote).

Another problem many have with his methods of therapy was one Jung, Freud's former good friend and avid Freudian, discovered he himself had opposing view to. Many see Freud's therapy and personality theory as selfish and self-centered.

Freud and Jung's relationship was congenial until Jung hypothesized something further when he figured out for himself that "dreams can eventually be reduced to certain basic patterns" (Jung). Freud had already adopted Jung as a son, which left Jung livid, and so the relationship had been tense, but once Freud figured out that Jung was breaking away from the mainstream of his beliefs, he had very little tolerance for his former friend (Crowe). Jung eventually broke off the relationship.

Jung discovered something he coined the "collective unconscious"- the idea that while we each have a superficial personal unconscious, there is a link that connects the universe, particularly through symbols, thus the collective unconscious (Kazley). However, it seems that Jung misunderstood Freud's motives. Freud focused on the self, as he only had one client in the room at a time. He believed that "self-awareness was a part of becoming a better, stronger, richer human being" (Karen Horney). His focus was on the self, while Jung's focus was on the universe. Both were worthy causes, and eventually helped each other.

Freud's hypotheses on the psychosexual stages of development, and the problems resulting from a blocking of progression is another theory many have an issue with. The basic teaching of the theory is that we are pleasure-seeking individuals, and if at any stage of development our progression is blocked, then it will affect the continuing stages. These five stages are the oral, anal, phallic, latent, and genital stages.

The oral stage begins at birth. We seek pleasure through our mouth- often through breastfeeding . You will often find as well that at this time the baby will grab at anything surrounding him or her and put it in her mouth. This stage usually lasts until the child is around eighteen months, at which time the anal stage begins. The anal stage occurs when the child has grown more muscle and begins to find that they can begin to control their defecation and urination. Around this time, potty training begins. There is pleasure in releasing waste, and the warmth associated with it.

The phallic stage usually covers ages three to six. In this stage, the child begins to recognize the difference between the sexes, often connecting themselves in relation to a parent. It is usually a time when one concerns one's self with the discovery of the genitals. This concentration on gender identity often occurs in relation to the Oedipus complex, or the Electra complex with girls, another of Freud's theories. This complex concerns itself with the competition between same-sex parent relationships, and the contrasting loving relationship with the opposite-sex parent child relationships. The son may feel in competition with the father for the mother's love, or the daughter may feel in competition with the mother for the father's love.

In the latent stage of development- usually ranging from around ages six to twelve- the child either feels no sexual attraction, or decides to show none.

The last stage- the genital stage- occurs when puberty hits. The child will then attempt to search for partners, potentially sexual partners. This last stage lasts for the rest of one's life.

Freud tells us that if one of these stages comes up against resistance, it may affect the rest of the stages, possibly even the progression from one stage to the next. For instance, if the child is weaned too early, they may feel dependent or mistrusting for many years into adulthood. This would be a result of a disturbance in the oral stage of development. On the other hand, if there were to be disturbances in the anal stage, such as aggravating potty training, a need or a sense of control might grow, making adults what we know now as "anal", a term used to describe someone as controlling. If, during the phallic stage, something were to happen to block progression, then there might be an unhealthy preoccupation with sex later in life, or an undying hate for the same-sex parent. And if, during the latent stage, the child were to have some sexual affection forced upon them, there is a possibility that they may remain stuck in an impotent state. Freud actually believed that "every neurosis results from premature sexual activity" (Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle).

There are many who say the psychosexual stages of development focus too much on the sexual aspect of life. In fact, Freud meant them not only as sex-seeking stages, but as pleasure seeking stages. Pamornpol Jinachitra, an analyzer of Freud's pleasure principle, put it into perspective.

The concept of sexuality has been given an extension from Freud. Firstly, it is divorced from its close connection with genitals to concentrate rather on the purpose of achieving pleasure. It is only secondary to serve as the means to reproductive function.


We are naturally pleasure-seeking individuals, and the fact that Freud's psychosexual stages of development had to do with sex is only part of it. The pleasure can also be associated with basic pleasures gained from these stages: eating, releasing, or learning, for example. We do find fascination with basic pleasures, as well as, due to the fact that we are sexual human beings, sexual pleasures.

There are those that say these stages are too deterministic. Determinism is the idea that whatever happens to you as a child will determine who you will become. The more accurate phrase would be "influencism". Influencism, similar to determinism, is the idea that whatever happens to you as a child will greatly influence who you will become as an adult. Of course, there are exceptions to any rule, which is why, although determinism is nearly accurate.

Last of all, Freud's focus on misogyny and sex make people feel as though this defeats the brilliancy of his theories. America's Victorian attitude concerning open discussion of sex is reflected in our controversy over sex education is schools. A school poll reflected this conflict over whether sex education ought to be taught, and if so, in what way. Some believe it shouldn't be taught at all, while others think it could be taught, but only if taught in a certain way. The predicament? No one can decide which way would be best (Kaiser). This is an example of our "Victorian sexuality".

The term "Victorian sexuality" is well put, and a term becoming more and more associated with America. It urges "a self that [is] focused on self-control, suppression of sexual urges, and denial of women's sexual feeling" (Horowitz). In this state, it becomes harder to accept anything that goes against such a strong conviction. This makes it harder to accept Freud's openness concerning sex and the body. Our culture has reflected our views on Freud through a movie meant to mock Freud's over- erotic way of thinking. "The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema" is led around by a psychologist who has the opportunity to "show" the viewer all the things in the cinema that are obviously based off of the pleasure principle. Nevertheless, it is important to remember once again that Freud was focusing on the pleasure principle more than the sexual principle.

His chauvinistic attitude also strikes a cord with many people. Misogyny does not cancel out brilliancy. Karen Horney, a large defender against Freud's chauvinism, still agreed with portions of his theories. One of the issues people have with Freud is that he experimented entirely on boys and men. He hadn't thought that they would have been any different then women, and so decided to test them, leaving all of his answers for a male world. However, there is still much truth to Freud's discoveries because the discoveries are general enough, and with enough truth benefiting both sexes, that they can be applied to the general female population as well as that of the male population.

Another main concern is about Freud's penis envy. Karen Horney, again, was a major battler of this theory. In her own words, she said "Freud was really detecting... women's justified envy of men's power in the world" (Karen Horney). In other words, Freud's penis envy- the literal envy a woman holds for a penis- would have been more appropriately termed 'power envy'. Ms. Horney also speculated over "womb envy", a male counterpart to penis/power envy (Boeree). Both envies would be a coveting over what each sex could not have, that the other sex could.

A last point concerning Freud's chauvinism: women would come to him in therapy with stories of sexual abuse, but he would deem them not important enough to trifle with, and push to cover the next topic. This point could be better understood if the contender were to learn more about Freud's hypotheses. Like was said earlier, he believed that "every neurosis result[ed] from premature sexual activity, mainly child molestation, in childhood.." His rejection, then, was a reflection of his belief that the abuse had to be severe enough for it to cause problems. So, when a woman would come to him with stories of sexual abuse that he didn't think were sever enough, he would dismiss it, thinking there could be no permanent damage. The prologue to his book Beyond the Pleasure Principle states it quite clearly, though, that Freud was not limited to an extreme.

Freud never claimed that sexual abuse did not exist. He had patients who he knew had

not imagined the assaults they reported. All he abandoned when he abandoned the

seduction theory was the sweeping claim that only the rape of a child, whether a boy or a

girl, by a servant, and older sibling, or a classmate, could be the cause of neurosis.

It must be remembered that Freud was not so limited in his thinking as the times and culture around him encouraged. Although limited to a point in his thinking, Sigmund Freud was quite generous in contrast.

Sigmund Freud was neither ignorant nor brash. His brilliancy cut through a culture of oppression. Although our culture today still has doubts concerning Freud's sexual over-enthusiasm, some day we will join together to notify the world of his intelligence. They have chosen to not stretch forth, as a society, to embrace his beliefs, partially in fear that, as Freud himself attained to, "it might be said of psychoanalysis that if you give it your little finger, it will soon have your whole hand" (Non Stop English). In contrast with popular, ignorant beliefs, Freud is brilliant. He is brilliant to bring up the things no one dared to. When the culture suppresses a certain aspect of life, it becomes more difficult to speculate about it. When there are few before you who have explored your ideas, it is difficult to decide what is fact, and what is fiction. His chauvinism is narrow-minded, but does not make him ignorant in a broader scale. His focus on sex,ironically, turns his audience off, giving them a self-justified excuse to call him a "sicko" and turn away from a great truth. Freud is one of the most brilliant, and yet, sadly, one of the most misunderstood men of our time.




REFERENCES


Boeree, Dr. C. George. "Karen Horney". 2006. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/horney.html


Brainy Quote, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/sigmundfre125397.html


Brians, Paul, "Sigmund Freud: The Interpretation of Dreams". 1998. Washington State University.

http://www.wsu.edu/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/freud.html


Crowe, Lauri Jean. Suite 101: Enter Curious. "Relating Freud to Jung". November 1, 1999.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/science_of_dreams/24734


Freud File. "Psychoanalysis- Techniques and Practices." 2006.

http://www.freudfile.org/psychoanalysis/.


Freud, Sigmund. Beyond the Pleasure Principle. 1959


Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretation of Dreams. 1965.


Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz. WNYC New York Public Radio. "Rereading Sex: Battles Over Sexual

Knowledge and Suppression in Nineteenth-Century America". 2002.

http://www.wnyc.org/books/5759


Jinachitra, Pamornpol. "Sigmund Freud's Infantile Sexuality and the Role in the Genesis of the

Neuroses of Adults and in the Psychology of Normal Adults".

http://www.stanford.edu/~pj97/SigmundF.htm


Jung, Carl. Man and His Symbols, 1968.


Kaiser, Kennedy, NPR. "Sex Education in America." 2004.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1622610


"Karen Horney". Webster University. 2001. http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/horney.html.


Kazlev, M. Alan. Kheper. "Jung's Conception of the Collective Unconscious". 2004.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Jung/collective_unconscious.html


Non Stop English, "Quotations Database."

http://www.nonstopenglish.com/reading/quotations/k_Psychoanalysis.asp.


Stevenson, B. David. "Freud's Psychosexual Stages of Development". Brown University. 2001.

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/freud/develop.html


Sybil: The Art of Shirley Mason. 2003. http://www.sybil.biz/collection.php


Zizek, Slavoj. "The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema". 2006. http://www.thepervertsguide.com/

0 Comment

What is the happiest book you could ever read? Not sure? I'll tell you. Sybil, by Flora Rheta Schreiber, is the happiest book you could ever read. And this is why.

The first point of discussion would be to determine the definition of "the happiest book", and why that pertains to Sybil. So, what is the definition? In my book, no pun intended, the happiest book possible to read, would have the happiest ending to the most horrible story. Why would this be true?

Say you have a happy story. Deer and bunnies prance around the ponies, who are singing a joyful hymn. The main character-- let's call her Maria-- dances into the scene. "Everything's great! Everything's perfect! Life is wonderful!" she proclaims. "No problems here!" The wolf suddenly comes in, stage right. "Grrr. I love you, Maria!" Maria and the wolf hug. Wow, thriller, right? No problems, nothing to solve, nothing to write about, no story-- from a writer's standpoint. Surprise, this happy story of Maria has a happy ending. No surprises, no twists or turns, and most importantly, no relatability to the audience. Raise your hand if Maria's play reminded of your life... No takers, huh? Of course, many of us may have had relatively spectacular lives compared to Shirley Mason's. By the way, for reference's sake, "Sybil Dorsett" is a pseudonym for the woman Shirley Mason. Maria's story isn't relatable. We all have problems. We all have strife. We all want to know it can turn out well in the end. Everyone feels hopeless at one point in their lives, and we all want to know things get better. Or, at least, that they can. Happy endings to happy stories offer no hope to real human beings. A sub point I would make as well is that it makes no sense in a normal human beings' mind for the "happy ending" to occur. Whereas, 'happy' is inevitable at the end of 'happy', it doesn't make it an ending. It's simply a continuation of "happy". Sybil offers hope to anyone going through minute or difficult trials, with the reminder that help is available, that life can get better, and that what may appear to be the impossible is solvable.

My second point of discussion would be to decide why Sybil has the saddest, or most horrible, story/beginning. This is the saddest story because of the abuse, and because of the setting of the abuse. The abuse was extreme, severe, prolonged, often, both regular and irregular, predictable, and unpredictable, and in several forms-- verbal, mental, emotional, physical, and sexual. All of these add up to worse and worse abuses. Shirley Mason, or Sybil, was object raped-- with knives, flash lights, and button hooks-- every night for years. After the object rape, her mother would give her an enema, insisting she hold it in while "Hattie Dorsett" played a long concerto on the piano. Not only was this extreme abuse, but it was done by her mother. Her father was vaguely aware of the abuse that was occurring, and gave accidental signs to Sybil that he "knew". A doctor examined Sybil for a urinary infection, and discovered that her vagina was severely scarred. She lived in a town that proclaimed peace and righteousness. She grew up hearing about a country that protected its citizens. Shirley Mason lived in an era, a community, a family, and a country that was supposedly trustworthy. And yet, she found no one who she could totally trust until she turned twenty-two when she met Dr. Cornelia Wilbur, which too was shattered when her mother cut off contact between Shirley and the doctor. There was no trust in the presence of gruesome abuse.

My third point would be to show how Shirley Mason had the happiest ending. One of the most helpful sites I've seen is written by one of Shirley's friend. This site helped explain that Sybil died happy and complete in 1998, she got over her dissociative identity disorder, or she lived without it for a time, came to understand herself and be more patient with herself, and got to do things she never could have done before, such as go to college, and be a successful human being.

My last area to discuss would be to review why this is the happiest book you could ever read. Referring back to my original definition, Sybil went through the most horrific story, but had the most joyful ending. Parts of the book itself, particularly the beginning-middle part, may not make the reader, per se, happy, but it is not an initially happy story, but, altogether, a happy story. This story brings hope to victims of abuse, people going through difficult times, people who will go through difficult times, psychologists dealing with difficult, or DID patients. As a small point, this book helps clear up some misconceptions about people affected with dissociative identity disorder. It helps explain that DID, formerly known as MPD (multiple personality disorder), is not separate persons within a body, but rather fragments of the core person. And last of the last, it has a happy ending. Joy overcomes pain. Peace overcomes grief. We may feel horribly, gruesomely, gut-wrenchingly angry, sad, or despairing, but in the end, she overcame, which means overcoming is possible in the most or the least meaningful of situations. In the end, pure, ecstatic release is available. It is the happiest ending to the saddest story, and in that way, Sybil is the happiest book, the most relieving story, a reader could read.

0 Comment

Shirley Mason was, among other things, forced to endure a nightly object rape and enema from her mother. We know her as "Sybil Dorsett." We also know her as the remarkable 16 personalitied miracle! Through the counseling of Dr. Cornelia Wilbur, Sybil was able to re-integrate the selves into a new "Sybil." The book about this story, by Flora Rheta Schreiber, and the movie, with Joann Woodward and Sally Field, are two of my favorites. They are both emotionally wrenching, and difficult to read/watch. They extract a vast amount of pain, memory, anger, and empathy from the reader/viewer. I would definitely say that this is a difficult story. Friends who have watched the movie in psychology (thank you, Mr. Wagstaff), are horrified and believe that the movie is an unnecessary retelling of a story we can only learn pain from. While I cannot agree with a publication of a story, whose sole purpose is a retelling (*koff A Child *ahem* Called It *koffkoff*), there are many things that can be learned from the story of Sybil Dorsett.


First of all, in the psychological stance, Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder) can be cured, or at least dealt with. Sybil was one of a few case studies that led us, as psychologists, solidly to the conclusion that victims of such a mental disorder are not helpless cases. Through extensive counseling, and possibly medication, they can integrate, like Sybil, the other selves, as to become a more complete being. As a note for those reading this post, MPD was renamed DID because of the misconception it created. The personalities are not separate people altogether. Rather, they are fragments of the core personality. Two of Sybil's personalities, Peggy Lou and Peggy Ann, were parts of the original Sybil. They were the parts of Sybil that were angry, and that were afraid, because Sybil, as a child, could not handle the intense fear and anger that she was feeling. Putting them into separate identities (or so it seemed) made it "safer" for her because she did not have to deal with those emotions. The personalities of someone with DID are a kind of barrier, usually put up to deal with the extreme stresses of life.


Another thing we can learn from Sybil is bravery. Not only through her early years as a child under her mother's thumb, but later, dealing with the disorder, she was a brave woman. She would not have thought of herself as it, but what would it take to continue to live, even though you don't know what will happen tomorrow, or even if you will be 'awake' for tomorrow. (When another self would 'take over', Sybil would not be... there. It was as if she hadn't lived during that time. She may wake up in a place she feels she's never been before. When she was in third grade, her grandmother died. She "left" at the funeral, and "woke up" two years later, when she was in fifth grade. During those two years, Peggy Ann had 'taken over.' This later caused many problems with Sybil's math skills, because she had not been present to learn many basic skills.) A barrier such as this one, does not indicate that Sybil was running away from a horrible reality, rather, she was protecting herself from it, so that she could better endure it.


There is a third thing we can learn from Sybil's story. Not all mothers were meant to raise children. Sybil was an only child. Before Sybil's birth, a doctor told Willard and Hattie, Sybil's parents, that Hattie was schizophrenic and unable to raise a child. Willard was an extreme traditionalist, and believed that all women were born with the genes to raise a child, and that the woman must do so. Hattie had grown up underneath her father's discouraging thumb, and gave in to Willard's insisting. She would raise the child. Although all women were originally made to have children, and many have the ability to raise a child, it is important to remember that, due to mental or emotional health-- as well as physical-- a woman may not be able to be a "successful" mother.


As a fourth and final lesson of what Sybil's story can teach, I'd like to speak on reality. Reality is not bad; it is not good. It is elation, and it is depression. It is the devil, and it is God. It is everything that is true. Everyone has their own reality. I will see Sybil's story different than any of you reading this post will see her story. Neither of us are completely right, yet, because we are both coming from completely different points of view. But Sybil's story is a part of reality. Abuse happens. It happens all around us. As a victim of abuse, I know it does. It happens in Chicago, in L.A., in Detroit, in Salt Lake City, in Happy Valley, and, for Sybil, in a little town in the middle of Wisconsin. This is a part of reality. As we focus on reality, we can change it. If we never look for what is wrong-- with the intent to change it into the better-- then it will never change.


Sybil has a lot to teach us, as does every story of all the people that surround us. Shirley Ann Mason went on to serve a successful, happy life. That's the true, final lesson. Things get better, as things get worse, if we stick to God's precepts. Heal for you. Find the truth. Find reality.

0 Comment