Tuesday, Lafayette, Indiana

One of the news headlines covering this year’s U.S. Open golf tournament simply read “the legend grows.”

It was referring, of course, to the phenomenon known as Tiger Woods. For all of the drama that this young man has given to fans over the years, this year was simply a beaut. His challenger, a heroic 45-year-old veteran of the tour named Rocco Mediate, fought Tiger right through a 19 hole playoff. In the end, naturally, Woods prevailed to win his 14th major golf championship.

There is, of course, nothing new to write about this sports icon; it has all been covered eloquently before. We have, quite simply, run out of superlatives. Professional observers and his PGA colleagues repeatedly acknowledge Tiger Woods’ capacity to combine unprecedented skill with a club and a mental discipline that is without peer. As a professional athlete for the ages, he reminds people of the great Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky and other peerless performers for his ability to focus his mental energy on the matter at hand, blocking out distractions that often interrupt the performance of us other mere mortals.

For every parent who desires for their children to have role models, Tiger Woods stands alone. He is a hero to every youngster who imagines becoming a Tiger, growing up to also become an invincible legend. But as awesome as Tiger’s golf skills are, he is also earned a special place in the hearts and minds of parents everywhere for the personal character that he epitomizes.

While few of our sons and daughters will grow up to become a sports icon, it is not beyond reason to believe that they can become like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky in those other dimensions of personality. These sports superstars are also famous for their humility and kindness to all who encounter them. We all know who they are, because we can feel who they are when listening to them being interviewed after their mind boggling athletic performance. It is the warmth of Peyton Manning, the charming kindness of Tim Duncan and the evident kindness of Phil Mickelson that become the standards for our own sons.

Monday, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

In the Heat of the Night is a television drama that ran successfully for seven years. It starred actor Carroll O’Connor in an ironic casting since he had been last seen portraying the bigoted Archie Bunker in the classic program “All in the Family.”

In the Heat of the Night was based on the great classic movie of the same title that starred Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger, each winning an Academy award for the story of an African-American Chicago detective who gets enmeshed in the virulent racist climate of the South. The film was a gripping murder mystery that confronted the racist Southern Sheriff Gillespie with the stunned northern detective, Virgil Tibbs. The conclusion of the film offered a hint of reconciliation between Sheriff Gillespie and Detective Tibbs.

The television program picks up at a time when Virgil Tibbs has relocated back down to Sparta, Mississippi and begun working as a detective right there at the scene of his persecution. But in the television program, Sheriff Gillespie is clearly reformed, and Virgil Tibbs has evidently found forgiveness. And this is the essential glue of the story. We all want to believe that people, even the most backward, and ignorant, can be redeemed. And in this show this is exactly what we find, Sheriff Gillespie, an unrepentant racist is transformed through his association and friendship with the sophisticated detective from Chicago.

Everyone can relate to this theme. Not so much for ourselves, but for those in our lives who seem to be imprisoned by their ignorance and hatreds. We hope and pray that they too have an encounter that opens their minds and changes them. At a time when the United States acknowledges its embarrassing historical record of racial animus, combined with the resistence of many in the minority community to assume responsibility for their own redemption, the themes in this television program resonate. And this is especially poignant at a time when we are perhaps on the precipice of electing an African-American man to the presidency of the United States.

It is perhaps in the heat of the election that we may finally move beyond the bigotry and biases that divide us. I want for white America to make the distinctions between the responsible and irresponsible, between those who try and those are refuse to try that mean the difference between valid judgment and ignorant prejudice.

Friday, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

A recent study in England documented a recent trend where older, retired man had essentially lost contact with their children and other in general. One of the sad anecdotes told of a son who took out an ad seeking a “male friend” for his lonely, 80-year-old father. He was willing to pay $15 an hour to have someone go to a local pub with his dad to share a pint and some good conversation. This is how far we have come. 

For 15 years I have devoted my professional life to speaking about the problem of social isolation, which is, I believe a crisis in the culture, brought about by the combination of relocation and media use. Every year in the United States over 40 million people move, and in an average week we are watching 28 hours of television! The predictable result of such a lifestyle is increased separation not only from our primary relationships like family and neighbors, but worse, perpetual disconnection from whoever is around us. And with my colleague at Purdue University, Professor Glenn Sparks, we have written about this phenomenon in our book, Refrigerator Rights: Creating Connections and Restoring Relationships.

Today we had a meeting with a manager of a really outstanding retirement facility and discussed the problem of creating and sustaining a sense of community among the residents. Some of the challenges are predictable, of course. Strong bonds of friendship are established only to face the loss of those friendships before very long. And this happens on top of the trauma many confront with the painful decision to give up their independence, and their home. Frequently their children and extended family live far away, and visits are rare.

But the seniors living entities care facilities also confront the problem that is felt throughout every age group in the culture. And that is that their lifestyle is often focused too narrowly on their age peer group with too little contact with individuals of other generations. The residents of this facility today spend most of their time with each other and have little or no contact with babies, adolescents or young adults. And each of those other constituencies in turn have minimal contact with people who are the age group of older siblings or grandparents. And we believe, and the research supports that this lifestyle so narrowly connected to her social peers is, quite frankly inadequate. A healthy lifestyle includes contact with as wide a variety of generational constituencies as possible. Babies thrive and develop as much from the influence of older siblings and cousins as they do from the love and care of their parents and the nurturing of their grandparents. In essence we have come to devalue, to our great detriment the influence of many voices, of many people who helped shape our character, and show us the way.

So whether you are a senior in assisted living, a busy couple raising kids a teenager immersed in the intense cauldron of the high school peer group or an eight-year-old soccer kid, to say that we need all of these others is more than a bromide, it is a health essential. Who populates your social circle?

What are the demographics of your social support system?
We all want friends; we all need a lot more.

Thursday, Indianapolis, Indiana

Rocky & Bullwinkle was an enormously popular classic animated program in the 1960’s that featured Rocky, the flying Squirrel and his pal Bullwinkle the moose. Among the colorful characters were Mr. Peabody, the intellectual dog and his “pet boy” Sherman. The adventures of these characters were a staple for both children and adults for a decade. What can we learn from these characters? In a nutshell we can come to understand important psychological principles using these television characters. Let’s consider one illustration.

Have you ever noticed that certain people bother you more than others? Of course you have. For each of us, there are certain individuals whose very being is a source of deep stress and anxiety. Whenever they walk into the room, psychological bile rises in your psyche (if real bile rises in you throat, this could indicate an organic illness).

And what about the reverse situation? Have you yourself ever been a source of persistent irritation to another person? Certainly you have. If you cannot name one person who is repelled by your presence, ask family members and friends to help you identify those individuals who have spoken hatefully about you. Every person has experienced the difficulty of rubbing someone the wrong way, or realizing that someone becomes agitated whenever you are around them.

Have you ever asked yourself what is at the root of these hostile feelings? Probably not. In psychology, the term coined by the great Carl Jung is the “shadow.”1 It refers to the phenomenon of seeing qualities in this irritating other person which you yourself possess but try very hard to hide. For example, if you become very agitated around someone who is very aggressive, it probably indicates that you repress your own strong hostility. Seeing their anger reminds us about our own rage and so we become uncomfortable.

Very often the qualities we work so hard to project to the outside world are a reaction to some very strong impulses we actually have in the exact opposite direction! Isn’t this fantastic to know? Take any quality you project, and you can surmise that deep inside you there are unconscious urges to do and be the reverse!
So, taking this fascinating notion of the shadow, let’s consider question two above.

What qualities does Mr. Peabody have? What image does he project to the world? If you said intellectual, you are quite right. So what is the opposite of intellectual? Stupid, dense, thick! And who does this better describe - Rocky or Bullwinkle? Yes, of course, the obtuse Moose! (Photo of Bullwinkle #4) Thus Bullwinkle, with his open display of moronia, complete with the voice of an imbecile, would expose to Mr. Peabody the part of himself which is also a dull witted ass. Bullwinkle is Mr. Peabody’s shadow!

See!? Television analysis has given you insight into an important psychological dynamic that is otherwise hard to describe.

Wednesday, Indianapolis, Indiana

I would rather not . . .

Now that we know who the candidates are for the fall presidential election, the debate about the country’s future begins in earnest. Watching the news each day the emotional heat surrounding each side can make your head explode. There are times when I feel the need to just pull away to regain a more balanced perspective. I confess that I have a fairly quick gag response to shallow, partisan spin. However the answer is not to detach completely. I’m committed to remain engaged and listen to both sides, keeping an open mind to decide what would be best.

However, I know many people who have chosen not one side or the other, but a third way, to essentially ignore the entire process. In a way I can’t blame them. But there is a line that can be crossed moving from healthy detachment, motivated by the need for a rest, and living in denial. I guess I’m old school and I believe every citizen needs to be engaged. But for many the acrimony and rancor that spews from each side is enough to make many of us flee.

There are people who simply shun conflict altogether. These are the people who avoid the tension that any opposition brings - they avoid the problem. Some go to such extreme lengths to deflect conflict that they would rather suffer unfairly then stand up to another person or face an uncomfortable situation. In extreme cases, mental health professionals refer to this as a personality trait that is self-defeating and pathological.
It is called Avoidant Personality Disorder. Some of its symptoms include:

A long-standing and complex pattern of feelings of inadequacy, extreme sensitivity to what other people think about them, and social inhibition. It typically manifests itself by early adulthood and includes a majority of the following symptoms:

- avoids occupational activities that involve significant interpersonal contact, because of fears of criticism, disapproval, or rejection
- is unwilling to get involved with people unless certain of being liked
- shows restraint within intimate relationships because of the fear of being shamed or ridiculed
- is preoccupied with being criticized or rejected in social situations
- is inhibited in new interpersonal situations because of feelings of inadequacy
- views self as socially inept, personally unappealing, or inferior to others
- is unusually reluctant to take personal risks or to engage in any new activities because they may prove embarrassing

- When you hear your name called you turn away

- You have traveled to another state rather than face an angry relative

- When given a surprise birthday party you suffer a heart attack

- When someone raises their voice you rapidly blink your eyes

- Your house has very few interior lights

- You rarely go out without wearing a hooded sweatshirt

- At least one a day you sprint away from a perceived threat

- Most days you wear a disguise

- Whenever you enter a room you walk in back first

- You always wear dark sunglasses

Tuesday, Lafayette, Indiana

As I look back on my education it seems strange to me that one of the few dates I remember from my history class, was that the Magna Carta or signed in the year 1215. And it was on this day in that year that this momentous document was in fact enacted. Although I was fuzzy about the actual details of the Magna Carta, I do recall that it is considered the foundation for our present system of law. Specifically it limited for the first time the power of a monarch to rule based on their will. In fact, it asserted that even the king or queen was subject to the rule of law.

While the idea may seem quaint to us today, for most of human history it was the will of a singular leader, or regal family that dictated how life would be lived by the rest of the people under their influence. The Magna Carta represented a singular turning point acknowledging that the populace of any society should not be held at the mercy of of the will of one individual. The obvious danger of this system was that, as has been well documented, too many individual monarchs were, quite candidly mentally ill. This meant that the general population lived with the luck of the draw that at the time they were alive their king or queen was not a complete nutcase. And of course this could not be guaranteed.

One of the most significant details of the Magna Carta was the guarantee that individuals have the right to appeal the decision that was levied against them when convicted of a crime. And today we are well aware of the fact that the appeal process is a foundation of modern justice. It affords a modicum of freedom from the Wednesday of a corrupt trial, a cruel judge and an inept jury. So although it may seem to be a fuzzy detail in our memory from our high school history class, let’s take a moment to remember and celebrate the year 1215 and the Magna Carta that has done so much to enable us to live the life of freedom that we enjoy.

And it is especially fitting that on this day in 1966 the Supreme Court established the now famous Miranda rights warning, demanding that anyone arrested the apprised of their entitlement to know the charges against them and to have an attorney represent them. The spirit of the Magna Carta lives on as we struggle to find the balance between maintaining law and order and holding onto our freedom, and protection from cruel and capricious prosecution. While many become frustrated with those who manipulate these rights and avoid their due punishment, these protections are fundamental to our lifestyle of liberty and protection from the government.

- Enter any home in the kingdom & demand porridge

- Insist that anyone he saw in the street folk dance with him

- Assign a member of the staff to hold his drool cup

- Give any member of the parliament a wedgie with no consequences

- Throw rocks at passersby for fun

- Refuse to bathe for years at a time

- Belch at state dinners

- Require his children to trim his nose hair upon request

- Invade a nearby country for the purpose of bringing home desired cuisine

- Throw spitballs at legislators who disagreed with him

- Award land estates to the pet of his choice

Monday, Lafayette, Indiana

Most often we watch television to distract ourselves, or escape from the stress of our present reality. And yet, even though our desire is to separate ourselves from the challenging reality of our lives, we often choose to watch programs that focus on the real problems of other people. Consequently, we may watch news programs depicting the difficulty and tragedies of other people around the world, or dramas and movies that show unknown individuals in traumatic circumstances, usually worse than our own.

It is not surprising then that we most especially enjoy watching depictions of people who overcome daunting circumstances and prevail against difficult odds. We all imagine ourselves as being resilient enough to confront the challenges we face and conquer them completely. This is one of the reasons why we particularly enjoy programs such as Mission Impossible and Law And Order because the programs inevitably depict good conquering wrongdoing. It is in this vein that certain fictional characters have endured for decades, because they connect with this vicarious desire to overcome the challenges that face us in real life. One classic example of an enduring fictional hero is the iconic Sherlock Holmes.

This weekend I watched the movie “Dressed to Kill” starring Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes. Rathbone famously reprises the great English detective of the early 20th century whose use of logic and deduction made him virtually invincible as a crime solver. Sherlock Holmes was the creation of the writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and he was one of those individuals with the gift of intuition that was always accurate, always ahead of those around him.

He lived with his friend, the muddle headed physician Dr. Watson who was perpetually amazed at the mental power of his friend. The essence of Sherlock’s genius was his ability to notice details that escaped other people. He was able to focus on this minutia and conjecture in a way that inevitably lead to him to the solution to a crime.

And this is what is especially appealing about the great character of Sherlock Holmes. He was a crime solver who almost never resorted to violence or brute strength. Instead he was an individual who use logic and perception as his tools to overcome the forces that  confronted him. And for the majority of us this is the strategy that we can most realistically imagine using ourselves.

In a society and a media culture that celebrates violence as a strategy for perseverance, the majority of us find such an approach intimidating to say the least. What we can imagine, however, is using our wits and imagination to confront and overcome the forces that confront us. Most of us do not believe in the wisdom of problem solving through violence, and even fewer feel capable of such an apporach. Most of us rely on our brain to solve our problems. And we most admire those who have mastered this approach, like Sherlock Holmes. He is a hero precisely because he uses the tools of mental capacity that we can imagine using ourselves, even as we shake our head in amazement at his conduct of genius. But while I may not be able to imagine myself as Rambo, it is less of a stretch to believe I can overcome with the power of my mind and the resources all around me.

This is the essential appeal of everyone from Sherlock Holmes through MacGyver and even the Mission Impossible team. While we may feel overwhelmed by confrontation, we can fantasize using our imagination and creativity to beat any odds stacked against us.

"It’s elementary, my good fellow!

- You administer a polygraph to every boy who dates your daughter

- Even in warm weather you wear a trench coat

- Every service person who comes to your home must submit a DNA sample

- After your son misses his curfew you dust his room for fingerprints

- The family notices that you are cultivating a British accent

- Every phone call to your house is recorded and catalogued

- When your kids ask to have a pet, you get a bloodhound

- When your company hires a new employee you stakeout their house for two days

- The wall of your garage includes front and profile photos of everyone in your neighborhood

- After watching a Sherlock Holmes movie, you start smoking a pipe and playing the violin

Friday, Lafayette, Indiana

On a busy day yesterday in New York City the normally unflappable crowd stopped to stare at two individuals who scaled a skyscraper as a way to attract attention for their protest about global warming. While people watched from the street and nearby windows, these two guys climbed, brick by brick, the sheer face of the New York Times Building. There was no net; there were no security straps. Finger by finger, toe by toe, they literally inched their way to the top. And of course they were immediately arrested.

When I see stories like this, and other accounts of “daredevils” I’m amazed at the gumption and utter disregard for their safety. In my opinion while they are certainly fearless, they are also either pathologically confident or suicidal. It seems to me that scratching your way up the sheer side of a skyscraper indicates a faulty will to live! I just can’t imagine having a constitution that could, like Robbie Knievel, fly a motorcycle over 40 cars. I get woozy three steps up on a ladder in my house!

By far the most amazing fete I ever heard of had to be the French tightrope walker who snuck up to the top of the World Trade Center, fired a line from one tower to the other, and then literally walked across the divide at the sickening height of a mile in the air. Holding one of those giant poles that these guys use for balance he braved what must’ve been unimaginable wind to make it across the divide. At around that same time there was another man who leapt off the top of the World Trade Center and parachuted to the street below! Holy mackerel! Can you imagine doing that yourself?

While the world has always had its unusual souls willing to try death-defying stunts I wonder if there is any data that suggests these antics increase during times of worry. In the face of daunting social challenges, financial pressures, war and other depressing news, maybe it incites more people to spit in the eye of death. While I realize that what they are doing is illegal, and that they certainly face arrest, perhaps they’re doing a public service by allowing us to live vicariously through their courage, even if it is ill advised. You can be sure that I will satiate my desire for control and power only through such vicarious stories. I hope you make the same choice.

And by the way, all of the remarkable individuals I mentioned lived to tell their tale.

Signs that you have a faulty will to live:

- You routinely approach strange pit bulls to pet them

- You frequently take walks through the woods during hunting season wearing brown clothing

- Although visually handicapped you buy a motorcycle

- You eat a tuna sandwich that has been left in the sun since yesterday

- While attending the ultimate fighting championship you make an obscene gesture to one of the contestants

- You begin dating the daughter of an organized crime leader

- You agree to block the path of a naval ship in a dinghy as part of a Greenpeace protest

- You take a vacation in Iraq to “see for yourself what’s going on.”

- Although you have bad knees you travel to Spain to run with the bulls

- Despite being hearing-impaired you regularly take strolls along the railroad tracks

Thursday, Lafayette, Indiana

Married With Children was one of the fledgling Fox Television Network’s early hit shows. It debuted in 1987 and ran for ten years. This hugely popular satire depicted the Bundy family. Al Bundy, a high school football star who never went further in life, works in a show store and is perpetually miserable about his life and unrealized dreams. His wife Peg is a seductive frustrated housewife who is herself miserable as well. The oldest daughter Kelly is a promiscuous dimwit and son Bud, while intelligent and promising, is the target of ridicule by the rest of the family.

The stupidity and dysfunction of the Bundy’s is set in contrast to their neighbors Steve and Marcy, whose financial and career success infuriates the jealous Al. The Bundy’s typify the parents who make all the wrong choices for themselves and in the guidance of their children. Everyone viewing the show understands why they are frustrated and perpetually fail. The laughs in the show, and they were many and uproarious, come as a result of shining a light on this nightmare of an American family. For those viewers who are laughing at the pathetic state of the Bundy’s, it must be a curiosity wondering about the reaction to Married With Children by those living in families whose real life is just as messed up as those depicted on the show.

Any television comedy will be successful if it is executed with terrific writing and good acting. And Married With Children is certainly no exception. But there are certain sitcoms that rise above the norm when they strike a chord with the culture. For instance, the show All In The Family touched a nerve with the country with its depiction of bigotry and racial tension. And so it is with Married With Children. It begs the question of why the show stood out.

When Married With Children came on the scene in the 1980’s, the country was witnessing the rise in power and popularity of the Christian religious right. Religion became a strong political force in local and national elections and culminated in the takeover of the conservative Republican Congress in 1994. Among the issues central to this conservative voice was the worry about the state of the American family. On the heels of nearly 2 decades of record-breaking divorces, there was a strong reaction to the normalization of “broken” and blended families. In some quarters there was a strong critique and even condemnation of anything that diverged from the traditional nuclear family, featuring a working father, a homemaking wife living with their biological children. Deviance from this model was considered suspect at best.

And so it seems that Hollywood had an answer for what they perceive to be the self-righteous and judgmental view of what constitutes the “right kind” of family. It is as if Married With Children spit in the eye of those who were trying to assert that the only family that was legitimate was the traditional nuclear family. It’s as if they said, “okay, we will give you a stay-at-home mother, a working father and two children living in the suburbs. And we will show you how toxic that family can become. Married With Children demonstrated but the structure of the family was irrelevant if the judgment of the family was skewed. And given the fact that at the time many millions of individuals were living in nontraditional families, it is no wonder that Married With Children struck a chord of recognition and evoked such laughs.

- On most nights dinner in your house involves peanut butter and jelly

- You are the first child in your family to reach 21 year old without going to jail

- Your parents let you drive the family car to the store when you were nine years old

- To punish you, your parents make you run as they throw rocks at you

- Your earliest memories include being taken to McDonald’s to eat after 10 o’clock at night

- On more than one occasion you have seen your father sneak money out of the church collection plate

- Your mother often spits

- You are allowed to start smoking cigarettes when you were seven years old

- After you are suspended from school your parents threaten to kill your principal

- Your pastor told your father that your family had a “defective moral compass.”