Go to Psychology Today blogs or The Huffington Post for Stanton's latest posts.

Blog Archive

Stanton's Blog

June 30, 2009

Michael Jackson's Death Won't Reduce Abuse of Prescription Meds

As when Elvis died, medical commentators (like friend and spiritual advisor Dr. Deepak Chopra) hope that Michael Jackson's death while taking many medications will discourage prescription abuse. But, has addiction to meds decreased since Elvis' death? In 2007, Drug Czar John Walters announced that prescription drugs were the fastest growing drugs of abuse, second only to mj use among young people.

Here are the chief reasons Jackson's death will have no impact on our increasing reliance on such drugs:

More kids are prescribed mood meds. Michael Jackson got prescriptions from the readily available pharmacopeia of pain and mood drugs because he felt he needed them. Many people feel the same way and there's no dissuading them. Kids are educated from their teen years (and earlier) to rely on prescription meds to remedy pain and negative feelings.

We are pain averse. Natural childbirth classes arose at the same time in America as mothers became increasingly unwilling to endure the pain of childbirth without serious medications. It is easy to understand that people don't like pain. We Americans really dislike pain.

Fans don't want to talk about Jackson's problems. After Elvis' death, a cult arose around Presley that transcended his popularity as a living performer. The same is true of Michael Jackson. And these fans don't want to talk about his problems. It is at least as possible that young fans will imitate Jackson's drug use as that they will eschew it.

I fear those who optimistically expect young people and others to become more cautious in their use of prescription drugs due to Michael Jackson's negative example are whistling in the wind.

June 28, 2009.

Did Some People Need Michael Jackson to Die?

Some people, although revered in some respects, are more inconvenient alive. For example, when the mightily inconvenient Orson Welles returned to the U.S. to receive an honorary Academy Award in 1971, he hectored the audience for funding for his current work (Wells was persona non grata in Hollywood). One member of the audience was heard to murmur, "We should have waited until he was dead to give him an award."

After Jackson's death, the tributes poured in from his legion of friends and fans - Liza Minnelli, Elizabeth Taylor (too choked up to comment), Quincy Jones ("I've lost my little brother"), Governor Schwarzenegger, President Obama - who even knew Jackson and Deepak Chopra were friends? Released of their conflicted feelings over his corporeal presence, fans flocked into the streets, created shrines, and wrote love notes.

Yet Jackson was terribly alone - despite his three small children. He seemed uncomfortable in his skin, in the presence of others, in adult relationships, on screen when he was doing anything but dancing. His whole life was a series of secrets and cover-ups - the medications, the relationships with children, the money, the abuse from his father, his sexuality, his marriages, the plastic surgery - as though the truth of Jackson was unbearable.

Jackson was alienated from his large family. Predictably, at his death, family members grumbled loudly about Jackson's caretakers, who they deemed had been insufficiently attentive to their brother and son. And how would his children have dealt with the reality of their father as they matured?

Let's face it - Jackson had become an eyesore, an embarrassment, a cause for concern - even (or especially) for those who claimed to care about him. Only when he was safely dead could they express their affection and admiration for a person who existed primarily in their minds, as a memory and a media creation.

June 27, 2009

Can love be addictive? Ask Mark Sanford - or his wife

Mark Sanford's wife has made clear just how far "gone" her husband, the governor of South Carolina, was over his affair with his Argentinean lover.  Vice President Biden should consider appointing Jenny Sanford director of the new National Institute on Addictive Diseases.

Mrs. Sanford discovered the affair earlier this year. Yet, her husband pleaded repeatedly for permission to visit his lover. "I said absolutely not," reported Mrs. Sanford - a deeply religious woman. "It's one thing to forgive adultery. It's another to condone it."

Conservative politicians generally don't ask their devout wives for permission to fornicate. Despite her refusal, the governor told his wife he needed time to write, told his staff he was headed for the Appalachian Trail, and took off for the promised land.  In the meantime, he left his state leaderless and put his staff in the position of lying to the electorate and press.

Predictably, he was found out. What made Mark Sanford think he could disappear on his wife and his state for a week with nobody noticing? But he couldn't, metaphorically, help himself. "You would think that a father who didn't have contact with his children," Mrs. Sanford, who had kicked Sanford out of the house, said, "if he wanted those children, would toe the line a little bit."

If Mark Sanford had a drinking or drug problem, everyone would nod knowingly.  He might promise to abstain and head off for treatment. His constituents would forgive him. But being addicted to an Argentinean (notice the similarity to "Appalachian") bombshell?  It was a tough sell telling America he was cheating on his wife and deserting his four sons for Father's Day in order to pursue hot sex on another continent.

But, in the words of Martha Reeves, "Love, love, love, makes me do foolish things." If love were a drug, it would be banned as the most dangerously addictive substance on earth - as I have said, love is the hardest addiction to quit.  What else could make a person publicly humiliate himself and his family - just think of his sons' friends googling their father's admission of adultery at the state house - and end his hard-earned political career, including the possibility of running for the presidency?

Note that this case does not fit the model of sexual addition so frequently highlighted by sex addict buffs - that is, addicts (usually men) who recklessly pursue sex, often nonstop, generally with many partners. Mark Sanford was "in love" with his mistress - and nothing could deter him from the object of his desire.

Of course, my view of addiction requires that we peel back this onion. Mark Sanford is a good-looking, successful man. Sometimes women are attracted to a man like that. He is also a conservative, God-fearing politician who preached the sanctity of marriage in his campaigns and was elected governor of the most socially conservative state (along with Utah) in the country.

In other words, he is like the boy brought up to believe alcohol should never cross his lips who attends a fraternity party - and loses his head entirely to his first fatal sip of booze. He simply didn't have the experience and equipment to manage the experience of love - including, to judge from his e-mails, a heavy dose of sexual fascination.

Sanford wasn't addicted to direct sexual stimulation - since he claims to have only had sex with the woman during three brief periods over the past year. What drug becomes so addictive after only three exposures? We need to stamp out anything this potent! Oh, you mean religion and society have been trying to do so for eons, and have failed?

Although it is unlikely I will get the opportunity to interview the governor, I have several questions for him. I'd first ask, "Were you planning on confessing and asking forgiveness from God, your constituents, and (seemingly lastly) your family like you did if a newspaper hadn't discovered you returning from South America at the Atlanta Airport and then published your e-mails with your girlfriend?" (Have you noticed, those Christians only get remorseful and right themselves with God after they're caught?)

Second, I'd ask, "Why the hell did you spend the last five days crying in Argentina (as the governor announced at his press conference)?" Did Maria (his lover) dump you? Were you impotent?  Did you realize you wouldn't have a chance to rendezvous again after this debacle?  Did you see your political career going down the dumper?" I thnk his answer would be: "Because I was so unhappy betraying my wife." But then why did he disregard her ultimatum and lie to her about where he was headed?

But then I would ask him a serious psychological question: "Would you encourage your sons to have more sexual experience before marrying than you had?" Mark Sanford was so upright, so concentrated on his career, that when he met the attractive, intelligent, hard working Jenny, he thought, "this woman can take me to the top" (his wife managed his political campaigns). As described by Jenny, their meeting "was (not love, but) friendship at first sight."

My point, governor, is that the only way to inoculate your children against this love bug is to teach them what you didn't know - how to fall in sexual love without losing your head and doing yourself permanent damage.

June 22, 2009

Casual Cruelty Towards Children (Which Doesn't Stop There)

I've written about the cruelty casually visited on children daily on TV reality shows (like Maury Povitch). I've written about celebrity biographies that are amazing in the degree to which women tolerate abuse (like Pattie Boyd). A new biography combines the two in equal amounts.

Allegra Huston's memoir, Love Child, is not a tell-all, Mommy Dearest style book. It does have much of a forties Hollywood flavor to it, although Allegra was born in 1964, because her father, John Huston, became a famous film director in 1941 (when The Maltese Falcon appeared) and he directed his last film in 1987 (the year he died). But her low-key, insightful writing presents even more devastating portraits of the adults in her life than earlier tell-alls by the daughters of Joan Crawford and Bette Davis.

Allegra's mother, Ricki Soma - a beautiful, talented woman, wife to John Huston - died when Allegra was 4, having failed to establish a career or a successful marriage (she and Huston had an "arrangement," where each took other lovers). Allegra was a dozen years younger than her famous older sister, Anjelica, who was already on her own while Allegra was shuttled from home to home in England, Ireland, New York, and California. Her guardians included her maternal grandparents, her father (in both Ireland and California), her sister - sometimes she lived only under the guidance of her nurse.

A shy, sensitive girl who always contrasted her lack of brilliance and daring with her father and sister, she was a keen, intelligent observer of the adults around her. In addition to the adults who raised her, these included Jack Nicholson and Ryan O'Neal, her sister's lovers.

After growing up in London with her mother, then moving to John's Irish estate, then living with her grandparents outside New York, Allegra was moved (with her nurse) to California. In California, the nurse was let go (with no notice to Allegra) and she was moved in with John and his fifth (and last) wife, Cici (who was half John's age):

Once again, the pattern had been played on me: wait for the end of the school year, send me somewhere that seemed temporary and see how I liked it, then fix things behind my back and tell me it's permanent. I was happy with the outcome this time, but I resented being the subject of an experiment that nobody admitted was being conducted on me.

+ + +

Cici had a son by a prior marriage, Collin:

Daddy always said the same thing to prove that Collin wasn't stupid [Collin had a learning disability]: "He can name all the prehistoric reptiles." It was the tone you'd use to tell someone about a circus act: "Just imagine that," I could hear him saying. "He can juggle jelly fish." He said it with exaggerated seriousness, as if this feat of Collin's was so extraordinary that one could only gape in wonder. He was so pleased with himself for being able to appreciate Collin's particular intelligence - as if he felt the need to demonstrate that Collin wasn't an idiot, which only showed that he entertained the possibility. And why "prehistoric reptiles?" [to make himself sound knowledgeable?] What [actually] made Collin's intelligence remarkable was his sharp wit, which Daddy seemed unable to hear.

+ + +

After John divorced Cici, Allegra lived with her step mother, who started drinking. They (she and her step brother) were playing a game where their dog chased a whip they had in the house:

Suddenly the door slammed open and Cici stormed in, grabbed the whip from my hand, and slashed it across our legs.

"Don't you ever whip an animal."

"We weren't" - I started.

"Ana Maria [the new maid - the last one ran off with John] said you were whippinhg Snowflake. She could hear her crying." I could see Ana Maria in the hallway, looking pleased with herself.

"We would never whip Snowflake!" I was furious through my tears. I couldn't understand how Cici could believe we'd do that, even if Ana Maria had told her so. Didn't she know us any better than that? But she wouldn't listen.

+ + +

Dividing up the marital loot, much of which came from John's estate in Ireland (where Allegra had lived in a separate house), Cici convinced Allegra to request one sculpture that meant a lot to her:

Dad wrote back to say that of course Night Image should be mine; it was only fitting since the sculpture was the last thing my mother had given him. The formality of Dad's words - a sort of official presentation to me of this piece of art - seemed to be taking credit for his thoughtfulness in giving Itt [the sculpture's name for the family] to me. So why did I have to ask? If I hadn't asked, if Cici hadn't made me, "Cousin Itt" would have been swept off without a thought for me or Mum [and would have ended up] in storage somewhere.

+ + +

Allegra started spending time with Anjelica and Jack Nicholson:

Jack's pals came over to watch the Lakers' road games. On the screen, fuzzy washed-out giants in yellow uniforms pounded up and down the court while Jack yelled at them, jumping up and down like them, cheering as loud as if he were at the stadium. His friends pounded the air and cheered too - a little less loudly, like backup singers. It reminded me of Dad: another king, another court.

+ + +

Although Allegra idolized Anjelica, she witnessed her being brutalized by men. First, she thought her sister had a special room in Nicholson's house where she could go to cry - as she often did. But Allegra much preferred Nicholson to Ryan O'Neal, who constantly snorted coke, allowed his children to take drugs (both Griffin and Tatum became adult addicts), and regularly became menacingly angry towards her and Anjelica - until Allegra, then 10, suggested that Anjelica return to Nicholson.

Eventually, she realized that the sister she worshipped - who had been raised by a mother Allegra couldn't remember - was at least as emotionally damaged and psychologically vulnerable as she herself was. Always shy and more conventional than her sister, father, and those around her, she eventually entered a counter-cultural environment herself in Taos, where she formed a stable family, finally finding the security and happiness those who raised her had never provided.

June 10, 2009

Psychological Interview with Barack Obama

For me, the most amazing thing about the President is his psychological groundedness, and the apparent mental health of his family. NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams recently interviewed the President. But he didn't ask what I most wanted to know. Here's the interview I'd like to see.

How did you learn to manage? People comment on how many issues you have taken on. You answer, of course, "What choice did I have?" But what most interests me is how you are able to divide your time productively among the many matters demanding your attention. For one thing, I'm not aware that you've had any management experience, where you have many groups of professionals working under you, each addressing a different topic (Iraq, Afghanistan, the auto industry, financial regulation, the budget, European allies, and on and on). How do you give them direction and then receive feedback from and consult with them? Where did you learn this?

Describe your management style. People have noted that you ask everyone in the room for their opinion. Could you give us some insight into how you developed this style and how it works for you? As a management consultant, I'm aware that this is a productive approach to groups. I also know that our greatest presidents used this approach (e.g., Washington and Lincoln). How did you arrive at this style? How do you balance taking in the opinions of others while reserving final judgments for yourself? (You know, some of the executives you work with, for example in the auto industry, might learn something from this style.)

How did you develop your confidence? You have written two books about the challenges you faced as an African-American youth who didn't have a natural "safe haven" - that is, one cultural environment that you could call your own, as well as lacking a father in the home. You described how this led you to some youthful excesses (i.e., your use of drugs). Yet, you seem at this point to be extremely well-adjusted and comfortable in just about any environment, including dealing with world leaders, facing political opposition, working with talented experts in any number of policy areas. To what do you attribute your self-confidence? Was it the attention your mother gave you, or your grandmother?

How do you avoid second-guessing yourself? There were any number of moments during the campaign - and plenty since then - when even your supporters questioned your decisions and judgment. For the most part, you held to the course that you and your advisers had formulated. How do you avoid wasting time second-guessing yourself and your advisers? Have you always had the ability to clear you brain of these distractions? Or did you perfect it during the campaign? And, while you're at it, how do you have the guts to deliver crucial addresses to Muslim, or European, or American audiences (and millions more watching), then not worry about your missteps?

If you weren't President, you could have a second career as a marriage counselor. You have detailed in your memoir conflicts you experienced over divvying up marital chores and the like. In some of her earlier, less well-developed representations of your family, Michelle complained about how "smelly" you were to the kids when they jumped in bed and how sloppy you were. But Michelle's support for you - especially as a Harvard-trained lawyer who had her own highly successful career - is truly remarkable. How did you pull that one off? I would guess that your becoming leader of the free world went a good way toward convincing her that this was a worthwhile role for her.

And those kids - how'd you do that? Everyone remarks on how nice your kids are. They have retained the ability to be children - happy children - amid the remarkable pressures you face. Of course, you and Michelle love them, and Michelle is a largely full-time mother now. But there are plenty of families in that situation who have been, shall we say, less successful than you in creating well-adjusted children. I read that Michelle consulted with other mothers in similar situations, and she remarked on how nice Chelsea Clinton turned out, in particular how she didn't put on airs. Your girls seem to be well on the way to achieving similarly confident, but not privileged, personalities.

Aren't you worried about raising children in a privileged fishbowl? But now that I've complimented you and Michelle for the excellent job you've done, I'm overcome by the magnitude of the task before you. I heard you tell Brian Williams you thought about issues your girls will face later in dating - for example, whether boys would seek them out because they were your daughters, rather than for themselves. That's good to think about. But I wonder how you inoculate them against all the attention they receive - like appearing before the massive crowd in Chicago the night you were elected. How are you and Michelle dealing with that in the near term?

Thank you so much, Mr. President, for taking the time to explain the workings of your and your family's minds. I know many people feel they could learn a lot from you in this area.

Oh, and one more thing - How do you keep from being conceited? I know I asked how you became so confident, but you are trying to revamp our health care system, revitalize the economy, rescue the car industry; break through the Israel-Arab stalemate, build a bridge to the Muslim World. . . .how DO you keep from being full of yourself while believing that you can pull all of this off?

June 4, 2009

Two Views of Apology

Obama critics (e.g., Gingrich, O'Reilly, Hannity, Rove) call his oversea forays "apology tours." For these men, and others, to concede errors is the height of national and personal weakness.

As a psychologist in the addiction field, I developed a communications curriculum. Addicts frequently are mired in, along with their drug habits, destructive interactions with spouses, parents, children, lovers. The two destructive patterns feed into one another to create the self-defeating cycles in addicts' lives.

In this learning exercise, we work on allowing others to tell us their needs, while we communicate ours to them. To escape escalating negativity, each side must concede points, and grant esteem to the other. An effort at offering criticism will reach its target only if the person first feels secure in the regard the critic has for them, and if the critic also acknowledges his or her contributions to an embroil.

These concessions are so important in breaking a negative cycle that they must begin any effort at feedback. Without them, people interpret critical comments as personal attacks. It's as though apologies and offers of respect unlock the door to people's brains, to allow thoughts and suggestions to enter.

Sound familiar? This is the Obama approach to salving international conflicts and to begin their resolution. But it drives conservatives wild. On "Fox & Friends," following Obama's speech at Cairo University, hosts and commentators bemoaned Obama's blaming American actions for inspiring hatred in Iran, among other mea culpas.

Where do these differences in attitudes spring from? As "mea culpa" suggests, Christianity emphasize humility and self-critique. But, obviously, both Obama supporters and opponents claim to be Christians. As my description of my work with addicts suggests, psychological communications theory likewise appreciates generous acknowledgments of one's own flaws.

On the other side, John Wayne never (well, hardly ever) apologized. Men need to be strong, and don't acknowledge they are wrong. But Wayne's most memorable movie, The Searchers (directed by the equally monumental John Ford), recognized there are moments where letting down one's guard to accept where others are coming from is crucial. In that film, Wayne hates Indians with a passion, including -- it seems -- his brother's kidnapped daughter (played by Natalie Wood), even as he pursued her around the West. It isn't until the next-to-the-last scene that Wayne finally reveals that he will welcome his niece back to the white world.

Ironically, in the film's last scene, Wayne himself is shut out from the happy family resolution. His single-mindedness simply doesn't work in a family context. But the film credits Wayne with bringing Wood home safely. Only the fictional Wayne character had the strength to preserve his family against the dangers of the West, including Native Americans.

I teach that the inability to apologize and see the other side is a psychological weakness. True blue Wayne fans -- perhaps including Ronald Reagan -- believe that leading with strength is the only chance the United States has to protect our interests. But Obama has a higher -- call it Christian -- calling, one which foresees the lion sleeping with the lamb.

An impossible dream? A practical approach to mending fences? A sign of weakness? A religious declaration? An offense to American sensibilities? A generosity borne of strength?

It depends where you are coming from - and what you think "strength" means.

June 4, 2009

Susan Boyle's Breakdown: Isn't she a bit like you and me?

Susan Boyle's breakdown in the aftermath of her second place finish in "Britain's Got Talent" finals Saturday night illustrates two perplexing areas of human behavior: depression and procrastination. Why do people get stuck in unhappy life spaces?

The Susan Boyle story - like all such narratives - is irresistible. Unemployed, 47-year-old, small-town church volunteer, never been kissed, leaps to international acclaim. An obviously talented person, after decades of anonymity, suddenly becomes a worldwide sensation with over 90 million views on You Tube.

Isn't this rags-to-riches success story what every human being hungers for? Perhaps. But why was Ms. Boyle alone and unemployed? Surely someone with her talents could have achieved some success - had a job, perhaps some lovers. Maybe "success" is the wrong word - let's call it, well, living.

What keeps people -- talented people, all people -- from striving to attain more? We're used to stars who fade due to their own self-destructiveness. But a much more typical story line is the person who never risks anything, who keeps a lousy job or unsatisfactory relationship out of. . . fear. "Isn't this a bit like you and me?" to paraphrase John Lennon, a man who spent his last years locked in a New York apartment bathroom.

As a rule of thumb, people prefer known discontents to scary unfamiliar terrain. It's why telling people to do something never works - they cling to their own, perhaps short-sighted and limited, goals and actions. These are within - a phrase everyone understands - their comfort zone.

At a bar mitzvah I attended, the seventy-something grandfather of the feted lad spoke: "If I knew all along what I know now, I would have taken all kinds of chances." I didn't believe him. The same psychic corset he has always worn was still in place; he would make the same choices today that he did when he was younger.

Boyle was reportedly having a mini-meltdown before her final performance. Rush to the rescue one of the judges - Peirs Morgan - who persuaded her to carry on. It said something of Ms. Boyle's state of mind that she repeated her opening number on Saturday. Simon Cowell, famous for his dismissive, insulting assessments of contestants, meanwhile "disagreed" with "some people" who said she "was completely unequipped to deal" with the experience. Nonetheless, the unlikely star had an emotional collapse following her disappointing finish.

Cowell actually had an ulterior motive for his boosterism. He has a record deal with Boyle to cash in on her popularity, a plan he has indicated he is carrying on in the aftermath of Ms. Boyle's collapse. Like Morgan, Cowell is a man who welcomes attention, even notoriety. Cowell's, like Morgan's, primary talent is chutzpah.

These men are projecting their own aspirations and psychologies on Ms. Boyle. A more humane assessment came from Fred O'Neil, Boyle's former voice coach: "It's such a tragic situation, a woman who really just loves to sing, an innocent woman really, who is just caught up in this fame game. I just hope that whatever fame that she has got out of this will eventually bring her some happiness. Obviously at the present time it is not."

May 25, 2009

Why We Can't Solve Autism

Writing in the Sunday New York Times in reference to a disease he knows well (his autistic brother, Noah, is now in his forties), Karl Greenfeld makes an eye-opening statement: autism "is now among the most financially successful and mediagenic diseases ever, with hundreds of millions of dollars a year going to research, and regular press coverage." And this has been true for a number of years.

Yet autism shows no signs of abating, and many signs of increasing. There were around 15000 cases of autism among Americans ages 6-22 in 1992; today there are over 250,000 cases (over 300,000 among those 3-22) - a 1500 percent increase. To say the least, we do not have a handle on what causes autism. And, as in the Middle Ages - when Jews were blamed (and burned) across Europe for causing the black plague - when there is an unexplained epidemic, people get ornery.

The biggest fight is among those promoting and opposing the idea that mercury-based vaccines cause autism. Although by now vitrtually every concerned government (e.g., World Health Organization, European Medicines Agency, Centers for Disease Control) and independent private (Institute of Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics) medical and health body has rejected the thimerosal (the mercury-based medium for inoculations) link to autism, it continues to be promoted avidly by such media stars as Robert Kennedy Jr., Deirdre Imus, and Jenny McCarthy and boyfriend Jim Carrey (here is one critique of Kennedy's work).

If you Google "thimerosal-autism," your first hit will be: "What Causes Autism," from the National Autism Association, which headlines: "Recent studies have confirmed the association between the use of thimerosal and autism has moved from ‘biologically plausible' to a ‘biological certainty.'" The second link will be to the Maryland Court of Appeals decision rejecting the validity of scientific claims that thimerosal causes autism. The third will be to the Vaccine Education Center which enumerates the evidence against such a link.

Go ahead - read all you want and make your own decision. But the most convincing piece of evidence that eliminating thimerosal in childhood vaccines won't solve the autism surge is - it's already been done, between 1997-1999. Childhood vaccines have for a decade not contained mercury, and the incidence of autism has still not declined, and continues to rise. This is scary on a number of grounds.  But why is autism rising? Here are the logically possible explanations for the autism epidemic, and the problems with each:

1. Autism isn't really exploding. Can the rise in the prevalence of autism from 1 in 10,000 infants to 1 in 150 in a few decades really be due simply to our greater awareness of and readiness to diagnose the disease? Boy, that's as hard to swallow as the thimerosal linkage. Maybe greater sensitivity to - and a broadening of the definition and criteria for - autism account for some of the increase since 1992, but all of the 1500% increase? Autism often causes a major - sometimes near-total - failure at functioning (as it did with Noah Greenfeld). Did we really miss all of these until recently? Not likely.

2. Genetic causes. Although it is not strictly accurate to state that diseases with large genetic components cannot increase in their incidence, genetics are not an easy, efficient explanation for dramatic rises like that we have observed with autism.

3. Environmental pollutants. Would some rapidly growing environmental pollutant cause such a dramatic rise in a disease without a clear-cut biological basis (there are no reliable brain or other medical markers for autism)? It is far more likely that such a pollutant - were one to exist - would impact some malady with a clearly identified biological source in the body. This doesn't make it impossible that such an environmental-medical link will be found, but it is increasingly unlikely.

4. Child-rearing style. Explanations for childhood diseases in parental behavior are now frowned on as being guilt-inducing and victim-blaming. And it is certainly hard to believe that parents are doing something so radically different from parents just a few decades ago as to explain this accelerating epidemic.

5. Society. Is something modern society as a whole is doing, something that we don't recognize or acknowledge, causing a major developmental failure in many of our children? This suggestion is (a) vague and nearly meaningless, (b) anxiety and panic provoking, (c) something that, by definition, we cannot act on. If this "explanation" were true, then autism might continue to grow without end (although it might also suddenly reverse itself). What a frightening prospect!

But many people are beginning to feel this way.

Note (May 26):

Please see the responses to this post: the confusion, antagonism, warring skeptics and true believers that I outlined in my post are present as well in the responses to it.

May 15, 2009

Bullshitting: Lessons from the Masters

One of the amusing sidelights of the Bernie Madoff fiasco is how independent analysts repeatedly tipped the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) about Madoff - in fact, the SEC conducted several investigations of Madoff's operation - but the agency never discovered Madoff was a fraud.

The patron saint of these tipsters was Harry Markopolos, who began warning regulators about Madoff in 1999. Markopolos testified before Congress: "The SEC was never capable of catching Mr. Madoff. He could have gone to $100 billion. It took me about five minutes to figure out he was a fraud."

Without enumerating all 29 red flags Markopolos identified in a 2005 memo to the SEC deducing that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme (perhaps its title, "The World's Largest Hedge Fund is a Fraud," was too subtle), we can readily see the indisputable indicators of Madoff's fakery. But, more important, we can gain insight into his genius as a bullshitter.

Among the clear signs of fraud were the Madoff fund's unbelievably positive, and consistent, returns despite market downturns; the lack of oversight of his performance and operations by any independent auditors; the opaqueness - and unbelievability - of his claims about his investment strategy; the secrecy he insisted on from third parties; etc.

But what is most interesting to psychologists in Markopolos' memo is the last, 29th red flag: Madoff would tell any new investor that, although he was so successful his fund was closed to all but a few fortunate insiders, he would make an exception for that lucky individual. Agents for Madoff proudly repeated this preposterous claim as a sign of how well connected they were - "I'm a special friend of Bernie's."

Now, we are getting to the heart of what makes for a master bullshitter. Time and again, SEC regulators showed up at Madoff's offices and conducted long interviews with him in which he completely snowed them, when a simple examination of relevant documents would indicate they were pure fabrications.

In fact, it isn't hard to pull this kind of deception off if you just follow a few simple rules.  This list is generated from peak bullshitting performers like Madoff, alleged fellow Ponzi schemer Sir R. Allen Stanford (whom the SEC had been investigating for four years but only pulled the plug on after the Madoff scandal broke), and - God bless him - Donald Trump*.

1. Always remember - people are afraid to challenge you. Both because it violates social propriety, and because of their fears that their own secrets will be found out, people don't question others to their face. So simply count on being allowed to mouth off and make outrageous claims with no fear of being contradicted - or with objectors themselves facing ostracism.

2. Point to your legitimate successes or bona fides. Stanford was a genuine knight (mediated by Antiguan authorities). Madoff had been president of the NASDAQ stock exchange's board of directors. There are big buildings with Trump's name gaudily plastered all over them.  So simply trot out your past successes (magnified as much as possible) at every opportunity, and add on whatever bullshit you wish.

3. Act arrogant - keep it up. Although arrogance might seem to work against you by offending people, it is the supreme intimidation technique - people are readily cowed when someone acts like he is better, smarter, more powerful than they are (ergo, the Donald Trump phenomenon). The only danger is if you act modestly or question yourself, because people WILL attack weakness. In fact, even when you are being arrested (as in Stanford's case), attack your accusers.

4. Claim esoteric knowledge or techniques. It doesn't matter if the formula you use to explain your success makes no sense - people aren't secure enough to challenge something they can't understand. In fact, it pays to make the secret to your success as incomprehensible as possible while linking it to something beyond questioning, like say relativity, quantum physics, evolution or, for the old fashioned, God.

5. Always delay the day of reckoning. Contrary to the idea that, if your are standing on a foundation of bullshit, you will being to sink, send questioners and doubters away. In the interim, they will become re-intimidated by how highly your bullshit is regarded. When they return (if they have the guts), simply go back to square one, making the same claims with the same evidence, and in the same arrogant, don't-question-me tone.

Follow these few simple rules of bullshitting, and your success is guaranteed!

* This post most assuredly does not claim that Donald Trump has ever committed fraud - only that he is America's premier bullshitter.