Dreams have been described as dress rehearsals for real life, opportunities to gratify wishes, and a form of nocturnal therapy. A new theory aims to make sense of it all.
Responses to Thunberg have varied from suggesting (with no grounds of which I have been made aware) that she is a paid shill, that she is mentally ill, is having a breakdown, is a witch, or that she is some sort of prophet. People who don’t like her message—which is, when you get right down to it, the rather conservative one that we should all have been paying closer attention in school—have tried a number of ways to discredit her. All without success. Why has her message been more effective than previously?
I’m not qualified to speak to the technical aspects of what should be done in response to climate change. I realize that most people who opine on the issues aren’t qualified to talk to the technical aspects either, but that this rarely stops them. However, climate science is not my role. I’m a psychologist, and I do have some thoughts on her effectiveness, and the ineffectiveness (or worse) of many of her critics.
It is worth starting with the observation that what Thunberg is saying and the way it is being said, is not especially new. Severn Cullis-Suzuki aka “The Girl Who Silenced the World for Five Minutes,” then aged 12, said very similar things at the 1992 Rio Summit. Ecosystems are collapsing. We need to move away from fossil fuels. The world was silenced for five minutes and then proceeded to pump out more CO2 in the next 25 years than in all previous ones.
The world might have become a bit more educated about the realities of climate change in the quarter-century since Cullis-Suzuki, and there is something to be said for that. But not, I think, all. Logic and facts alone rarely carry the day. People respond to stories. Particularly to ancient stories. They respond on a bone level and are probably barely aware of why. Something about a young impassioned woman giving us this particular message now is stirring up passions--positive and negative. Maybe there is something a bit more end of times in the air, what with flood waters rising, countries on fire, city leveling hurricanes, and the sort of thing that is hard to deny the existence of? Signs and portents, and all that sort of thing. Maybe we are starting to believe that the end of the world might be a real thing, and our ears become attuned to particular types of people at that point?
There are characters—I'm tempted to call them archetypes—that crop up again and again in myth cycles across time and culture. When we see one, we have certain expectations and responses that come to the fore. These archetypal characters possibly represent particular ways in which, over evolved time, humans have engaged with threats and opportunities.
Obvious examples are the Warrior, Magus, and Trickster. They are all represented as gods or heroes in particular configurations that have common themes across time and space. Warriors solve their problems by combat. They fall into two types. The brainy and the brawny, Odysseus and Hercules. Iron-man, and Thor. The Magus is an ascetic outsider from normal society, who wins by knowing arcane facts that normal folks are not privy to. Doctor Who, Obi Wan, Sherlock Holmes, Dr Strange. The Trickster is fun as hell, reminds us of our absurdities, but can’t always be trusted: Loki. Joker. And, there is the Wise Girl.
I’ve written about her before in relation to horror stories. Throughout the whole of Bantu Africa, the mythological “Wise Girl” (such as G!kno/’amdima of the Jhosa) regularly saves the rest of the group from ogres and other monsters. In countless western horror films, she is immortalized as the Final Girl, of whom Buffy the Vampire Slayer is probably the most mainstream version.
What are the Wise Girl's key characteristics? She is always a young, unmarried girl on the cusp of womanhood. She is brave and smart, like most heroes, but also pure, innocent—perhaps even to the point of being somewhat unworldly. Warning the tribe of impending danger, and frequently disbelieved, she is willing to accept martyrdom, even. Joan of Arc. Anne Frank. Malala Yousafzai.
Remind you of anyone else?
We grant Wise Girls special license to convey apocalyptic truths, and my suspicion is that we have done so for a very long time. This role is not necessarily to their personal benefit. Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring” caused a riot when it was released in 1913. This was partly for its plangent discordant tunes, and partly because it showcased the way that young girl martyrs can be chosen for pagan sacrifice. In the Stravinsky ballet, the girl is made to dance herself to death. South Park, of all things, picked up this theme in their episode about Britney Spears, and the almost pagan way we offer up youngsters for sacrifice.
But, if I am right, then the attacks on a Wise Girl by various people (a middle-aged man attacking the character of a young woman is rarely a good look) will just confirm her martyr status. Severn Cullis-Suzuki was not attacked, just ignored. But it’s too late to ignore Thunberg now. Just as its too late to ignore the fact that Australia is on fire. And Thunberg has inspired a following.
Incidentally, let there be no suggestion that I use the word “martyr” in any sneering sense. The etymology of the word "martyr" is “witness to the truth.” As Geoffrey Miller points out in his new book, the much-maligned term “virtue signaling” should be extended to include the signaling of real underlying virtues; otherwise, it’s not technically signaling at all. Not in a biological sense. Real virtues are hard to fake, desirable qualities.
And the more people try to bully her, the more that she appears as a Wise Girl in the eyes of others. And the more the bullies will start to look like part of the threat.
References
1) Some people are worried at the effects of a school strike. It may help such people to think of it as "proroguing school". Or, it may not.
2) Biesele, M.A. 1993. Women like Meat: The Folklore and Foraging Ideology of the Kalahari Ju/’hoan. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.
Clover, C. J. (1993). Men, women, and chain saws: Gender in the modern horror film. Princeton University Press. “Final Girl” was a term introduced by the feminist scholar Carol Clover in her (1993) book “Men, Women and Chainsaws” in which she dismantled the oft-repeated idea that females in horror films are always helpless sexualized victims.
4) Geoffrey Miller discusses virtue signalling--in a non perjorative sense--here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtDrn2ss_Is
His book is available here https://www.primalpoly.com/virtue-signaling-2019 (Incidentally, none of this means he endorses what I have been saying in the blog)
5) I discuss archetypes in greater detail here
https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ebs/9/3/170.html?uid=2015-00535-001
King, R. (2015). A regiment of monstrous women: Female horror archetypes and life history theory. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9(3), 170.
This work was somewhat inspired by Tehrani, J. J. (2013). The phylogeny of little red riding hood. PloS one, 8(11), e78871.
6) Some people have suggested that we need to "stop listening to little girls, and start listening to experts". Here are some worth listening to:
https://www.ecomodernism.org/
Greta Thunberg would only be successful if she could be shown to have won over someone, anyone, who was not on her side already.
So I challenge you, Mr. King, to find me someone, anyone, who wasn't already an environmental activist who was won over by Greta's overheated rhetoric.
If she can show me one, you win. If not, then Greta is exactly what she appears to be: an emotionally disturbed little girl who's ranting and raving to a choir that already believes everything she's saying. In the process, she has antagonized millions of people she should be trying to win over.
Submitted by Robert J King Ph.D. on September 25, 2019 - 5:13am
Google is your friend. Links can't be posted in the comments, but if you google a picture of her sitting by herself outside the Swedish parliament one year ago, and hold it side by side with any one of hundred pictures of those joining her a year later then the difference should be obvious to you.
Submitted by James OBrien MD on September 24, 2019 - 8:42pm
the number of people killed annually by extreme weather events has declined 90 percent.
Since the industrial revolution, global temperatures have increased one degree C.
Since 2000, .3 degrees C.
Since 1960, the number of polar bears has increased from less than 10K to 28K.
Since 1960, the number of people who live in extreme poverty has declined 90 percent.
This should be cause for joy, not hysteria.
The first rule of medicine is take your own pulse.
If climate hysteria wins, those gains in poverty eradication will be erased in a worldwide catastrophic depression that will render poor people unable to build dams and dykes.
So basically the fear mongers are wrong, even if they are right in their predictions, and they've never been right. If the Earth does warm nothing can be done to save us if we're broke.
Scaring the hell out of children is reprehensible and using them as political pawns and human shields even more so. It's right out of the psyops PLO playbook. This is parent induced trauma and they have wrecked their fragile child. Psychologists should not be cheering this on.
Submitted by Robert J King Ph.D. on September 25, 2019 - 5:15am
You have mistaken me for a climate change scientist. I suspect you have also mistake yourself for a climate change scientist, as you post no citations for these claims.
This is not the blog you are looking for. Move along.
Submitted by Nikita on September 25, 2019 - 7:58am
Jon Stewart liked to give pompous political speeches. Whenever anyone refuted stupid things he said, he'd sneer dishonestly "I'm not a politician, I'm just a comedian."
You, Mr. King, know nothing about climate change, but you write about it regularly. When Dr. O"'Brien points out your ignorance, you see dishonestly, "I'm not a climate change scientist, so don't talk about that stuff here."
Make up your mind. If you write about subjects you know nothing about, people are going to notice your errors and point them out. The moral is clear: if you don't want people to call you an ugniramus, stick to writing about topics you actually understand.
Like... Psychology. That's supposed to be your field of expertise, right? So how is it you can't see the obvious fact that Greta Thunberg is mentally ill, depressed and probably suicidal?
Greta Thunberg is likely to hang herself before she turns 21. She should be in therapy, not shrieking at the UN.
Submitted by Robert J King Ph.D. on September 25, 2019 - 8:57am
In no particular order,
1) "Dr" O'Brien is an MD. (I take people at face value here on PT).
That's a medical doctor, because you appear not to know this. If he is an expert on climate change, he should have said--and referenced accordingly. Prop tip: A bunch of contentious numbers is not, by itself, science.
2) My PhD is in psychology. One of the things that psychologists don't do is diagnose mental illness in people who are not clients. We have a rule about it (the "Goldwater Rule").
If you knew anything about psychology (or psychiatry) you'd know this. Your comments about Thunberg reflect your own perceptions of mental illness, which are not likely to gain general currency in the clinical field. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.
If Thunberg is mentally ill then piling on her, and accusing her of everything from witchcraft to sabotage, probably isn't helping. I suggest some reasons for this in the blog, and for the reactions of people like yourself to her. The angry and, at times, barely coherent, responses (none of you can spell, and seem to be only barely able to parse a sentence) I have received help to confirm what I have said.
Yours has gone on the pile with the others. Thanks!
3) You have no idea what I think about climate change, but I'll tell you: Along with every other empirically-grounded belief I have, it is founded on the scientific consensus.
I'm boring like that. Evolution? Yep. Gravity? Definitely. Use of Nuclear power to keep the lights on? Seems the only option, but I am open to argument.
I arrived at these beliefs through a couple of tricks called "logic" and "evidence". I also trust expertise and, as an expert in one field, I am quite good at spotting experts in other fields, and paying attention to them, keeping my own intuitions to myself. Intuition is rarely a good guide in science. I am also quite good at spotting cranks and charlatans.
In places where no scientific consensus exists, my beliefs are much less certain. In places where consensus has been obviously and artifically interfered with by various lobbying groups (Asbestos, Tobacco, Sugar, Carbon emissions) I adjust accordingly.
Good luck in your future attempts at coherent thought.
Submitted by James OBrien MD on September 25, 2019 - 10:28am
but fawn over a 16 year old with no qualifications on the subject other than having sadistic passionate parents.
As far as citations, you apparently don't realize PT won't let me post links, but you could have checked my facts if you were interested, but you chose dismissive arrogance.
It is unethical that any psychologist would cheer the public manipulation of a mentally fragile girl. This is child abuse. You might want to research her mental health history if you have two minutes before jumping on a bandwagon.
Also look up "fifty climate predictions that failed."
Submitted by Robert J King Ph.D. on September 25, 2019 - 1:14pm
Perhaps if you knew how to cite scientific journals, rather than websites run by cranks, you wouldn't have this problem. Here, let me help you:
You do it like this:
Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G. K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., ... & Midgley, P. M. (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis.
(The basic facts)
Neukom, R., Steiger, N., Gómez-Navarro, J. J., Wang, J., & Werner, J. P. (2019). No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era. Nature, 571(7766), 550-554.
(debunks the "natural cycles claim of denialists)
Krivova, N. A., & Solanki, S. K. (2003, September). Solar total and spectral irradiance: modelling and a possible impact on climate. In Solar Variability as an Input to the Earth's Environment (Vol. 535, pp. 275-284).
(debunks the its all solar flares claim of denialists)
Chan, D., Kent, E. C., Berry, D. I., & Huybers, P. (2019). Correcting datasets leads to more homogeneous early-twentieth-century sea surface warming. Nature, 571(7765), 393.
(debunks the "scientists manipulate data sets to show warming trend" claim of denialists)
Maslin, M. (2013). Cascading uncertainty in climate change models and its implications for policy. The Geographical Journal, 179(3), 264-271.
(debunks the "muliple models shows that scientists cant agree" claim of denialists)
You see?
It's not too hard to cite things properly. Now, you run along and read those, and come back when you've understood them
Submitted by James OBrien on September 25, 2019 - 2:22pm
On the web, citations are usually done by links, but you knew that.
I can copy and paste a hundred citations too.
Instead why don't you deal with my specific points?
Your citations mostly deal with predictions on computer models, not measurable, essentialist data that show predictions have not been borne out, including Gore's famous one on polar bears. The empirical data shows a rise of .3 degrees in temperature this century. Temperatures have also increased on Mars. Who knew that the sun had something to do with temperature?
You earned a Ph.D. and chose team miserable and team panic instead of team gratitude, not understanding that gratitude is the key to fighting depression and despair. Cursing fossil fuels is like cursing water. It's been the lifeblood of human progress for 200 years and I'm not throwing it away because of a moral panic. Don't like fossil fuel? What about nuclear? Oh, we can't do that either, I guess. It's all moral masochism. A Ph.D. in psychology ought to teach one how to recognize mass hysteria.
My reaction to Greta? I'm going to enjoy my life and my upcoming trip to Italy. Ciao!
Submitted by James OBrien MD on September 25, 2019 - 10:50am
She has an established diagnosis and a mental health history that was part of her given biography. They put it forward, no one diagnosed at a distance. Citing that as a violation of the Goldwater Rule is ridiculous.
Since all of a sudden you've decided that a 16 year old girl with underdeveloped prefrontal cortex is Yoda and MDs with rational arguments and data are fools, you might want to familiarize yourself with the work of Bjorn Lomborg, who actually has some rational and constructive ideas on the subject (he doesn't deny some AGW influence). But you probably won't since freaking out and virtue signaling are so au courant in the faculty lounge.
Submitted by Robert J King Ph.D. on September 25, 2019 - 1:03pm
I was being invited to say something about her mental health--a topic about which we suddenly have all sorts of experts--and I am not going to.
You (an dmany others) have no such compunction: And, that's lovely in terms of the obvious outreach we mental health professionals have been having in terms of mental health education!
I expect to see a dramatic uptick in the understanding shown to people who are not neurotypical. I'm sure you, in particular, will be showing everyone the way here.
What a bright future the neuro-divergent have with such compassionate and knowledgeable people such as yourself championing them.
In the meantime...
It's arguable whether "Aspbergers" is a mental health issue as nornally understood.
Plenty of people who work with those who have spectrum disorders ("Asbergers" was removed from the DSM-5, as I'm sure you know) think otherwise, and describe it simply as another way of being human in the world.
Simon Baron-Cohen, one of the leading figures in research certainly describes it this way. If being a bit Aspie, or having a bit of childhood OCD disbars someone from public speaking then vast swathes of famous figures will be consigned to the trash-heap.
When the world is ready to stop watching the films of Stanley Kubrick, the comedy of Robin Williams, the films of Daryl Hannah, admiring the work of Michelangelo, or the reforms of Abraham Lincoln, you be sure and let me know and I'll be sure and convey our regrets to Greta. I guess we'll all miss Mozart and Bill Gates, but Im sure it will be worth it.
While I'm waiting for that...
You, alas, missed my point entirely (a wicked voice in my ear suggests that you missed it deliberately, you naughty boy, because you were so intent on sharing your expertise, but let's gloss over that).
At no point am I saying that I agree with her or disagree with her. I'm interested in the effect she's having--running the gamut from hero-worship to witch-burning (funny, isnt it, how you only noticed the bit that you weren't happy applying to yourself...why is that, I wonder?)
And I suggested that it might have soemthing to do with the way that humans tend to see things in terms of stories with repeated characters. Something I've published on (not that I claim credit for an idea over 150 years old).
So--I stand by every single thing I said. Only more so.
Submitted by Patricia Kelley on September 29, 2019 - 6:51pm
I would like some advice. We adopted two girls that came from a meth home. We took them in when they were 10 and 11. They actually seemed to be adjusting to their 11th home. But after we adopted them things got crazier and crazier. The oldest became very promiscuous. Her phone was even confiscated by the OSBI because she was sending in appropriate pictures of herself around the world. We counted that she had sent over 100 pictures of herself. The other girl. Everything was good if it was going her way. But if you had her do a chore or help around the house she became very destructive and would try to destroy everything you had. She destroyed wooden floors and took a nail file and dug the grout out of the bathroom floor. We had furniture cut up and car seats ripped and cars keyed. My husband had planted roses bushes around the front and entrance to our home. All of the rose bushes died. It was hell in our home. We thought we were helping to change lives and they wanted to destroy ours. So present day. The oldest is pregnant unmarried living with a drug dealer and the youngest works for Walmart. I thought they had finally got their lives under control. But they break into our home and help themselves to whatever they want. We have our clothes disappear from bras to underwear along with pots and pans and dishes. They're now 19 and 20. And just as destructive. They know how to get around cameras and alarm systems. They're parents were criminals. And now were older and tired of all the stress. We really want them caught. We tried to rehabilitate them with love and affection. But as their doctor once said they''re like baby rattle snakes that have grown up to be rattle snakes. My question is: How do we catch them in the act? We just want peace in our lives!
Submitted by Robert King on October 1, 2019 - 6:56am
Hi
Im sorry to hera of you going through such things. However, I'm not a clinician, Im a researcher. You need some sort of clinical intervention here and I'm not the person to provide or recommend it. Best of luck though.
Submitted by James OBrien MD on September 25, 2019 - 1:22pm
When in doubt and losing, fabricate and play the victim, I guess.
I have not read one critical editorial suggesting anything close to metaphorical witch-burning. Very very histrionic and over the top. Their position, like mine, is critical of her puppeteers and child exploiters and abusers. This is a transparent manipulation. It goes like this....none of our predictions are working out, so we'll throw a very fragile kid out there and the deplorables look mean if they attack her. It's classic projective identification. No one that I know has fallen for the bait.
You haven't substantively refuted any of the statistics I've put out there. If you want to have a civil debate, let's start there. Am I factually wrong in stating that deaths by natural disaster have declined 90 percent in the last century? I'll add one more...in the last twenty years, Europe and the US have reduced carbon more than 10 percent while it has doubled in China. And yet her handlers have her focus on the West and said nothing to China. Gee, a skeptic might just wonder if this is really about wrecking the West more than saving the planet.
I choose to celebrate the improvement of the human condition. I am opposed to undoing it and to exploiting vulnerable children.
Submitted by Robert J King Ph.D. on September 26, 2019 - 5:50am
Given that the blog was about the human propensity to hero-worship and demonise, and exploring some of the parameters by which that has happened over time and space, your remark lacks a certain...I want to say "cogency".
Maybe you should take some deep breaths, understand that I am not claiming any expertise in climate change science (no more that you have at any rate--which is as close to zero as makes no difference in both our cases) and try again.
Submitted by Robert J King Ph.D. on September 26, 2019 - 11:17am
There's no "argument" occuring. An argument is when people present opposing data and logic.
I'm not a climate change scientist and I'm not arguing about the details of it.
Neither are denialists, of course--they are just parroting what they've heard from some "news" outlet such as Fox. The differnece is that I know what expertise feels like and I know when I dont have it. The same cannot be said of denialists. Who sounds "smug" now?
There's no argument about settled science, the argument is about what to do about it.
I'm afraid that there is no nice way to tell people that they are not entitled to an opinion on an area, but there it is.
The arrogance was all yours in assuming that what a non-specialist has to say about a technical issue is worthy of anyone's time.
It isn't. And I've already spent enough of mine on this. If people want to talk about psychology, then I'm happy to do so. If you want to talk about climate science then go away, do a degree, and an advanced degree in appropriate topics.
Get a few papers published and then I'll listen.
If you want an argument follow the papers I linked to