13 O’Clock Episode 233 LIVE: The World of Carl Jung

On this esoteric and analytical installment, Tom and Jenny discuss one of the most influential figures in the field of psychology, and also a man with tremendous staying power in the realms of art and mysticism: Carl Jung. Born in Switzerland in the late 19th century, Jung took Freud’s developing ideas of psychoanalysis and went in his own direction with them, eventually coming up with theories still in common parlance today, such as the fundamental personality types of introverts and extroverts, the word association test, the identification of archetypes, the interpretation of dreams as a method toward self-actualization, and the intriguing concept of the collective unconscious. A highly intelligent but complicated figure, Jung’s influence is still being felt, though his ideas have been somewhat diminished in scientific circles. Lie back on the couch and tell us about your mother; it’s all about the analysis on a live episode 233.

Audio version:

Video version (part 1; other parts should play automatically):

Please support us on Patreon! Don’t forget to follow the 13 O’Clock Podcast blog, subscribe to our YouTube channel, like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter and Instagram. And check out our cool merch at our Zazzle store, and some board and card games designed by Jenny at Giallo Games!

Visit Jenny’s Amazon author page!

THANK YOU TO ALL OUR SUPPORTERS! The show is made possible by: Amanda, Amanda O., Amy H., Anthony, Antonio, Arif, Ashley, Austin, Ben, BlackMarigold, Blake, Brandon, Bunjip, Bunny, Cady, Christopher, Ciarra, Cody, Corinthian, creepy crepes, D. Newton, Damian, Dan, Darkskull, Darren, Dean, Denise, Dominic, Duncan, Dwayne, Ed, Elizabeth, Eric, Erin, Fade, Feeky, Gareth, Ginger, Greg, Gwen, Gwendoline, Hanna, Hayden, Heather, HoboNasty, Holly, Iain, Ilse, Ima Shrew, Jaime, Jake A., Jake S., James, James H., Jamin, Jana & Scott, Janet, Jason, Jeanette, Jen, Jessica, Jesus, Joanie, Joe, John H., John M., Jonathan, Jonathan H., Joseph, Juliana, Justin, Justyn, Karin, Kat, Katrina, Keith, Ken, Kieron, Knothead Studios, Kool Kitty, Lana, Lars, Leander, Liam, Lindsey, Logan, Lonna, Lynx_13, Macy, Marcus, Mark, Mary Ellen, Matt, Matthew, Maximillian, Melanie, Melissa, Melissa G., Michael, Mike, Mother of Beasts, Natalia, Nathalie, Nilay, Oddcatt, Oli, out_running_erins, Paul, Rebecca, Rebecca L., Richard J., Richard & Sheena, Rik, Rob, Robina, Samantha, Sandra, Saul, Scarlett, Scott, Sean, Shae-Nicole, Sheena, Sophie, Stop Prop, Sydney, Tabitha, Tammie, Tara, Terrie, TheMysteryGamer, Thomas, Thomm, Tiffany, Timothy, Tina, Travon, Trevor, Valtrina, Veronica, Via, Victor, Victoria, Victoria E., Virginia, Weaponsandstuff93, Will S., and Xánada.

Channel art and audio & video editing by Jenny Ashford. Music & sound effects courtesy of freesound.org users jamespotterboy, corsica-s, enjoypa, capturedlv, luffy, kiddpark, and justkiddink. Video clips courtesy of Videezy & Videvo.

13 O’Clock Episode 35 – Mad Science!

It’s alive! ALIVE!!! Sure, science is certainly the best method humans have so far devised for discovering the truth of the world around us (and inventing super-cool shit to boot), but sometimes it’s a rocky road, and occasionally the most brilliant scientific minds can come up with some wacky and disturbing ideas that can lead to some pretty strange experiments and ethical conundrums.

On this episode of 13 O’Clock, Tom and Jenny discuss four cases of weird science, including Harry Harlow’s monkey love-deprivation experiments, the Hofling Hospital doctor-authority studies, Freud’s nasal-sexual weirdness with patient Emma Eckstein, and the case of Dr. John Money, David Reimer, and sex reassignment gone tragically wrong.

Download the audio file from Project Entertainment Network here, or watch the YouTube version here. Also, don’t forget to follow the 13 O’Clock Podcast blog, subscribe to our YouTube channel, like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter.

The Rosenhan Study and the Fine Line Between Sane and Insane

A landmark 1973 study demonstrated that telling the difference between sanity and insanity isn’t so cut and dried.

insane-asylum-dayroom

In principle, it should be easy to tell a sane person from one suffering from a mental illness. But in 1973, David Rosenhan, a professor at Stanford University, published the results of a fascinating experiment in the journal Science. It seemed to show that perceptions of a person’s sanity may be colored by context; that is, if one is labeled mentally ill, all subsequent behavior may be filtered through that perception.

The study hit the psychiatric community like a thunderclap, causing a furor that didn’t die down for almost a decade. And though many legitimate criticisms were leveled, the experiment still suggests the important role context plays in diagnosing mental illness.

“On Being Sane in Insane Places”
Eight completely sane people volunteered to participate in the experiment. Each of them turned up at a psychiatric hospital, claiming they had heard voices repeating the words “empty,” “hollow,” and “thud,” though they were no longer hearing the voices now. Other than this one symptom, the volunteers were told to behave exactly as they normally would, and answer questions about their life and family background completely truthfully (only their names and professions were changed).

All eight volunteers were admitted to their respective hospitals, seven with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and one labeled a manic-depressive. Experimenter Rosenhan was curious to see how long it would take before hospital staff realized that the volunteers were perfectly sane, especially since he had instructed the “pseudopatients” to act normally once admitted and to never mention the bogus auditory hallucinations again.

Never Recognized As Sane
The answer to the question of how long it would take to detect the fakery was apparently “never.” Though the patients were all released after an average of nineteen days (with the shortest stay being five days and the longest fifty-two), all but the manic-depressive were labeled as “schizophrenic, in remission” upon their release.

While in the hospital, even the most innocuous of the volunteers’ behavior — lining up early for lunch, writing in a journal — were noted and commented upon as though symptomatic of mental illness. Rosenhan took this to mean that the very fact of being in a place where mental illness is expected biased the hospital staff to see perfectly normal behaviors as pathological. Intriguingly, many of the genuine patients at the various hospitals recognized that the volunteers were “faking,” even if the doctors and nurses evidently did not.

Psychiatrists Criticize the Rosenhan Study
Rosenhan’s paper in effect threw down a gauntlet for the psychiatric community, and many took it up and began publishing rebuttals. While some critics simply tried to single out the hospitals in the study as particular “bad apples,” other arguments were more substantive. Repeated auditory hallucinations, psychiatrists pointed out, are indeed a symptom of schizophrenia, and this combined with the fact that the “pseudopatients” had apparently been troubled enough to come to a psychiatric hospital seeking help would have been enough for any competent psychiatrist to admit them to a hospital for observation.

Moreover, the genuinely ill patients at the hospitals acted more or less “normally” a great deal of the time, so the difference between them and the “sane” volunteers might not have been so striking as to merit immediate notice. Finally, hospital staff taking notes about the patients’ behavior was simply standard protocol, and said nothing about whether the specific behaviors were pathological or not.

Psychiatric Hospital Conditions
Though criticisms flew thick and fast, many experts did acknowledge that conditions in psychiatric hospitals could be improved, with more involved and compassionate staff and less reliance on medications. Since the study was published in 1973, changes in health insurance costs and structures have made it more likely that genuinely ill people will fail to get help or be discharged early than well people admitted. However, many of the findings in Rosenhan’s study about the extent of context-dependence on diagnosis still resonate in the field of psychiatry.

Source:
Ingram, Jay. The Barmaid’s Brain and Other Strange Tales From Science. New York: W.H. Freeman, 2000.