In the first scene of “Hitchcock Loves Bikinis”, a young mum is playing happily with her baby. Next comes a close-up shot of Alfred Hitchcock, the late movie director, smiling. Clearly, he is a man whose heart is warmed by this sweet glimpse of maternal love. In the next scene, we see a bikini-clad woman sunbathing followed by exactly the same shot of Hitchcock smiling. Instead of a benign grandfatherly figure, this time we see a lecherous old man. The moral of the story is simple: context is everything.
Mr. Kagan’s effort, “Psychology’s Ghosts,” consists of his assessment of four problems in psychological theory and clinical practice. The first problem is laid out in the chapter “Missing Contexts”: the fact that many researchers fail to consider that their measurements of brains, behaviour and self-reported experience are profoundly influenced by their subjects’ culture, time and experience, as well as by the situation in which the research is conducted. In his second essay, “Happiness Ascendant”, Mr. Kagan virtually demolishes the popular academic effort to measure “subjective well-being”, let alone to measure and compare the level of happiness of entire nations. No psychologist, he observes, would accept as reliable your own answer to the question: “How good is your memory?” Whether your answer is “great” or “terrible”, you have no way of knowing whether your memory of good or bad memories is accurate. But psychologists, Mr. Kagan argues, are willing to accept people’s answers to how happy they are as if “it is an accurate measure of a psychological state whose definition remains fuzzy.”
In the third and fourth essays, “Who Is Mentally Ill?” and “Helping the Mentally Ill”, Mr. Kagan turns to the intransigent problems of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) “regards every intense bout of sadness or worry, no matter what their origin, as a possible sign of mental disorder.” Mr. Kagan laments. But “most of these illness categories are analogous to complaints of headaches or cramps. Physicians can decide on the best treatment for a headache only after they have determined its cause. The symptom alone is an insufficient guide.”
Nonetheless, the DSM is primarily a collection of symptoms, overlooking the context in which a symptom such as anxiety or low sexual desire occurs and what it means to an individual. It might mean nothing at all. What it means to an American might mean nothing to a Japanese. The same one-size-fits-all approach plagues treatment: “Most drugs can be likened to a blow on the head,” Mr. Kagan observes, they are blunt instruments, not precisely-tailored remedies. Psychotherapy depends largely on the clients’ belief that it will be helpful, which is why all therapies help some people and some people are not helped by any. No experience affects everyone equally — including natural disasters, abuse, having a cruel parent, losing a job or having an illicit affair — though many therapists wish us to believe the opposite
The comprehension passage discusses Mr. Kagan's critique of psychological practices and the DSM's approach to diagnosing mental disorders. He argues that the DSM reduces mental disorders to a collection of standard symptoms without considering the context or the individual differences of the patients. This is evident in the passage where it states, “Nonetheless, the DSM is primarily a collection of symptoms, overlooking the context in which a symptom such as anxiety or low sexual desire occurs and what it means to an individual.” This supports the correct answer choice: “It reduces mental disorders to standard symptoms.” Other options do not align with the main argument presented in the passage. This choice reflects the idea that DSM simplifies mental disorders to a list of symptoms, ignoring the complexities and varying contexts that can influence these symptoms.
Based on the passage, the author expresses skepticism about the current state of psychiatric treatment, particularly regarding the role of drugs. The passage critiques the standard approach to psychiatric diagnosis and treatment, emphasizing a lack of context in diagnoses and treatments like those outlined in the DSM. It suggests that drugs are used to treat symptoms rather than addressing underlying causes, which aligns with the correct answer: "Drugs treat symptoms and they may or may not work." The author underscores the inefficacy of a universal approach, highlighting how symptoms and treatments can vary in effectiveness depending on individual contexts. Hence, the critique is mainly directed at how psychiatric treatments, particularly drug-based ones, often apply a general solution to context-specific problems.
The passage opens with a scenario from “Hitchcock Loves Bikinis”, illustrating the importance of context in shaping perceptions. This example is strategically placed at the beginning to effectively illustrate the broader issue discussed throughout the passage: the neglect of context in psychological research and clinical practices. The example of how Hitchcock's smile changes its meaning based on the preceding scene underscores the broader argument that context is crucial in understanding behaviors and perceptions. This aligns with the correct answer: the first paragraph cites a case that exemplifies a problem discussed more broadly in the text, specifically the oversight of contextual influences in psychological evaluations and treatments.
Meta is recalibrating content on its social media platforms as the political tide has turned in Washington, with Mark Zuckerberg announcing last week that his company plans to fire its US fact-checkers. Fact-checking evolved in response to allegations of misinformation and is being watered down in response to accusations of censorship. Social media does not have solutions to either. Community review — introduced by Elon Musk at X and planned by Zuckerberg for Facebook and Instagram — is not a significant improvement over fact-checking. Having Washington lean on foreign governments over content moderation does not benefit free speech. Yet, that is the nature of the social media beast, designed to amplify bias.
Information and misinformation continue to jostle on social media at the mercy of user discretion. Social media now has enough control over all other forms of media to broaden its reach. It is the connective tissue for mass consumption of entertainment, and alternative platforms are reworking their engagement with social media. Technologies are shaping up to drive this advantage further through synthetic content targeted precisely at its intended audience. Meta’s algorithm will now play up politics because it is the flavour of the season.
The Achilles’ Heel of social media is informed choice which could turn against misinformation. Its move away from content moderation is driven by the need to be more inclusive, yet unfiltered content can push users away from social media towards legacy forms that have better moderation systems in place. Lawmakers across the world are unlikely to give social media a free run, even if Donald Trump is working on their case. Protections have already been put in place across jurisdictions over misinformation. These may be difficult to dismantle, even if the Republicans pull US-owned social media companies further to the right.
Media consumption is, in essence, evidence-based judgement that mediums must adapt to. Content moderation, not free speech, is the adaptation mechanism. Musk and Zuckerberg are not exempt
According to the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, commodities available for consumption are not inherently negative things. Baudrillard tried to interpret consumption in modern societies by engaging with the ’cargo myth’ prevalent among the indigenous Melanesian people living in the South Pacific. The Melanesians did not know what aeroplanes were. However,they saw that these winged entities descended from the air for white people and appeared to make them happy. They also noted that aeroplanes never descended for the Melanesian people. The Melanesian natives noted that the white people had placed objects similar to the aeroplane on the ground. They concluded that these objects were attracting the aeroplanes in the air and bringing them to the ground. Through a magical process, the aeroplanes were bringing plenty to the white people and making them happy. The Melanesian people concluded that they would need to place objects that simulated the aeroplane on the ground and attract them from the air. Baudrillard believes that the cargo myth holds an important analogy for the ways in which consumers engage with objects of consumption.
According to Baudrillard, the modern consumer ”sets in place a whole array of sham objects, of characteristic signs of happiness, and then waits for happiness to alight”. For instance, modern consumers believe that they will get happiness if they buy the latest available version of a mobile phone or automobile. However, consumption does not usually lead to happiness. While consumers should ideally be blaming their heightened expectations for their lack of happiness, they blame the commodity instead.
They feel that they should have waited for the next version of a mobile phone or automobile before buying the one they did. The version they bought is somehow inferior and therefore cannot make them happy. Baudrillard argues that consumers have replaced ’real’ happiness with ’signs’ of happiness. This results in the endless deferment of the arrival of total happiness. In Baudrillard’s words, ”in everyday practice, the blessings of consumption are not experienced as resulting from work or from a production process; they are experienced as a miracle”. Modern consumers view consumption in the same magical way as the Melanesian people viewed the aeroplanes in the cargo myth. Television commercials also present objects of consumption as miracles. As a result, commodities appear to be distanced from the social processes which lead to their production. In effect, objects of consumption are divorced from the reality which produces them.
CONVERSATION ANALYSIS: Read the following transcript and choose the answer that is closest to each of the questions that are based on the transcript.
Lucia Rahilly (Global Editorial Director, The McKinsey Podcast): Today we’re talking about the next big arenas of competition, about the industries that will matter most in the global business landscape, which you describe as arenas of competition. What do we mean when we use this term?
Chris Bradley (Director, McKinsey Global Institute): If I go back and look at the top ten companies in 2005, they were in traditional industries such as oil and gas, retail, industrials, and pharmaceuticals. The average company was worth about $250 billion. If I advance the clock forward to 2020, nine in ten of those companies have been replaced, and by companies that are eight times bigger than the old guards.
And this new batch of companies comes from these new arenas or competitive sectors. In fact, they’re so different that we have a nickname for them. If you’re a fan of Harry Potter, it’s wizards versus muggles.
Arena industries are wizardish; we found that there’s a set of industries that play by very different set of economic rules and get very different results, while the rest, the muggles (even though they run the world, finance the world, and energize the world), play by a more traditional set of economic rules.
Lucia Rahilly: Could we put a finer point on what is novel or different about the lens that you applied to determine what’s a wizard and what’s a muggle?
Chris Bradley: Wizards are defined by growth and dynamism. We looked at where value is flowing and the places where value is moving. And where is the value flowing? What we see is that this set of wizards, which represent about ten percent of industries, hog 45 percent of the growth in market cap. But there’s another dimension or axis too, which is dynamism. That is measured by a new metric we’ve come up with called the ”shuffle rate.” How much does the bottom move to the top? It turns out that in this set of wizardish industries, or arenas, the shuffle rate is much higher than it is in the traditional industry.
Lucia Rahilly: So, where are we seeing the most profit?
Chris Bradley: The economic profit, which is the profit you make minus the cost for the capital you employ is in the wizard industries. It’s where R&D happens; they’re two times more R&D intensive. They’re big stars, the nebulae, where new business is born.