Brooks Investigate Aspect David Brooks NY Times

Brooks Investigate aspect David Brooks NY Times article "Let's All Feel Superior" Normalcy Bias Investigation of Aspects of David Brooks NY Times Article "Let's All Feel Superior," The recent sexual scandal and alleged atrocities among well-known and respected members of the sporting community at Penn State has led to a great deal of social dismay and outrage.

This refers to the accusation that Penn State's ex-football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, is guilty of numerous cases of child molestation (Shamed Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky hit by two new allegations of sexual abuse). There is a wide-ranging view that those who knew or suspected that young boys were being molested should have reported the incident to the authorities much earlier on than was the case.

However, many did not do so and this leads to obvious questions as to why certain people of standing who had suspected or even seen these crimes did not report them. In his opinion piece on these events entitled Let's All Feel Superior (2011), David Brooks states that many commentators have expressed extreme outrage at this atrocity and have expressed the view that "… if they had been in Joe Paterno's shoes, or assistant coach Mike McQueary's shoes, they would have behaved better.

They would have taken action and stopped any sexual assaults" ( Brooks, 2011). However, Brooks also points out that this righteousness indignation on the part of many commentators should also take into account a number of contentious but relevant factors that may serve to ameliorate this intense indignation at those who did not respond to the events in a sufficiently timely manner. Brooks refers to the view that recognized psychological factors should be taken into account before blanket condemnations of certain individuals are made.

He refers to 'normalcy bias' in particular as a mitigating factor. He goes on to assert that normalcy bias might have played a role in the failure of people to report or react appropriately to these occurrences. The following discussion will focus on this psychological phenomenon and the way that it relates to the events in question. Normalcy Bias With regard to the Normalcy Bias, Brooks states that, "Some people suffer from what the psychologists call Normalcy Bias.

When they find themselves in some unsettling circumstance, they shut down and pretend everything is normal" ( Brooks, 2011). One definition of normalcy bias is the inability to react to incidents or situations which are outside the normal range of the life experience of the individual or outside the range of normal behavior that the individual is used to or to which he or she has been exposed.

In the psychological literature this is referred to as a mental state that often occurs in the face of some traumatic event or a disaster, where the individuals "…underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects"(What are the threats to my family? Emergency Preparedness for Families in San Diego, CA.). The above can be related to the Penn State incident.

As Brooks states in relation to this incident, "Some people simply don't process a horrible event because of Normalcy Bias -- in which people simply shut down and pretend everything is normal" (Brooks, 2011). This concurs with other views, such as the view that, "People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before" (Normalcy Bias). This view relates to possible aspects of the sex scandal that Brooks refers to; as he states, "Many people do not intervene.

Very often they see but they don't see" ( Brooks, 2011). The literature refers to normalcy bias as possibly being caused by the way that the brain processes new data. Research suggests that "…even when the brain is calm, it takes 8 -- 10 seconds to process new information" (Normalcy Bias). Stress has also been shown to slow down the processing of new or 'abnormal' information. This leads to the following syndrome: "..

when the brain cannot find an acceptable response to a situation, it fixates on a single solution that may or may not be correct" (Normalcy Bias). A reason that has been put forward to explain this response among some individuals is that it may have evolutionary causes. Some researchers suggest that normalcy bias may have developed as a necessary response to danger.

They give the example of an animal being attacked by a predator, where the wounded animal goes into a state of paralysis, which provides it with a better chance of survival as ".. predators are less likely to eat prey that isn't struggling" (Normalcy Bias). The above is also linked to another psychological phenomenon known as motivated blindness. Motivated blindness refers to the fact that many people simply do not see which is not in their interest or which does not concern them, or that which makes them feel uncomfortable.

In this sense, motivated blindness is also a form of intentional bias, as the individual is not motivated to see that which makes him or her uncomfortable or disconcerted. An experiment that was used to show the effects of motivated blindness is as follows. A number of individuals were shown images, some of which contained explicit sexual imagery. The eye movements of the individuals were tracked by machines.

The result was that "The people who were uncomfortable with sex never let their eyes dart over to the uncomfortable parts of the pictures" ( Brooks, 2011). Conclusion Brooks makes an important observation and question in his opinion piece. "The proper question is: How can we ourselves overcome our natural tendency to evade and self-deceive" ( Brooks, 2011). In other words, rather than simply critiquing others from a distance, we should rather look for the deeper causative factors that may result in people in society not responding adequately to abnormal and disturbing experiences.

The point that Brooks makes has as certain validity. He stresses the view that, while most commentators on the events.