Dr. Jim Taylor’s blog

Pete Cashmore, the founder and CEO of Mashable, the well-read social-media blog, suggested in a recent CNN column that real-time Web is one of the top 10 Web trends of 2010. Real-time Web means being able to send and receive information almost instantaneously.

Mr. Cashmore (great business name, by the way) argues that real-time Web is the next new thing for both technological and human reasons. From a tech standpoint, the simple reality is that it is now possible for people to communicate quickly and easily. Not only is there the 140-character updates of Twitter, but also real-time location (Foursquare), search (Google), news (Thoora), auctions (StuffBuff), reviews (Yelp), and blog comments (Disqus).

As for the human drive for real-time Web, the emergence of real-time media has altered our expectations about the availability of information and our ability to communicate with others. Instantaneous connectivity is now the default and anything less feels like we?ve taken the ?Wayback Machine? (if you know what that is, you?re pretty old!) to those ancient days of the early 1990s. Also, there is neurological evidence indicating that this new media activates the same reward centers in the brain as do drugs. That little chirp, ring, or vibration of incoming tweet, email, or text message sets our brains a-buzzing. Simply put, both psychologically and neurologically, we want it, we want it now, we want it without any effort, and we want it to never stop.

Though this is one train that can?t be kept in the station, real-time Web is troubling to me. First, they call it disruptive technology for a reason, but not for the reason for which that term is usually intended. Real-time Web is disruptive because it disrupts the flow of work. As I?ve written about previously, research indicates that multitasking simply doesn?t work, and the constant inflow of information and perceived need to respond immediately that is an inevitable part of real-time Web makes it virtually impossible to single task and maximize productivity. Real-time media also disrupts the flow of life, whether you?re reading a book, watching a movie, eating, or having a conversation, it is distracting, often irrelevant, and just plain irritating (at least to me).

Also, unless real-time Web is what we?re doing at the moment, it prevents us from fully experiencing what we are actually doing at that moment. I would guess that there aren?t a lot of Zen Buddhist technologists out there because just about everything related to real-time media is the antithesis of Zen. We can?t be ?in the moment;? we are constantly forced to deal with the past (just-inputted info) and confront the future (your instantaneous output). We can?t attain a Zen-like calm and inner peace because, as noted above, our brain?s reward center is going bonkers and it?s stressful trying to keep up with the torrent of information that never seems to stop. We can?t connect with our spiritual life if we?re connected with our cyber-world. And we can?t just ?be? with real-time media because, as the research indicates, the dopamine that it activated causes us to ?do,? that is, engage in seeking behavior that becomes a vicious feedback loop (seeking brings satisfaction which motivates more seeking, etc. ad infinitum).

Real-time communication also discourages us from engaging in deliberate thought; there?s just no time! This immediacy of information precludes us from thoughtfully evaluating the information we receive: is it interesting, is it worthwhile, is it relevant to me, is it true? As the early computer-science saying goes, garbage in, garbage out, related to real-time Web, without proper consideration of the information, it?s trash at both input and output (what turns input/output into knowledge, wisdom, and value is thought).

An important question to ask is: Do we need information in real time? There are industries that do require up-to-the-second data, for example, banking and the military. But for most of us, periodic information seems sufficient. Note how the meaning of periodic has changed in the past two decades. It used to mean getting the news twice a day: reading the morning newspaper and watching the network news at night (how quaint). There?s really no such thing as periodic now. Do we really need to know everything ? anything! ? right away? Can?t we finish what we?re doing first?

As with all new media, real-time Web is neither good nor evil; it?s up to each of us to make it so. Also, as with all new media, the most important thing we must do as individual users is to actually think about how we want to use it to its greatest advantage in our lives. If we don?t, and adopt it just because we can, well, get ready for that dopamine roller-coaster ride.

For those of you who follow my Psychology of Technology blog posts (especially here and here), you know that I?m a bit cynical about how technology is impacting us, particularly when it comes to how we define relationships. My worries aren?t so great that I?m looking to wipe out our communications grid with an electromagnetic pulse or anything like that (Instant Quiz: Can you tell me what long-cancelled television show was based on that premise and who starred in it?), but the ways in which new media have changed our ability to establish relationships have me concerned.

But this post isn?t about all the problems that new media may cause. To the contrary, I want to honor a truly wonderful aspect of this rapidly emerging and evolving technology. I?m talking about the on-line communities that offer knowledge bases, forums, and collaboration in an area of common interest.

Having been a part of several technology-related communities, as both a user and a contributor, I am truly amazed at the generosity of spirit, expertise, and time that members devote to helping one other. I have experienced this munificence first hand many times. One such occasion occurred recently with an Italian fellow, whose real job is as a journalist, who spent hours over several days exchanging emails with me helping to solve a problem and create something new on my mobile phone. Whenever I had a question, he had an answer. He didn?t know me from Adam, yet he was willing gave his time and expertise to me. And for nothing more than a heart-felt thanks.

These corporeally disconnected communities, paradoxically enough, show people the very best that humanity has to offer ? generosity, cooperation, patience, time, respect, compassion ? to total strangers! I say paradoxically because I often wonder why people devote themselves to these communities. There are few obvious rewards for the experts in these communities who create knowledge bases, offer tutorials, and provide answers to ?noobie? (new members of the community) questions. There are few financial incentives (developers can solicit donations for products they create, but I?m pretty sure they don?t cover the mortgage). It?s not likely to foster career advancement for most of those involved; contributors? work lives are often entirely unrelated to the community?s focus. For example, in one mobile-technology community in which I am involved, some of the experts include an attorney, an auto-parts distributor, a chemist, and several college students).? And there is usually some price that is paid for such involvement, mostly time not devoted to work or family (I tell my wife that it?s better I?m into technology than porn!).

Yet the rewards, though less tangible, are obviously there. The experts in these communities can attain something of a god-like status to worshipping noobs and junior members who get thoughtful and detailed answers to their many questions. Now that I have attained a degree of competence (though far from expertise) in several on-line communities, I take great pride in finding answers to some of those questions. And, in return, what these communities have in abundance is the sincerest appreciation and gratitude from those who have been helped.

At a deeper level, despite these relatively small rewards, members devote time and energy to the community because of their passion for the topic, their desire to help others, and their wish to connect with those who share that passion. What pervades these communities is a deep feeling of altruism from its members. There?s just too much give and not enough take to see it any other way.

I?ve also been amazed at the kind of relationships that develop in these communities, particularly among the hard-core insiders who administer and contribute regularly to them. I?ve been fortunate be a part of the ?staff? of one particular on-line community and the banter among us on the staff emails is little different than if we were a bunch of guys hanging out in one of our backyards. We know little about each other and will likely never meet, but we act like we?ve known each other for years. I think it is that distance and what I might call controlled anonymity (you only have to share what you want with others) that creates the level of comfort and openness that constantly surprises me. On-line communities like ours transcend pretty obvious geographical, cultural, and political differences (it?s often just fodder for mutual ribbing). And, to be honest, if we actually ever met, I?m not sure we would all get along because of those differences. I say that as a compliment, not a criticism, of on-line communities because it shows that if people focus on what they have in common, then it?s possible to rise above those areas in which they differ. The result is mutual respect, appreciation, as close to friendship as can develop on line, and a community in the truest sense of the word.

The recent appearance of a racist image of the First Lady Michelle Obama during a search on Google?s search engine raises an interesting question: Should search engines have a conscience? Obviously, search engines, like Google, Bing, and Yahoo!, that rely on highly complex algorithms to determine search results, have no intentional bias or inclinations that influence their searches. To suggest otherwise would be to anthropomorphize what is simply an immense and complicated set of computer code.

But that code is a creation of its individual developers and team of developers, each of whom has a conscience. And it is also a product of the company for whom they work. A company can?t have a conscience, you might think. To the contrary, every company, because it is comprised of individuals, has a conscience (it?s called a corporate culture). We can look no further than Google itself whose conscience is expressed in its motto: Don?t be evil. Given that powerful expression of the company?s conscience, it seems reasonable to assume that Google would be offended by the racist image of the Ms. Obama. And, to a degree, it?s up to the developers and the company to make a deliberate decision about whether and how to exercise their conscience in the formulation of the search-engine algorithms. In the case of Google, a spokesman told CNN that “We have a bias toward free expression. ?That means that some ugly things will show up.” Despite this assertion, the image of Ms. Obama was removed by Google, though apparently not, according to the company, because it was distasteful, but rather because the page might have had malware that put viewers? computers at risk.

To read the rest of my post, please visit my Techshrink blog here.

In the last 15 years alone, there has been Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Jude Law, Eliot Spitzer, Kobe Bryant, Mark Sanford, Alex Rodriguez, David Letterman, the list goes on. Now, it?s d?j? vu all over again. Another successful man caught with his paws in the honey jar (pun intended). But not just any man. We?re talking about Tiger Woods, the wealthiest and most famous athlete on Earth.

According to reports, we are now up to seven alleged mistresses. That image of Tiger as a humble, honorable family man has not only been tarnished, but now lays smashed in far too many pieces to ever be reassembled again. The price that will be paid for Tiger?s infidelity is enormous.

There is the price of dishonesty in which what appeared to be the true mettle of a man, professional athlete, celebrity, and multi-millionaire aside, was nothing more than a carefully manufactured and cultivated fa?ade. Another idol who has come crashing down from his pedestal.

And what about the price of perfidy. What must the legions of Tiger fans, who have followed him from his earliest successes as an amateur through the heart-rending illness and death of his beloved father to his awe-inspiring victories on the golf course, feel to learn that their adoration was for just another man with feet of clay.

Of course there is the financial price that will be paid. Yes, Tiger?s sponsors have stood by him so far. To do otherwise would be to make themselves out to be fools. There is their public rationalization that what happened is a private matter that doesn?t impact their relationship. But as the number of mistresses metastasizes, so will the embarrassment, and finally the corporate recognition that the damage is irreparable. A cowardly weekend press release will then be issued in which the sponsors announce that they have chosen to discontinue their relationship with Tiger for any number of reasons (the economy, a new marketing direction) totally unrelated to his recent transgressions (a word, by the way, that is an insult to all those whose trust he violated). And relationships that have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for those sponsors will end. Of course, Tiger?s infidelity will cost him perhaps billions in earnings over the remainder of his career (not that he will end up in the poor house, of course).

Tiger will also drag the argyle-socked and perma-pressed sport of golf down with him. As the most visible face of professional golf, the sport will pay a huge price, easily into the billions of dollars in lost revenue from a decline in attendance, television, and merchandising revenue attributable to Tiger. His sleazy behavior will, by extension, also hurt the many professional golfers who don?t live the gilded life that Tiger does, but rather struggle each week to eke out a living playing a game they love.

Can I muster sympathy for anyone in this sordid affair (pun intended)? I certainly have no sympathy for the sponsors who paid Tiger millions to be the shill for their products. They care only for the bottom line and will have their ?come to Jesus? moment only when Tiger no longer serves to pad their balance sheets.

I have little sympathy for the fans who chose to idolize (and idealize) a man who just happens to have a spectacular talent for what is, as Mark Twain so aptly noted, ?a good walk spoiled.?

I leave my complete absence of sympathy (what I actually feel is contempt) for Tiger, who had the world by the tail (pun intended) and chose to dishonor himself and bring unimaginable sorrow to those who loved him for a few (okay, more than a few) cheap thrills with a bunch of floozies.

My sympathy does go out to those who paid most dearly for Tiger?s infidelity. His wife Elin who must pay a personal price of betrayal for having to suffer the indignity of not only learning that her husband is a serial philanderer, but also the humiliation of having to live this very private nightmare under the spotlight of a salacious culture that feeds on scandal the way sharks feed on their prey. I also feel sympathy for the price that his children will pay as they get older and learn what kind of man their father really is.

A post like this would typically end with a hope of redemption on Tiger?s part. He would ?cowboy up? to what he did, ask for forgiveness, and promise to devote the rest of his life to atonement for his sins. But I just can?t go there. He may truly be sorry for his infidelity, but, at this point, I think he?s most sorry about having been caught. If Tiger really felt remorse, he would have felt it after his first affair (or at least his second or third) and would never have made it to his seventh. No matter what Tiger says or does in the name of redemption, for all of his wealth, he?ll never be able to compensate those who have suffered the most from his repugnant behavior.

In a recent blog post, I railed against popular culture as being an unhealthy force in our lives . In response, Dr. Lawrence Rubin, a fellow blogger who studies popular culture, commented that ?If we simply consider popular culture as banality, it certainly seems meaningless?even potentially destructive. However, if instead we recognize that it is simply an expression of our collective experiences, its importance becomes more clear.? I would have agreed with that statement 30 years ago when popular culture was, in fact, an expression of our collective experiences. But I think it?s time for those who study popular culture to wake up and smell the Starbuck?s (popular-culture reference intended): popular culture is not popular!

As TerryS, another commenter, noted, there is nothing popular about popular culture these days: ?90% of what is considered popular culture is churned out by corporations?with the sole purpose? that we can be converted into voracious consumers?? We didn’t demand, for example, Desperate Housewives, Grand Theft Auto, or Facebook. They were created to make money and then marketed as ?must-haves? which, admittedly, the masses then embraced.

I believe in truth in advertising, so we should stop calling popular culture popular culture because, well, it no longer is a reflection of popular sentiment. I think a more accurate phrase is ?synth culture? because it is a synthetic product created by corporate conglomerates rather than being an expression of the shared experiences of real people.

We Are What We Consume

TerryS also offered a wonderful metaphor for popular culture. She likened authentic popular culture to organic food, which is grown and consumed by people who have a deep respect for themselves and healthful living. In contrast, synth culture, like processed food, is largely artificial, unhealthy, and driven by the profit motive. And entire generations are being force fed this unwholesome diet while the synth culture is sating its own rapacious appetite.

TerryS concludes her metaphor beautifully, suggesting that ?pop culture is fast food for the soul.? American Idol, People Magazine, iPods, and Brangelina (just to name a few) are tasty and addictive. But, extending her metaphor further, just as fast food isn?t healthy for the body, synth culture isn?t healthy for the soul. Neither provides real ?nourishment;? in both cases, our bodies, minds, and spirits remain hungry for real sustenance.

A ?Diet? of Empty Calories

So what happens when a genuine popular culture is replaced by a synth culture? Well, what happens when you replace an organic diet rich in nutrients with one that is artificial, calorie intensive, and nutrient poor? The answer is self-evident, yet we continue on this diet without realizing that that it may very well be slowly killing us individually and collectively.

Why would we not recognize this unhealthy diet and make a change for the better? In the face of global instability, economic uncertainty, and unsettling societal change, synth culture offers us mighty fine ?comfort food;? it?s delicious, fills us up, and makes us feel good. Synth culture really has become the new ?opiate of the masses,? dulling our existential and all-too-down-to-Earth angst with a diet of tasty, though empty, calories.

And what is really scary is that the current generation of young people is the first to be raised entirely in this synth culture with no experience of what an authentic popular culture is.

The Real Harm

Most people think of popular culture as the most common forms of entertainment, whether television, movies, music, or what?s on the Web. But popular culture is grounded in expressions of shared experiences that are much more fundamental to our society, including the values and beliefs that have shaped it, for example, integrity, community, compassion, courage, sacrifice, respect, hard work, and justice.

Here?s what worries me: if our popular culture is no longer this deeper expression of our collective experiences, then something important is being lost. We may be entertained by The Biggest Loser, Knocked Up, or Jay-Z, but we are also unwittingly influenced by the messages that underlie this popular entertainment and which form the basis of synth culture, messages of greed, consumption, schadenfreude, win at any cost, and misogyny, just to name a few.

Collectively, a popular culture that is an expression of a society?s shared experiences has essential value and a beneficial function to that society. It is an important contributor to the formation and growth of a healthy society. Perhaps as much as the rule of law, an authentic popular culture acts as a societal truth, a shared bond that holds societies together and communicates that ?we are one.? And maybe more powerfully than the top-down government-provided glue, a genuine popular culture, created ?of the people, by the people, and for the people,? acts as the real, bottom-up glue that unites diverse people into a cohesive society.

As individuals, a genuine popular culture instills a sense of ownership and empowerment in our society because each of us knows that we contribute to that culture. We are more likely to act in our society?s best interests because we know that those best interests are also our own. An authentic popular culture also gives us a sense of shared identity, meaning, and purpose that transcends differences in geography, race, ethnicity, religion, or politics. All of these then encourage us to lead a life in accordance with our culture?s values and norms because they are our own.

Tyranny By Any Other Name

Consider other societies where a genuine popular culture was suffocated. Until now, the only examples have been found in totalitarian societies, such as those under Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler. What we saw in these societies, when the lid finally came off, were deeply injured populaces that took years of freedom to recover from the individual and societal damage and reestablish their authentic popular culture. And, sadly, the people of Cuba and North Korea have yet to have this opportunity.

What we now have in America is a seemingly free democracy in which popular culture has also been strangled. But instead of governmental and military control by an authoritarian regime, our popular culture has been throttled by economic and media control by a corporate oligarchy. Our current generation of young people may turn out to resemble those raised under Stalin and Mussolini, failing to be nourished by an authentic popular culture.

Much like those who, living under repressive regimes, have lost their will to think independently and to fight for what they believe, the real threat of synth culture is that we lose touch with and become incapable of expressing our own deeply held values and convictions; we become passive recipients of whatever synth culture feeds us. In fact, we are already hooked on synth culture?s diet, whether our preoccupation with wealth, fame, and physical appearance, the debt-incurring materialism, or the absence of respect in our civil discourse. And the future does not look pretty.

A Future With No Popular Culture

Might it be too great a stretch to suggest that the loss of a genuine popular culture is contributing to the fragmentation and polarization of our society? Or that the widespread feelings of hopelessness and powerlessness many in our society feel could be a sad result of our loss of real popular culture? Or that many Americans? relentless and seemingly futile search for meaning and purpose is caused by a synth culture that offers neither? And what will happen to America when authentic popular culture is only a distant memory? Now that is a question that is truly terrifying to ponder.

So what do Tom Brady, LeBron James, Serena Williams, Tiger Woods, Usain Bolt, Annika Sorenstam, Michael Phelps, Lance Armstrong, and Lisa Leslie have that you don?t?

This question has been on the minds of many people of late with the recent publication of Malclom Gladwell?s Outliers and Daniel Coyle?s The Talent Code. If you have read these books, you might conclude that greatness has little to do with innate abilities ? intelligence or inborn physical capabilities ? and everything to do with motivation and circumstance. However, both authors are missing the obvious, particularly as it relates to sports: all of the mental strength and opportunity in the world won?t help if you?re not physically capable of performing at the highest level of sport. A teenage boy may have the best hook shot on Earth, but if he has only 5? 10? genes, he will not be posting up in the NBA. As the former Utah Jazz coach Frank Layden noted, ?You can?t teach height.?

But, of course, innate physical ability isn?t enough either. History is littered with ?can?t miss? kids who, well, missed ? ?Did someone say Ryan Leaf?? Yes, you can get pretty far without it, but to be truly great, you must have it all: physiological gifts, opportunity, and, finally, the psychological capabilities to take full advantage of them. If you look at these three contributors to performance, you really only have control over the last one: your mind.

In my work with athletes, I?ve been able to identify the five most important psychological qualities that distinguish the Wayne Gretzkys and the Candace Parkers from the rest of us.

Drive

The problem with superstar athletes is that you see the final result ? greatness ? but not all of the hours they put in on the court, field, track, or road. Whether you call it motivation, determination, or commitment, the great ones have it in spades. They just work as hard as they possibly can. And that drive is usually propelled by intense passion for their sport; they just love playing the game. Maria Sharapova, for all her seemingly natural talent, was the first on the court and the last off when she was a kid.

Confidence

I?m not talking arrogance, cockiness, or ?tude (Do you hear me, TO?). I?m talking about a deep and resilient belief in the great ones? ability to achieve their goals. They just know they will succeed even though they don?t always. Back in the ?80s, there was a poster of Michael Jordan taking a last second shot. The caption read something like: ?I was given the ball 27 times with ten seconds left in the game and the winning shot in my hands?and I missed.? That didn?t stop him from wanting the ball and taking the shot. MJ believed he would make the next shot.

Calm

It?s obvious, the great ones know how to handle pressure; they stay cool, calm, and collected when others around them are freaking out. Imagine taking an exam or giving a work presentation in front of 80,000 people who are letting you know in no uncertain terms they want you to fail. Remember ?The Drive? by the 49ers against the Bengals in Super Bowl XXIII in 1989? The Niners, down 16-13, had 3:10 to move the ball 92 yards to win the game. Quarterback Joe Montana looked at his teammates in the huddle, smiled, and asked if anyone had noticed John Candy in the stands, ESPN reported. Everyone laughed, the pressure was taken down a notch, and Montana completed what was perhaps the most famous of his 31 fourth-quarter comebacks in an NFL game. Montana definitely earned his nickname, Joe Cool.

Focus

You can see it in eyes of great athletes, like laser beams locked onto whatever they need to concentrate on to get the job done. They are totally focused, blocking out distractions, whether competitors, expectations, fans, nerves, conditions, past mistakes, or future results. Can anyone focus better than Tiger? In big tournament after tournament, against the best golfers in the world, when everyone expects him to win, Tiger puts his head down, his eyes on the ball and the ball in the cup.

Emotions

Ah, emotions: the last and most misunderstood piece of the athletic greatness puzzle. Emotions impact the great ones in obvious and surprising ways. First, what emotions come to mind when you think of Peyton Manning? Probably none. Ahead or behind, the guy is as stoic as Socrates. It?s as if he?s had his emotions (and his personality; sorry Peyton) surgically removed. He is an emotional master.

Then, there?s John McEnroe. Now wait a minute, I know what you?re thinking: ?You can?t be serious!!? He seems like the antithesis of Peyton Manning ? and an emotional basket case. Yet, he too mastered his emotions on the tennis court, using them to fire himself up and unnerve his opponent. Remember all of those times when he seemed to emotionally lose it over a bad call or raged against an umpire or himself. Did you ever notice what happened after he settled down? He usually won.

Is civility dead? It sure seems so. In recent years, the quality of discourse in America has declined dramatically. Rarely in discussions of any import these days, whether politics, religion, the economy, education, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the list goes on, is there a respectful exchange of ideas. Instead, such interactions are either one-sided or full of ad hominem attacks or self-serving misinformation.

Examples of those who lead the ?incivility movement? are easy to come by. On the right, there?s Congressman Joe ?You lie? Wilson, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, and, of course, the Three Horsemen of the Conservative Apocalypse, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O?Reilly. And just so you don?t think that those on the left are holier than thou, you have Congressman Alan Grayson, the Rev. Al Sharpton, MSNBC?s Keith Olbermann and even, occasionally, Vice President Joe Biden. All are media darlings because they all make great copy. And they are quietly encouraged by the establishment. Their indiscrete comments and coronary-inducing rants go viral through new media such as YouTube and Twitter. They energize the base. And, especially for liberals, the latter provocateurs show that they are tough and aren?t going to be kicked around by those conservative bullies.

You might ask, so what? Why is civility so important? So what if they?re a little rude? It sure makes good theater (and ratings), doesn?t it?

But civility is about something far more important than how people comport themselves with others. Rather, civility is an expression of a fundamental understanding and respect for the laws, rules, and norms (written and implicit) that guide its citizens in understanding what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. For a society to function, people must be willing to accept those strictures. Though still in the distance, the loss of civility is a step toward anarchy, where anything goes; you can say or do anything, regardless of their consequences.

What has caused such vitriol in what is now our uncivil discourse? Are passions any more intense than they were in past generations? I don?t think so. Is there more political polarization than in the past? It sure looks that way, yet research indicates that there has been little movement in political views in recent decades.

Perhaps there has always been uncivil discourse, but, because of the limits in the size of the audience that it could reach, we rarely heard it. How times have changed. Due to the emergence of cable television, talk radio, and Internet, ?squeaky wheels? now have a means of making their voices heard by millions. The cable news channels and talk radio have given a soapbox to self-righteous egomaniacs who incite the lunatic fringe with impunity, have little regard for the facts, and no real concern for an actual discussion of the issues. The Internet has provided a very large megaphone to anyone who wishes to express their opinion.

Maybe uncivil discourse is the price we pay for freedom of speech. Better uncivil discourse than no discourse at all?

So is there any hope of a return to civil discourse? I?m not very optimistic. We can only hope that those who reside somewhere within the less noisy confines of the political middle continue to speak their minds ? civilly, of course ? and don?t let the cacophony from the fringes drown out reasoned and respectful dialogue.

Let me apologize in advance; I just can’t help myself. The more I read about reality TV, the more it just gets under my skin and the less control I have over writing about it.

Reality TV is my whipping boy. It is, for me, the final indication of the end of civilization as we know it. Reality TV exemplifies and makes admirable some of the worst values that exist in our culture, running the gamut of the Seven Deadly Sins and adding plenty more to the list. It also encourages the most shameful behavior. As New York Times columnist Frank Rich suggests, reality-TV aspirants are victims of a culture that encourages people to grasp for the brass ring of fame and fortune without regard for the consequences of their actions.

Instead of honesty and hard work, there is deception and provocative attention. Rather than patience, there is imprudence and risk. Fame and fortune at any cost is the rule. What used to be considered shameful and humiliating behavior is now considered chutzpah and dogged determination. Golly gee, all of those reality-TV contestants are really epitomes of the indominable American spirit!

Current events in the asylum known as reality TV (which is so far from actual reality that the use of the phrase should be banned) have set me off again, so here’s another reality TV rant.

Recently, we were introduced to Michaele and Tareq Salahi, a seemingly upstanding Virginia couple who allegedly (innocent until proven guilty in the court of media opinion) crashed an official White House state dinner for what appears to be an effort to help the wife land a part on “The Real Housewives of DC,” a new reality-TV spinoff of the highly successful franchise on the Bravo television network.

What is driving such outrageous behavior? For many reality-TV contestants, the motivation is money. But that doesn’t appear to explain the possibly criminal actions of the Salahis gaining entry to the White House dinner uninvited. By all accounts, they are a well-to-do couple (though his family’s wine business went bankrupt in 2007 and there are reports of up to 15 civil suits filed against them). So what was behind their chicanery?

According to her profile on Wikipedia, Mrs. Salahi was shall we say creative about her professional accomplishments (telling people that she had been a Washington Redskins cheerleader and a fashion model, all evidence to the contrary). Mr. Salahi, in turn, appears to have ridden the successful coattails of his father, who founded an award-winning winery, and enjoyed living the high life of the social elite in Virginia’s horse country.

In reading about this couple, two words struck me: nouveau riche. From what I’ve gathered, they possess the least admirable qualities of that social group: vanity, narcissism, and entitlement. Only in possession of those attributes could a couple engage in such a fraud as occurred at the White House without any sense of guilt or contrition. To the contrary, despite the fact that their stated explanation is at odds with all actual accounts of the events that night, they continue to declare their innocence. Plus, and here is real chutzpah, reports indicate that the couple is trying milk their time in the spotlight for all its worth (which, in our scandal-hungry culture, is a great deal) by asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars for interviews (which they also emphatically deny).

The Salahis harkened me back to a college modern American literature class I took and my reading of the Great Gatsby. Maybe they are no different from its titular character, Jay Gatsby, one of literature’s most famous social climbers. Having gained his wealth through misbegotten means (I’m not suggesting that the Salahis did), Gatsby gazed jealously at East Egg and, despite his wealth, wanted nothing more than to be accepted by the old money across the bay. Perhaps the only difference between the Salahis and Jay Gatsby is that he didn’t have reality TV or Facebook.

How much farther will people go to gain their 15 minutes of fame? I don’t think that we have even begun to plumb the depths of depravity to which people will lower themselves in the name of this Warholian American Dream. I can only hope that all of these wannabes quickly learn that, like Oz, this bizarro version of the American Dream is, as Dorothy learned, just a vivid nightmare from which they will all wake up back in Kansas (metaphorically speaking, of course, and no offense to Kansas).