rss

Tag: "psychology"

2
By Erich Vieth on November 12th, 2009

Ashleigh Banfield’s story of wartime censorship

Ashleigh Banfield has finally gotten hired back to work at a major network, after losing her job at MSNBC in 2003 for speaking out against the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Here’s what she had to say back in 2003, which caused her to lose her job. She is speaking of what you are not shown by the news media when the nation is at war:

What didn’t you see? You didn’t see where those bullets landed. You didn’t see what happened when the mortar landed. A puff of smoke is not what a mortar looks like when it explodes, believe me. There are horrors that were completely left out of this war. So was this journalism or was this coverage-? There is a grand difference between journalism and coverage, and getting access does not mean you’re getting the story, it just means you’re getting one more arm or leg of the story. And that’s what we got, and it was a glorious, wonderful picture that had a lot of people watching and a lot of advertisers excited about cable news. But it wasn’t journalism, because I’m not so sure that we in America are hesitant to do this again, to fight another war, because it looked like a glorious and courageous and so successful terrific endeavor, and we got rid oaf horrible leader: We got rid of a dictator, we got rid of a monster, but we didn’t see what it took to do that.

Banfield also has some critically important things to say about the “Fox News effect” (the patriotizing and glorification of war).

Reading this Huffpo post about Banfield reminds me of this post featuring similar comments by Amy Goodman. It also reminds me how Phil Donahue also lost his job at MSNBC for being critical of the Iraq invasion (more about Donahue’s views here). These sorts of firings are actually predictable. The documentary “War Made Easy” reminds us that hawks close ranks around Presidents who start wars and they also put tremendous pressure on networks to do the same. Banfield’s story reminds us that we need to strive to keep dissenting voices prominent during times of war because something about war makes us insanely fearful and even less able to reason than in times of peace. It is during times of war that we become collectively willing to let ourselves run amok wrapped in the flag.

Featured • Media • War
Full Story
2
Halloween: Whence the pursuit of horror?
By Erich Vieth on October 27th, 2009

Halloween: Whence the pursuit of horror?

Some of the neighborhoods near my house in St. Louis have already celebrated Halloween. For instance, my street celebrates Halloween on the Sunday afternoon prior to Halloween. Celebrating in the daylight makes it easier for us to visit with little neighborhood children and their parents. The nearby Compton Heights neighborhood celebrates Halloween on the Saturday night prior to Halloween. Our family was invited to venture over to Compton Heights a few nights ago, and we weren’t disappointed. head

Amidst all of the traditional candy-giving, we stumbled upon one particular house where the family had put together its own haunted house. The family owns a big old house, but also owns a separate large two-story carriage house in the back. They hired an electrician to wire up the carriage house with sophisticated lighting and they assembled a team of 20 friends and family to pose as various types of dead people inside the house. Not typical dead people, mind you. Dead people who stand still in the dim lighting and come alive just when you are convinced that they are mannequins (and there were quite a few mannequins too, some of them dismembered). When selected dead people came alive, they yelped, or they screamed; some of them reached out and grabbed you. There were ghouls and ghosts, a vampire, a mummy, floating bones, a guy with a “chainsaw,” and a beheaded guy who suddenly moaned, all of this horror looking rather real and all of these characters lurking carefully amidst the dim lighting as we toured this incredible house.

front-of-haunted-houseEach of the photos in this post is from this house. Note that it’s not always easy to take photos in a darkly lit haunted house. While I was taking a photo of a decapitated head on a table, for instance, a dead man reached out and tugged on my sleeve, smudging the long exposure.

How good was it? I stood outside for 30 minutes after I toured the haunted house, and every ten minutes or so, I saw a panicky grown child running from the haunted house crying. Bravo! I then learned that the haunted house family has been putting on this magnificent show, for free, for 15 years. Double Bravo!

But as I walked away from the haunted house, I wondered two things.

American Culture • Communication • Culture • Featured • Media • Psychology Cognition • Religion • Science
Full Story
3
Is living in a city damaging your brain?
By Brynn Jacobs on August 28th, 2009

Is living in a city damaging your brain?

If we are to believe the results of a new study from Marc Berman, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, the answer is “yes”. These finding come at an interesting crossroads– for the first time ever, more humans live in cities than in rural settings. The findings argue that the brain becomes confused and tired as it is forced to respond to the massive amounts of stimulii that are present in cities. The brain is constantly searching its surroundings, trying to anticipate threats. Not only does one have to negotiate traffic and constantly re-assess the changing visual landscape, but this is often done while carrying on a conversation or mentally planning a route through the city. Quoting from Boston.com:

The reason such seemingly trivial mental tasks leave us depleted is that they exploit one of the crucial weak spots of the brain. A city is so overstuffed with stimuli that we need to constantly redirect our attention so that we aren’t distracted by irrelevant things, like a flashing neon sign or the cellphone conversation of a nearby passenger on the bus. This sort of controlled perception — we are telling the mind what to pay attention to — takes energy and effort. The mind is like a powerful supercomputer, but the act of paying attention consumes much of its processing power.

Interestingly, the researchers found that just showing people a picture of an urban environment was enough to cause substantial impairment to the test subject’s levels of attention and working memory. Similarly, a different study quoted in the article shows that even very small amounts of exposure to nature were enough to confer significant improvement on subjects’ cognitive abilities and sense of well-being.

Additionally, the research indicates that living in cities may also have a harmful effect on one’s level of self-control.

American Culture • Economy • Featured • Health • Psychology Cognition
Full Story
2
By Erich Vieth on July 04th, 2009

The best way to have self-esteem is to have it

Can you get self-esteem by trying to convince yourself that you have it? Apparently not, according to a new study reported by the BBC:

Canadian researchers found those with low self-esteem actually felt worse after repeating positive statements about themselves.

They said phrases such as “I am a lovable person” only helped people with high self-esteem.

The study appears in the journal Psychological Science.

Psychology Cognition
Full Story
0
By Erich Vieth on July 02nd, 2009

What we buy versus what makes us happy

Geoffrey Miller has just published a new book, Spent: Sex, Evolution and Consumer Behavior. I haven’t read it yet, but I am now ordering it, based on Miller’s terrific prior work (see here, for example).

In the meantime, I did enjoy this NYT blog review of Spent, which includes this provocative question:

List the ten most expensive things (products, services or experiences) that you have ever paid for (including houses, cars, university degrees, marriage ceremonies, divorce settlements and taxes). Then, list the ten items that you have ever bought that gave you the most happiness. Count how many items appear on both lists.

If you’re looking for simplistic answers, you won’t get them from Miller. I won’t spoil the answers he obtained or his analysis of those answers, but you’ll find them here.

[addendum]

I found this one item refreshingly honest. Refreshingly, because I know a lot of parents, I see their faces, I hear their complaints (and their exhultations). I know that it’s PC to say that having children is a continuous wonderful joy and that all parents are glad they did had children. Miller’s research suggests that the answer is not this simple:

[Here's an answer that appears [much more on the ‘expensive’ than on the ‘happy’ lists [includes] Children, including child care, school fees, child support, fertility treatments. Costly, often disappointing, usually ungrateful. Yet, the whole point of life, from a Darwinian perspective. Parental instincts trump consumer pleasure-seeking.

American Culture • Consumerism • Economy • Evolution • Psychology Cognition • Sex • advertising
Full Story
1
Facebook and Twitter as marshmallow dispensers
By Erich Vieth on June 08th, 2009

Facebook and Twitter as marshmallow dispensers

I’ve previously written about a fascinating marshmallow experiment here and here.

To set the stage, keep in mind that marshmallows are the equivalent of crack cocaine for young children. In the experiment, numerous four-year olds were each left alone with a marshmallow and told that they could eat it if they wanted. They were also told that if they could wait until the experimenter returned (which would happen 15 minutes later), they could have two marshmallows.

Only about 30% of the children had the discipline to wait for the experimenter to return. When the psychologists followed up on these children fourteen years later, they found some startling things. Those four-year-olds who exerted the willpower to wait for two marshmallows scored an average of more than 200 points higher on the SAT than those who couldn’t wait. Those who could wait also show themselves to be more cooperative, more able to work under pressure and more self-reliant. In sum, they were dramatically more able to achieve their goals than those who couldn’t wait.

Which leads me to this thought: Are Internet social sites the cyber-equivalent of marshmallow dispensers? Since reading of the marshmallow experiment, I have repeatedly thought of inability of many people to resist spending hours on social sites such as Facebook and Twitter. I also think of those who burn long hours on MySpace and those who are non-stop texters. Perhaps Internet news junkies belong in the same category.

I don’t know the exact numbers, but there are numerous folks who aren’t getting nearly enough important things done in their lives (things THEY consider to be important) who are spending immense numbers of hours chatting and gossiping. I personally know some of these people. If these were retired people without any daily obligations, it would be one thing. Many of them, however, are blowing countless chances to make significant progress on goals that they themselves have set.

American Culture • Communication • Internet • Networking • Psychology Cognition
Full Story
0
Laughing rats
By Erich Vieth on June 04th, 2009

Laughing rats

A group of scientists has now suggested that laughing can be detected in mammalian species as simple as rats.

This discussion of laughing animals is discussed at Alan Boyle’s blog at MSNBC:

How do you graph the evolution of a laugh? Researchers tickled babies and six different kinds of apes, quantified their giggles, and found that the patterns fit a classic evolutionary tree.

Those patterns hint at the ancient origins of human hilarity and suggest that other social species - including apes, dogs and rats - really, truly laugh as well.

Or check out a laughing gorilla here.

Why do we laugh? Mostly, we laugh at things that are not funny. See here, for more information on the psychology of laughing.

Current Events • Psychology Cognition
Full Story
11
Shucks, it’s hard to be a materialist!
By Erika Price on April 10th, 2009

Shucks, it’s hard to be a materialist!

I have these two smart, atheistic, science-respecting-type friends. Their respect for science falls short of any active pursuit of the subject. Each one can enjoy a good documentary that bashes creationism or socially conservative evangelism- such low-hanging forbidden fruit!- but the interest ends about there. Still, I think of them both as rational, generally skeptical thinkers.

My intellectual pursuits run more to the science side than do theirs. I’m only a lowly social sciences buff, with a truly shaky grasp of the “hard” stuff, but I have taken enough courses in research methods and statistics to understand much of the philosophy of science. I often have to represent science to these smart but humanities-focused friends.

I can’t remember how materialism came up between the three of us, exactly. I remember attempting to stumble my way through a question about social cognitive neuroscience, and the fact that some criticize the field as nothing but “gee-whiz, lookit what lit up right there!” I said that it comes as no surprise that a real-life mental process has visible, biological trappings.

Or maybe it came up when discussing the classic battle of therapy versus medication for depression. I told my friends that major depression probably always involves real, observable changes in serotonin or other neurtransmitters. I said that this doesn’t prove that medicine is the answer in all cases. Maybe a depressing situation can push a distressed person into having the chemical trappings of depression. Therapy that cheers a person up could cause the chemical problem itself to recede.

For some reason, my rational friends struggled with the marriage of the mental and the chemical. How strange, how eerie it was that every mental process has a biological sign, they said.

I shrugged at this and set my sarcasm level to stun. “Well of course it’s biological,” I moaned, “If you’re a materialist, this shouldn’t surprise you.”

They blanched. What did I mean?

Education • Featured • Human animals • Psychology Cognition • Science • Uncategorized • Whimsy • ignorance • scientific method
Full Story
1
By Erich Vieth on March 26th, 2009

How undependable are the experts?

We are in the middle of a huge economic crisis. Should we listen to the experts? Of course we should, because the economy and the financial sector are horrifically complicated.

What happens when the experts disagree, however? To which experts should we listen? I took a stab at that question recently, but I remain unconvinced that any of the economics experts can be trusted. Yes, there are people like George Soros who have made a phenomenal amount of money during the crisis, but this makes me wonder whether he (and all of the other recent success stories) are smart or whether they are lucky.

Today, Nicholas Kristof (in the NYT) reminds us that many experts (at least political experts) have a terrible track record. His opening sentence: “Ever wonder how financial experts could lead the world over the economic cliff?” He warns us of the “Dr. Fox effect,” named for a “pioneering series of psychology experiments in which an actor was paid to give a meaningless presentation to professional educators.” Despite the fact that the lectures consisted of gibberish, they were well received. He mentions a study showing that “clinical psychologists did no better than their secretaries in their diagnoses.” He also mentions a study by Philip Tetlock which determined that “The [82,000] predictions of [284] experts were, on average, only a tiny bit better than random guesses — the equivalent of a chimpanzee throwing darts at a board.” Those experts who were the most impressive to most people “provided strong, coherent points of view, who saw things in blacks and whites.”

I’m reminded of Alan Sokal’s intentionally nonsensical article that he submitted to the postmodern journal, Social Text. See here for more of the details. BTW, if you want to generate your own postmodern bullshit, use this postmodernist bullshit generator (every time you hit the link, more impressive-sounding bullshit will be assembled automatically into an article).

How far astray are we led by “experts”? Consider investment “experts.” There are none worse. Entire industries are built on the thoroughly disproved notion that a stock-picker can consistently beat the market. Dan Smolin has made a career of proving that stock-picker experts are thoroughly and demonstrably terrible at what they claim to be. But many of us still run to these financial “experts” to help us pick the “right” stocks.

Just think of the hundreds of political military experts who were similarly awful at their recommendations and predictions regarding the invasion of Iraq. They appeared hundreds of time on network TV during the few weeks prior to the invasion, all of them confident in their assessments and advice. Consider, also that fewer than 1% of them took anti-war stances. Consider, also, that many of these “experts” were secretly in positions to financially benefit from an invasion of Iraq.

Consider the thousands of religious experts, from coast to coast, who loudly and confidently tell their religious followers that there is a heaven and that they will go there, without the tiniest big of evidence in support. The followers of fundamentalist preachers continue to listen to these guys even when they attack evolutionary biologists, even though these religious leaders have no training in science and no basic understanding of the principles of evolutionary biology.

Everyone loves weather forecasters, right? These guys are wrong so incredibly often that no station dares to post their track records for those five-day forecasts they confidently present night after night.

The list goes on and on. We insist on listening to the experts, medical experts, beauty experts, psychologists, their track records be damned. That’s because they are the best that we’ve got, no matter how wrong they are how often.

The bottom line is that we crave experts because we crave certainty, even where there isn’t any. The confirmation bias causes us to rely heavily on experts hawking our own opinions, even when there is no evidence in support, as long as the expert dishes out those opinions with a loud confident voice. And a fancy business suit doesn’t hurt either.

Current Events • Featured • Media • Politics • Psychology Cognition • Religion • ignorance • snake oil
Full Story
0
The importance of play for adults
By Erich Vieth on March 25th, 2009

The importance of play for adults

In a recent talk at TED, psychiatrist Stuart Brown talked about the vital importance of play. Brown opened his talk by showing an incredible series of photographs demonstrating that a huge hungry polar bear can be seduced into playing with dogs rather than eating them. Like a polar bear, play induces an “altered state” in humans. Play is a great leveler: great differences in power can be overridden by play. In fact, the absence of play is dangerous, as demonstrated by the case histories of mass murderers.

Brown describes various kinds of play, including body play (e.g., jumping), object play (manipulating objects), social play, rough-and-tumble play, ritual play and imaginative play (storytelling). These activities simply make us feel better. They are purposeless. In fact, if the purpose is more important than the act of doing these things, they are not “play.” As I listened to this list, I was wondering whether sexual play is of the same importance as the other types of play.

The study of play is still in its infancy. Historically, this has not been a well-funded area of scientific investigation. Nonetheless, the evidence we already have suggests that play is important for developing cognitively, emotionally and developmentally. We already know that “nothing lights up the brain like play.” In fact, the ability to trust is learned through vocal, facial and gestural play signals. As Brown indicates, humans are perhaps the most neotonous species, suggesting a special need for humans to engage in play, whether they are infants or adults.

Various animal studies have shown that her mental effects of preventing an animal from playing. Thus, it seems that play is important for survival. In fact, life without play seems to lead inexorably to depression. When we look back in our history to determine what sorts of activities energized us when we were youngsters, we might deal with see that we have strayed from those things that gave us the pleasure of play. When we explore our personal history, we might find that we are mismatched in terms of career or other activities.

[caption id="attachment_5702" align="alignright" width="150" caption="Image by mildegard at dreamstime.com"]Image by mildegard at dreamstime.com[/caption]

Brown encourages the audience that they should not set aside time to play. Rather, they (including adults) should infuse every moment of their lives with play. He argues that play is just important for humans as is asleep and dreaming.

Featured • Psychology Cognition • Videos
Full Story
2
Why is Dangerous Intersection such a slow-loading website?
By Erich Vieth on March 07th, 2009

Why is Dangerous Intersection such a slow-loading website?

Why is Dangerous Intersection such a slow-loading website?

[UPDATE: If you can see this update, you are now on DI's new faster server, and the rest of this post is moot.]

I’m painfully aware of the problem, which is being caused by problems with our current hosting, an upgrade to a new design and growing traffic, which now brings us about 6,000 visitors every day.

Internet • Technology • computers
Full Story
0
Another well-deserved attack on rationality
By Erich Vieth on February 18th, 2009

Another well-deserved attack on rationality

Why do we do the things we do? Why did you propose that woman, for instance? Or why did you accept a job offer from that man? The January 29, 2009 edition of Nature (available online only to subscribers) takes a look at this question in an article by Mark Buchanan titled “Secret Signals: Are People’s Interactions Driven by a Primitive, Not Linguistic Type of Communication?”

Scientists have determined that there is a second channel of human communication that (often) acts in parallel with our rational thinking and verbal communication. It’s difficult to pin down power and scope of this non-linguistic ability, however. Recently, computer scientist Alex Pentland has started using wearable electronic devices in order to study our ability to communicate using non-linguistic behavior. It is Pentland’s aim to try to assist organizations to make better use of their personnel based upon this ubiquitous and powerful hidden communication.

Many people resist the idea that many of our choices are not determined by “conscious intentions and deliberate choices.” It’s time to stop resisting, however. For example, our behavior is highly determined by our social context rather than our innate “character.” On this topic I’ve often recommended an excellent book titled The Person and the Situation, by Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett. See also, this earlier DI post titled “Laughing at not funny things, and the limits of introspection.”

Communication • Featured • Human animals • Language • Psychology Cognition
Full Story
1
By Erich Vieth on February 06th, 2009

To what extent are homophobic men attracted to other men?

In this age of Ted Haggard, the question is an obvious one: To what extent are homophobic sexually attracted to other men? This January 2009 Scientific American article explores the research regarding these two variables. There appears to be a correlation.

Bigotry • Psychology Cognition
Full Story
Older Entries