How to change

Most of the big problems we face today are created by human beings, and they have human solutions. If only we could and would change our ways. If only we could switch to a non-fossil fuel economy, we could solve dozens of well-known environmental and political problems. If only we would "just say no" to drugs, reckless conduct, sloth, and rampant consumerism. If only we would just buckle down and be more informed and more active citizens, we could keep a better eye on our government. It goes on and on. Well designed solutions already exist for so many of our problems. If only we would change, but we can’t seem to change. We tend to be trapped in our own destructive and ignorant ways. How can we break out of this stagnant cycle? Back in 2002 at Psychology Today, in an article titled “The 10 Rules of Change,” Stan Goldberg wrote that change isn’t easy, but it is possible, and there’s more to it than just saying yes (or no). He offers ten observations and strategies for implementing change. They include the following (these are Goldberg’s ideas, as I interpret them): 1. All behaviors are complex. Therefore, break down the behavior into smaller parts and take baby steps. If you want to be a better musician, practice your scales, study your theory, practice new pieces, listen carefully to others performing, and a dozen other things. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingHow to change

Multiple intelligences on steroids

Professor of Cognition and Education Howard Gardner has made a strong case that "general intelligence" is a socially stifling concept, even a dangerous concept. He argues that there is much more to being "intelligent" than mastering the academic content that we have traditionally measured, topics such as reading, writing, and math. I find Gardner's arguments intuitive. After all, many people struggle with traditional subjects, but they are incredibly proficient (geniuses, if you will) at interpersonal skills (think of community organizers) or spatial skills (think of carpenters). Gardner has set forth the criteria for what constitutes an intelligence: "There are at least eight discrete intelligences, and these intelligences constitute the ways in which individuals take in information, retain and manipulate that information, and demonstrate their understandings (and misunderstanding) to themselves and others." To be clear, an "intelligence" is far more than a skillset for Gardner. Here he describes it in even more detail:

Fundamentally, an intelligence refers to a biopsychological potential of our species to process certain kinds of information in certain kinds of way. As such, it clearly involves processes that are carried out by dedicated neural networks. No doubt each of the intelligences has its characteristic neural processes, with most of them quite similar across human beings. Some of the processes might prove to be more customized to an individual. The intelligence itself is not a content, but it is geared to specific contents. That is, the linguistic intelligence is activated when individuals encounter the sounds of language or when they wish to communicate something verbally to another person. However, the linguistic intelligence is not dedicated only to sound. It can be mobilized as well by visual information, when an individual decodes written text; and in deaf individuals, linguistic intelligence is mobilized by signs (including syntactically-arranged sets of signs) that are seen or felt. From an evolutionary point of view, it seems probable that each intelligence evolved to deal with certain kinds of contents in a predictable world. However, once such a capacity has emerged, there is nothing that mandates that it must remain tied to the original inspiring content. As the term has it, the capacity can be exapted for other purposes. . . . I've put forth a candidate set of intelligences that are said to have their own characteristic processes and to be reasonably independent of one another. Over time, the particular intelligences nominated, and their degree of dependence or independence of one another, will be more firmly established.
How does Gardner's multiple intelligence theory compare to traditional methods of defining and measuring intelligence? The traditional approach involves assigning an overall score (e.g., an IQ score) to each person, thus characterizing the degree to which that person is smart. What's wrong with this approach whereby we assign a "general intelligence" (or "g" score) to each person?

MI theory questions not the existence but the province and explanatory power of g. ‘g’ is a statistical outcome and its strength varies to some extent on the assumptions that are built into the factorial model being employed. We do not really understand what is measured by ‘g’—it could be anything from sheer intellect to motivation to skill in following instructions to the ability to shift facilely from one kind of problem to another.

I'm going to make an over-generalization, but it might be one to which you can relate. Imagine your class valedictorian from high school--you know, that student who aced all of those tests, including standardized tests. Now consider . . . Was that person adept socially? Was he or she artistic or an athletic "genius"? Was he or she in tune with nature? He or she was probably not equally capable in each of these areas. Therefore, why assign the label "smart" to the student who excels at math, reading and abstract thinking, and disparage the student who excels at emotional IQ, spatial skills or athleticism, but who only does passably at traditional academic subjects? Gardner comments:

I am uncomfortable with the assumption inherent in g: that an individual who has a high ‘g’ could be equally accomplished in any intellectual area. MI theory is an extended argument against this all-purpose view of intellect.

The theory of the multiple intelligences recognizes many forms of intelligence (Gardner has recognized at least eight so far:
  • Spatial
  • Linguistic
  • Logical-mathematical
  • Kinesthetic
  • Musical
  • Interpersonal
  • Intrapersonal
  • Naturalist
The theory of multiple intelligences then goes on to urge that we evaluate each other by this wider range of competencies, rather than sizing up everyone in the room by how they would do on a standardized IQ test. The theory of the multiple intelligences is a double-edged sword for those who want to be seen as achievers. Yes, those who have traditionally been recognized as "intelligent" will still be at the top of the heap, but only within a particular intelligence or two. But they can't any longer claim their superiority based on their standardized IQ scores, because IQ scores only measure a narrow range of competencies. There's a lot more work to be done for one to be recognized as an all-round "intelligent" person. Many of those who don't excel at traditional IQ tests might also benefit from Multiple Intelligence Theory. No longer should they be labeled as "not intelligent" across the board. Many of them excel at other types of valuable skills, and they they should be recognized for these proficiencies. We never ever ask about IQ scores when we consider the genius of John Lennon, Martin Luther King, Ansel Adams, William Shakespeare, Michael Jordan or Abraham Lincoln. In fact, we would probably hesitate to make any of these people take a standardized IQ test because such a narrow test would probably declare that many of these geniuses were geniuses in the IQ sense, which would, of course, cast judgment on our stifling narrow method of defining and measuring intelligence via IQ tests. The Multiple Intelligence theory is thus liberating in that it allows us to fine-tune what we mean when we label someone as "intelligent." But Gardner was just getting us started. What if you are an organization looking for people to run your organization? You'd likely be seeking certain "competencies." Microsoft, working with Lominger, a leadership development firm, set out to define these competencies, which then led to a fascinating list of "educational competencies," which define the full range of characteristics needed to help a school district achieve its organizational goals and vision. I believe that Microsoft came up with an excellent list of qualities that individuals need in order to help school districts succeed in the 21st century. These qualities, or success factors, are:

1. Individual Excellence: Ability to achieve results by working effectively with others in various circumstances.

2. Organizational Skills: Ability to communicate by various means within different organizational settings.

3. Courage: Ability to speak directly, honestly, and with respect in difficult situations.

4. Results: An emphasis on goal-oriented action.

5. Strategic Skills: An array of skills used to accomplish focused, longer-term goals.

6. Operating Skills: An array of skills used for daily management of tasks and relationships.

But there's still more. The above six categories are just the basic categories. Each of them branch out into yet other, more specific skills. They are often displayed graphically on the Educational Competency Wheel. The Microsoft Education Competencies were designed to help educators and administrators develop their professional skills and proficiencies. They were also designed to help school districts and other educational organizations "find the right job candidates fill key jobs." I found the Wheel to be a humbling one as well as a tool that should inspire us to teach others and improve ourselves in the many ways that I had not previously considered. Truly, I don't know any person who excels in most of these areas. Take a tour around this wonderful Wheel, then ask yourself the extent to which we need each other, in that it is a rare human being who excels at all of these qualities. Many of us have come a long way from the traditional method looking to IQ tests to determine who is "smart," and that is a good thing, because the traditional way of evaluating each other blinded us to many of the geniuses among us. For those of us who did well on the IQ tests, it also blinded us to the many areas in which we, ourselves, could use improvement. These new methods of evaluating intelligences and competencies should tell us that we are all special education projects, and that most of us have valuable qualities to offer, even if we struggled at filling in those little circles with our number 2 pencils.

Continue ReadingMultiple intelligences on steroids

Do you even have the stomach for reading about deflation?

The International Business Manager of the U.K. Telegraph is sounding the alarm.

Entitled "Deflation: Making Sure It Doesn’t Happen Here", it is a warfare manual for defeating economic slumps by use of extreme monetary stimulus once interest rates have dropped to zero, and implicitly once governments have spent themselves to near bankruptcy.

I'm no economist, but this sounds ominous. This article sent me off to read more about deflation.

Continue ReadingDo you even have the stomach for reading about deflation?

Is that a gun in your pocket or do you really dig my Neocon fundamentalist tea party ideas?

How is it that so many Republican men find Sarah Palin credible when she claims that we can drill our way out of the energy crisis? There simply isn’t that much oil in Alaska—anyone with a small bit of curiosity can do the math and find out that Alaska has only six months of oil to offer the rest of America. It gets much worse, of course. Republican men tend to love fact-less, self-contradictory female Republican politicians and commentators (including more than a few at FOX), especially those that push their sexuality hard based on the manner in which they dress and act. And consider the recent reactions of conservative pundits regarding the issue of whether Sarah Palin had breast implants. This anomaly leads to my question: Do Republican men really and truly think that the current crop of female Republican politicians/commentators are offering ideas that work, or are they confusing sexual arousal for patriotic fervor or intellectual inspiration? Consider that “misattribution of arousal” is well-established through numerous experiments. In 1962, psychologists Schacter and Singer told participants that the psychologists were studying the effect of vitamin injection on visual skills. This was prior to modern day ethics restrictions, and many of the students were secretly given injections of adrenaline or a placebo (to control for the effect of sticking a needle in one’s arm). Strong emotional reactions to subsequent stimuli (a “nosy” and “offensive” questionnaire) were strongest in participants who had been given the adrenaline but told that it was only vitamins and that it would have no effect on them. They misattributed their chemically-enhanced emotions to the questionnaire, whereas those who told that they were receiving the injection of a stimulant (and those receiving the placebo) did not misattribute their emotions. Here is a succinct description of the phenomenon of misattribution of arousal. (and see here). republican-babes What follows is an excerpt from Social Psychology and Human Nature, by Roy F. Baumeister and Brad Bushman (2007) (p. 187):

The intriguing thing about the Schachter-Singer theory is that it allows for arousals to be mislabeled or relabeled. That is, an arousal may arise for one reason but get another label, thereby producing a different reaction. For example, someone may not realize that what he or she is drinking has caffeine (e.g., if you think that you have decaffeinated tea when in reality it has caffeine . . .) it may create an arousal state. If something frustrating happens, someone who has this extra, unexplained arousal may get much angrier than he or she would otherwise. This process is called excitation transfer . . . The arousal from the first event (drinking caffeinated tea) transfers to the second event (frustration).
Consider that large numbers of conservative/fundamentalist men are not comfortable acknowledging the sexual arousal they feel when they see images of Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter or Michelle Bachman. Therefore (as my hunch goes), when they experience intense sexual arousal that they are not comfortable acknowledging (when they “dissociate” these toxic thoughts of “inappropriate” sexual attractiveness), they are left without any obvious explanation for their increased arousal. They are thus ripe for misattribution. They are easily self-fooled that they are feeling passionate about their country or fearful about Middle Eastern “terrorists.” Whatever it is that these vapid/deceitful Republican babes are uttering, it must be true too. “Why else would my blood flow thusly whenever I hear Sarah Palin give a talk?” Why, indeed?

Continue ReadingIs that a gun in your pocket or do you really dig my Neocon fundamentalist tea party ideas?

Making bluefin tuna extinct

We couldn't have done a better job had we TRIED to cause the majestic bluefin tuna to become extinct. These are huge (up to ten-foot in length) warm-blooded fish that can travel 40 mph in a blink of an eye. The is an excellent yet depressing article by the NYT. Worldwide political apathy and unrestrained appetites are sealing the deal.

Continue ReadingMaking bluefin tuna extinct