Some Practical Advice from Psychologist Dan Gilbert

I recently listened to an episode of Steven Levitt's excellent podcast, "People I (Mostly) Admire." On Episode 73, Stephen's guest was Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert, who is quite a character. I would invite you to listen to the entire podcast, which was quite entertaining. There were several points in the podcast where it occurred to me that Gilbert was offering some practical advice that I could use in my own life. I recorded those portions of the podcast and created a transcript. Here are those excerpts:

[The End of History Illusion]

Dan Gilbert: The End of History illusion, is very simple idea, which is that people tend to believe that they will change in the future, less than they actually do. Almost all of us have this sense that development is this process that's brought us to this point, we've now become our actual selves. And from here on out, there will be wrinkles and pounds, but will basically be who we've always been. And what we discovered in our research was that when people look back, they say, Wow, have I changed a lot in the last 10 years, but I don't expect to change much in the next 10 years. That sounds probably like a teenager to win it. But it's also true of people in their 50s and 60s and older. . . . The rate of change does slow. It just doesn't slow as much as we anticipate. So you're right to think, you know, I'm probably not going to change as much between 50 and 60, as I did between 20 and 30, you're just wrong to say you're not going to change at all, I just turned 64. And somebody asked me what's it like? I said, it's like a whole new puberty!

[Shocking Boredom]

We were very interested in why people find it difficult to be alone with their own thoughts. We put people in a room with a shock machine, and they got to feel the shocks, so they could find out that they were pretty intense, and they hurt. And we even asked them how much money they would pay to avoid being shocked. And they were willing to pay a reasonable amount of money. How much would you pay to avoid the shock? You know, if I were an economist, that's the thing I would remember. But the point is, they didn't enjoy the shocks, they would even be willing to pay some amount of money, it doesn't even matter how much to avoid them. Because what comes next flies in the face of that declaration, which is when they're in a room alone, no phone, no wristwatch, no books, and they're just asked to sit and entertain themselves with their own thoughts. But they're told that if they want, they can certainly shock themselves. Guess what happens? The majority of men, and a healthy number of women, do so. . . . most people find it so aversive to have no stimulation whatsoever, that they're even willing to experience a little pain and play with that just to have something to feel.

Steve Levitt: I wish we could go back in time, and do this experiment. In 1975, when there were four TV stations, and there was no internet, no cell phones, we would have suffered horribly back in those days, if we weren't able to be alone with our thoughts. Do you think this is very much a product of modern technology?

Dan Gilbert: Think of a family living in a small log cabin, in the middle of Montana, going through the winter, barely going outside there in one room, there's no TV, there might be a Bible, who knows if anybody can read? Oh, my gosh, there's nothing to do. And yet, as far as we can tell, there are no reports of people killing themselves out of boredom. So my guess is people were once upon a time, much better at closing their eyes and entertaining themselves than we are today. In a world that's just so full of entertainment, that we barely have a chance to close our eyes. I think imagination is a remarkable capacity. And that in all past generations, it was required. Very little imagination is required to live in the 21st century.

[On Having Fun with Anything]

Dan Gilbert: I would say that the reason I put so much time and effort into my teaching is because I'm lazy. And lazy people don't like to work.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingSome Practical Advice from Psychologist Dan Gilbert

Train Your Brain to be Disciplined by Telling Yourself “No” Many Times per Day

Dr. Andrew Huberman is a Professor of Neurobiology at Stanford University. In this video conversation with Shane Parrish, he suggests an exercise for controlling your impulses and keeping yourself focused. He describes two directional pathways that are triggered off of circuitry in the basal ganglia.  One is the "Go" or action-oriented pathways the includes thought and the other is "No-Go."  As kids, we are forced to engage in a lot of "No-Go" behaviors, including sitting still and not interrupting.

Our phones and other aspects of our environment cause us to shift our attention repeatedly. We are no longer children, so we don't have parents telling us "no" "no" "no." We tend to be action-oriented, "Go-Oriented," and we need to exercise our ability to resist impulses (to NOT check our phones and emails, for instance) in order to do deep focus for periods of 90-minutes with "tunnel-vision," resisting all distractions to get up and get away from the target of your focus. Huberman suggests several ninety-minute tunnel-vision sessions each day for productivity.  How do we get better at this?

Hubeman suggests practicing "No-Go" moments:

One thing that I've done over the years to try and reinforce these circuits in myself based on my understanding of how they work is every day I try and have somewhere between 20 and 30 No-Goes and the No-Goes can be trivial like i'm ready to pick up my phone --NO!--and I force myself to not pick it up.  All i'm doing is trying to reinforce that circuit, because the thing to understand about neural circuitry is that it's generic. It's not designed so that you have a strong No-Go response--just to picking up your phone--it actually carries over to multiple other things. At any moment we can be back on our heels flat-footed or forward center of mass. That's the way I try and visualize the waking portions of my life.

Most of our life is Go Go Go, starting at the moment we wake up.

We rarely rehearse our No-Go functions. No-Go functions are simply about suppressing behavior. So if you have a meditative practice there's a little bit of that, where you think i don't want to do it but i'm going to force myself to sit still even though I want to get up. That's a no-go, but think about it: If you get better at meditating, you actually have less of an opportunity to get into this No-Go mode to trigger the circuitry. So what I try and do is introduce 20 or so No-Go's throughout the day that I deliberately impose on myself as I'm about to get into reflexive action. It could be delaying a bite of food for a couple of minutes. I realize it sounds almost like an eating disorder, people with eating disorders probably want to stay away from that one--but there are all sorts of ways that we can do this. We find ways that we are are short-circuiting this process. I think we need to keep these No-Go circuits trained up. I think nowadays there's so much opportunity and so much reward for Go that we don't train the No-Go pathways.

Continue ReadingTrain Your Brain to be Disciplined by Telling Yourself “No” Many Times per Day

Reason as a Social Tool More than an Intellectual Tool

I've been trying to collect information on the idea that we over-estimate the ability of human reason to tell us what is true, and that is because reason highest function is social, not intellectual. Here are a few things I have found:

Douglas Murray:

When people with an incorrect view were introduced to the correct view, a vast proportion doubled down on their wrong opinion and thenceforth refused to budge. I am slightly haunted by this study because of how much it says about us human beings. We like to think of ourselves as reasonable, rational types. After all, you rarely meet someone who confesses to being unreasonable and irrational. But we do not really know ourselves, and if reason and rationalism alone drove us then we would be something else entirely. While we are sometimes motivated by reason, we are also fueled by pride, jealousy and much more.

In describing Enigma of Reason, by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, this webpage indicates:

[R]eason is an adaptive mechanism designed to help humans better exploit their uniquely rich social environment – and that it has nothing to do with facts at all.

Reason, say Mercier and Sperber, evolved to help us justify ourselves and to convince others, which is essential for cooperation and communication. According to the two scientists, “the normal conditions for the use of reason are social, and more specifically dialogic. Outside of this environment, there is no guarantee that reasoning acts for the benefits of the reasoner.”

According Mercier and Sperber, habits of mind that seem irrational from an “intellectualist” point of view, prove shrewd when seen from a social “inter-actionist” perspective.

From Goodreads, which offers excerpts from The Enigma of Reason:

“The fact that people are good at evaluating others’ reasons is the nail in the coffin of the intellectualist approach. It means that people have the ability to reason objectively, rejecting weak arguments and accepting strong ones, but that they do not use these skills on the reasons they produce. The apparent weaknesses of reason production are not cognitive failures; they are cognitive features.”

“[T]wo major features of the production of reasons: it is biased— people overwhelmingly find reasons that support their previous beliefs— and it is lazy— people do not carefully scrutinize their own reasons. Combined, these two traits spell disaster for the lone reasoner. As she reasons, she finds more and more arguments for her views, most of them judged to be good enough. These reasons increase her confidence and lead her to extreme positions.”

“It is based, however, on a convenient fiction: most reasons are after-the-fact rationalizations. Still, this fictional use of reasons plays a central role in human interactions, from the most trivial to the most dramatic.”

“As Popper put it, “In searching for the truth, it may be our best plan to start by criticizing our most cherished beliefs.”

Whereas reason is commonly viewed as the use of logic, or at least some system of rules to expand and improve our knowledge and our decisions, we argue that reason is much more opportunistic and eclectic and is not bound to formal norms. The main role of logic in reasoning, we suggest, may well be a rhetorical one: logic helps simplify and schematize intuitive arguments, highlighting and often exaggerating their force. So, why did reason evolve? What does it provide, over and above what is provided by more ordinary forms of inference, that could have been of special value to humans and to humans alone? To answer, we adopt a much broader perspective. Reason, we argue, has two main functions: that of producing reasons for justifying oneself, and that of producing arguments to convince others. These two functions rely on the same kinds of reasons and are closely related.”

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate

Descartes was the most forceful of reason’s many advocates. Reason has also had many, often passionate, detractors. Its efficacy has been questioned. Its arrogance has been denounced. The religious reformer Martin Luther was particularly scathing: “Reason is by nature a harmful whore. But she shall not harm me, if only I resist her. Ah, but she is so comely and glittering.… See to it that you hold reason in check and do not follow her beautiful cogitations. Throw dirt in her face and make her ugly.”

We began this book with a double enigma, the second part of which was: How come humans are not better at reasoning, not able to come, through reasoning, to nearly universal agreement among themselves? It looks like now we might have overexplained why different people’s reasons should fail to converge on the same conclusion and ended up with the opposite problem: If the reason module is geared to the retrospective use of reasons for justification, how can it be used prospectively to reason? How come humans are capable of reasoning at all, and, at times, quite well?”

A speaker typically wants not only to be understood but also to be believed (or obeyed), to have, in other terms, some influence on her audience. A hearer typically wants not just to understand what the speaker means but, in so doing, to learn something about the world.”

Humans reason when they are trying to convince others or when others are trying to convince them. Solitary reasoning occurs, it seems, in anticipation or rehashing of discussions with others and perhaps also when one finds oneself holding incompatible ideas and engages in a kind of discussion with oneself.”

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”

Richard Nisbett and Lee Ross, who suggest that people are generally content with the first reason they stumble upon,5 or David Perkins, who asserts that many arguments make only “superficial sense.

Continue ReadingReason as a Social Tool More than an Intellectual Tool

Jesse Singal: Transgender Puberty Blocker and Hormone Research Fails to Justify Their Use

Jesse Singal analyzes new research regarding puberty blockers and hormones used by researchers to promote their use. He concerned that the researchers have been dishonest. Here is an excerpt from his article: "Researchers Found Puberty Blockers And Hormones Didn’t Improve Trans Kids’ Mental Health At Their Clinic. Then They Published A Study Claiming The Opposite.". Here is an excerpt:

All the publicity materials the university released tell a very straightforward, exciting story: The kids in this study who accessed puberty blockers or hormones (henceforth GAM, for “gender-affirming medicine”) had better mental health outcomes at the end of the study than they did at its beginning.

The headline of the emailed version of the press release, for example, reads, “Gender-affirming care dramatically reduces depression for transgender teens, study finds.” The first sentence reads, “UW Medicine researchers recently found that gender-affirming care for transgender and nonbinary adolescents caused rates of depression to plummet.” All of this is straightforwardly causal language, with “dramatically reduces” and “caused rates… to plummet” clearly communicating improvement over time.

. . .

What’s surprising, in light of all these quotes, is that the kids who took puberty blockers or hormones experienced no statistically significant mental health improvement during the study. The claim that they did improve, which was presented to the public in the study itself, in publicity materials, and on social media (repeatedly) by one of the authors, is false.

It’s hard even to figure this out from reading the study, which omits some very basic statistics one would expect to find, but the non-result is pretty clear from eTable 3 in the supplementary materials, which shows what percentage of study participants met the researchers’ thresholds for depression, anxiety, and self-harm or suicidal thoughts during each of the four waves of the study:

Among the kids who went on hormones, there isn’t genuine statistical improvement here from baseline to the final wave of data collection. At baseline, 59% of the treatment-naive kids experienced moderate to severe depression. Twelve months later, 56% of the kids on GAM experienced moderate to severe depression. At baseline, 45% of the treatment-naive kids experienced self-harm or suicidal thoughts. Twelve months later, 37% of the kids on GAM did. These are not meaningful differences: The kids in the study arrived with what appear to be alarmingly high rates of mental health problems, many of them went on blockers or hormones, and they exited the study with what appear to be alarmingly high rates of mental health problems.

. . .

Despite the fact that two of the authors worked at Seattle Children’s Hospital, where the gender clinic is based, the paper doesn’t include a single word of even informed speculation attempting to explain why some kids accessed GAM and others did not. Nor do the authors seem to notice that by the end of the study, the no-GAM group has dwindled to a grand total of six kids who reported mental health data, as compared to 57 in the group receiving treatment.

Adding intrigue to this situation, the researchers are refusing to release their raw data. Singal does a deep-dive the substantiate his conclusion that the conclusions of the researchers are not substantiated by this research. The problems with this "research" are overwhelming and Jesse Singal offers line and verse on the many questions, lack of questions and holes. Too bad many legacy media outlets lap up unsubstantiated results on this topic produced by so many biased "researchers."

Continue ReadingJesse Singal: Transgender Puberty Blocker and Hormone Research Fails to Justify Their Use

Legislation Proposed to Clarify the Rights of Parents of Gender Dysphoric Children Attending Public Schools

Attorney Luke Berg is asking state legislatures to clarify the rights of parents, especially in cases where public schools are secretly affirming a child's transition while at school. Here is some background and the key points Berg is proposing:

In the past few years, school districts nationwide have quietly adopted policies requiring staff to facilitate and “affirm” gender identity transitions at school without parental notice or consent—and even in secret from parents. Certain groups are telling school boards and administrators that excluding parents from the decision about whether staff will treat their child as the opposite sex is not only best practice but required by law. Neither is true. Such policies fly in the face of how schools treat every other decision of similar significance.

From a legal perspective, these policies violate parents’ constitutional rights to raise their children. They also conflict with science. Many professionals in the field believe that transitioning at a young age can become self-reinforcing and do long-term harm. And these policies divide children against parents, communicating to kids that their parents’ decisions should not be respected.

Key Points

• Schools have a long-standing tradition and legal obligation to inform parents of their children’s medical and behavioral issues and to honor their decisions about what’s best for their kids. Yet, prompted by a well-organized lobby, many school districts have decided that minor students can change gender identity at school without any parental involvement.

• A gender identity transition is a major event in a child’s life. It can have long-term effects on a child’s psyche and sense of identity, and, as a result, many mental health professionals recommend a more cautious approach, first helping children process what they are feeling and why.

• The increasingly common practice of rushing to “affirm”and facilitate a transition at school without informing parents, and even refusing to follow their wishes, runs directly against a strong body of case law recognizing parents’ constitutional right to raise their children.

• State lawmakers can and should clarify that school districts must defer to parents when children struggle with gender identity issues.

. . .

Even if political pressure fails, these policies are vulnerable to lawsuits. As discussed briefly above, a long line of cases from the United States Supreme Court holds that parents have a fundamental right, under the 14th Amendment, to “direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” This is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by” the Court.

. . .

To be clear, such a bill would not, as some will likely argue, require teachers to immediately “out” to parents any student who has questions about these issues and confides in a teacher (though teachers must be permitted to communicate openly with parents about this, because this can be a serious mental health issue). But if a student wants to take the major step to transition, asking all teach- ers and staff to treat him or her as the opposite sex while at school, that should require parental per- mission, just as taking medication at school does, because—as noted above—social affirmation is a medical intervention. Teachers can still be a safe space for students to process these issues while gently explaining to students who want to transition that this is a big decision and that they need to involve their parents if they want to do so at school with the support of staff.

No parents should go through what Jay Keck58 went through, suddenly discovering one day that his daughter had changed gender identity at school, with the school’s active participation and affirmation but without any notice to him. No parents should go through what the Kettle Moraine parents went through, being forced to withdraw their daughter from public school just to protect her and preserve their parental role.

A bill to prevent this should find broad support among parents and constituents. Most parents are outraged when they learn that school districts are excluding parents from this major decision. Even parents who ultimately would allow an immediate transition should want and expect to be involved. Those who support these policies should be forced to defend them publicly and explain why they believe it’s ever appropriate to hide such a serious issue from parents or to subvert the parents’ decision about what’s best for their child. These poli- cies have been implemented quietly for a reason. A public debate that brings them to light may be all that’s needed to start eliminating them.

Continue ReadingLegislation Proposed to Clarify the Rights of Parents of Gender Dysphoric Children Attending Public Schools