The Essential Read

What is time abundance?

Christine Louise Hohlbaum — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:14:08 +0000

Have you ever noticed how we talk about time? We often address it like a fierce competitor we have to beat to the finish line. We crunch it, beat it, and race against it. But I wonder what would happen if we were to treat time as a partner, as a friend, as the Siamese twin it was meant to be? In my book, time equals existence, not money as Benjamin Franklin was apt to say.

Let me back up. Time, in truth, is a construct. It is an organizing principle that helps us meet expectations, such as getting to the same restaurant at the same moment as your friend so you can have lunch. It is a useful tool in commerce, too. You wouldn't want to miss that shipment coming in from abroad, now would you? In fact, global time wasn't properly introduced until October 13, 1884 when a few folks from 26 nations gathered in Washington, DC to agree upon the prime meridian that sliced through the Greenwich Observatory's telescope in England. In that agreement, the Earth was placed into a girdle with 24 strands. We call them time zones. For anyone who's suffered jet lag, as I just have after a two-week trip to the US, you'll know the effect time change can have on you.

So if time is something we've made up, why do we engage in clock combat, that insidious striving to beat that which we cannot control? We often attempt to cram so much into our day that we are left breathless even trying to 'keep up.' But, what exactly are we keeping up with? My guess it is an imaginary standard as made-up as time itself.

I would claim multitasking is symptomatic of a much broader issue. We attempt to do two or more comparably difficult things at once (texting while driving comes to mind) because we think we don't have enough time. Truth be told, we are living longer than we ever have in human history. With an current average life expectancy of 78.11 years in the United States, we have a lot more time than we used to.

Time as friend? Now there's a thought. What would your life look like if you embraced a time abundant mentality?

Here's a fun task to try. The next time you are going somewhere and you think you might be late, turn off all distractions (radio, cell phone, iPod, etc) and simply concentrate on where you are going while observing the speed limit. Breathe deeply as you do and tell yourself "I will get there at the exact moment I need to." Chances are you will arrive in a state of bliss. Even if you are a few moments late according to the clock, you will have lived one of the basic priniciples of the power of slow ~ mindful living while being fully engaged in the here and now.

So go for it. Then tell me how you did!

Fort Hood Fallout

Sam Sommers — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:32:47 +0000

Psychologists call it illusory correlation. The idea is that when we think about others, we tend to overestimate the association between groups and actions that are distinctive. It's one of the ways in which societal stereotypes are perpetuated and endure over time. And it's exactly what has many an American Muslim concerned in the wake of this week's tragic shooting spree at the Fort Hood Army base.

Consider the following research study: you're shown flash cards with information about individuals from two different groups, X and Y. For both groups of people, 75% of the individuals are described as having engaged in some sort of positive, expected behavior. Like tipping their waiter, holding the door for someone else, or helping a fellow shopper load groceries into her car.

The other 25% of these fictional individuals are described as having engaged in negative, deviant behavior. Skipping out on their restaurant bill. Letting the door close on someone behind them with hands full. Trying to sneak more than a dozen grocery items through the express checkout. Etc.

When you're then asked to estimate what percentage of Group X and Y individuals exhibited deviant behavior, your answer will typically depend on relative proportions of these groups in the population at large. The more distinctive a group is, the more likely you are to associate its members with distinctive, deviant behavior.

So when there are 100 Group X individuals in your flash card population, but only 20 Group Y people, it seems like more of the Group Y folks are doing negative, distinctive things. Even though the rate is the same 25% in both Groups X and Y, we tend to inflate the number for the minority group, Group Y.

That's the behavioral science underlying the concerns of many Muslims in the wake of Fort Hood. Sure, the shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, is Muslim. And though we're still in the early stages of reporting and investigating on the crime (it's worth noting that preliminary reports apparently haven't been all that accurate, including several stating that the shooter had been killed at the scene), yes, by many accounts it seems that Hasan's religious beliefs and experiences may be relevant to what precipitated these killings. But the concern of many Muslims is that people's reactions will be to paint their entire group with broad brushstrokes as potential killers.

It seems a legitimate worry in light of all we know about illusory correlation. Not only do we tend to overestimate the association between distinctive behaviors and distinctive groups, but this tendency is also exacerbated when we have pre-existing expectations that the variables in question go together. And the stereotype of American Muslims as violent extremists was clearly a salient one in post-9/11 America long before this week's tragedy at Fort Hood.

Again, I don't mean to suggest that Hasan's religious beliefs are irrelevant when examining his terrible actions. Time will tell, but many indications suggest that they are related. And by no means do I seek to minimize the horror of what he appears to have done. But it seems a legitimate question to ponder how his actions may impact the way Americans see his group more generally.

Timothy McVeigh was a libertarian and NRA-loyalist; Eric Rudolph cited his religious beliefs to explain his violent opposition to abortion. But as White, Christian Americans, their social category membership wasn't particularly distinctive. Thus, it's not surprising that their abhorrently deviant acts didn't have much lasting impact on the perception of their groups at-large. Research on the illusory correlation suggests that the fallout to the Fort Hood shooting could be different in that respect.

At least, that's the fear of many Muslims today, as demonstrated by the following quote in the New York Times from an ex-soldier who attends the same mosque as Hasan: "When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal, but when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad."

This isn't the first time the stress of deployment and other untold factors have driven someone to open fire on fellow soldiers. It isn't the first time a disgruntled employee has turned a weapon on co-workers–in fact, it wasn't even the only such incident of workplace violence this week. And unfortunately, it won't be the last time either. We shall see whether the tendency towards illusory correlations plays any role in how this particular tragedy is reported and responded to.

Murder and Mayhem at Fort Hood: Post-traumatic Embitterment, Madness, or Political Terrorism?

Dr. Stephen A. Diamond, Ph.D. — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:43:48 +0000

Yesterday, a thirty-nine-year-old, never-married, Army psychiatrist with expertise in disaster and preventive psychiatry allegedly gunned down thirteen men and women, wounding thirty-eight. The murderous incident took place at Fort Hood, a military base in Texas where soldiers were being prepared for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Though the suspected perpetrator, Major Nidal Malik Hasan had initially been reported killed by military police, we now know he was seriously wounded, is currently in a coma, but expected to survive. What could possibly possess an apparently polite, pleasant, quiet, reserved, compassionate, empathetic, forgiving and deeply religious psychiatrist to commit this incredibly evil deed?

Dr. Hasan is a life-long and devout Muslim with Palestinian roots. But he was born in America. He received his extensive medical education--approximately four years of medical school for his M.D. and another four of psychiatric training--compliments of Uncle Sam, who, in return, expected Hasan to serve his country in whatever manner the military saw fit. But there may have been a religious, moral and political conflict of interest for Dr. Hasan regarding present American policy in the Middle East, specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He allegedly had been vociferous to some over the years in his denouncement of the "war on terror,"claiming it was tantamount to a war against Islam. It seems he had been hoping that with his election, President Obama would change course, and immediately withdraw our troops. Very recently, he apparently learned that he would soon be deployed for service as a "combat stress counselor" to Afghanistan, something he evidently objected to violently. His imminent deployment appears to be what finally triggered this furious ticking time bomb.

Hasan regularly attended daily prayers, sometimes in traditional Muslim attire. He appears, based on his suspected internet postings, to have been extremely sympathetic to Islamic suicide-bombers, evidently perceiving them as freedom-fighting martyrs heroically protecting their countrymen and fellow Muslims. These postings attracted the attention of federal law enforcement officials about six months ago. Ever since 9-11, Hasan apparently felt he had been unfairly targeted and harassed by his military colleagues regarding his religion and ethnicity. He was aggressively attempting to arrange a discharge from the Army, hiring an attorney and offering to repay the considerable cost of his eight-year medical education. He must have wanted out badly. But his bid to prematurely terminate his contractual obligation with the U.S. government had gone nowhere. This presumably frustrated Hasan immensely. (See my prior posting.)

As an Army psychiatrist, Dr. Hasan had been working intensively with soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. PTSD--an anxiety disorder resulting from being exposed to actual or threatened death or serious injury to self or others--is a severely debilitating syndrome that can include symptoms of "flashbacks," nightmares, avoidant behavior, social withdrawal, depression, hypervigilance, irritability and outbursts of anger or rage. (See my prior post on trauma.) During his internship at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, there are reports that Hasan had serious problems dealing with his patients, problems significant enough to require personal psychotherapy and extra clinical supervision, culminating in a poor performance evaluation by his superiors. Being a mental health professional specializing in PTSD is stressful. Stress can be contagious, which is why psychotherapists need to take extra care regarding their own mental health.

Had Dr. Hasan himself been emotionally traumatized vicariously and ethically conflicted by hearing daily the grotesque horror stories of war from his fellow soldiers? By constantly being told about his fellow Muslims and Army brethren slaughtering and maiming each other--and sometimes innocent civilians--for their countries? This could result in a form of what we call countertransference: the psychotherapist's personal reactions to his or her patients and their particular presenting problems. Countertransference is a common phenomenon in mental health professionals, an occupational hazard, and must be carefully monitored. When it begins to become disturbing for the psychotherapist, impairing his or her objectivity and interfering with the treatment process, it becomes crucial to address it in supervision, consultation and/or one's own personal therapy. If the countertransference cannot be resolved in relatively short order, or at least kept in check, psychotherapists must ethically recuse themselves from such cases and refer the patient elsewhere. This begs the question: Should Dr. Hasan, given his apparently passionate religious and political beliefs, have been working with such patients in the first place?

From a forensic perspective, there is certainly far too little information available at this time to come to any meaningful conclusions regarding such a defendant's mental status. And it is improper to do so without having conducted a formal forensic evaluation. But determining his state of mind at the time of this crime and prior to it will prove crucial to his legal case. As a forensic criminal psychologist, here are some of the questions I would be asking myself if appointed by the court to evaluate such a defendant: Was the defendant clinically depressed, possibly to the point of paranoid psychosis? Could there have been any kind of substance abuse or intoxication involved? Was he in treatment and taking any psychiatric medications? Is there an underlying personality disorder? Were these shootings a tragic, impulsive manifestation of a manic or hypomanic episode, indicating the possible presence of bipolar disorder? Or, was this the hateful, calculating, vengeful act of a profoundly angry, frustrated, resentful and embittered--mad but not psychotic--person? (See my previous posts on post-traumatic embitterment disorder.)

Was Dr. Hasan a suicidal individual, who, like so many mass murderers, chose to die--very much like a suicide-bomber--taking as many victims with him as possible? Psychiatrists as a group have a notoriously high rate of suicides, though suicide rates in Muslim populations are exceedingly low. The notion that Hasan had become actively suicidal is supported by unconfirmed reports today that he advised his landlord two weeks ago that he would be leaving his apartment on the day of the shooting--despite the fact that he was not likely to actually be physically deployed for another few months. Hasan also is said to have given away his belongings, furniture, food, cleaned out his apartment, and said goodbye to friends just prior to the massacre, handing some of them copies of the Koran. Unless he was convinced he was leaving the country in the immediate future, such preparatory behavior could be interpreted as a prelude to suicide. Or, in this case, premeditated homicide-suicide. Hasan may have hoped to have time to take his own life after his murder spree, or be taken out by police. So-called suicide by cop.

But this raises the question as to whether such a defendant, if guilty, was suicidally despondent or more angry, resentful and bitter. (See my prior posts on anger disorder.) Angry, resentful and bitter enough to kill and to die for his fanatical cause. Was Hasan's presumed attack on U.S. troops primarily a political statement? What he intended to be a revolutionary call to arms to American Muslims? Quite possibly so. The FBI is presently investigating this bloodbath as a possible terrorist act. A suicide-bombing using guns instead of explosives. There are unconfirmed statements by witnesses that Hasan had at times angrily urged Muslims to violently "rise up" against Americans, and that at the chaotic scene of the shootings was heard to say "God is great" in Arabic. But until we have more information either medically, circumstantially or from the defendant himself--who evidently has no previous history of violent behavior--Hasan's hypothetical motivations for this atrocious evil deed remain ambiguous, suspicious, and somewhat mysterious.

"Precious" and the Power of Writing

Carlin Flora — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:04:04 +0000

You may have heard of the stirring new film Precious, starring Gabourey Sidibe as an obese 16-year-old girl in late-1980's Harlem, pregnant (for the second time) with her own father's child, and a victim of shockingly cruel abuse at the hands of her mother, played by Mo'Nique.

It would be difficult to conceive of a child in worse circumstances than Precious, who, in addition to all her other problems, has trouble explaining her situation to the few adults who could potentially help her.

But a turning point occurs when Precious starts attending a small alternative school, where her teacher encourages her to write every day (even though Precious can barely read.) Expressing herself gives Precious the energy and confidence to seek out other options in life; she essentially writes her way out of her personal hell.

The movie is based on a work of fiction (Push by Sapphire,) but the healing power of journal writing is very real, having been shown in many studies. James W. Pennebaker, the most prominent researcher in this field of study, had undergrads write about either superficial topics or personal traumas four days a week, for six weeks. Those who wrote about painful times reported better moods and better health than those who scribbled about mundane happenings.

Follow-up studies by Pennebaker, Joshua M. Smyth and other psychologists have linked disclosure of personal feelings in writing to physical and mental benefits. Laid-off workers who wrote about their trials were more likely to find new jobs than a control group, asthma and arthritis patients who wrote about a stressful event just once were more likely to report health improvements than fellow patients who wrote about a neutral event, and people who wrote about a stressful time made fewer visits than average adults to health clinics over the next 15 months. Those who jot down what they ate in a food diary lost more weight than a control group, and women who wrote about past traumatic experiences slept better than those who didn't.

A diary lifted Precious out of her muck, and the evidence is strong that keeping one could help all of us shore up our immune systems and our inner resources.

Disproving Myself

Nelson Cowan, Ph.D. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:39:11 +0000

This is my first blog post for Psychology Today and I will jump right in. The already-active bloggers were asked for this month's print issue to describe one psychological finding that they have used to change their own behavior. My answer comes from an old study showing that people usually seek information that confirms their own theories rather than more helpfully seeking information that could disprove their theories. P.C. Wason examined this in 1960 in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Suppose I ask you to suggest the next item in the number series 2, 4, 6... I will tell you whether that number fits the rule I am using to generate the series, and you can keep asking different possible numbers. When you feel ready, you propose the rule - but your goal is to get the rule right the first time you propose it. If you say "8," I will say that it fits the rule. If, however, you then hasten to propose that the rule is "+2" you will be wrong. In fact, the rule I am using is "increasing whole numbers," and you would have to try to disconfirm the +2 rule in order to find that out. For example, if you suggested "9" I would still say "yes," but if you suggested "5" I would say "no." You need to try to disconfirm the apparent rules in order to find the true one.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of this point in my thinking. The basis of superstitions and of many conventional religious beliefs, I must say, is that people are strongly motivated to seek confirming evidence and ignore potential disconfirming evidence. You may remember the times that you correctly guessed that the phone was going to ring but forget the times you made that prediction and nothing happened, or failed to predict that the phone would ring. You forget the social information that helped you to make a successful prediction. There is a sense of power and control if one can predict the future. It is also uncomfortable to go against a belief that all of your friends or loved ones seem to hold. They might think poorly of you for entertaining an idea that they happen to find absurd, so it is dangerous to think independently. I feel, though, that finding truth is one of the most important activities in life.

Even scientists fall for this trap of seeking confirming evidence, quite often. If a scientist has invested 20 years in support of a theory for which he or she has become famous, it is not easy or comfortable to focus on evidence that could disprove that theory. That must be done, though, and it will lead to a better theory. I try to do that with my scientific theories, which focus on short-term memory.

Also, on the political front, I am one of the few liberal-progressives I know who often watches Fox News. Many of my liberal friends say they cannot bear to watch, but I feel that I need ample contrarian input. I might even get convinced of a few important points that my friends could miss. I greatly admire Dennis Kucinich, a liberal congressman who ran for president and planned to have as his running mate Ron Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican, because of the central importance at that time of the issues of liberty and fiscal responsibility that they shared, despite their differences on many other issues. Dennis surely must be fairly comfortable listening to disconfirming arguments.

Does sleeping in on weekends keep your weight down?

Dennis Rosen, M.D. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:07:51 +0000

The connection between insufficient sleep and overweight and obesity in all ages is well recognized and has been demonstrated in multiple studies conducted over the last several years. In the November 2009 issue of Pediatrics, Wing et al* report the results of a study conducted in Hong Kong in which they looked at whether differences in sleeping patterns that allowed school age children to "catch up" on the sleep deficit acquired during the school week had an effect on their becoming overweight or obese. The researchers conducted their study by reviewing questionnaires completed by the parents of 5185 children between the ages of 5-15 in which the parents were asked to comment on what times their children usually went to bed and got up on weekdays, weekends, and vacation during the preceding 12 months. The investigators found that children who slept < 8 hours/night during the week and did not compensate for their sleep deprivation by sleeping in late on weekends or vacation were significantly more likely to be overweight than those who did.

However, there are many problems with this study. Among them: the wide age range of the children (5 year olds have quite different sleep needs and patterns than 15 year olds); the fact that the data collected was based upon a recollection of the typical patterns of an entire year (generating what is known as "recall bias"); and the very small numbers of children in the "non-compensated groups" (38 who did not sleep in on weekends and 29 who did not sleep in on vacations, both each less than 1% of the entire cohort) all make drawing meaningful conclusions from this study very difficult. In fact, when looking at the data of the entire cohort, one sees that the overweight and obese children slept only 6 minutes less on school nights, 9 minutes less on weekends, and 10 minutes on vacation than their non-overweight counterparts.

For all these reasons, it is very difficult to accept the authors' conclusions that children should be allowed to sleep in late on weekends as a means to prevent them from becoming overweight. In fact, there are compelling reasons not to adopt such a strategy. The two main forces which drive our sleep are the sleep deficit, which builds up the longer we remain awake, and the internal circadian clock. When the internal circadian clock is synchronized with the external clock, we start to feel sleepy around our usual bedtime and wakeful around our usual wake up time (provided, of course, that we have gotten enough sleep). However, it is relatively easy to desynchronize the internal from the external clock by shifting sleep onset and wakeup times, exposure to bright light in the evening and/or the morning, the consumption of melatonin. This is especially true for adolescents, who have a natural tendency to "push back" their internal clocks. When the clocks become desynchronized, it becomes quite difficult to fall asleep and to wake up at the appropriate "external clock" times, as anyone who has travelled across time zones and become jetlagged knows all too well.

The last thing a child who is not getting enough sleep during the week because she or he is getting to bed too late needs is to sleep in two, three, or four hours late on the weekend. While allowing the child to "catch up" on some of the lost sleep, it can also decouple the two clocks and make it very difficult for the child to get out of bed on Monday morning in time for school and to really get going before the school day is half gone.

Yes, getting enough sleep is very important, not just for controlling body weight, but for a whole host of other important reasons as well, including good cognitive function, development, school performance, and behavior. But a better solution would be to establish a schedule which gets the child to bed regularly at an hour which allows for an age appropriate amount of sleep, and maintains a regular wake up time on weekdays and weekends. One should also minimize exposure to bright light in the evening, eliminate caffeine at least 8 hours before bedtime, and remove distractions such as television, computers, video games, cell phones media players and pets from the bedroom. Doing all of the above will increase the likelihood of the child getting an adequate amount of sleep, with all the attendant benefits, and without turning weekday mornings into a nightmare for child and parents alike.

*Wing YK et al. The Effect of Weekend and Holiday Sleep Compensation on Childhood Overweight and Obesity. Pediatrics Vol. 124 No. 5 November 2009, pp. e994-e1000

Why Don’t We Help? Less Is More, at Least When It Comes to Bystanders

Melissa Burkley, Ph.D. — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:27:28 +0000

On October 24th, 2009, as many as 20 witnesses watched as a 15 year old girl was brutally assaulted and raped outside a homecoming dance in Richmond, CA. The viciousness of the attack was shocking, but what was even more shocking was the fact that so many people witnessed the attack and yet failed to intervene or call police. As one of the police officers involved in the case states, "what makes it even more disturbing is the presence of others. People came by, saw what was happening and failed to report it." Some of the bystanders reportedly even laughed and took photos of the assault with their cell phones.

How could people just stand by and watch something this horrible happen to a young, innocent girl? Some have suggested that the eyewitnesses' failure to report the incident likely resulted from a concern over being labeled as a snitch. Although this is possible, social psychological research on the bystander effect suggests a different cause - there were too many eyewitnesses present. The bystander effect refers to the fact that people are less likely to offer help when they are in a group than when they are alone. Research on this effect was inspired by a real-world account that seems hauntingly similar to the recent event in Richmond.

In 1964, 28 year old Kitty Genovese was raped and stabbed to death in front of her apartment complex. The attack lasted over 30 minutes and was witnessed by several dozen people who failed to report the incident. Some failed to realize that an actual crime was going on, claiming they thought it was a "lover's quarrel", whereas others realized they were witnessing a crime, but failed to report it because they assumed that someone else had already called the police. A similar incident took place in New Bedford, MA, in 1983 when several men raped a woman on a pool table in front of several witnesses in a bar. The 1988 film "The Accused" depicted this incident and Jodie Foster went on to earn an Academy Award for her performance as the rape victim. More recently, a 22 year old college student died from water intoxication in 2005 when four of his fellow fraternity brothers failed to intervene during a deadly hazing incident.

To determine the underlying reasons why these witnesses failed to help, John Darley and Bibb Latane conducted a series of lab experiments to examine how the presence of others influences people's helping behavior in an emergency situation. The results of these studies suggest there are two clear reasons why the eyewitnesses in the Richmond case may have failed to help.

1. Pluralistic Ignorance
One of the first steps in anyone's decision to help another is the recognition that someone is actually in need of help. To do this, the bystander must realize that they are witnessing an emergency situation and that a victim is in need of assistance. Consequently, a major reason why eyewitnesses fail to intervene is that they do not even realize they are witnessing a crime. When we are in an ambiguous situation and we are not sure whether there is an emergency or not, we often look to others to see how they are reacting. We assume that others may know something that we don't, so we gauge their reactions before we decide how we will respond. If those around us are acting as if it is an emergency, then we will treat it like an emergency and act accordingly. But if those around us are acting calm, then we may fail to recognize the immediacy of the situation and therefore fail to intervene.

For example, imagine you are at the community pool and you see a child splashing wildly in the water. Your first instinct would probably be to look around you and see how others are responding. If others appear shocked and are yelling for help, you may conclude that the child is drowning and dive in to help. But, if those around you are ignoring the child or laughing, you may conclude that they child is just playing around. To avoid looking foolish, you would probably just continue watching and would fail to dive in and help. This seems like a reasonable approach and for the most part, it prevents us from making a fool out of ourselves. But the problem is that this tendency to look to others in order to determine how to respond can be biased by a phenomenon known as pluralistic ignorance. Pluralistic ignorance describes a situation where a majority of group members privately believe one thing, but assume (incorrectly) that most others believe the opposite.

For example, pluralistic ignorance explains why my undergraduate students often fail to ask questions in class. Let's say that one of my students is confused about the class material I just covered and wants to ask me to clarify. Before raising her hand, she will likely look around to room to see if any of her fellow students seem confused or have their hand up as well. If no one else looks puzzled, she will conclude that she is the only one in the room that didn't get the material. To avoid looking stupid, she may choose to keep her hand down and not ask me her question. But as a teacher, I have discovered that if one student is unsure about the material, odds are most of the students are. So in this situation, my class is suffering from pluralistic ignorance because each one assumes they are the only one confused, when in fact all the students are confused and all of them are incorrectly concluding that they are the only one. The same process can occur when we witness an ambiguous emergency situation. All the bystanders may look to each other to determine if they are witnessing a crime, and if no one reacts, then everyone will wrongly conclude that this is not an emergency and no one will step up and help. The fact that several of the eyewitnesses in the Richmond case were laughing and taking photos with their cell phones suggests that they simply failed to realize they were witnessing a brutal rape and instead may have thought it was a prank.

In one of Darley and Latane's classic studies, they tried to recreate this phenomenon in the lab. For their study, they had participants complete a questionnaire and after a few minutes, smoke started to pour into the room underneath a door in the back. Some participants were the only one in the room when this happened, but for others, there were two other students completing questionnaires in the room as well. In actuality, these two "students" were working for the researchers and were instructed to keep calm not matter what happens. The key question in this study was would the participant notice the smoke and go get help or would they simply write it off as nothing concerning and continue working on their questionnaire. The result showed that when the participant was alone, 75% of them left to report the smoke. But when there were two other people in the room who remained calm, only 10% left to get help. In some cases, the smoke got so thick the participant could barely read the questionnaire in front of them! Yet, as long as their fellow bystanders remained in calm, they did as well. Thus, when we are alone, we are more likely to assume an ambiguous situation represents and emergency and act accordingly. When we are in the presence of other bystanders, we are likely to look to those others for guidance and if they are not responding or are laughing or are taking photos of the event, we will mistakenly conclude it is not an emergency and will fail to help.

So we now that one reason why people fail to help is because they don't realize they are witnessing a crime, but how can we use this information to our advantage? First, if you find yourself in an ambiguous situation, resist the urge to look to others and go with your gut instinct. If you think there is even a possibility that someone is in need, act on it. At worst, you will embarrass yourself for a few minutes, but at best, you will save a life. Second, if you are unfortunate enough to find yourself the victim and are in need of help, make sure you make it clear to those around you that this is an emergency situation. For instance, self-defense instructors will often tell women that if they are being attacked by a man, they should yell out "fire" instead of "help". This is because the word "help" is used in many situations that are non-life-threatening so when we hear it, it does not automatically indicate that there is an emergency. On the other hand, we only scream the word "fire" when there is an actual fire, and in some cases it is illegal to yell this word when there is not an actual fire (e.g., in a crowded theater). So by yelling "fire," you immediately make everyone around you aware that they are in an emergency situation.

2. Diffusion of Responsibility
Even if people recognize that they are witnessing a crime, they may still fail to intervene if they do not take personal responsibility for helping the victim. The problem is that the more bystanders there are, the less responsible each individual feels. When you are the only eyewitness present, 100% of the responsibility for providing help rests on your shoulders. But if there are five eyewitnesses, only 20% of the responsibility is yours. The responsibility becomes defused or dispersed among the group members. In these situations, people may assume that someone else will help or that someone else is better qualified to provide assistance. But if everyone assumes this, then no one will intervene. Darley and Latane also investigate this phenomenon in a lab study.

Specifically, they had participants take part in a group discussion over an intercom system. Some participants talked one-on-one over the intercom with another person and some talked over the intercom with a group of 5 other people. During the discussion, one of the voices on the intercom stated they were having a seizure and called out for help. In actuality, this was a prerecorded voice. For those who were led to believe they were the only person who overheard the seizure, 85% sought help. But for those who thought they were one of six people who overheard the seizure, only 31% sought help. So even when we are aware that an emergency is occurring, we are still less likely to help if other bystanders are present. So what about these people who overheard the seizure and didn't help? Were they just indifferent? Follow up interviews at the end of the study suggested that they were in fact concerned. Most mentioned overhearing the seizure, many had trembling hands and were clearly shaken from the experience and several inquired as to whether the victim finally received help. This tells us that they were not indifferent or heartless; they were concerned but simply didn't feel responsible enough to do anything about it. Interestingly, the researchers also asked if the participants thought that the presence of other bystanders affected their decision to get help or not and the most said it did not. So even though the presence of others clearly affects our helping behavior, we are unaware of this influence.

So once again, how can we use the knowledge garnered from this study to our advantage? First, if you find yourself in an emergency situation with several fellow bystanders, realize that your first instinct (and the first instinct of those around you) will be to deny responsibility for helping the victim. By simply being aware of the diffusion of responsibility process, it may snap you out of the biased way of thinking and cause you to realize that you and everyone present is each 100% responsible for helping the victim. Second, if you find yourself in need of help, it is up to you to actively make one of your eyewitnesses feel personally responsible for your well-being. When we are in need of help and there is a crowd watching, we often plead for help to anyone that is listening, thinking that at least one person will step up to intervene. But self-defense instructors advise that you instead pick one person out of the crowd, look them dead in the eye, and tell that one person you need help. By pleading to a specific individual, you suddenly make that person feel completely responsible for your safety and this increases the odds that they will help. The same technique can be used if you are trying to get several others to help you assist a victim. Point to one person and tell them to go get help; point to another and tell them to call 911. Giving specific instructions to specific people counteracts the diffusion of responsibility process.

Conclusion
We typically think that the more people who witness a crime, the more people there will be to help the victim, but these classic social psychology experiments call this assumption into question. By making yourself and others aware of the factors that lead to such bystander apathy, we can hopefully make events like those that occurred in Richmond, CA and Bedford, MA a thing of the past.

Born to Perform

Joshua Gowin — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:49:22 +0000

Few events in popular music were as momentous as the Beatles first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show on February 9, 1964. Paul McCartney recently revisited the Ed Sullivan Theater to appear on the Late Show with David Letterman, and he recounted a story about his early appearances as a young man.
As he waited to go onstage, a stage manager asked McCartney, "Are you nervous?
"No, not really."
"You should be, there are over 70 million people watching."

How can someone be relaxed before such a tremendous occasion, a 3-minute opportunity that could make or break their career? For many of us, it's not easy to keep our composure when we're about to perform. In fact, public speaking is the number one fear of many people, even more frightening than death. Nonetheless, some people seem to be naturals, born performers, so what makes them different? The ability to remain calm could be due to the structure of the brain.

The brain holds a powerful sway over the body. Just thinking about going onstage can produce butterflies in your stomach. The limbic system, an emotional brain region including the amygdala, is closely connected to the autonomic system, which controls your fight-or-flight response; it can make your heart beat faster and your knees go weak. The amygdala, a central brain structure highly active when we're afraid, is also connected to more rational brain regions such as the prefrontal cortex through white matter pathways.

The brain can be divided into two functional categories, gray matter and white matter. Gray matter performs heavy-duty processing, like a computer, but it only functions on a local level. White matter helps distant brain regions communicate by carrying signals over long distances. You could imagine white matter as the telephone lines that transmit conversations between regions of gray matter. The quality and strength of the signal carried by white matter is determined by how thick the lines are and how well they're insulated, which can vary from person to person. For example, research has shown that long-term cocaine abuse may disrupt brain function by deteriorating white matter pathways.

Previous studies have found a pathway between the amygdala and the ventro-medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), a brain region that helps process risks, but the significance of that connection was unknown. A recent study by Justin Kim and Paul Whalen at Dartmouth investigated the role that connection strength between those two regions plays in anxiety. Using a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique called fractional anisotropy (FA), which determines white matter integrity, they found people with the lowest levels of anxiety also had the most robust white matter pathways between vmPFC and amygdala.

They also showed the subjects fearful pictures to see if amygdala activation alone predicted anxiety. Interestingly, although the amydgala is active during fear, the people who were more anxious did not have higher levels of amygdala activation. Neither did the people who had lower anxiety have more activation in the vmPFC, which purportedly cools off anxiety. The best predictor of anxiety was the strength of the connection between the two regions. Why might connection strength be more important than the amount of activation in either region alone?

The vmPFC assesses the risk a situation poses and can help decide whether or not you're in an emergency condition. The vmPFC may calm the amygdala to help you feel more in control, but its ability to do so may depend on how well the two regions are wired. If the signal is strong, the vmPFC may shut down the fight-or-flight response and let you make more levelheaded, rational decisions.

People with stronger and heartier white matter pathways may have lower levels of anxiety because they're able to calm down more effectively. This may be important for having the steely nerves it takes to go on stage in front of a live television audience or to speak up in class or in business meetings.

Even if you are someone who gets nervous before making phone calls, there's hope in this finding that may give you pluck. It was formerly believed that the adult brain was static and that after the growth and pruning that takes place when we're children and adolescents, we're stuck with what we've got. What we're finding now is that the brain is constantly in a state of revision. Not only can we develop new neurons, but perhaps more importantly we can also develop new connections or strengthen preexisting connections between neurons.

Because the pathway between the amygdala and the vmPFC is a two-way street, these two regions presumably modulate each other. The amygdala activates when anxiety-producing situations arise, and the vmPFC decides whether or not it is a real emergency or a false alarm. The more exposure you have to nerve-wracking situations, the more you can train your brain to relax, presumably by bolstering the pathway from the vmPFC back to the amygdala. Finally, having a bit of nervous energy may not be a bad thing. By activating the autonomic system, your brain and body will be alert, poised and prepared for action. That way, if all else fails, at least you'll be ready to duck when the tomatoes start flying.

Notes:
The study was conducted by M. Justin Kim and Paul J. Whalen in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire.
"The Structural Integrity of an Amygdala-Prefrontal Pathway
Predicts Trait Anxiety" Journal of Neuroscience. September 16, 2009 11614-11618

Thanks to Alice Chi for insights and suggestions.

Good Girls and Alpha Guys

Dr. Judith Sills — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:05:49 +0000

"I cannot stand to disappoint him. It goes way beyond doing my best. It's doing my best with a claw in my chest." -- Third year associate, speaking of the law partner to whom she is assigned.

"He's my profile: talented, arrogant, picky. Married of course, and I'm not going that route. But I'm smiling up at him like I'm Princess Diana, and the thing is, I don't even like him. I can't seem to help myself."
-- Vice-President for Global Sales, referring to one of her fast track direct reports.

It's an invisible emotional puppet string. When a certain kind of man yanks it, a certain woman responds. It might well be for better - assuming she's on to her own quick response and can make it work for her. More frequently though, it's for worse - making her an anxious, overeager, puppy of a good girl.

Of course there are many varieties of good girl, not all of whom have this same visceral response to a dominant man. This discussion focuses on one discrete variety - the good girl at the office who has been trained since childhood to rush to please an alpha male.

That alpha male is possibly, but not necessarily, her boss. His job title could make him leader of the pack by definition, but to qualify as an authentic, button-pressing Alpha, a man requires the manner more than the office. Stereotypically he is professionally successful, notably assertive,remarkably self-absorbed and wildly self-confident. He doesn't need a tie or title; this good girl knows without naming it when she is in his presence. Her reaction feels hard wired.

This Alpha male is not always abusive to his underlings or impatient with his colleagues,especially if he is senior enough to have experienced the 360s that have taught him to tone it down. But he has been known to get away with displays of temper, and many women in the office give way to tears after harsh encounters. The vulnerable good girl of whom we speak prides herself on not allowing herself to cry, not knuckling under, not allowing herself to be intimidated. Instead she works to stand up to him, to maintain a professional level of excellence and an unyielding repartee.

This composed demeanor may well work to disguise her vulnerability from her co-workers, or even from the man himself. But inwardly that good girl is paying the price of unwarranted anxious striving.
If you are this good girl, you may or may not recognize yourself here. For one thing, you may be in a position of authority yourself. One woman, a highly trained thoracic surgeon, took years to identify her own response. "I am tough, strong, talented and the truth is, I turn into a fearful pleaser around a certain kind of man. In my case, he would always be another surgeon, someone highly respected with a difficult personality and a peerless track record. In my residency, it was the surgical chief. I told myself I was jumping through hoops to win the spot of Chief Resident. But the truth was, I would have worked any hours, taken any horrible assignment, to win the regard of this man, this brilliant cranky, impossible to please man. I took me two more fixations on exactly the same kind of guy before I was on to myself. Put me in a room with a successful man to whom I have to prove myself and now I will no longer work to death to do it. I think."

The motivation to work yourself to death is not all bad if you are seeking corporate leadership or surgical chops. But the anxiety that usually accompanies that driving commitment can be corrosive. "I was proud to be chosen by an architect of his stature as his go-to person on a pet project." said one woman, a highly regarded architect in her own right. "But every brusque, demanding e-mail he sent made me sick when I opened it. And I never knew how to say No, set a limit or stick up for myself. These are not normally weaknesses of mine."

As is so often the case, a personal weakness is the shadow side of some great strength. The ability to win the professional approval of an Alpha male is a career skill frequently helpful to the successful advancement of both men and women, because Alphas often have the power to influence our careers. There is nothing inherently wrong, exploitive or abusive about that truth. (Stop thinking David Letterman. Instead, think serious, dedicated workplace mentor.) Working hard, earning a living while making a contribution and all the while pleasing those with power to improve our circumstances is what we are all trying to do. It's healthy and functional.

But our good girl is trying harder than most in response to one particular kind of colleague. She is working in a more emotionally driven way, less in her conscious control. She's on emotional automatic pilot, working to win the regard of a person who may not even be the most appropriate object of her efforts. She may be over-investing and her ROI is often nothing more than stomach churning dread.

The next lesson in Irrational Expertise helps you recognize whether you are at either end of this relationship. And what you might get out of staying right there.

Who’s Your Daddy? Global Nonpaternity Rates.

Gad Saad, Ph.D. — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:16:17 +0000

The threat of being cuckolded is one of the most evolutionarily important threats faced by men especially in light of the fact that humans are a bi-parental species (i.e., children require great parental care from both parents). Numerous sex differences in sexual behavior have been linked to paternity uncertainty, as such it is perhaps appropriate to ask what the prevalence of cuckoldry actually is. Given the recent advances in DNA testing, we can now establish the paternity of an offspring, and accordingly determine some factors that might affect cuckoldry rates in different contexts. Incidentally, DNA testing has led scientists to revise their existing knowledge of the sexual mores of many species, some of which had been thought of as perfect models of monogamy!

Kermyt G. Anderson published a paper in Current Anthropology wherein he looked at the link between nonpaternity rates and paternal confidence. In other words, are fathers who are less certain of their paternity more likely to have been cuckolded? For example, men who commission a DNA paternity test are typically displaying greater paternal uncertainty (as compared to say men who participate in scientific studies wherein nonpaternity rates are calculated for a given sample). The standard nonpaternity rate that is most commonly mentioned across cultural settings is 10%. This is quite extraordinary in that it is difficult to imagine that 1 out of every 10 children is sired by someone other than the man who is recognized as the father.

Dr. Anderson gathered nonpaternity rates from 67 published sources, with a broad spectrum of countries covered. Prior to reading on, any guesses as to the nonpaternity rates of men who had high paternity confidence versus their low confidence counterparts? Here are the nonpaternity rates for the two groups:

US & Canada Europe Elsewhere

High paternity confidence 1.9 1.6 2.9

Low paternity confidence 29.4 29.8 30.5

There you have it. Note that for each of the two groups of men, the rates are roughly the same around the various global regions. The bottom line is as follows: If you commission a DNA paternity test, you have roughly a one-third chance of the child not being yours. On the other hand, if you are confident that your wife has not had any extramarital dalliances then the probability of your having been cuckolded is very low (but still far from negligible).

Source for Image:

http://www.dnatesting.com/presskit/Identigene_Box_L.jpg

Putting God out of the ethics business

Austin Dacey, Ph.D. — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:17:12 +0000

By now you may have heard about or seen the "good without God" posters in the subways of New York City and elsewhere. Media outlets from the New York Times to Fox News have characterized them as ads promoting atheism. Yet while the campaign aims to reach out to nonbelievers, it also raises a broader issue--something most people seem to have missed.

The obvious meaning of "good without God" is that atheists can be good people. But a closer look reveals a more universal message: people can be good regardless of their beliefs about God. From this perspective, the ad was not about atheism, but about the nature of morality. (I'm writing this blog post along with Michael De Dora, Jr., a spokesperson for the New York City campaign.)

When we act ethically, our reasons are usually nothing transcendental, just simple respect and compassion for others.

With split seconds to save a stranger from death on the tracks at the 137th Street subway station, Wesley Autrey didn't pause to seek divine guidance or reflect on his reward in heaven. That would have been one thought too many, as the moral philosopher Bernard Williams would say. As Autrey later explained, "I just saw someone who needed help. I did what I felt was right." The exact words that went through his head were, "Fool, you got to go in there." Responsibility is like that. No one else can claim it for you.

Moral choices are not always as clear-cut as Autrey's. The solution to complex ethical debates is seldom as clear as a stone tablet or a voice from a burning bush. One problem with stone tablets is that there is only so much you can fit on them. Lists of shalts and shalt nots in and of themselves can never be comprehensive and precise enough to render right answers on borderline cases and contemporary issues. "Shalt not kill" does not resolve whether one-week old embryos count as the kind of thing that may not be killed; "shalt not steal" does not explain when derivatives trading becomes stealing.

No set of commandments is self-authorizing. It cannot tell us why we should follow it, rather than some other set. Of course, it would be no help to add an Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Follow Commandments since the same question would arise about that commandment.

In the same way, no voice of moral authority is self-authenticating. We are the ones who must discern whether it is a voice to be trusted. On trial before the men of the Massachusetts Bay colony for heresy, Anne Hutchinson told her accusers, "God hath left me to distinguish between the voice of Moses and the voice of my beloved, between the voice of John the Baptist and the voice of the antichrist, for all these voices are spoken of in scripture." Hutchinson had to decide which of these voices made the most sense. Moral thinking is like that. No one else can do it for you.

Sometimes it is said that human life is valuable because we are made in the image of God. But we have no idea what the image of God looks like, except as reflected in the things we find valuable in human beings, like imagination or self-awareness. It is not that we find life to have worth because we believe we are made in the image of God, but rather that we believe we are made in the image of God because we find life to have worth.

No one can ignore the importance of Judeo-Christian values to the history of Western cultures, and no one can deny that faith is a source of virtue for many people. However, in the evolution of humanity, religion arose after the capacity for reason and empathy--the conscience. And in determining which values are best, we have no alternative but to rely on conscience.

This is the secular message: Ethics comes from below, not above. It is a message that reaches out to believers as well as atheists--and anyone else who might be riding the subway.

Increase Tips with Persuasion Cues

Steve Booth-Butterfield, Ed.D. — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:06:45 +0000

I've read through the research literature on factors that affect tipping for service workers, particularly in the food and beverage industry. It confirms one simple and obvious conclusion: Persuasion skill affects tips. What we know generally about persuasion can be applied specifically to tipping. Thus, there is no New New Thing, no Special Sauce, no Magic Words that only apply to tipping. Or stated as my Rule: There are no Laws (of Tipping) and if there were, why would I tell you?

If you want to pursue the literature, start with Professor Michael Lynn at Cornell. If you have access to PsycNet, you can easily search on his name and a key word like, "tipping." What you'll find are several well done studies, many in actual work settings at bars and restaurants where service personnel agree to participate in the study, receive specific training on something thought to be useful, then the waitress or bartender follows a specific script for using the action, and everyone reports their tips to the researchers. The research definitely qualifies as science.

The good news here is that the information you read in this blog or my Persuasion Guide or other good science based work (like Robert Cialdini's book, "Influence") can be directly applied to your work situation. The bad news is that you'll have to figure out exactly how to make that information work in your specific case. (Remember the Rule: All Persuasion Is Local - it depends upon the immediate situation you face right then and there.)

To help you on your way, I'd like to develop CLARCCS Cues in specific ways that could apply in a variety of food and beverage service situations. I'll detail out some dialog and moves to illustrate how to make the Cue work. You'll need to add details for your situation. Let's begin with a quick overview of persuasion Cues and how they work.

Realize that Cues operate as a persuasion play with Low WATT processors moving on the Peripheral Route. Most often customers are Low WATT because they are distracted on so many other things going on besides your service. Many are there at your place because they do not want to think hard about things and just want to have a good experience. Most of the time in your interaction with customers(not if they are alone - that's another case) you see clear signs of the Low WATT distraction. People repeat themselves, ask about something that you've already said, they contradict themselves and each other. That's what happens when you overload the cognitive capacity of folks who are also trying to have a good time.

When people are Low WATT, they are much sensitive to Cues, persuasion plays that do not require deep thought, but rather lead to quick choices. Cues are persuasion plays that operate through our social training, culture, experience, and expectation. Whenever you are with people, these Cues can work.

Most of the research on Cues falls into one of six types which I call CLARCCS. They come from the aforementioned Cialdini work and are:

Comparison - If other people are doing it, you should, too.

Liking - If you like the source, do what they suggest.

Authority - If the source is an expert, do what they advise.

Reciprocity - If the source does something for you, you must do something nicer in return.

Commitment/Consistency - If you take a stand, you must stay consistent with it.

Scarcity - If it is rare, it is good.

Let's take each in order with examples and fine points.

1. Comparison - If others are doing it, you should, too.

Observe your customers then match them with other similar customers nearby. If it is an attached couple (married or dating), look around for other attached couples in view. If it is a family with small children, look around for others. When you see something good happening with that other table, you get the attention of your customer, indicate that other table with a wave or a nod and say something like "Must be a good night for couples!" or "Families having fun at dinner!"

The goal is to get your customer to observe other, similar people who are having a good experience, then make a positive comparison. You don't have to make this a case of formal logic as in,

Premise: This other customer is having a good dining experience.
Premise: You are like that other customer.
Conclusion: Therefore, you must be having a good dining experience.

Just point out the other similar person, note the positive quality, and move on.

Another way: You can hear the conversation at your customer's table and when they start talking about other establishments, tune in. If you hear them remark on a positive feature from a prior experience, see if you can make a positive comparison to what's going on right now. Did they like the napkins or the music or lighting or something the server did? If you can match it, make the comparison in a friendly way. On the other hand, if you hear a negative experience, try and contrast against it. "We tried that a long time and as you noticed, it doesn't work. That's why I don't do it."

2 and 3. Liking and Authority Cues dominate the tipping literature and probably your own personal experience. For example, Liking plays include: Introduce yourself, appropriately touch the customer, smile, if you're female put a smiley face on the bill, and squat or sit beside the customer to take the order. Authority plays include: making private recommendations about specials or dishes or values or providing "inside" information. Most servers either know these things or learn them quickly. I've got nothing new to suggest here other than reinforcement. If you aren't using Liking and Authority as a server, you are a completely out of school, not even close. Of course, you need to adjust your friendliness, competence, and trustworthiness to the place where you work (probably don't need a smiley face if you're working an upscale Bon Appetite! venue), but if you think it's all slinging plates, think about a career change.

4. Reciprocity - When the source gives you something, you must give more in return.

The important element of this Cue is not simply knowing this norm of conduct applies. From childhood we experience the rule of returning after receiving. The trick here is noting that for many people, when they get something, they often feel compelled to give more in return, not to simply match one for one.

The standard play of providing a candy with the bill is a good illustration of this. The candy is "free" in the sense that it was not on the menu, the customer didn't order it, and you are providing it. Thus, in the face of this gift, many customers tip more to close the Reciprocity play. It's a good play and do it. But what else?

Listen to your customers and look for opportunities. Here's a personal illustration.

My wife and I were once quietly celebrating our anniversary at a nice upscale restaurant in Mexico while on vacation. We hadn't mentioned the event when we made the reservation. Our waiter, an older man of great experience and charm, served us our predinner drinks and as he walked away and was out of earshot, my wife and I clinked our wine glasses and quietly toasted our anniversary. We were very low key, but not low key enough. Our smart server had somehow observed our toast. Later at a very appropriate time, he brought out the strolling house band (guitars and voices) and wrapped Melanie in a traditional wedding serape, placed a huge ornate sombrero on my head, then affixed a multitiered candelabra on the table as the band sang, "Oh how we danced on the night we were wed." Melanie and I were weeping with emotion at this surprise. Normally I despise these kind of public surprises and hate being the center of attention, but this slayed me. And, you can imagine the tip. Our server gave us this "free" treat, but I still had to reciprocate and I gladly did.

5. Commitment/Consistency - When you take a stand, you must stay consist with it.

As you greet your customers ask them why they are there - fun? food? get out of the house? Make them commit to a position about what they want. You can even push this commitment with your own direct statements. "You look like you are hungry and want some good food." They nod their heads and smile in agreement. "Well, then I'm going to get it for you!" Then throughout the meal, make reinforcing statements like, "You seem to like that dish, is it tasty?" Or, "You said you were hungry (or "wanted fun" or "get out of the house") and it looks like you're getting what you want!" Then when you get to the end of the meal, you need to close the loop, but returning to their original commitment (good food, fun, relaxation, etc.) and say, "It looks like you got what you wanted and I hope I helped you along the way."

6. Scarcity - When it is rare, it is good.

At first thought, scarcity sounds like a bottle of water in the desert, but others events create scarcity. People under a time deadline. People who are stressed. People who are overly excited. All of these moments create the opportunity for scarcity of time, relaxation, or satisfaction. You have to think of scarcity in a Big Way.

"I think we're out of that menu item, but let me check" then dart away, come back huffing and say, "I got the last one for you!"

A couple is anticipating a concert after the meal and they're on a tight schedule. Every time you serve them make a comment about how you're saving them time. "I got the chef to put this at the front of the list."

Let's get to the Outro.

Persuasion principles are general and apply with all faces, places, times, and rhymes. The trick is figuring out how to apply those principles to your unique situation, like tipping. I've given you six well established Cues that operate with Low WATT processors on the Peripheral Route. And, I provided action examples to get you going. You now need to think exactly about how you can use them. You might want to write them down in a script and actually practice them with a coworker so you get the feel for it.

Hey, persuasion isn't easy and if it was, you'd already be doing it. Spend a little time and effort on this and you can actually make more money.

Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do

Satoshi Kanazawa — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:48:06 +0000

One of my all-time favorites among all the scientific papers that I have ever read in my life is “Why your friends have more friends than you do,” published in the American Journal of Sociology in 1991 by my old sociology friend Scott L. Feld, who is now Professor of Sociology at Purdue University.

The title of Feld’s paper says it all, and here’s a little demonstration you can do to confirm his conclusion. List all of your friends. Then ask each of your friends how many friends they have. No matter who you are, whether you are a man or a woman, where you live, how many (or few) friends you have, and who your friends are, you will very likely discover that your friends on average have more friends than you do.

But how can this be? Friendships are bilateral (unless you are a stalker): If X is friends with Y, then Y is friends with X. How can Y and other friends of X have more friends than X does?

Feld demonstrates (and explains) the seeming paradox with a simple example in his paper. In this example, there are eight girls, and their mutual (bilateral) friendships are denoted by solid lines in the sociogram. So, for example, Betty has only one friend (Sue), but Sue has four friends (Betty, Alice, Pam, and Dale). The table summarizes the pattern of friendships among these friends. It shows that, on average, these eight girls have 2.5 friends. But the friends of these eight girls (who are the same eight girls themselves) on average have 3 friends.

If you think about it for a moment, you’ll figure out the source of this seeming paradox (although this simple insight did not occur to anyone before Feld published his paper in 1991). You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends. There are 12 people who have a friend who has 12 friends, but there is only one person who has a friend who has only one friend. And, of course, there is no one who has a friend who doesn’t have any friend. Yet there is actually only one person who has 12 friends. So “12” gets counted only once when you compute the average number of friends that people have, but it gets counted 12 times when you compute the average number of friends that their friends have. Hence the seeming paradox that your friends have more friends than you do.

This, incidentally, is the reason why a man often gets depressed after he has sex with a woman for the first time and then she tells him how many lovers she has had because she has had more lovers than he has. A mating version of Feld’s discovery may be termed “Why your lover has had more lovers than you have.” And the reason is the same. There are 12 men who have had a lover who has had (or will have had) 12 lovers, but there is only one man who has had a lover who has had only one lover. But you should be grateful. The reason you got to be her lover in the first place is because she has had (and will likely have) many lovers. You are 12 times as likely to have sex with a woman who has had 12 lovers as you are to have sex with a woman who has had only one lover. Quite paradoxically, if your lover only had one lover, you are probably not him. And if your lover has never had a lover, you are definitely not him.

There is also an intergenerational version of Feld’s dictum (although it is expressed less elegantly): “Why our mothers had more children than women in her generation did.” There are 12 children whose mother had 12 children, but there is only one child whose mother had one child. And, of course, there are no children whose mother had no children. Yet there is only one woman who had 12 children. So if we ask around how many children everyone’s mother had (or how many siblings we have), we get the erroneous impression that our mothers were much more fertile than they actually were. Feld’s original and highly insightful observation can explain these and many other seeming numerical paradoxes.

Broken Symmetry: Nobel physicist explains why you miss old places, friends

Jeremy Sherman, Ph.D. — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:41:16 +0000

The bittersweet sad intense pain of missing a place, a person, a crew, a time.

What's with that? How does that happen? Here's a take on it you probably haven't heard before.

I'll start way back with the big bang. If everything was all concentrated and homogeneous at the origin, how did our universe ever get so lumpy, with separate things like stars and planets, you and me? The 2008 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to scientists who identified the source as broken symmetry. A first pass explanation of their idea is simple.

You know how you can easily balance a broomstick on the palm of your hand? If it's centered, symmetrically upright, it tends to stay there. But if it tips asymmetrically toward one direction, then it becomes increasingly difficult to balance. The symmetry was broken. The tipped get tippier.

The butterfly effect is the most familiar version of this. Remember it? Conceivably a butterfly's wings flapping could lead to major shifts in weather patterns. People latched onto that idea as evidence of uncertainty and the potential for miracles. We like ideas that suggest that life has chutes-and-ladder-like qualities, so it's not just stepwise plodding. It gives us hope of rag-to-riches leverage but also allows that if we don't end up fulfilling our ambitions we have an explanation that makes it not our fault: "I tried, but life has surprising shoots and I fell down one."

Shoots and ladders aside, the butterfly effect is really about broken symmetry, how a little thing can start a big thing. How just as a slight tip can cause the broomstick to fall or how a shout can cause an avalanche. Think of it also as the way a meteorite passing the earth could fall under our gravitational influence, being taken off course. The closer it gets to the earth, the stronger the earth's gravitational pull. That's broken symmetry too.

With the big bang everything flew apart. It would have flown apart evenly but the tiniest little micro-variation got things tipping. Not falling over as like the broomstick but comparable. The universe got lumpy by the same basic process that made our moon. The moon formed when a meteor hit the earth kicking up an enormous dust cloud. Imagine that the dust started out almost evenly distributed, but little variations caused the gravitational pull in some regions to be greater than in others. The dense grew denser. And now most of that dust is concentrated in that great lump of green cheese. A little difference in distribution causes a big difference in concentrations. Broken symmetry explains seperateness and difference.

There's broken symmetry in thought and culture too. You meet someone, fall under their gravitational influence, start hanging out, fall further. For good or ill--it could be the love of your life or a heroin dealer. Either way a little tipping becomes a lot. And these days we're rarely tipped in just one direction. In ancient tribal days, you could be born into a tribe that tipped you strongly into its ways there, in the tribe you would stay for all your days. Now, we're under diverse influences. You move a thousand miles to be with your new partner, but miss your old town and people. You design your whole life around a job you love and then they lay you off and you have to find a new place to orbit.

Broken symmetry implies something really fundamental about the universe but also about your life. If the universe is lumpy, then this notion that we are all one and that everything is connected needs to be refined. We are all one but some of us are more one than others of us. Everything is connected but not equally. There are plenty of people who have negligible influence on you. They are off in their own lumpy region under their own influences. They're not part of your tribe and therefore are different from you. But then you happen to meet. You've been on independent pages a long time so you start out on different pages. But vive la difference, you like each other. Being with each other you start to influence each other. But lumpy life that it is, you're not just under their influence. You've got other influences operating on you from before and they still tug. So you miss what you had even while your drawn into what you're having. We are all planets under changing influences falling in with some and tearing away from others. Something like that.

There's more to this story of course. In particular I'll want to say more about influence. How does influence happen? For that we get into another one of these new scientific concepts: Constraint propagation.

Click here for free subscription to Jeremy's e-newsletter or podcast

Why does our society hate children?

James C. Kaufman, Ph.D. — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:13:53 +0000

As the father of a three year old boy, I've become much more attuned to the way that people treat children. What astounds me is how much, as a society, we tend to despise children. I'm not a terribly touchy-feely parent; I believe in rules and good behavior in public. I don't like ruining people's days (at least via my child), and we don't take our son to nice restaurants, movies, or live theatre when he's clearly not ready for it. But there are some situations where it is necessary to take a child into the public eye. One that's on my mind right now (because we're traveling quite soon) is plane rides. I have seen the most egregious behavior here - from adults.

This post is triggered not just by reading this article, in which the usually decent Southwest airlines booted a mom and her two-year-old son off a plane, but also by the comments that the story has elicited. On FARK.com, a news-linking website known for its amusing and snarky take on life, the story was filed under the category "Hero." The general trend was "about time," with plenty of potshots at the mom (who actually seemed to be reacting somewhat reasonably; there were no dramatic threats of lawsuits). As can be seen here, some suggested drugging the child; one kind soul proposed putting a plastic bag over his head and another said they should have been ejected midflight.

I want to first reiterate that I can't stand bad parents or bad children, either. There are parents who are over-permissive to the point of absurdity. There are kids who are just hyper or obnoxious. I also wasn't on that Southwest flight - maybe the kid was unbearably loud or piercing or rude and the mom didn't respond appropriately. Who knows? But anyone who's been in charge of a toddler for more than three minutes knows that even the most perfect parent in the entire world can't prevent or stop every tantrum. Toddlers have to have tantrums. It's how they learn boundaries. And while I'm usually more tolerant of my son's whims in public to spare other people, I also can't break every single rule. And I can't teach him that throwing a tantrum will get him his way - I'm the one that has to live with the aftermath of that, not the rest of the people on the plane.

But what happens is that all parents and kids are lumped in with this group. People eye a parent boarding a plane with a child with instant suspicion - guilty until proven innocent. I don't like screaming in my ear, either. I also don't like people who wrestle the armrest away from me, people who lean their seat ALL the way back, and people who claim their suitcase is a purse and cram the overhead compartment with too many bags. But that's life. That's what traveling by air means. Heck, that's what it means to live in this world.

Several folks on this and other sites pointed out how much money they would pay for a child-free flight. You know what? I'd pay just as much for a child-friendly flight - where reasonably behaved kids can fly without fear of glares from miserable old ladies, put-off hipsters, and misanthropic businessmen. I know that most of the posters, hiding behind anonymity and fake names, are either trying to be funny or just giving their initial response to the situation...but wow, that's a lot of anger and hatred to be carrying with you.

I'd rather end this on a positive note. Most people, regardless of what they may think in private (or post on a website), act neutrally or even nicely. A recent PostSecret from a single mom reminded me that there are cool and tolerant people on this planet:

Indeed, when we took our son on his first cross-country flight, he had a bad time. He screamed, he was in pain from the air pressure, and generally wasn't a happy camper. People were okay, but I still remember That Guy. He came up to me and said, "I have two kids. I've been where you are. Hang in there, it'll get better."

In my life, I love my wife, my child, my family, a handful of close friends, and That Guy. I hope he's finding money or falling in love or getting elected mayor somewhere right now.

My next post can be found here. (in which I respond to the comments on this one)

My last post can be found here.

Darling, Do You Really Want To Reject Me?

Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D. — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:21:27 +0000

"I'll never know what made you run away, I only know there's nothing in this wide world, left for me to see." (The Brothers Four)

"Love of my life don't leave me, Bring it back bring it back,
Don't take it away from me, Because you don't know what it means to me" (Queen)

"What have I got to do to make you love me?" (Elton John)

Romantic Ideology describes the best case scenario of love that only very few people will ever experience-a passionate love that lasts forever. A more common experience in the romantic realm is that of separation, which is often interpreted as rejection. The essential role of love in our life, and our profound personal involvement in love, makes such separation very painful.

People look for a heavenly haven in love. The intensity of love and the perceived unity of the lovers create the illusion of feeling secure: the desire to live happily ever after in the safety of the beloved's arms underlies romantic love. However, love is not safe, but rather risky. Lovers are quite vulnerable to the risk of being separated from the object of their love. The dynamic and changing nature of love constantly threatens its existence. Lovers wish their love to last forever; however, they are aware how fragile and transitory love can be.

Adhering to Romantic Ideology, which assumes that love is eternal, eternal, not susceptible to waning, and invulnerable to any threat, complicates and intensifies the painful situation of the rejected person. In such a case, it is harder to interpret romantic rejection as a normal behavior which could happen to anyone. There is no evaluative (or ideological) framework in which the rejected lover can find consolation. On the contrary, the framework he or she believes in denies such an option, as the Carpenters ask about the reason why the sun goes on shining and the sea rushes to shore: "Don't they know it's the end of the world, because you don't love me anymore?"

The pain of romantic separation is exacerbated by the feeling of personal failure, because of the expectation that it should be otherwise (even when the current divorce rate is quite high). This may explain why people take romantic separation, and in particular romantic rejection, in such a harsh manner. It is evident that the separated or rejected lover can find another lover who may even be more suitable; nevertheless, some lovers cannot stand the separation or rejection and commit suicide or kill their beloved. Romantic rejection is painful not merely because of the event itself, but also because of the damage it inflicts upon our self-esteem, which is determined to some extent by the way people evaluate us. Public knowledge of our failures typically hurts our self-esteem.

It is interesting to mention that men often take romantic rejection in a more dramatic manner than women: men are three to four times more likely than women to commit suicide after a love affair has decayed.

When our responsibility for a certain event is reduced, emotional intensity decreases as well (see here). Accordingly, people are less distressed by rejection when it is due to external circumstances. Such circumstances reduce the relevancy of the event to the rejectee's self-esteem and hence reduce the event's strength.

Accordingly, the reasons people prefer to give for refusing dates are primarily impersonal, uncontrollable, and unstable, even though the true reasons may be quite different. The major reason for telling such "white lies" is concern about the rejectee's possible emotional reaction. People are less distressed by rejection when it is due to impersonal reasons ("I'm going out of town") than when it is due to their own characteristics ("You're a boring person"). A common excuse in this regard is "You are too good for me." People are also less upset by uncontrollable reasons (the rejector has to study that night) than controllable ones (the rejector does not want to go to a movie that night). Reducing controllability here reduces emotional intensity. In addition, reasons that are unstable and temporary (the rejector is ill) are less disheartening than more stable, permanent reasons (the rejector is engaged to be married). Unstable, temporary reasons diminish the reality of the rejection somewhat and hence emotional intensity is reduced (see here).

The phenomenon of refusing dates by offering reasons which reduce the hurt to the other person is so common by now that it is no longer so effective. In the television show Seinfeld, a woman who wants to stop dating George explains: "It's not you (who is to be blamed for this), it's me." This hurts George, mostly because he claims that no one else should be entitled to use this line, which he believes he invented and has often used. Indeed, in another episode, George, in an attempt to get rid of his current girlfriend, says: "You can do better than me. You could throw a dart out the window and hit someone better than me. I'm no good!"

Although we are willing to reduce pain for the person from whom we wish to separate, there are some limits to what we are prepared to do for other people. For example, a man may plan to offer several reasons in order to reduce the personal liability of the woman from whom he wants to separate, but in their next meeting she anticipates him and suggests the value of such a separation, while, of course, trying to reduce his personal liability. Such a situation is bound to hurt the man. It is true that there is now no danger that the woman will be hurt from the separation (and this was his primary purpose), but preventing the hurt was not achieved by a generous (though superficial) sacrifice on his behalf, but in a manner which could places him as the inferior-after all, he knows that the reasons given are merely an attempt to reduce his pain and are not genuine.

The wish to fuse with the beloved and to form a single unit is understandable in light of the greatest fear of lovers: separation. The solution for preventing the separation from the beloved is that of making the beloved an inseparable part of the lover (see here).

The above considerations can be encapsulated in the following statement that a lover might express: "Darling, if you want to reject my love, please do it in a considerate manner-if possible, one that will lead me to think that actually it is I who wish to reject you."

Reality Mining

Prof. Alex "Sandy" Pentland — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:28:59 +0000

We live our lives in digital networks. We wake up in the morning, check our e-mail, make a quick phone call, commute to work, buy lunch. Many of these transactions leave digital breadcrumbs - tiny records of our daily experiences. Reality mining, which pulls together these crumbs using statistical analysis and machine learning methods, offers an increasingly comprehensive picture of our lives, both individually and collectively. This new science of reality mining looks at the world the way that people do, sensing patterns of human interaction and rhythms of groups and organizations in a way that mirrors our human "social senses."

Due to its potential to transform our understanding of ourselves, our organizations, and our society in a fashion that was barely conceivable just a few years ago, reality mining was recently identified by Technology Review as one of "10 emerging technologies that could change the world." The science of reality mining works by measuring people's minute-to-minute behaviors, recording important but often unnoticed details of our interactions with others. These "honest signals" are present in every social interaction and convey enormous amounts of information. We use reality mining in experiments where we put workgroups, whole companies, and even entire cities under our "social microscope" for up to several months, recording the patterns of communication and their social context. From these large and very rich datasets, we can separate out the patterns of human behavior that lead to personal and professional success and happiness from those that lead to failure.

To use reality mining on a large scale, such as analyzing whole companies or towns, we use tools such as "smart phones" or electronic name badges. These small devices can record their users' tone of voice, people with whom they interacted, how long the interaction lasted, as well as other subtle social signals. Accelerometers already found in some phones can record patterns of physical activity, and the phone's signal processing hardware can analyze its user's speaking patterns. The badges or smart phones yield exact, real-time measurements of social life, not just impressions or feelings. And because name badges and phone are readily used in everyday situations, reality mining can be used to examine true samples of daily life, rather than contrived situations designed for the laboratory.

The large datasets that emerge do require sophisticated statistical analysis in order to reveal the underlying social patterns, but it is possible to obtain a real-time picture of hundreds or thousands of people working together. As a result, the science of reality mining can give practical, quantitative answers even for messy, real-world situations. The power of reality mining is both broad and deep; Newsweek, for instance, recently featured reality mining applications on its cover.

Reality mining, although still in its infancy, is poised to quickly become more common, due in large part to the rapid proliferation and increasing sophistication of mobile phones. Many mobile phones and other technologies already collect a great deal of information about their users - data such as physical activity and conversational cadences - and this will only increase. The new science of reality mining allows us to use this information to "data mine" and quantify many aspects of the human experience of daily personal and professional life. In the near future it may be common for smart phones to continuously monitor a person's motor activity, social interactions, sleep patterns, and other health indicators. Computational models based on such data could dramatically transform many areas of human life, including the possibility of significant improvements in public health and medicine.

Perhaps the true value of reality mining is its immediate applicability to our daily lives. Reality mining allows us to describe patterns of success in human terms, that is, in terms of our attitudes, social roles, and how we interact with each other. Instead of being limited to just our own personal experiences and observations, however, reality mining can give a "god's eye" view of everyone in the company, or everyone in an entire city. As a result, reality mining produces a quantitative, scientific understanding of workgroups, companies, and even societies that we can understand and use in an intuitive and very human way. Both the scientific and business communities are taking notice of reality mining; Nature recently described reality mining as `taking [understanding of human behavior] to a new level', and Harvard Business Review declared insights based on reality mining to be a `breakthrough idea of 2009'.

While reality mining offers great potential value both to individuals and communities, such data also pose a potential threat to individual privacy. Unfortunately current legal statutes are lagging far behind our data collection capabilities, making it particularly important to begin discussing how this technology will and should be used. As a consequence, the trade-offs between personal privacy and the public good will be a continuing theme in future entries on this blog.

It's OK for kids to dress up evil for Halloween

Ethan Gilsdorf — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:10:51 +0000

A recent article in the New York Times ("Drop the Halloween Mask! It Might Scare Someone") reported how, "in some classrooms across the country, the interpretation of what is too scary - or offensive, gross or saddening - is now also leading to an abundance of caution and some prohibitions" on what kids can "be" at Halloween.

The story reproduced a memo from a principal at a Los Angeles school that outlined what was OK for kids to dress up as:

>They should not depict gangs or horror characters, or be scary.

>Masks are allowed only during the parade.

>Costumes may not demean any race, religion, nationality, handicapped condition or gender.

>No fake fingernails.

>No weapons, even fake ones.

>Shoes must be worn.

Weapons, gang depictions, and costumes making fun of race or ethnicity, et al, I get. Even shoes, I understand. But prohibiting fingernails, horror characters or anything scary? This is ridiculous.

The truth is that we need to tap into our scary sides. To be both scared and to frighten others. We need to know what it is to be freaked out, even to risk death (in a safe way), so we can understand what it is to be alive. We need to be confronted with evil and nastiness --- even if it is "play" --- so we can recalibrate what is means to be good. We need to play the villain --- be it Sauron, the Wicked Witch of the West or Snidley Whiplash. Halloween is one of the few opportunities we have to encounter and inhabit these archetypal characters. We get to be "the baddie," if only for one night.

Sociologist Norbert Elias, author of The Civilizing Process, suggested that in our increasingly structured society, we must exert proper control over our emotions. In the "civilizing process" described by Elias, people don't get to flex our primal emotional muscles. So we have created acceptable arenas to blow off primal steam and experience adrenaline and danger --- even if real death has been removed. Elias called it "controlled decontrolling" of emotions. It's acceptable to bellow battle cries at football games, or hoot during rock concerts, or get drunk and crazy at Mardi Gras. Otherwise, we don't get to act out and act up.

Hence, the importance of Halloween, a holiday that not only lets us role-play, but connect us to the spirit world and the supernatural. The celebration has its roots in a festival of the dead: a time when a family honored its ancestors and invited them home but also were careful not the welcome the harmful spirits. Supposedly, by wearing of costumes and masks, and disguising oneself as a "bad" spirit, the evil forces were warded off.

But some adults (i.e. the ones protecting kids from scary masks at Halloween parties) think Freddy Krueger costumes and rotting zombie make-up will somehow harm kids. It's a fallacy. Gerard Jones, author of Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Superheroes and Make-Believe Violence, reminds us that fantasy violence and playground role-playing of scary stuff helps kids process anger and violent emotions in a controlled and safe fashion. Violent and scary entertainment can be good for kids --- and to demonize it can damage their emotional development. He also argues that children clearly get the difference between make-believe and reality.

So, educators and parents, let's not unduly limit what or who kids can be at Halloween. Yes, leave the AK-47s at home. But scary costumes are as old as Grimms Fairy Tales and haunted forests and evil step-mothers. Scary is good. And to be undead is to be alive.

Let me know what you think.

Ethan Gilsdorf is the author of the new travel memoir Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks: An Epic Quest for Reality Among Role Players, Online Gamers, and Other Dwellers of Imaginary Realms.

The Uncertainty Paradox

Jeff Bell — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:24:43 +0000

I know a secret--a deeply profound, life-changing secret--one learned through the school of hard knocks in one of its most grueling courses. It is nothing short of the very key to living with uncertainty, this secret; and because you, dear bloggie (is that what one calls a reader of a blog?), have been so supportive of this outreach project, I will share it with you, free of charge and with no obligation. (You are very welcome.)

To prepare yourself for the sage, paradoxical wisdom I am about to impart, I suggest you close your eyes and imagine a dramatic drum roll. Picture, if it helps, the clouds in the sky parting above you. Take a deep breath in. Exhale slowly. Ready?

Okay. Here goes: The secret to living with uncertainty is . . . learning to sit with the discomfort of uncertainty.

Hmmm. Nothing but crickets.

Here, I'll repeat it: The secret to living with uncertainty is . . . learning to sit with the discomfort of uncertainty.

"Say what, Bell???!!" I can almost hear you protesting. "I've wasted my precious websurfing time on this?!!"

But wait. Before you redirect your browser to that site with the water-skiing chipmunks video, please allow me to pass along two important footnotes: first, this "secret"--while counterintuitive to most of us--is at the very core of treatment for OCD (a.k.a. The Doubting Disease); and second, its efficacy is scientifically proven.

Sure, the whole concept seems paradoxical. Trust me; as someone who's battled the extremes of OCD uncertainty, I get that the very last thing we want to do when we're consumed by uncertainty is to sit with that uncertainty. On the contrary, we want a quick escape from the discomfort that our uncertainty creates (hence, as I described in my last blog, we are lured to "trapdoors" in "the shadow of doubt".)

But where do our best efforts to rid ourselves of doubt get us??

Stuck even further in doubt. That's where!

And here's the "secret": IF we simply allow ourselves to sit with the discomfort of uncertainty, that discomfort (anxiety) will decrease all by itself. I call this phenomenon "The Uncertainty Paradox," and--while I fought it for far too many years--ultimately, it allowed me to wrest my life back from the grips of my Doubt Bully.

At work here is the concept of habituation, and the best analogy I've run across comes from a terrific book called Freeing Your Child from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, by Tamar Chansky, Ph.D. Dr. Chansky likens the process of embracing uncertainty to jumping into a cold swimming pool. At first, the coldness is extremely uncomfortable, and our brains send us messages of "cold, cold, cold" and "Get out! Get out! Get out!" BUT, if we stay in the pool, the water seems to warm up. Of course, it doesn't really get any warmer; instead, we habituate ourselves to the discomfort of the coldness.

This habituation concept is at the crux of OCD treatment and is applied through a process called exposure/response-prevention (ERP), an especially effective form of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). In a nutshell, "exposure" involves having an OCD client deliberately face a feared situation or object (trigger). And "response-prevention" involves having that client refrain from the compulsive response that has traditionally brought her temporary relief. To this end, a therapist and client develop a hierarchy of fears, moving from the least anxiety-producing to the most anxiety-producing. With this hierarchical "ladder" as a guide, the client then learns to systematically face down her fears--and, in so doing, habituates to the discomfort of her anxiety.

So, what does all this look like in practice? Here's an example--for someone with contamination obsessions and washing compulsions associated with a home bathroom--courtesy of Robin Zasio, Psy.D., Director of the Anxiety Treatment Center of Sacramento [and one of the aforementioned OCDF Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) members who have graciously agreed to contribute to this blog]:

Based on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 = no anxiety, 10 = complete panic)

Exposure (with Response Prevention) . . . Anxiety Level

Standing in the bathroom (without washing) . . . 1

Standing in the bathroom without shoes (without washing) . . . 2

Touching the bathroom's outside door knob (without washing) . . . 3

Touching the bathroom's inside door knob (without washing) . . . 4

Touching the bathroom faucet (without washing) . . . 4

Touching the toilet handle (without washing) . . . 6

Sitting on the toilet seat without a protector (without washing) . . . 7

Dr. Zasio points out that the higher levels of triggers listed above will decrease in intensity as a client works on lower level exposures. So, a trigger initially labeled a "6" will likely be labeled something lower down the road.

ERP treatment, like habituation itself, is rather straight-forward in principle. In practice, however, its implementation can be extremely tricky, which is why it's so important for OCD clients to seek out well-trained OCD specialists who understand the nuances of ERP and its application. (If you're having trouble finding such a therapist, by the way, I suggest you visit the "Find a Doctor" resource at the OCDF website.)

As for the challenges ERP presents those of us who most need it, well, let's just say they are many and mighty. This stands to reason, of course, since the process requires us to confront our very worst fears, head-on and without the counterproductive, but very familiar coping mechanisms (compulsions) that we've developed in response to our fears. Unfortunately, because of these challenges, far too many people with OCD try, but give up on, ERP. They jump into the "pool" of anxiety, but climb out before habituating to the discomfort that their anxiety creates. I was one of those people for many, many years. I paid lip service to the whole process--going through the motions with my therapist week after week--but never really allowing myself to stay with the discomfort of my anxiety long enough to reap the benefits of habituation. For me, what was missing was motivation, a topic I will take up in my next blog.

I'd be remiss at this point not to at least mention a second key component of OCD treatment, one I will also explore in much greater detail in future posts: medication. It's relevant here because, used effectively, medication can be a great tool for tackling the rigors of ERP. In my own experience, meds have helped "turn down the volume" (that is, reduce the intensity) of my obsessive thoughts, thereby giving me some additional leverage to sit with my anxiety. It's important to note that medication is no substitute for cognitive behavior therapy, and its effects vary greatly from person to person. I've asked Bruce Mansbridge, Ph.D., author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Obsessive-Compulsive Behavior (and another OCDF SAB member), to weigh in on this, and here's what he writes:

While cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is the best treatment for OCD, medications can also help make the therapy go faster and easier, so the combination of CBT and medication is often recommended. Medication alone is not as effective as CBT at reducing symptoms, and symptoms almost always return when you stop the medication.

Again, we will take a much closer look at medication in the coming months. If you're interested in learning more in the meantime, I would suggest you visit the relevant articles at the OCDF web site.

So then . . . back to my profound secret: The Uncertainty Paradox. If it remains a "secret" today, I'm convinced that's only because far too many of us don't want to accept its truth. Doing so means accepting that, when it comes to confronting the discomfort of our uncertainty, there are no shortcuts, no substitutes for the hard work involved in sitting with our fears. The reality is, philosophers and scholars have been touting this secret for millennia, and today's brain imaging technology offers scientific evidence of its efficacy.

Now, aren't you glad you chose this blog over the water-skiing chipmunks??

A Few Notes:

My apologies for the brief hiatus in this blog project. I have been on the road for the past several weeks as part of what I've come to call the Jeff Bell Dog and Pony Show. (My publisher calls it a publicity tour.) I was very fortunate to have had opportunities to talk about my new book in New York, Boston, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento during this trip, and I very much appreciate your patience.

I also want to remind you that, should you have specific questions or comments about these blogs, please feel free to weigh in below in the comments forum or, if you prefer, email me directly at jeff@BeyondTheDoubt.org. If I can't answer your question, I will point you to an OCDF SAB members who can.

As always, thank you for the fantastic support!

Four-Year-Old Jack Asked Me to Draw Him a Dog

Darya Zabelina — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:55:20 +0000

While working with four-year-olds as an AmeriCorps volunteer, I was once approached by Jack, who asked me to draw him a dog. And although my initial thought was "I can't draw!," I tentatively began my sketch. It was turning out to be an ok looking dog, but the inner critic was not satisfied, "The eye is not in the right place, the head is too big. I must be just embarrassing myself in front of this kid." And what do you think Jack does? He takes my drawing with an air of superiority and confidence I could only envy and with words, "That's not how you draw a dog!" turns it around and scribbles something. He then proudly shows it to me and says, "There! That is how you draw a dog!"

What just happened? My dog definitely looked more like a dog than his (see above). The difference between me and Jack, then, was his confidence and my inhibition. Such was the beginning of the study which attempted to answer such questions as, "Is there a way to re-gain some of that confidence that a 4-year-old displayed so naturally? Are there means of tapping into the un-inhibited state which was once so familiar? And if so, would that enhance our creative ability?"

The answer to all those questions is "yes." Turns out that even simply thinking of yourself as a small child can unlock your creative potential! In our study, we had one group of people write an answer to the prompt, "You are 7 years old. School is canceled, and you have the entire day to yourself. What would you do? Where would you go? Who would you see?" The other group had the exact same instructions, only the first sentence was omitted, placing them in the present, as they are today (18-20-year-olds). Both groups were asked to be as specific as possible, and wrote for approximately 10 minutes. They consequently peformed a creativity test. What we found was that the group who "traveled back" to their childhood performed much better on the originality aspect of the test - their responses were more novel than those of the "adult" group. What was even more interesting was that those people identifying themselves as introverts benefited from "the childhood manipulation" more so than did extraverts. Therefore, if you are shy and/or inhibited, just thinking of yourself as a kid can help you let go, and access your underlying creative potential!

Why is this so? One explanation comes from taking a look at our school system. Are kids not encouraged and rewarded for behaving, sitting quietly, and not asking too many questions? Are they not punished for "going against the flow?" Not surprising, research shows that preschool children exhibit higher levels of artistic creativity and aesthetic expression than older children. There is even a notion of a 4th grade slump, where by 4th grade children's creativity stalls or plummets. Sadly, most youngsters learn that it is better to keep under the radar and not stand out. They also learn that teachers' questions usually have only one correct answer, which is a direct anti-thesis of creativity!

So what follows is that the younger the child, the higher the creativity, correct? Not really. Being older has its own benefits, such as having better self-discipline and self-control. Plus, a young child has fewer skills and less overall knowledge, which are necessary ingredients in a truly creative work (a creative product is not only novel, but a functional in some sense or other as well). What seems to be a good strategy then is to shed constrains and inhibitions by remembering what it was like being young, especially so if you are on the shy side. As a matter of fact, some famous artists, such as Dubufett, Miro, Kadinsky, Picasso, and Klee did just that - they had a whole library of children's art and whenever they felt stuck, they used this art for their own artwork.

There is a great video to illustrate the power of our inhibitions on ted.org. You only need to watch the first few minutes to understand how much we are missing out because of something of our own doing, really. But the good news is that there is a way of "undoing" some of the damage, be it thinking of oneself as a kid, playing around, or maybe even wearing a pirate patch!

References

Fineberg, J. (1997). The innocent eye. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gardner, H. (1982). Giftedness: Speculations from a biological perspective. New Directions for Child Development, 17, 47-60.

Torrance, E.P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 12, 195-199.

Zabelina, D.L., & Robinson, M.D. (in press). Child's play: Facilitating the originality of creative output by a priming manipulation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.