To know me is to like me III: Subliminal advertising

November 24, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

When you travel for work, you end up on a lot of airplanes. Often, that means some polite conversation with the person sitting next to you. As a psychologist, that conversation is a dangerous one, because eventually I get asked what I do. When I say that I’m a psychologist, people’s initial reaction is that I have somehow been analyzing all of their deepest problems, or perhaps that I have been looking into their soul. They are relieved (and perhaps a little disappointed) when I tell them that I study the way people think. But quickly, they find other questions about thinking that have always puzzled them. One of the most common questions centers on the effectiveness of subliminal advertising. Something about subliminal advertising captures our imagination. The prospect that a flash on a screen could drive us to do something without knowing why seems to scare us. So, it is worth talking a bit about subliminal advertising in the context of the topic of the last post on accessibility. (If you haven’t read the previous post yet, go back and read it first. I’ll wait…) Ok. First of all, subliminal advertising shouldn’t frighten you. There are all sorts of things in the world that affect your decisions, even though you are not aware of them. However, these things that affect your behavior without awareness all do it by changing the accessibility of concepts in your environment. And that is basically how subliminal advertising can affect you. Subliminal means "below the threshold." Basically, subliminal things are items that you sense (with your eyes, nose, mouth, ears, or skin), but you are not aware of. The main influence that subliminally perceived items can have on you is to increase the accessibility of concepts relating to those items. So, think about the classic example of subliminal perception. You are sitting in a dark movie theater, and suddenly a single frame of the movie shows an ice-cold Coca Cola. Movies flash by at 24 frames per second. That is too fast for you to identify anything you have seen in a single frame. What can that ice cold Coke do to you? Well, imagine first that you have never heard of Coca Cola or seen a Coke ad. In that case, the flashed Coke will do nothing to you. You don’t have a concept to activate. If you have heard of Coke (and sadly, most of us have), then it will make the concept of Coke easier to think about. For most of us, most of the time, that will have little effect on our behavior. We often see Coke ads on TV, in magazines and at sporting events. Often, we’re not even that aware of the ads, because we try not to pay attention to them. That means that the situation created by subliminal advertising in a movie actually happens to us all the time. And most of the time, we do not slavishly go out and buy a Coke. When can subliminal advertising affect your behavior? A few things have to happen. First, you must be in a situation where you need to drink already. The flashed ice-cold Coke may then raise the idea of drinking a soda to the level that you notice you need a drink. At that point, you may decide to get a drink. That won’t be driven by the subliminal ad so much as whether you feel like getting up and drinking. If you do, then you’ll order a drink. You might be somewhat more likely to order a soda than usual having decided to get a drink. However, there are so many things in your environment between the subliminal ad and the point where you can get a drink that you probably won’t be much more likely to buy a Coke than you normally are when you decide to get a drink at the theater. So, really, subliminal advertising isn’t so interesting. What is potentially more interesting (at least to me) is why people believe that subliminal advertising could work. But that is a subject for the next post.   © 2008 Psychology Today. This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact blogs@psychologytoday.com so we can take legal action immediately.

Read more here:
To know me is to like me III: Subliminal advertising

And the Winner Is . . . Katie Couric

October 3, 2008 in Blogs by Psychology Today

Okay ,okay, so Sarah Palin didn’t fall on her face. Given the format, for her to fail big in last night’s vice-presidential debates would have taken a miracle . But the two post-debate instant polls, from CBS and CNN , give telling results. CNN, in a national sounding, had Joseph Biden’s performance preferred over Palin’s 51-36, about the same margin by which viewers favored Barak Obama’s over John McCain’s (51-38) in the debate that preceded Obama’s recent surge in the electoral polls. CBS, sampling undecided voters, not surprisingly got a "tied" response from 33 per cent. But those "undecideds" willing to name a winner chose Biden two to one; the actual percentages were 46 to 21, Biden over Palin. After the prior debate, CBS had the undecideds favoring Obama over McCain only slightly less strongly, 39-25. In terms of her "preparedness" to be president, with the CBS uncommiteds Palin brought her numbers only up to 44 per cent; CBS reports that "In contrast, almost all uncommitted voters think Biden would be an effective president." Only 42 per cent of CNN respondents ended by considering Palin qualified. We’ll know more early next week, as the debate works any effects it might have on voting trends in the electoral polls, but on the face of it, last night the Obama-Biden ticket got a boost. And as a number of commentators have pointed out, as each debate is checked off, the opportunities for McCain and Palin to regain ground diminishes. Still, amidst all the good news for Democrats, one statistic leaps out: in the CNN poll, 84 per cent of respondents said that Palin exceeded expectations. Remarkable, no? She showed herself unqualified, and that result was better than viewers had anticipated. On what were the astoundingly low initial expectations based? Not Palin’s convention speech, which wowed her audience. No, voters’ impressions of Palin had been shaped by Katie Couric’s interviews and, perhaps, the Saturday Night Live reworking of them. The 84 per cent figure is a tribute not to Sarah Palin, who still looks unfit to hold office, but to the legitimate power of the press. Couric unmasked Palin, and not through "gotcha" questions but by asking, in effect, "What newspaper do you read?" Perky, farewell. To my mind, Couric has earned herself a Pulitzer Prize. Regarding curiosity, wisdom, and the rest – qualities I referred to in my posting yesterday and about which readers demurred – The New York Times ended its lead editorial today with these two sentences: "The problem with Ms. Palin’s candidacy, which she underscored in her appearance at the debate on Thursday night, is not that she didn’t attend a fancy school or go backpacking in Europe after college. It is her disdain for knowledge, education, experience and contemplative leadership." My opinion precisely. Perhaps there was a brouhaha at the Times over that tartly expressed view. The on-line posting of the editorial omits the print version’s powerful final two paragraphs. Addendum — For those who do not have access to a hard copy of the Times editorial, I am transcribing the original ending here, beginning with the final sentence of the antepenultimate graf.The style is harsh; I assume that a determined writer slipped this material past the board (the uncharacteristic repetition of "shocking" is a clue) and was later reined in. But here goes, from the "newspaper of record," an extraordinary indictment: “Picking Ms. Palin was either an act of incredible cynicism or appallingly bad judgment. “The ensuing weeks cemented those images in our minds. Ms. Palin initially injected some energy into the McCain campaign, especially among members of the right-wing Republican base, who never liked or trusted the Arizona senator — and still do not. Then, she began lurching from one embarrassing public appearance to another, culminating in her shocking performance in interviews with Katie Couric. In those exchanges, Ms. Palin was inarticulate and shockingly unable to answer the most basic questions about government policy and even her own political philosophy. “The Republicans have tried to present the negative reaction to Ms. Palin as a matter of liberal elites sneering at someone who does not share their privileged backgrounds. That is a distraction. The problem with Ms. Palin’s candidacy, which she underscored in her appearance at the debate on Thursday night, is not that she didn’t attend a fancy school or go backpacking in Europe after college. It is her disdain for knowledge, education, experience and contemplative leadership.”

Read the original post: 
And the Winner Is . . . Katie Couric

Leadership Style and Employee Well-Being

September 28, 2008 in Blogs by Psychology Today

I suppose leadership at one time meant muscles, but today it means getting along with people .–Gandhi An important literature review was recently published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Jaana Kuoppala, Anne Lamminpää, Juha Liira, and Harri Vaino looked at studies linking workplace leadership to the well-being of those led. They located hundreds of potentially relevant studies, of which 27 were presented in sufficient detail to include in their meta-analysis. A meta-analysis, by the way, is a relatively new arrival on the social science scene, and provides a quantitative way of summarizing the gist of different studies of the same topic. Meta-analysis is an attempt to solve the problem often encountered in reviewing a research literature that finds some studies supporting one conclusion, other studies supporting the opposite conclusion, and still others being inconclusive. Meta-analyses treat given studies as individual data points and then calculate an overall summary in terms of the robustness of effects, giving more emphasis to studies with larger samples, more rigorous designs, and so on. Meta-analysis requires assumptions that some would deem heroic, not the least of which is whether and how to regard the measures used in different studies as equivalent. Regardless, meta-analyses have become an important analytic tool in getting a handle on what research actually shows. Back to the literature review by Kuoppala and colleagues. They included studies from different nations, with both males and females, that measured leadership style on the one hand and employee well-being on the other. The dimensions of leadership style on which they focused were consideration and support. A considerate leader is one who treats employees kindly and fairly. A supportive leader is one who treats employees with concern and provides encouragement. It may seem surprising, or at least disappointing, to learn that not all workplace leaders are considerate and supportive, but there was sufficient variation across these dimensions in the studies reviewed to allow their impact to be calculated.. Across the studies reviewed, employee well-being was assessed in various ways, depending on the study: job satisfaction, job well-being (defined as burn-out, exhaustion, anxiety, depression, or stress related to work), amount of sick leave, and early retirement due to disability. In all cases, positive relationships were found. The robustness of effects–using meta-analysis jargon–ranged from small to moderate. But even small effects, multiplied over thousands or millions of millions of workers, imply that the impact of "good" leadership on employee well-being is potentially staggering. Among the studies reviewed, there was no relationship between leadership style and work performance. I hasten to add that plenty of other studies do find such a link, but let us just for a minute consider that leadership style might be more related to employee well-being than to employee performance. There is considerable irony in this possibility given that the thriving pop leadership literature is invariably framed in terms of improving productivity. The literature review by Kuoppala and colleagues suggests that leadership style does affect the bottom line but does so indirectly, through its effect on the well-being of employees. One can of course quibble with this meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is only as useful as the literature it summarizes, and many of the studies included were not ideal. For example, most studies were cross-sectional-all of the data were gathered at the same time, leaving unaddressed chicken-and-egg-issues. But can we afford not to take these findings and their implications seriously? A theme running through my blog entries is that "other people matter," and the take-home message of this article is that when leaders treat their employees as if they matter, everyone wins. Reference Kuoppala, J., Lamminpää, A., Liira, J., & Vaino, H. (2008). Leadership, job well-being, and health effects-A systematic review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 50, 904-915.

Read the original: 
Leadership Style and Employee Well-Being

Conservatives are Dumber—And Smarter—Than Liberals

September 26, 2008 in Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Democrats are fond of declaring that those who vote Republican are on the shorter end of the bus. One line of argument goes that Grand Old Partiers are just not bright enough to figure out what’s best for the nation, or even themselves. Another insinuates that they lack the faculties to deal with nuanced issues and therefore hold fast to absolutes: ALL fetuses are full people; ALL taxes go to gay crack-addicted single moms on welfare. Indeed, some studies have supported such a simple correlation between political views and intelligence, but new research soon to be published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences paints a more muddied-and interesting-red and blue picture of IQ. Sociologist Markus Kemmelmeier compared college students’ self-professed political views to their SAT and ACT scores (which are imperfect but useful measures of cognitive ability.) First, he did find a general trend that social conservatives (those who wanted to ban abortion and gay marriage) weren’t as gifted as students with a more progressive take on gender roles. But he found the exact opposite pattern with anti-regulation attitudes: The conservatives/libertarians (yay guns boo taxes) appeared to be smarter than their commie compatriots. Kemmelmeier found this crossover "particularly surprising" and says, "It highlights (yet again) that ‘conservatism’ is not necessarily a coherent construct, but that you have to distinguish at minimum social conservatism and economic conservatism (libertarianism). If you think about it: Jerry Falwell and Milton Freedman are worlds apart." Kemmelmeier found another pattern in his data, one supporting the previously-suggested idea that holding unpopular political views demands more cognitive resources. Those with the strongest beliefs, either way red or way blue, are smarter than the wishy washy centrists too confused to stake their own ground. (All of these findings only applied to verbal intelligence. Math skills had no correlation with conservatism.) "I expected to find in some ways more of the same-old, that primarily more liberal views are linked to higher ability levels," Kemmelmeier says. "But, boy, this would be very wrong-at least as a general conclusion." For his next study, Kemmelmeier got away from surveying elitist college kids. He used intelligence data drawn from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the 2004 state-by-state proportions of Democratic lawmakers, and voter turnout rates. States that had higher IQ’s also voted more Democrats into office-but only if political involvement was high. In states with low voter turnout, high IQ was correlated with having more Republican lawmakers. What does it all mean? Theorize at will. According to Kemmelmeier, "WHY political involvement moderates the direction of the link between conservatism/liberalism is something that needs to be explored more in the future." Neither of the studies answer whether cognitive ability influences political orientation, or vice versa, or whether a third factor influences them both. Kemmelmeier notes that the first option makes more sense than the second, given that intelligence is more dependent upon genes than is political orientation. But of course voting for an incompetent president or vice president can have the effect of making you FEEL so much smarter, if simply by comparison.

Excerpt from: 
Conservatives are Dumber—And Smarter—Than Liberals

A suicide

September 26, 2008 in Psychology Today by Psychology Today

A few months ago, one of my former patients – I want to say one of my friends – committed suicide. His mother informed me by email. (Email these days seems to be the messenger not only of mundane matters, but of existential crises). I had treated him for about three years, but then he and I had both moved away, he to Utah, I to Georgia, and we lost touch. He saw a new psychiatrist there, and continued the medications I had prescribed for him, low doses of a mood stabilizer for the bipolar disorder I had diagnosed. He had experienced psychotic mania once, flying to Germany with the belief that he heard voices from God. He had experienced severe depressions too, as had a number of persons in his family. I knew the family well, personally; they were friends with my mother’s family. So they came to me not as patients, but as friends. I liked him so much; he was about my age. We had similar backgrounds ethnically and socially. We might as well have been cousins, but we were doctor and patient. Maybe I liked him too much. Maybe I should have pushed him to take more of the medications, like I do with strangers. But he was so familiar. His smile, in retrospect, may have seduced me into not seeing his suffering. He killed himself, and we never talked about suicide. He never brought it up; I never brought it up. We never knew; or, more correctly, I never knew, because in his suicide note, he said he had been thinking about it for a decade. He bought a gun in Wyoming; you only have to say if you have been involuntarily committed for psychiatric treatment in these vaunted background checks, it turns out. He had been voluntarily, not involuntarily, treated; he checked "No." They gave him a gun. He bought some tape, and covered up his mouth and nose. Somewhere on the internet, he had studied how to kill himself most effectively. How many lives has the internet taken? He went to his aunt’s house in Seattle. He went in the woods while she was shopping. He left her a note, and one for his family. I read them both. At first it seemed so rational: "I have had enough joy in life," he wrote. "Forty years is enough; why should I ask for more?" Philosophical suicide, I thought; a modern Marcus Aurelius? His mother said that he had not seemed depressed when they had visited from Florida a few months before. Maybe he was not sick, I thought; maybe it was rational. Then I saw his picture in the gun application; he had bloated up, the handsome face now looked old and angry. He had aged from 30 to 60, without any years in between. What happened? His family came to see me, his mother and father and sister. His sister was clear: "He was not the same that last time we visited," she said, 3 months before his death. "He was withdrawn, cold, preoccupied." Eating too much, uninterested in things, unable to concentrate. He had severe clinical depression after all. I went to the wake. I brought my 5 year old son, forced by babysitting constraints. I had not expected too much talking, but one after another, his friends talked about what he had meant in their lives. There were pre-planned speakers, and then they opened it up if anyone wanted to say a few words. His sister had kindly commented about how much help I had been when he had been seeing me. I felt more like a failure; all doctors take the death of their patients seriously, a friend of mine told me. But I still felt responsible. A family friend, a professor of economics, stood up and praised the family, and talked about how inexplicable his suicide was. I thought I had to say something. I took my son to the front of the room, and talked about my former patient’s depression, and his bipolar disorder, and how this illness killed people, like any other illness. I talked about how he took life very seriously, perhaps too seriously, and that he was probably severely depressed when he took his life. I did not want to diminish his death, I said; his life was not defined by his illness, or by his death; but his death was defined by his illness, I thought. He was not just an illness, though; he was a man. And any man has more in common with me, and with you, than not. We are all much more human than otherwise, the psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan used to say. Which led me to recall the verses of Auden, who spoke thus in eulogy at a friend’s suicide: We are lived by powers we pretend to understand: They arrange our loves; it is they who direct at the end The enemy bullet, the sickness, or even our hand. It is their to-morrow hangs over the earth of the living And all that we wish for our friends: but existence is believing We know for whom we mourn and who is grieving. A while later, I came across a discussion of suicide in the psychiatrist Victor Frankl’s book, The Doctor and the Soul. Frankl, who survived the Holocaust, talks about how life has meaning for any person who is loved by anyone. "Life is meaningful to every human being, under any circumstances," he wrote. Suddenly I realized the fallacy of my patient’s utilitarian calculus about suicide; his life had much more to give him; more importantly he had much more to give life. The grief of his father and his mother and his sister was testimony to that fact. Why had I not penetrated that smile? He could not  think of any reason to live.  But Frankl thought of reasons even in a concentration camp.  Sometimes it seems to me that even a good glass of wine is enough reason to live. Or maybe a burgundy sunset. Or a child’s smile.    

Read the rest here: 
A suicide

Gay and Fecund

September 26, 2008 in Blogs by Psychology Today

John Cheever was gay, or bisexual. His daughter, Susan Cheever, is a sex addict . Any connection? In the specific case, no one knows, but a new theory about the genetics of homosexuality predicts that female relatives of gay men will be heterosexual and hypersexual. As evidence grew that male homosexuality is partly innate, evolutionary biologists wondered how it is that the genes responsible for the trait survive. This year, Italian researchers published the results of studies that suggest an answer. They elaborate a model in which two genes, at least one on the X chromosome, tend to make a carrier "androphilic." Men with the genes are drawn to men . . . as are women. The theory predicts that if you look at a pedigree that contains male homosexuals and bisexuals, you should also find women who have sex early and promiscuously – and who therefore are likely to bear many children. This two-gene model answers the apparent Darwinian paradox. Yes, male homosexuals are less fecund, but their fecund female relatives more than make up for the deficit in offspring, thus allowing the relevant genes to prosper. An analysis of population genetics supports the hypothesis. The key finding is that maternal aunts of male homosexuals have more children than do corresponding paternal aunts. (Men get their Y chromosome from the father’s side of the family, and their X chromosome from the mother’s.) Also, mothers of homosexual men are more fecund than mothers of heterosexuals. The model counts bisexual men as homosexual. It does not explain female homosexuality, which appears to be less heritable and more environmental. For those who find the statistics daunting, Slate has published a thoughtful popular summary of the findings. If the theory holds, the "genes favoring male homosexuality," or GFMH, provide a buffer against extinction in lean times. When a population is under pressure, as say, in the face of famine, it may pay for it to contain women who are so sex-driven that they will procreate no matter the circumstances. Of course, we have no information about the genetics of the Cheever family. But an interview in the New York Times today made me think of the androphilic gene theory. Susan Cheever, a noted writer and daughter of the truly distinguished author, John Cheever, discusses her newest memoir, Desire: Where Sex Meets Addiction . Ms. Cheever writes: "When my daughter was in the hospital and a lover of mine came to see if he could help, I went back to my apartment and slept with him. Moving men, doctors, lawyers, book salesmen – any man associated with a threatening change in my life became erotically charged, with predictable results." In a line that may make many an author bitter and jealous, she says, "The book rep was a classic one for me too – the guy who controlled whether or not the book sold. And you know, he made the book a best seller." So: there may be more than one advantage to androphilia. Parenthetically, Susan Cheever has had three marriages and two children . Time will tell whether the sex-linked GFMH theory holds up. Meanwhile it provides fodder for parlor games. Think of your gay male friends – and then their near female relations. It’s cruelly amusing to think that his bisexuality, which so tormented John Cheever, may account for the perpetuation of his gene line via his correspondingly tormented daughter.

Read the rest here: 
Gay and Fecund

Sarah Palin vs Joe Biden: Round Two

September 25, 2008 in Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Last time, we looked at whether the Internet thought that Sarah Palin and Joe Biden were considered good or bad choices. This week, the completely unscientific and undoubtedly flawed investigation continues as we look at how things stand 25 days later.  (Disclaimer: This is just for fun. I’d have to think long and hard about how to do such a thing the proper way.) Our basic approach is similar to that in the first round . We establish two baseline ratios, the "good decision" to "bad decision" ratio and the "good choice" to "bad choice" ratio, by searching for those phrases on Google and Google blog search. We find that the phrase "good decision" appears about 1.3 times more often than "bad decision" and "good choice" appears a stunning 7.3 times more often than "bad choice". It’s a rather positive Internet out there. Next we check to see how often Web pages and blog posts use the names of the VP candidates along with the phrases "good decision", "bad decision", "good choice" and "bad choice". To be a bit more careful than last time, we filter out results that mention the opposing candidate. So, for example, we’d count all the Web pages that say "Sarah Palin" and "good decision" but do not mention Joe Biden. We do this so that we can be a bit more confident about whom the post or page is about. Since I’m lazy, I’ll just use Google. Here are the results of the queries. Skip to the end for the summary stats. Sarah Palin Search Engine: Google.com "sarah palin" AND "bad decision" -biden    7260 "sarah palin" AND "good decision" -biden    3960 Good-to-bad ratio    0.55 "bad decision" AND +palin   -biden    39900 "good decision" AND +palin  -biden    30000 Good-to-bad ratio    0.75 "sarah palin" AND "bad choice" -biden    13000 "sarah palin" AND "good choice" -biden    30200 Good-to-bad ratio    2.32 "bad choice" AND +palin  -biden    97200 "good choice" AND +palin  -biden    369000 Good-to-bad ratio    3.80 Search Engine: Google blog search (blogsearch.google.com)     "sarah palin" AND "bad decision" -biden    201 "sarah palin" AND "good decision" -biden    129 Good-to-bad ratio    0.64 "bad decision" AND +palin   -biden    1221 "good decision" AND +palin  -biden    371 Good-to-bad ratio    0.30 "sarah palin" AND "bad choice" -biden    224 "sarah palin" AND "good choice" -biden    1321 Good-to-bad ratio    5.90 "bad choice" AND +palin  -biden    2090 "good choice" AND +palin  -biden    4918 Good-to-bad ratio    2.35   Joe Biden Search Engine: Google.com    "bad decision" AND "joe biden"  AND -palin    4110 "good decision" AND "joe biden"  AND -palin    586 Good-to-bad ratio    0.14 "bad decision" AND +biden AND -palin    4500 "good decision" AND +biden AND -palin    5690 Good-to-bad ratio    1.26 "bad choice" AND "joe biden"  AND -palin    11600 "good choice" AND "joe biden"  AND -palin    39600 Good-to-bad ratio    3.41 "bad choice" AND "biden"  AND -palin    13900 "good choice" AND "biden"  AND -palin    50800 Good-to-bad ratio    3.65 Search Engine: Google blog search (blogsearch.google.com)    "bad decision" AND "joe biden"  AND -palin    40 "good decision" AND "joe biden"  AND -palin    101 Good-to-bad ratio    2.53 "bad decision" AND +biden AND -palin    94 "good decision" AND +biden AND -palin    169 Good-to-bad ratio    1.80 "bad choice" AND "joe biden"  AND -palin    276 "good choice" AND "joe biden"  AND -palin    1278 Good-to-bad ratio    4.63     "bad choice" AND "biden"  AND -palin    406 "good choice" AND "biden"  AND -palin    2139 Good-to-bad ratio    5.27 Results Competition I : "Good decision" to "bad decision" ratio Palin’s scores are: .55, .75, .64, .3 for an average of .56 Biden’s scores are:   .14, 1.26, 2.53, 1.8 for an average of 1.43   Competition II : "Good choice" to "bad choice" ratio Palin’s scores are: 2.32, 3.8, 5.9, 2.35 for an average of 3.59 Biden’s scores are: 3.41, 3.65, 4.63, 5.27 for an average of 4.24   Biden edges out Palin in both competitions, which is the same result as last time . It will be interesting to see how these figures will change as the election draws near. Also amusing will be the 20/20 hindsight that will emerge when the election is over.

See more here:
Sarah Palin vs Joe Biden: Round Two

The Little Things: Seeing Things

September 24, 2008 in Psychology Today by Psychology Today

When a person has an autism spectrum disorder, like Asperger’s, there are a host of little things that that pop up, unexpected, to interfere with daily functioning.  In the next few weeks, I plan to outline a few of these…starting with visual processing. What do I mean by visual processing? As defined by LDOnline.org: “Visual and auditory processing are the processes of recognizing and interpreting information taken in through the senses of sight and sound. The terms, "visual and auditory processing" and "visual and auditory perception", are often used interchangeably. Although there are many types of perception, the two most common areas of difficulty involved with a learning disability are visual and auditory perception.” Contrary to what the average layperson may expect, the brain plays a large part in determining what we see and how we see it.  Seeing isn’t only done with the eyes, and hearing isn’t only done with the ears.  These organs are the receptors of visual and auditory stimulation – but it takes the brain to make sense of them, and regulate what to attend to.  Deficits in the areas of the brain that do this can cause a myriad of problems in daily life. Most people on the autism spectrum are affected in some way with sensory issues – but no individual experiences it in exactly the same way.  I have read accounts of people who have been much more deeply affected by sensory integration issues than I have, but it does cause a certain amount of havoc in my life.   Prosopagnosia is an issue that I see widely reported in people on the spectrum.  In short, people with prosopagnosia struggle to recognize faces.  The effects of this can vary widely.  Some cannot recognize faces at all, others just have a harder time recognizing people than other people would.  I’m one of the latter. From the time I was I child, I was always reticent to use peoples names in greeting.  I didn’t know why at the time…  As time went on I came to realize, that it was because I sometimes was slow to recognize people, and sometimes, especially when I was tired, I wouldn’t recognize them at all. So I learned to avoid embarrassment by avoiding using a person’s name until I was sure who they were.  My first real realization of the extent of my problems with recognition came a few years ago.  I moved to a different department within my company.  The new group was relatively small, about thirteen people or so.  Normally, I wouldn’t have had an issue, but two of the members of the team were very similar in appearance.  They were both men, mid-fifties, wore glasses, and had similar height, weight and hair color.  It took me a week or two before I could tell them apart.  In other groups, if I encountered an issue like this, I could usually figure out who the person was through recognizing their role.  If I knew that one was in accounting, and another one was in another area, then recognizing them would be easy.  However, in this case, both men were in similar roles.  For some time, I found myself dodging any interaction which would require me to refer to them by name.  How do you find a respectful way to say, “Hey, you!”? Despite the fact that my memory is predominantly visual, I struggle with remembering faces.  I can picture pieces of them (a nose, or their eyes), but I find it difficult to visualize the face as whole.  In the area of art, this has obviously been a bit of a handicap.  I can draw faces that I imagine, but I would find it difficult draw the face of a loved one from memory.  However, I have no issues drawing a very good likeness from a photograph, or a live model.  Australian writer Donna Williams, author of several books on autism explored some of her visual issues on her blog .  She writes: ”I have an acute sense of color. I see rainbows in a piece of ice, some colors and lights have sent me into manic and euphoric episodes and giggle fits, I have a synesthesia thing where color and touch are crossed. I also have a 2-3 second delay in processing the MEANING of what I see, a kind of ‘functional visual agnosia ‘ and am largely face blind ( prosopagnosia ). I also have exceptional peripheral vision . At my lectures I’m known for looking about 40-80 degrees away from my audience members and describing and mirroring the gross and fine motor actions of those in my audience. This usually takes audience members aback but I use it to demonstrate how many people with autism use peripheral vision to watch people and some even read or type this way. It’s also a way that I find I can process the part in the context of the whole but when looking directly, especially without tinted lenses, I see in a far less cohesive way.” She speculates that these issues may be due to a difference in the structure of the eye: “I found out that my peripheral vision didn’t just surprise my audience but its very very rare in most people. This may shed some interesting light on visual perceptual differences in people on the autistic spectrum. The optician explained that this degree of visual acuity with extreme peripheral vision is usually not possible because the majority of receptors called ‘cones’ are packed in the central part of the eye. Interestingly, these cones are also what perceives color. I asked him whether one might have so MANY of these that it makes one perceive color so much more than others might. He felt that would be so. I asked whether one might have so many of these ‘cones’ in the centre of the eye that one saw far more detail, even to the degree that it slowed down the processing of each detail in the context of the next, so that one effectively had a visual processing delay, a ‘functional visual agnosia ‘. He agreed it was possible. I asked if it were possible that by using the peripheral vision as I do, could I be reducing the use of an overabundance of these cones in the central part of the eye and, by doing this, experience something closer to what other people normally experience when looking directly? That, in other words, by possibly using fewer of my far more, even dysfunctionally too abundant cones, I manage to perceive things better as a whole and process it more quickly for visual meaning. He agreed that theoretically this was indeed possible. So if some people with autism who have avoid eye contact because faces appear meaningless fragmented, bunches of detail with no cohesion unless looking peripherally, what are we doing when we force them to ‘learn eye contact’?” While I would not rule out a physical abnormality in my case, my symptoms are quite different.  I do have a very fine-tuned sense of color, however, I do not see better in my peripheral vision.  Of course, this could be due to the fact that I wear eyeglasses, and am nearsighted.   Most often, the abnormalities that present themselves in my vision, happen when I turn my head and catch something out of the corner of my eye.  This can cause me issues in activities such as driving – because of the sensitivity of the nervous system I’m easily startled.  I focus very hard to make sure that I don’t mistake a shadow, or a piece of paper for an animal.   A few months ago, driving down a major thoroughfare, I had a close call when I mistook a red light on the turn lane for a red light for my lane.  In turning my head, they had somehow become superimposed upon each other. Thinking I was about to run a red light in a major intersection, stepped on the brakes.   A few seconds later, my brain sorted everything out, and I realized that I needed to speed up again, fast.   A funny example of this came when the family decided to go out to eat at a local restaurant.  The restaurant, as part of its theme, has a cement sculpture of a barnyard animal at the entrance.  Since it was the first time I had been to this restaurant, I wasn’t aware of this.   I stepped through the door, and jumped back when, out of the corner of my eye, I saw what I thought was a large dog.  Once I looked at the thing head-on, I saw what it was (and felt rather foolish).  But in the end, I had to laugh.  When we go to that restaurant, we all chuckle a little bit when we see the “dog” there waiting in the entryway. From a very young age, I was poor at most sports.  Why?  Not only do I lack a certain amount of motor coordination, but I have trouble visual spatial orientation and depth perception.  In a sport such as football, or soccer, where your teammates and opponents are moving targets, these skills are needed to track where each player is in space, and where they will be in the next few seconds.  “ Spatial Relations and Learning ” by Carol Stockdale and Carol Possin, Ph.D. , offers an example of these types of issues.  In the article, two fictitious coaches discuss a player’s issues in this area: “’Hey Dick, you had that Dean Delane kid in soccer. How’d he work out?’ Dick straightened up enough to prop his elbow on the battered table and drop his chin onto his palm. ‘Well,’ he said, ‘He was a great goalie. Quick. Focused. Tough. No one could intimidate him.’ He paused to watch Chuck absorb the rest of his French bread and went on. ‘Funny thing, I tried to move him to forward after Rich Allison broke his ankle but that was one bad idea.’ Swallowing lasagna, Chuck proclaimed, ‘Well, I want him at shortstop. He’s quick. Has a good arm.’ Dick returned to his slouch, now rocking back on the legs of his chair, ‘I dunno, Chuck. There’s something with that kid. Something about shifting gears or moving around and doing something else at the same time. In soccer he couldn’t dribble and keep track of the guy next to him, much less the other team or anything else.’ He paused, remembering, ‘He did the craziest things. In one game he dribbled right out-of-bounds three times. Three times! Never took his eye off the ball. Just forgot where he was. Looked surprised as anything when the ref whistled. I took him out and told him, ‘See all those other guys with shirts like yours. They’re your team. Pass to them!’‘ Dick glanced at the clock. Six minutes until the fifth period bell. He went on, ‘So he did. Pass, I mean. Only usually it was to the other team. The guys really got down on him. I pulled him and decided he was never going to be a soccer player.’” In explanation of this child’s spatial issues, the authors wrote: “Soccer player Dean Delane has a narrow problem. He is well coordinated in that his body moves rhythmically, and the parts cooperate as they move. He is strong and has good balance. However, keeping track of his location is very difficult. He cannot monitor his position when he is moving. This is especially a problem when the ‘things’ he is involved with, such as his teammates, are also moving. So he seeks positions such as goalie where he remains within a fixed area, tracks the ball, and moves to it. He does not have to move with it down the field.” This was often me as a kid – I could not track where the other kids were, where I was, and the ball all at the same time.   The types of games that I did well in were games like four square, or certain types of dodgeball, where the player’s range of movement was limited, and I only had to track the ball.  When I first began to drive, I had a couple of accidents which involved misjudging distances, such as sideswiping poles, or other cars.  Soon I learned to be very conservative in estimating the space around my car, and other cars.   I avoiding highway driving whenever possible, and err on the side of safety at intersections. Also in Stockdale and Possin’s article, the authors include a story about a young woman who is, as many might say “directionally challenged.”  They describe how she can only find her way by way of landmarks, and has no sense of direction.   This an extreme example, but I do experience something similar.  Like the character in the story, I rely on landmarks to find my way.  This generally works for me, unless, as happens in the story, the landmark (a billboard) is changed, removed, or I miss it.  Then I can sometimes lose my moorings.  Unlike me, the character in the story is almost completely unable to use a map.  I rely on them.  With my visual memory, maps are the way that I learn where things are.  After an amount of time using the map, I am able to internalize it, and am able to find my way very well.  As with every other challenge I have had in my life, for the most part, I have learned to cope very well these challenges.   When driving, I’m extra cautious.   I keep photographs of people I love.   If I need to go to a place where I am not familiar with the landmarks, I make sure I have a map or directions.   I don’t play sports, or put myself in a position where my lack of visual/spatial coordination could cause me a problem.   Dealing with these types of challenges can be frustrating, and tiring – but they can also provide a little comic relief.  At least my life is never boring!  

Go here to see the original:
The Little Things: Seeing Things

WWF, DC — Time for Parliamentary Government?

September 24, 2008 in Psychology Today by Psychology Today

According to Ben Bernake of the Federal Reserve, the current economic crisis is "a matter for psychology" because the essence of the crisis is a failure of confidence. If confidence in the competence of the federal government were restored, his reasoning goes, investors would once again be eager to invest in an American economy that, under intelligent management, offers hope of greater returns and security than any other economy on earth. Problem is, there’s little reason to expect competent government from Washington. Starting with the election of 1980, American political culture has devolved into the equivalent of professional wrestling: scripted conflict where the winner is predetermined and (with a few exceptions) the combatants are participants in a charade meant to distract the public from the unreality of the entire enterprise. Even David Stockman, the architect of Reaganomics, later wrote that nobody believed the money the top 1% saved on tax cuts would "trickle down" to the rest — it was just a handy way to package the redistribution of wealth upwards. Just as the wrestlers know their combat is pure theater, most politicians in both parties are play-acting. Republicans pretending to be outraged by abortion, teen sex, and gay marriage compete for attention with Democrats pretending to care deeply for Joe Sixpack. Bullshit. Republicans, Democrats, and their enablers in the press are all the same people — went to the same schools, shop in the same boutiques, play golf together, marry each other’s cousins, and trade jobs when it suits their agendas. They put on a show for the rest of us, but then all go home to the same gated communities at night. Politics is professional sport now. Do you think Kobe really gives a damn about Los Angeles? Did David Beckham have an emotional allegance to Madrid? Come on, he doesn’t even speak Spanish! Country, national identity is a farse used to distract people from the real issues. Being "American" means as much these days as being "a Yankees fan." To the real Yankees, it’s just a job, and they’re more than happy to take their million-dollar contracts wherever their agent sends them. The fans still care, but the players know better. Where we live, in Spain, things are marginally better, but only because parliamentary government actually works better than American democracy. You may laugh, given the unrelenting chaos in the Italian parliament over the past fifty years, but the process undeniably brings more voices into the national conversation. Parties have proportional representation. Imagine how different the past eight years would have been if Ralph Nader’s party had a few seats in Congress, in proportion to the votes they won in 2000. Then think of how many more people would have voted for third or fourth party candidates if they knew their votes would count, even if they amounted to only a few percentage points. In many close congressional decisions, just a few votes make the margin of difference, thus giving serious power to minor parties. Most importantly, parliamentary government provides for a motion of no confidence. This vote is called for when the opposition feels the current leadership has lost the confidence of the public. It’s absurd that the United States is being ruled by an administration that is held in contempt by the vast majority of the public. This is the crisis in confidence that has triggered economic collapse. Just as Bernake said, we need an injection of confidence immediately. Unfortunately, our system has no feasible means of immediately sending the current administration packing and putting someone who isn’t a national embarassment in charge of running the country. If any nation has needed a motion of no confidence, it’s the United States at this moment.

See the original post here:
WWF, DC — Time for Parliamentary Government?

Stupidity: Learning the lessons of history today that harmed us tomorrow.

September 23, 2008 in Psychology Today by Psychology Today

A few months before Katrina, I caught one of the early Mardi Gras parades in a rural town outside New Orleans. Race relations there seemed different from those here in Northern California. Blacks were more outgoing and friendly to whites, and yet there also seemed to be more racial segregation. At the parade, the floats and teams were strictly segregated. The only integration I saw was a few clusters of black and white teens. I watched a policeman go out of his way to harass a black youth who was hanging out with some white girls. As I was heading back to my car I saw one group by a 7-11 and thought to ask them directly about the state of race relations. A white girl spoke for them all, "Oh, it’s getting better. The police still give you a hard time but it’s not bad." I thanked her and walked toward my car feeling pleased and hopeful; it was good to hear from a like-minded youth who was transcending past bigotries. The girl called me back. "You say you’re from San Francisco?" she asked. "Are they still letting gays marry there? ‘Cause I think that’s so disgusting." OK, not entirely like-minded. She had learned a lesson about bigotry, but she hadn’t generalized it. Me, I’ve seen enough instances of destructive bigotry to extrapolate to a universal pattern. Bigotry against blacks, Jews, the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, gays–I get it–no bigotry is acceptable. What you don’t do to blacks you don’t do to gays either. In this election I’m hoping a disenchanted nation will do some careful generalizing. Too much focus on Bush and Cheney’s bad character distracts us from questions about what makes them bad. If we conclude that they’re just bad apples, then what’s to stop equally counterproductive people with different names and faces from taking their places? Everyone says, "People who don’t learn the lessons of history are forced to repeat it," but if that statement doesn’t miss the point completely, it just barely grazes it. Sure, we should try to learn lessons–but the real question is which lessons, what generalizations? From Stalin and Hitler should we generalize to no more leaders with mustaches? No more short people? What we want, of course, is to generalize lessons from history that end up paying off in the future. Unfortunately, although that’s a great goal, it’s useless as a rule of thumb. The future isn’t here yet, so you can’t use it directly to guide your generalizations. "Son, my advice to you is buy low, sell high, and always learn today what worked tomorrow." Still, our society’s accelerated progress over the past few centuries is largely a product of culture realizing that right generalization is the name of the game. Science and engineering are largely attempts to systematize the process of effective generalization. In the hope of promoting that process, however slightly, here are a few generalizations about generalization applied to the coming election. Undergeneralizing: Sometimes we fail to learn because we fail to generalize at all. Bush voters who now criticize the president tend to defend their votes. Yes, Bush turned out to be a lemon, an exception to the otherwise fine products of the conservative movement. Gore, Kerry, and the whole liberal agenda would have been much worse. McCain will fix things. Abu Ghraib? A few bad low-level soldiers. There’s nothing to learn, no generalization to be drawn. When McCain said the economic problem was caused by greedy people on Wall street and that the answer was to fire the head of the SEC, he sounded like unsophisticated leftists I knew in the ’70s. The problem is a few greedy people leading big corporations. Replace them with un-greedy people like me and it will all be groovy. Overgeneralizing: Litmus-test partisans think they’ve found the one or two factors from which you can generalize to everything you need to know about a candidate. A Christian? Anti-abortion? For gay marriage? Divorced? A loyal spouse? For change? A traditionalist? The Sufis say, "He who’s burnt by hot milk blows on ice cream." Not all dairy products will burn you. And not all Christians are great leaders. To litmus-test partisans on the left or the right, expert status isn’t earned through careful analysis but through passionate self-certainty. They ignore last chances to fix things because they’ve lost peripheral vision. They’ve found the one cause that matters. It’s a priority not because they’ve compared it to other issues but because they can make an impassioned argument for its intrinsic and isolated merit. "But don’t you see, it’s a fundamental right!" Motivated generalization: An alcoholic ponders what’s causing those daily hangovers. Monday: gin and tonic; Tuesday: vodka and tonic; Wednesday: whiskey and tonic; Thursday: rum and tonic. Clearly it’s the tonic. Generalization serves two masters. One is, of course, our future selves. We hope to learn history’s real lessons so we don’t have to repeat them. The other is our present gut instinct, which definitely prefers some lessons to others. The alcoholic’s future self wants to avoid future hangovers, but the alcoholic’s gut doesn’t want to discover that those hangovers are caused by alcohol rather than tonic. Most Republicans don’t seem to want to consider the possibility that they’ve had a substantial chance to try their ideas out in the real world and that in general those ideas don’t work as well as they had hoped. Just this week, days after the $700 billion bailout was announced, I was probing a right-wing friend about the core values and principles that drive his beliefs. He’s for the bailout as the lesser of two evils. On core values, though, he proudly told me one thing he knows for sure. Liberal efforts to regulate the free market have failed over and over and should never be tried again. No mention of the possibility that conservatives have anything to learn here. This same friend tells me that he relishes arguing with liberals like me because our arguments are so weak and implausible. He’s the second conservative to tell me that this month. In other words, we generalize poorly. We’re either slow learners or we’re driven to our generalizations by our gut instincts, not our rational minds as they are. Psychological research* indicates that we all generalize through two parallel systems, the rational mind and the gut, and that the gut predominates. The gut is faster acting than the rational mind. It’s often right or we wouldn’t survive. But there’s plenty of evidence that the gut gets it wrong consistently on crucial matters. Ideally, therefore, we’d be rational about when to use our gut instincts and when to be rational. Among the more troubling findings therefore is strong evidence that most of us assume we’re more rational than we in fact are. We interpret gut instincts as rational instincts. Guts have the upper hand. Our guts tell us our rational minds are telling us that our rational minds are generalizing from the evidence and not our guts. We generalize incorrectly about our generalizing performance and skill. Me and all my Obama-supporting friends included. We assume we’re the rational ones. Given the psychological evidence regarding everyone’s ability to interpret their interpretive prowess, we’re disqualified as authorities on the subject of our own rationality. So are our equally gut-motivated Republican detractors. Indeed, posterity gets the final word on whose generalizing skills were best. It alone knows how skillful we were at generalizing to the right lessons of history to learn and not the wrong ones. Unfortunately it was unavailable for comment at the time of this writing. * For a great new survey of the findings, check out Nudge: Improving decisions about health wealth and happiness.

Read the original:
Stupidity: Learning the lessons of history today that harmed us tomorrow.