Avatar of PsyBlog

by PsyBlog

How to Use Your Character Strengths

January 5, 2009 in Blogs, PsyBlog by PsyBlog

Detail from Luca Giordano’s ‘Prudence’ – considered by the Greeks to be the ‘mother’ of all virtues. This post explains how to use the results of the survey of your character strengths . You may like to have your character strengths survey results to hand while thinking about these questions. Head over to the VIA Survey website to recap your strengths, or take the test if you haven’t done so already. This previous post explains the background. What can I do with my list of strengths? One common exercise is a discussion of your signature strengths with another person. Talk with someone you trust about which strengths strike you as more authentically associated with yourself. One thing you might discuss or have a think about is: How do I know when to use which strength? Sometimes it’s possible to be too courageous, too curious or even too kind. The trick is determining when to use which strength. Try to think of situations in which you’ve used your strengths successfully and times when you’ve used them unsuccessfully. Is there any pattern? If there is, what is this telling you? Schwartz and Sharpe (2005) argue that practical wisdom can only be reached through practice. There’s no substitute for exercising your strengths in the right way, and understanding why. What if I’m uncomfortable discussing my strengths? Negative points are easier to spot in others as well as in ourselves. As a result some people find it difficult to talk, or even just think about their strengths. It may also be partly cultural: Americans tend to be more comfortable discussing positivity, whereas other cultures like the British can be turned off by all this ‘happy-clappy’ positivity. That’s fine, so instead of focusing on the top 5 character strengths, concentrate on the bottom of the list. These are your least strong strengths – I hesitate to say weaknesses because the survey isn’t concerned with rooting out weakness, it’s solely concerned with strengths. Still, those ‘strengths’ are at the bottom of the list for a reason. Weakness can also be found in strengths if those strengths aren’t used in a balanced way. For example some people take critical thinking to extreme and end up highly cynical, finding it hard to see anything positive in the world. Similarly prudence is a highly admirable character strength, but too much prudence can lead to a boring and isolated life. Recognising the dangers inherent in some strengths can also be beneficial. Are some character strengths more likely to be seen together in one person? The strengths can be described on two dimensions: first on whether they are self or other-focused strengths, and second on whether they are strengths of mind or strengths of heart. Self-focused strengths include curiosity, self-regulation and zest, while other-focused strengths include modesty, kindness and forgiveness. Strengths of mind include open-mindedness, self-regulation and modesty, while strengths of heart include gratitude, hope and zest. People are more likely to have signature strengths that are close on these two dimensions. For example people whose strength is perspective are also likely to have a love of learning. Similarly someone whose strength is kindness is also likely to be particularly forgiving. Do your strengths cluster together in this way, or are they more disparate? [Your task is slightly hampered here by not being able to see all the strengths laid out along the dimensions - unfortunately I don't have access to a copy I can use here. You'll have to use your ingenuity to work out which strengths are closely related.] Aren’t the answers I have given in the survey subject to a social desirability bias? Yes, but that doesn’t mean they’re meaningless. All the questions in the VIA survey ask about positive traits, so there is clearly a bias in the way (most) people will respond. Naturally people tend to see themselves in a relatively positive light and so will tend to answer in the affirmative for most questions. For example, it’s an extremely rare person that says they have no morals or no curiosity at all. The point with this survey is that as long as the response to every question isn’t exactly the same, then it will reveal something about your character. That variability between ‘very much like me’ and ‘most of the time’ reveals something. Using this variability the survey can work out which traits are most applicable and which least. More generally, though, why should we only believe others when talking about their deficiencies, but not when point out their strengths? Give me more ways to think about my strengths! Certainly. You can think about your strengths in relation to all the major areas of your life: Do your signature strengths match up with those used in your job. If not, could you adjust your job so that they do? Or perhaps even change your job? How do your strengths fit with those closest to you, e.g. your partner? Which strengths give you the most energy when you use them? How could you use them more? How could you use them differently – say in a different context or with different people? What hobbies/interests do you have and how do your strengths contribute? Are there other interests you could develop on the basis of your strengths? Your experience? As ever, do comment below if you found this exercise useful (or otherwise) and also if you found new and interesting ways of thinking about your strengths. Thanks to commenters on the previous post on this subject: some of the points made there are addressed above. [Image credit: The Yorck Project]

Read more here:
How to Use Your Character Strengths

The NEW New Year’s Resolution

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

There’s a saying, "If you aim at nothing, you’ll hit it every time." It’s true, which makes setting New Year’s resolutions a very pragmatic activity. But if you’re like most people, as you’re shifting into that, "turning-over-a-new-leaf mode" and thinking about ways to improve your life, your mind starts to meander to those ten extra pounds you’ve been lugging around or those cigarettes you’ve been smoking despite the inconvenience of having to go outside in freezing temperatures or that urge that has been creeping up on you every evening to have just one more night cap. And when you’re done thinking about all the vices you should quit, you check your calendar to see if this will be the year that you finally take that finance class over at the local community college. Make no mistake about it, you want to be thinner, richer, healthier and smarter. But the truth is, when nearly one out of every two marriages ends in divorce, why is it that people are so busy worshipping the Personal Improvement God/dess rather than focusing on the improvements we can make to our important relationships? Why don’t spouses sit down together and truly think about where they want to be six months or a year from now, setting relationship-oriented goals that can make marriages richer, healthier and longer lasting? Why not forego the cash you’d be shelling out for a Personal Trainer and get some Interpersonal Training to make your marriage more buff? And if this seems like a foreign idea, I’m going to help you out a bit. I will give you some tips for setting Relationship Resolutions for 2009. Ready? You should do this exercise with your partner. Commit your responses to writing. Start by asking yourselves: What are you hoping to change or improve about your marriage? Make sure that your goals are positively stated so that they are requests for change rather than complaints When I ask couples what they’re hoping to improve about their marriages, they usually reply with a complaint. For example, I hear, "I wish my husband weren’t so sloppy." Criticisms typically result in defensiveness which as you undoubtedly know, leads to unnecessary escalation and unrewarding problem-solving effots. Plus, if your husband being "less sloppy" were to be the goal, you are still focusing on the problem- sloppiness. Instead, it is much more solution-oriented to ask yourself, "When my husband becomes less sloppy, what will he be doing instead? What will replace the messiness?" Your response to this question will be a request for change rather than a complaint. For example, you may think, "When my husband becomes less sloppy, he will pick up is wet towel from the floor" or "He will empty the dishwasher in the evening." Watching for helpfulness rather than scanning for sloppiness can go a long way to changing relationship dynamics. Make sure your responses are action-oriented Too often people have vague or half-baked goals. They say, "I want you to be more affectionate," or "Our marriage needs to be more exciting," or "Why can’t you just show a little respect?" Unfortunately, everyone has his or her own definition of "affectionate," "excitement," or "respect." If you want your spouse to try to hit the mark, your expectations have to be clear. As much as you might love your spouse to be a mind reader, there really is no such thing. So, if your goal is to have your spouse be more affectionate, you need to use action-oriented words to explain what you need. Say things like, "I want you to hug me without being sexual," or "I would really like it if you would sit next to me on the couch when I watch television, even if you’re not all that interested in what I’m watching," or "Stop what you’re doing when I come home from work and give me a kiss." The clearer you can be, the better. Make sure your goals are do-able in a short period of time One mistake people make is setting goals that are too grandiose and because of that, they run out of steam before their goals are accomplished. Since nothing breeds success like success, you need to break your goals down to small do-able chunks, things you and your spouse can accomplish in a week or two. Then, when you see small changes, you will feel inspired to continue the hard work you’re doing to make things better. Let me give you an example. I worked with a couple who spent very little time together and, as a result, had little in common. That’s why they sought my help. They felt they had grown apart. When I asked them what they were hoping to change or improve about their relationship, they told me that they wanted to feel intensely in love again and feel more connected something they hadn’t felt for a very long time. I assured them that that was an admirable goal, but I wondered what might happen in the next week or two that would be a sign that they were moving in the right direction. They decided that if they went out on a date night once each week, spent at least ten minutes each night talking about their day, and gave each other 2 or 3 daily compliments, they would feel they were making a hearty effort to get their marriage back on track. As you think about your goals, ask yourself that same question, "What would be one or two small things that my partner and I could do this week that would make us both feel that we are on track to accomplishing our goal?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Goal-setting is nothing new or earth-shattering. Successful people in all walks of life know the wisdom of having a clear and concrete vision for the things they want to achieve. But setting goals to bring more love, passion and connectedness into your life may not be something you’ve ever done before. So before the clock strikes twelve on December 31st, why not create your Relationship Resolutions and make 2009 the best ever for you and your partner? What do you think?   © 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.

Go here to read the rest: 
The NEW New Year’s Resolution

Avatar of PsyBlog

by PsyBlog

Better Mood from Gratitude: 2 Minute Exercise – Start Now!

December 11, 2008 in Blogs, PsyBlog by PsyBlog

Use this simple gratitude exercise to put yourself in a better mood in as little as two minutes per week. Really good moods are like gold dust. They bring optimism, laughter, creativity and sheer joie de vivre. Good moods help us bear all the daily irritations of life with good grace. Psychological research agrees. Positive emotions are associated with greater creativity, increased problem-solving ability, and greater overall success in life (here’s 9 ways happiness leads to success ). So here’s one way to quickly and sustainably improve your mood: practice your gratitude. This post first covers the evidence that a simple gratitude exercise, if persevered with, can improve mood. After the evidence is an explanation of how to carry out this exercise. The Evidence Three recent studies support the use of gratitude in improving mood: Emmons and McCullough (2003) were surprised to find that happiness could be increased by a simple gratitude exercise. Participants took the time to write down 5 things they were grateful for each week, for 10 weeks. At the end of the study this group were 25% happier than a comparison group who simply listed five events from the week. Lyubomirsky et al. (2005) compared practising gratitude three times a week with once a week. They found that only those who carried out the exercise once a week were happier. This suggests overdoing the gratitude is not beneficial – perhaps because of habituation. Seligman, Steen, Park and Peterson (2005) carried out a randomised, placebo-controlled study. They followed participants up 6 months after they had begun carrying out a simple gratitude exercise and found they were happier and less depressed than a control group. In this study, though, participants initially wrote about what they were grateful for every day for a week. The Exercise Convinced by the research? Well, even if you’re not, the beauty of this exercise is that it’s so easy that it shouldn’t even be called exercise. All you need is enough time – as little as two minutes – to think of three things that you are grateful for: that benefit you and without which your life would be poorer. Then, if you’ve got time, you can think about the causes for these good things. And that’s it. The danger is that this exercise seems so trivial that it isn’t worth doing. But consider this: people are constantly worrying about things they don’t have or things that haven’t happened, consequently they rarely take stock of the beneficial things that they do have and good things that have already happened. If it’s possible for even the simplest negative thought to provoke a change in mood, then why not a positive grateful thought as well? If you find it difficult to get going, here are some suggestions for things, but it’s better to think of your own: I don’t have a headache today. I had a good lunch. I have my family. My new socks keep my feet warm. I made a joke and people laughed (got to take whatever I can get!). …some of these are on the trivial side but no grain of thankfulness is too small once you’ve exhausted the usual suspects. You can try experimenting with carrying out this exercise weekly or even daily depending on how you feel. If the exercise starts to lose its power this could be because of habituation – try to be creative with your gratitude. I’ll be posting on PsyBlog next week to remind you to exercise your gratitude (and to remind me as well!). What are you grateful for? Please do comment below about your experiences with this exercise. You may find it useful to write down what you are grateful for and post them below. It will probably put you in a better mood and also give us all ideas. » See also the series on the new science of happiness . [Image credit: gi ]

Continued here: 
Better Mood from Gratitude: 2 Minute Exercise – Start Now!

Do people’s memories about their life history follow a predictable pattern?

December 8, 2008 in Blogs, Cognitive Daily by Cognitive Daily

What you remember about your life is almost certainly not accurate. Adults have very few memories before age five, and there is a systematic bias to the memories most people have for the rest of their lives. We are more likely to remember details about positive events like marriage and having children than we are to remember negative events like hospital stays or the death of a loved one. Many studies have found that people appear to remember much more from their teens and 20s than the rest of their lives. A fifty-year-old might remember more about her 20s than her 30s, even though the events in her 30s were more recent. Is there something about the teens and 20s that make them more memorable? Or do our brains just lose the ability to form lasting memories as we age? Systematically studying autobiographical memory is difficult because there isn’t an easy way to check and see if a reported memory is accurate. A researcher can identify a bias, but she can’t say whether the memories her subjects report are qualitatively different at different ages. I’ve written a memoir and I found that many of the things I “remembered” with utmost clarity turned out to be untrue. But it’s impractical for a researcher to fact-check the hundreds or thousands of memories she’s analyzing. Still, studying the memories themselves — accurate or not — can tell us a lot about how memory works. A team led by Clare Rathbone asked 16 volunteers age 47-66 to report on the key memories about their lives, by coming up with 10 concepts that complete the phrase starting “I am …”. They then picked three that best defined themselves. Here are my top three: I am a writer, a father, and introspective. For each of these three statements, they were asked to generate ten specific memories of times when the statements were a significant part of their identity. So, for me, this would include when I published my first book, when I sold my business to become a full-time writer, and when I started this blog. Finally they were asked how old they were when each of those three defining statements became “a defining part of their identity.” I became a writer at age 36 when I finished my memoir, and a father at age 24. When I became introspective is a little harder to nail down. I’m going to say age 24 for that, too, because becoming a father also makes you think a lot about who you are. What ages produced the most memories? Here are the results: Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

See more here:
Do people’s memories about their life history follow a predictable pattern?

We’ll remember H.M. even if he could not remember us [A Blog Around The Clock]

December 5, 2008 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

Everyone who’s ever taken a Neuroscience class in college remembers the strange case of H.M. H.M. suffered from epilepsy. Back in 1953, his brain was operated on – some large chunks (the hippocampi) were removed. Epilepsy was gone. So was his memory. He could remember his life before surgery, but could not form any new memories. More specifically, he could not remember any new events (‘declarative memory’), things that happened to him. Whatever he experienced years, months, weeks, days, hours, even minutes before, was forever lost. Every moment was a fresh moment. Every day a new beginning. But there were things he could remember – new skills ( ‘episodic procedural memory’). If he practiced something one day, he would be better at it the next day even though he could not remember he ever did it before. His brain could remember those subconscious new memories. Of course, he was studied and studied all his life. A lot of what we now know about memory, we learned from studies on H.M. H.M. died this Tuesday at the age of 82. His real name was revealed after his death: Henry Gustav Molaison. When we talk about “heroes of science” we usually think about scientists. But in cases like Henry Gustav Molaison, the real scientific hero was a subject. Mo , DrugMonkey , Greg Laden , Omnibrain and Jake Young have more. Read the comments on this post…

See more here:
We’ll remember H.M. even if he could not remember us [A Blog Around The Clock]

Exaggerated PR, Neuroscience Edition [Science After Sunclipse]

December 5, 2008 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

The Radiological Society of America recently issued a press release entitled ” Robotic Technology Improves Stroke Rehabilitation “. It sounds like good, instantly Slashdottable fare: brain scans and robots? The only way to improve that would be to run it on Linux in space. The problem, however, begins quite early in the release itself: CHICAGO — [R]esearch scientists using a novel, hand-operated robotic device and functional MRI (fMRI) have found that chronic stroke patients can be rehabilitated, according to a study presented today at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA). This is the first study using fMRI to map the brain in order to track stroke rehabilitation. The bold emphasis is added to mark the part that is clearly wrong. As the Neurocritic points out, a quick PubMED search brings back 81 articles on the subject. Review articles such as Carey and Seitz (2007) , Eliassen et al. (2008) and Ward (2007) also exist. Perhaps the first rule in reading press releases should be, “Nothing in science is as new as advertised.” Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Read the original post: 
Exaggerated PR, Neuroscience Edition [Science After Sunclipse]

Media Interviews on Voting Poll Addiction and Withdrawal – Part 2 of 2.

November 29, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

  The 2008  presidential election is certainly one for the books. But it is not one where when it was over it was over. It wasn’t one where, at the end, win or lose, people went home, celebrated (or mourned) a little or a lot and then went on with their lives. Even if they wanted to do just that, there was too much militating against an either "Martha, hand me the cyanide," or the alternative, "job well done, see ya" trajectory. People are writing about poll fatigue or election fatigue or Obama or Clinton fatigues. But it’s premature. The possiblity for withdrawal and "what the hell do I do now?" remonstrations simply have to wait. The beat goes on. Here are some reasons why:  1. Unresolved house and senatorial elections demanded and continue to demand more volunteer work and more cash contributions to help in the recounts in Minnesota and a run-off election in Georgia, all with the hoped for outcome by Democrats for Obama to have a filabuster-proof majority of 60 Democrats in the Senate. The House is already a safe haven for Obama, even if you factor in the conservative or Blue Dog Democrats. 2. The recently resolved Sen. Ted Stevens vs. Mark Begich race in Alaska which, resolved in Begich’s favor, makes the 60-vote majority even more tantilizingly reachable and worthy of further support of time and money. 3. The commitment to keep the activist, volunteerist, contributonal strategies running to help President-Elect Obama work on and push through his promises and policies once in office, including programs akin to Kennedy’s Peace Corps or the later Volunteers in Servie to America (VISTA) programs. And, with the current economic meltdown, the possibility of Obama instituting FDR-type WPA programs to get Americans back to work on infrastructural problems. Obama and his people knew that it was no mean feat to get the young people again enthusiastically involved in national politics and causes and that the lamp of activism must be kept lit. 4. Those who actively worked on the Obama campaign were queried, filled out questionnaires about their "intentions" for the future and their ideas about how the campaign worked, what they would do differently and the extent to which they want to continue working for Obama to advance progressive "change" programs he touted during the campaign. In other words, Obama is offering a never-ending campaign, if not a New Deal than at least a Change Deal. 5. This was an historical election for all the obvious and well-analyzed reasons having to do with race, gender, war, economics and some social, wedge issues concerning gays and marriage. But it was an historical election pre-eminently because there is something felt historical about the election. There was and is the belief that Obama can indeed change the direction of this country, recoup its "special" image in the world, a nation, a people, a set of leaders one can look toward rather than turn away from. This has been a long time in coming and many people don’t want to let that "feeling" go so quickly just because the election is completed. And Obama has asked them to stay in touch and hold him to his promises. 6. The power of Obama has been enhanced by the retiring reticence, lame-duckness of George Bush and company. On a surprise yet most welcome note, the Bush administration has provided Obama with a transitional power, visibility and pulpitude practically unprecedented for a President-Elect in American politics. With this bully pulpit and perception of real rather than potential power, foreign dignitaries know the sitting president has psychologically and emotionally left the building. Most substantive foreign and domestic attention and speculation has turned to Obama. In many ways, Obama is President-Elect in name only, as George Bush is now President in name only. 7. The TV pundits and the op ed pages of the major national newspapers are filled with commentary about who will be pulling levers of power in an Obama D.C. Who will Obama appoint to cabinet positions, to transition team positions, and to various administratively sensitive positions such as Press Secretary, White House Counsel and Chief of Staff? Coverage of these Administration change-of-power goings-on fill up the 24 hour cable news shows and keep Obama in the public eye while his cool, confidant demeanor and words are contributing to the emerging legend of Barack Obama in his own time. 8. Polls are still chugging along, only this time about dimensions of The Obama Effect: How confident do you feel about his solving the current and expanding economic crisis? The military problems? Unemployment? National Security? Cabinet appointments? Obama’s ability to walk on water?So, if you yearn for polls, if you yearn for excitement and speculation and punditry, like the media offered for two years; if you yearned for another episode in the never-ending Clinton Travelling "enigma in a conundrum show," one that’s keeping the election spirit alive, along with, of course, the miasmic rats nest, Wall Street-Detroit, it’s all here. And hey, MSNBC still calls itself "the station for politics. That must mean something, right? Yes, events intervene and momentarily drive American politics off the front page. The marathon crisis and tragedy that is Mumbai has consumed media news attention. And certainly Sarah Palin still shows the power to pull the camera away from both presidents when she opens her mouth to save a turkey but somehow misses the point and reveals her astounding insensitivity to the suffering of all things animal. But she still has a constituency; she is still is someone to watch. And comedians adore her. The political beat goes on. The Obama train, hated, hopeful, or adored, is still racing across the multi-media landscape, taking up all the political oxygen in cyberspace. Even the columns and photos of Bush-in-Decline add to the Obama, post-election after-show. So, to paraphrase the legendary Yogi Berra-Dan Cook phrase as it might apply to this election season: it ain’t over and the fat lady hasn’t sung. Election fatigue and withdrawal? Poll fatigue and withdrawal? Nowhere that I can see. Final note : For the true political addicts, the ones who jump from one issue to another, one candidate to another, one juice machine to another, they’re another story. By this writing, they will have already found another issue to shoot up, another cause in which to immerse themselves, to find the meaning and the tang that "civilian" life simply can’t deliver. They’re like the unnamed war photographers who scour the world for action. Idealistic and noble causes are not their life blood. For them, it’s the fight that counts, not who is fighting.  It’s the process, not the outcome. For them and for political junkies, Obama is already yesterday. For the rest of us, Obama is today and tomorrow.       © 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.

See original here: 
Media Interviews on Voting Poll Addiction and Withdrawal – Part 2 of 2.

Plunging in to social networking

November 17, 2008 in Blogs, Cognitive Daily by Cognitive Daily

I’ve set up accounts on FriendFeed and Twitter with the username davemunger. I’m going to give these sites a try for the next week or so. Unlike with Facebook where we’ve got a profile but haven’t really done much, I’d actually like to actively participate in these networks. I’d appreciate any tips readers have for getting established there, and any other similar sites that it might be useful to be a part of. Ideally these sites would link back in to FriendFeed so I only have to check up on one site. And of course, if you’d like to follow my feed, you’re welcome to. Read the comments on this post…

Read the original:
Plunging in to social networking

Aut lupus, aut deus [Evolving Thoughts]

November 12, 2008 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

So wrote the renaissance humanist, Erasmus of Rotterdam: Man is to man either a god or a wolf. Here , courtesy of Leiter , is an article in The Telegraph , in which philosopher Mark Rowlands describes his life with a wolf, and how he ended up learning, as he puts it, how to be a human from the wolf. Few animals are as similar in their social behaviour to humans as wolves. The domesticated dog is subordinated to human breeding goals, but the wild wolf is itself – a pack animal with dominance psychology, capable of identifying intentions in other agents, of exploring, teaching and playing. And by evolutionary convergence, it is like humans in many respects. Not identical, of course; we have a lot of cognitive and psychological faculties wolves and their kin do not, but the similarity is what enabled us to domesticate them in the first place, and arguably they domesticated us back. For a canine in human care, the human social unit, whether a family, a police squad, or a farm, is its pack. Like Lorenz’s ducklings that imprinted on him at birth, we take cubs as soon as we can and imprint them on us. And they behave in ways we find agreeable in our social context… mostly. I once knew a family in which one of two spoiled wirehaired terriers killed a six month baby. The story was tragic and old – the dog, seeing the deference the baby was receiving from the rest of the family, challenged it the way a wolf would – by biting. Being a baby, the child was killed. [The idiot media and the moron who headed the local RSPCA blamed the parents and accused them of hiding their murder by making it look like the dog did it. I have hated the media ever since I spent six months trying to counsel two teenage half-sibs of that baby in my youth group from committing suicide. The parents belatedly won a lawsuit and a half-arsed apology on page 45.] Evolutionarily, canines are some distance from us. Inferences of their behaviour based on our motivations are misleading. They are similar but not the same , and we must always remember that. We have more direct insight into a chimp’s behaviour than into a dog’s, and even less into a cat’s. We might be more familiar with them, but that is a matter of happenstance. Their similarity is based on a limited convergence of social structure, nothing more. Read the comments on this post…

Here is the original:
Aut lupus, aut deus [Evolving Thoughts]

Parrots and Mirrors [The Frontal Cortex]

November 12, 2008 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

I’ve been really enjoying Alex and Me , the new book by Irene Pepperberg, and not only because I’ve got an African Grey of my own. It’s full of wonderful anecdotes like this: The students occasionally took Alex to the washroom, where there was a very large mirror above the sinks. Alex used to march up and down the little shelf in front of the mirror, making noise, looking around, demanding things. Then one day in December 1980 when Kathy Davidson took him to the washroom, Alex seemed really to notice the mirror for the first time. He turned to look right into it, cocked his head back and forth a few times to get a fuller look, and said, “What’s that?” “That’s you,” Kathy answered. “You’re a parrot.” Alex looked some more and then said, “What color?” Kathy said, “Gray. You’re a gray parrot, Alex.” The two of them went through that sequence a couple more times. And that’s how Alex learned the color gray. Obviously, we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that we know what it’s like to be a parrot, anymore than we know what it’s like to be a bat , but still…There’s something tantalizingly familiar about the way in which Alex thinks, which is almost certainly a by-product of the complex social worlds of African Greys in the wild. As I’ve noted before , we can learn a lot about the evolution of intelligence by studying the avian cortex. Read the comments on this post…

Go here to see the original:
Parrots and Mirrors [The Frontal Cortex]