Thick Skin Pays Off in Leadership

December 1, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Women still dodge low balls in the public sphere . They are ready to brush off personal attacks to focus on what matters to them in politics or in the workplace. Whether we are talking about Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin, we all agree that thick skin pays off in leadership positions. The most humiliating moments for either one of these two candidates may have been when their personal lives were questioned: for Palin, needing to "prove" to the world that her youngest son was really hers and not her daughter’s (a lioness in defense of not one but two of her cubs) or putting up with the media’s criticisim of a woman not being able to be a good mother and an effective leader at the same time. While hers has been a recent bout with the sometimes heartless media, Clinton’s putting up with her husband’s infidelity disclosed to the world while in power has been public for years. After something as embarrassing as her marriage made public, I don’t believe there is anything that nominee for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, can’t face. These women have what it takes in a tough world: they have thick skin. Pros of having thick skin in the workplace: 1. Although most people like to be liked, others strive on getting things done regardless of whether they win the popularity contest or not. 2. Disregarding both hurtful and senseless criticisms will allow you to focus on the bottom line, the common goal, without being distracted by personal attacks. This does not mean that leaders don’t listen to others’ advice; it just means they should be able to filter personal attacks and dismiss them. 3. Inner strength shows itself not when the world is praising you but when others are critical. It is easy to feel powerful when everyone around you is smiling at you, but the criticisms truly show who your true friends and foes are. Some cons about having thick skin in the workplace: 1. Many see this inner feeling of self-assurance as outward arrogance, creating distance between the leader and his or her employees. 2. Because others may perceive this "arrogant" leader as cold, robotic, and manipulative, many will suggest that the leader does not care about or even understand them. 3. This strength may be perceived as unemotional in others, particularly if the leader is a woman. The gender expectation is that a woman leader is generally more dramatic or more emotion-driven. Food for thought: Do you have thick skin or are you a drama queen? What are the advantages you’ve observed in leaders with thick skin versus the prima donnas? When is it a good idea to have thick skin and when is it a good idea to speak up about unfair comments? Do you notice gender differences in the way men and women control their emotions in the workplace? © 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 the original post:
Thick Skin Pays Off in Leadership

Avatar of PsyBlog

by PsyBlog

Getting Big Projects Done: Balancing Task-Focus with Goal-Focus

November 28, 2008 in Blogs, PsyBlog by PsyBlog

Psychological research suggests success in big projects depends on shrewd shifts of focus between tasks and goals. Successfully completing large , complex projects can bring great commercial, scientific or artistic rewards. Unfortunately these types of projects, by their very nature, also provide endless opportunities to falter along the way. Early hiccups can send motivation into a tailspin, doubts cloud good judgement and the wood is lost for all the trees. There are so many reasons to jack it all in or do a bad job, and we need only choose one. That’s why any insight from psychology is welcome. Recent psychological research suggests one of the keys to getting big projects done is balancing up individual tasks against the grand vision. It’s all about knowing when to flip the frame of reference from looking closely at the details of individual components of a project, and when to look up and see the project’s grand sweep. Two new psychological studies published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggest how to divide our attention between task- and goal-focus. These techniques may help us avoid being put off by early failures, feel better about our progress and stay motivated to reach our ultimate goal. If you prefer to skip the experiments, go straight to how to balance task-focus with goal-focus . Coping with demotivating failures How we react to failure along the way is a clear predictor of ultimate success (or otherwise). That’s why Houser-Marko & Sheldon (2008) set up an experiment to see how people reacted to failure depending on whether they were thinking about the individual task or their overall goal. In the first experiment participants played a computer word game that assessed their verbal ability. They were initially told their primary goal was to get the best final grade in the game, and to do this they had to earn the most points for each individual task. After completing each task they were given feedback about how they were doing – except this feedback was completely fictional and was actually used to create four experimental conditions. Here’s what they were told: “You are on target to receive an A.” Participants told they are on route to a top grade in the game. “You are on target to receive a D.” Participants told they are on route to a poor grade. “For this block you are in the 87th percentile.” Participants think they’ve done well, but only on the specific task. “For this block you are in the 47th percentile.” Participants think they’ve done badly, but only on the specific task. The experimenters were interested in seeing how being in the different groups would affect a variety of factors: how good (or bad) they felt (what psychologists call positive and negative affect) and how they expected to do on the test as a whole. Specifically: how does perceived success or failure at achieving either overall goals or the specific tasks affect motivation? What they found was that being told they were doing badly made participants feel bad and lowered their motivation. No surprise there. But what they were really interested in was whether their level of focus – either on the individual task or the overall goal – affected their motivation. They found that it did: those told they were doing badly but only on the specific task didn’t feel as bad, and didn’t expect to do so badly in the future, as those who were focusing on their primary goal. So it seems that when doing badly on a task it’s better to keep focusing on the individual task rather than start contemplating the ultimate goal. Real-world motivation This is a nice finding in the lab but Houser-Marko & Sheldon (2008) wanted to see if the effect could be observed in the real world. So they set up a similar experiment but this time participants were set real-world goals. As they were students, participants were given the primary goal of achieving a particular class grade. Then they were asked to set themselves a certain number of hours to study each week in order to achieve this goal. The two groups were created by asking one group to evaluate their progress by focusing on their individual tasks, the number of hours they studied each week, and the other group on the primary goal, of obtaining a particular grade. The real-world results backed up the lab work. Just as before those doing badly and focusing on their overall target grade tended to experience more negative emotion and thought that their actual performance was worse. In contrast those doing badly but focusing on their individual study hours experienced less negative emotion and thought their performance was better. Eyes on the prize This suggests more positive emotions and higher motivation are a result of staying focused on low-level tasks, rather than the ultimate goal. But there are two reasons goals can’t be forgotten. Firstly in the real-world experiment when participants, rather than failing, had been successful in their tasks, they were better off to focus on their ultimate goal. Then they experienced more positive emotion and felt they were doing better. The second reason we can’t forget goals is demonstrated in a recent study I covered on how to improve self-control . This showed that using abstract reasoning and high-level categorisation helps improve commitment to the task at hand. In that experiment participants who focused on ends rather than means stuck to their task for longer. At first glance these results seem to conflict: one says keep your eyes on the prize while the other says stay task-focused. Which one is right? Actually they’re not as contradictory as they first appear, it all depends on the context. In the current experiment participants were engaged in evaluating their progress and in this case a task focus was useful, especially when the task was hard and they were likely to fail. But when actually engaged in the task itself, the self-control experiment suggests it is better for motivation to keep the ultimate goal in mind. How to balance task-focus with goal-focus Here’s what the research means in practical terms: To stick to a task, while carrying it out , keep the ultimate goal in mind. Self-control is increased by global processing, abstract thinking and high-level categorisation. Taking the first step on the long road to your goal may require a greater focus on the destination. When evaluating progress on hard tasks when the chance of failure is high, stay task-focused. At the start of your journey, when evaluating progress , it’s often better to focus on the individual steps. Comparing recent failure with the ultimate goal destroys motivation – instead narrow focus to succeeding on the individual task. Once tasks are easier or the end is in sight, a goal focus is once again the psychological approach to choose. It increases positive emotion, decreases negative emotion and increases perceived performance. Think of it like a 100 hundred metres runner. Moments before the race they look off into the distance, in the general direction of the finish line. Moments after the starting gun fires they stare down at the ground and their feet. Smoothly the head comes up, then, towards the end of the race, they have just one focus: the line. Only most projects take a little longer than 9.69 seconds. [Image credit: margolove ]

See the rest here: 
Getting Big Projects Done: Balancing Task-Focus with Goal-Focus

Celebrity obsession reduces fear of death.

November 3, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Can reading Perez Hilton  reduce fear of death? Recent research ( reported in PT ) suggests that we identify with celebrities to boost a sense of our own immortality. The demi-gods: They’re just like us! According to " terror management theory ," much of our anxieties and motivations emerge from an existential terror of the nothingness that comes after death. Dozens of studies show that activating thoughts of death (increasing "mortality salience"), even subconsciously, leads us to grasp for meaning and structure in the world by, say, identifying with and endorsing authorities or social groups or cultural mores that will survive our own demise. Because then a part of our essential self–our beliefs and values–will carry on in some form outside our worm-baiting bodies. Pelin Kesebir and Chi-Yue Chiu at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who presented their research at the 2008 meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, found that after people thought about their own deaths, their estimates of how long various living and dead celebrities would be remembered increased. And the magnitude of the increase for each famous person was related to how representative of American values people considered them. If you’re preoccupied with leaving your mark on the world, and someone famous embodies your beliefs, you peg your legacy on his or her legacy. In another study, people thought a plane was less likely to crash when it carried a celeb who represented their cultural values. And the more iconic the person, the greater his protective force on the plane, even after controlling for how much the subjects liked or respected the person. We unintentionally convince ourselves that symbols of our identity approach immortality not just figuratively but literally. In a third study, also unpublished, subjects imagined an encounter with Oprah Winfrey (a figure Kesebir and Chiu dub "quisi-immortal") at a Chicago coffee shop. Those with death on the mind pictured the experience as being more pleasant than others did. Is celebrity obsession unhealthy? "We all need these buffers," Kesebir says. "Famous people can serve as inspirational figures. They can provide the kind of existential stamina. They can show that you yourself can become immortal. So they’re in a way what’s best about a culture. They can serve as compasses. I don’t think that’s unhealthy." Here are some of the data for the first study. It’s nice to know that people value MLK and JFK over Britney. But wow, apparently Joan Baez is almost as forgettable as Paris Hilton. Living famous people: Dead famous people:

Here is the original: 
Celebrity obsession reduces fear of death.

The 50-0-50 rule in action: Sociosexual orientation and risk of divorce

November 2, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Another personality trait on which genes exert a very strong influence, and the effect of the shared environment is essentially zero, is sociosexual orientation (whether you are sexually promiscuous or not) and, as a consequence, the risk of divorce. In an earlier post , I explain the 50-0-50 rule, the observation that, for many personality traits, roughly 50% of the variance between individuals is attributable to genes (heritability), roughly 0% of the variance is attributable to shared environment (parental socialization which affects all children in the family equally), and roughly 50% of the variance is attributable to nonshared environment (everything else that affects children from the same family differently, including the influences of peers). Evolutionary personality psychologists classify men and women on sociosexual orientation between the extremes of unrestricted and restricted .  Relative to sociosexually restricted individuals, sociosexually unrestricted individuals are more likely to:  1) engage in sex at an earlier point in their relationships; 2) engage in sex with more than one partner at a time; and 3) be involved in sexual relationships characterized by less investment, commitment, love, and dependency.  Sociosexual orientation (just like all other personality traits) is a relatively stable trait of individuals over the life course; in other words, people are either sociosexually restricted or unrestricted most of their lives.  While men in general are more unrestricted in sociosexual orientation than women, the variance within each sex is much greater than variance between the sexes. A study of a large sample of Australian twins conducted by the great behavior geneticist J. Michael Bailey and colleagues shows that sociosexual orientation is another personality trait that roughly follows the 50-0-50 rule.  Their behavior genetic analysis shows that 49% of sociosexual orientation is heritable (determined by genes), 2% is attributable to shared environment, and 47% to unshared environment.  (Bailey et al.’s model attributes the remaining 2% of the variance to the respondent’s age, so it appears that sociosexual orientation changes very slightly over the life course). As you can imagine, sociosexual orientation has a great impact on the risk of divorce.  Sociosexually unrestricted individuals are far more likely to experience divorce than sociosexually restricted individuals because they are more likely to engage in extramarital affairs.  As a result, the risk of divorce as an individual characteristic also follows the 50-0-50 rule.  It’s been known for a while that children of divorce face a greater likelihood of divorce themselves than children of intact marriages.  It appears that the most of the inheritance of divorce occurs through genetic transmission. A study of twins conducted by Victor Jockin, Matt McGue, and David T. Lykken shows that, among men, 59% of the individual differences in the risk of divorce is heritable, 0% of the variance is attributable to shared environment, and 41% is attributable to unshared environment.  Among women, 55% is heritable, 0% is due to shared environment, and 45% is due to unshared environment.  The genetic effect in their study is so strong that the risk of divorce of an identical (MZ) twin can be predicted equally well by his or her co-twin’s characteristics as by his or her own characteristics.  Another study by McGue and Lykken shows that the breakdown for the risk of divorce is 52-0-48 for men and 53-0-47 for women. Once again, it is remarkable how closely the breakdowns follow the 50-0-50 rule.  The close adherence to the rule is even more remarkable when you remember how different risk of divorce is from partisan attachment (how closely you identify with your political party).  Yet both as well as a wide array of other personality and individual traits follow the 50-0-50 rule of roughly half of their variance attributable to genes, none of their variance to shared environment of parental socialization, and the remaining half to unshared environment of experiences outside the home.  Parenting has virtually no intended effect on any of them.

Original post: 
The 50-0-50 rule in action: Sociosexual orientation and risk of divorce

Avatar of Psychology Today

by Vaughan

Encephalon 57 on Mind Hacks

October 27, 2008 in Blogs, Mind Hacks by Vaughan

Welcome to the 57th edition of the Encephalon psychology and neuroscience writing carnival, where we have the honour of hosting the best in the last fortnight’s mind and brain writing, here on Mind Hacks. We start off with two great interviews. The first is a video interview with pioneering neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinás, known for his radical ideas on consciousness, picked up by Channel N . One of the great names in cognitive science makes an appearance on Sharp Brains as Michael Posner is the subject of a recent interview . One of Posner’s great achievements, along with Marcus Raichle was to invent the subtraction method for the analysis of brain imaging data to allow us to make inferences about how the mind is working. The Neurocritic has an excellent piece on some of the state-of-the-art work which is attempting to advance this technology, almost 30 years after the original breakthrough, by looking at links between electrical activity in the cortex and spontaneous fluctuations in signals from fMRI scanner. Also on a neuroimaging tip, Pure Pedantry covers a recent study on the neuroscience of hypothesis generation , or how we think up possible explanations to explain causality in our booming, buzzing confusion of a world. The masters of making sense of out of confusion are, of course, children, and a couple of great articles look at some of the latest research showing how the developing brain seems to work its magic. Looking at the remarkable development of language, the consistently excellent Cognitive Daily discuss a child’s use of gesture to communicate and whether it slows language learning. Songs from the Wood has a great piece on infantile amnesia – that curiosity of development where we typically cannot remember anything that happened before the age of 3-4 years. But if you want to learn more about what makes memories stick, Physiology Physics looks at long-term potentiation – one of the most important neuroscience discoveries in the last fifty years and one of the cornerstones of remembering. If you’re interested in where all this childhood experience ends up, one destination is our personality or personal style of interacting with each other and the world. The Mouse Trap looks at some of the most influential of these theories in three great posts that discuss character traits, emotional maturity and emotional intelligence. Obviously, if you’ve been reading the same dodgy research that Dr Shock has, you’ll know that one part of emotional maturity is saying no to computer games because THEY BURN YOUR SOUL. Or, maybe they don’t and the researchers are trying to spin a positive result into a negative one to get their unsupported point across. Ah, the joys of science. Entering more unusual territories, Brain Blogger has a brief guide to the syndrome where people lose control of their hands after brain injury, carious known as anarchic or alien hand syndrome . PodBlack stays with the uncanny in a post about sex differences in superstitions and paranormal beliefs. It’s actually the last part of the four part series looking at superstitions and all are well worth a read. Equally mysterious and no less controversial is the placebo effect and Brain Health Hacks has an interesting piece on what the the science of placebo might tell us about the neuroscience of hope . I’m sure there’s an election joke in their somewhere but I’ll leave that as a exercise for the reader. Talking of culture in a more general sense, the newly launched Culture and Cognition blog has an interesting piece that discusses a recent Nature paper on culture and the brain and another on what can only be described as culture hacking . From culture hacking to baseball hacking as sports psychology blog 80 Percent Mental looks at the cognitive science of baseball including some illustrative videos and perfect timing for the World Series. From the best in baseball, to the best in online writing about Bipolar Disorder (calling Liz Spikol …) as PsychCentral ranks its Top 10 Bipolar Blogs for 2008. Keeping with the positivity, Brain Blogger looks at tetrabenazine, a drug which shows promise in treating Huntingdon’s disease. Finally, we finish with some articles about our animal friends. The always thought-provoking Neuroanthropology which provides two posts with video footage of cooperative hunting in chimpanzees. As they say – “The videos raise questions about our own animal nature, as well as what is the dividing line between our own minds and the minds of some of our closest relatives.” Obviously, none of those chimpanzees have robotic cyber-implants, unlike the monkey discussed in a Pure Pendantry piece on a recent Nature Neuroscience article. But it’s not just cyber-monkeys, it’s also radioactive mice! Neurotopia has the low-down on the effects of exercise on hippocampal cell proliferation in irradiated mice . I’m sure there’s a Marvel comic that starts like that but I dread to think which one. Along the same lines of a science-fiction plotline become reality, Neurophilosophy looks at recent research on how individual memories were erased in mice. And if your hero needs a daring getaway, there’s more from the same source on staggering escape mechanism of the crayfish.

Read the rest here:
Encephalon 57 on Mind Hacks

The Power to Be Vulnerable (Part 3 of 3)

October 17, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Self-Soothing: "The Best Person to Comfort Me Is . . . Me! " Self-validation is intimately tied to self-soothing. But whereas the former centers on reassuring ourselves intellectually–telling ourselves that we’re not unacceptable simply because we did something wrong (or were perceived this way)–the latter focuses more on calming ourselves emotionally–on being able, when we get upset, to comfort our mind, body and spirit. Here the encouraging message we give ourselves is that we have the resources to deal with whatever’s disturbing us. We needn’t be troubled by it, we’ll find a way to safely address it, it’ll all turn out okay. Feeling that we possess the emotional strength to quiet our temporarily jangled nerves, we don’t need to flee from the situation . . . or ourselves. And being able to confront our vulnerability and persuade ourselves that the circumstance is not as worrisome as it might feel, reduces our anxiety and restores in us a sense of control. When we offer ourselves succor, we’re not primarily concerned with how others might think of us. Self-soothing might even take the form of "going public" with our most vulnerable emotions. For instance, if we’re overcome with sadness and unapologetically release our tears in front of others–consciously venting deep feelings of disappointment or loss–we’re confirming that it’s okay to openly express vulnerable emotions. And what enables us to feel safe in such situations is that we’re not reactive to others’ judgment. Contrary to conventional opinion, it may well take more courage to cry in public (especially if we’re male) than to keep a stiff upper lip and self-protectively hide the sorrow we’re experiencing. Assuming we’re not simply overwhelmed by tears but have consciously permitted ourselves to vent our heavy-hearted emotions, we’re telling others that we’re at peace with our vulnerability, that we don’t have to camouflage it. Here, too, in not feeling compelled to conceal our emotional susceptibilities, we become not more vulnerable but (ironically) less so. Now that our behavior is no longer dictated by the possibly critical response of others, we can comfortably "expose" ourselves–transforming what once may have made us feel weak about ourselves into a self-proclaiming strength. By allowing ourselves to give vent to highly charged emotions, we’re conveying that we regard such emotions as legitimate and reasonable to express, even though we recognize that others might feel obliged to inhibit such expression. Our self-control here derives not from suppressing ourselves but having the confidence and self-assurance to divulge what we so keenly feel. Simply put, to avoid communicating these sorrowful emotions (or otherwise dissociate from them) would be to lack the courage of our emotional convictions. In this case we’d simply be capitulating to old "survival programs"–programs that compelled us as children to minimize or deny the expression of our most vulnerable feelings for fear of parental criticism. Self-soothing is a kind of loving self-embrace. When our nerves are frayed, it’s how we administer emotional first aid to ourselves. In circumstances that leave us feeling attacked or unwanted–or simply unsure of ourselves–we’re able to come to our own rescue. And although if we need to, we can self-soothe through tears, there are a multitude of other ways we can calm and comfort ourselves. As a caveat, it’s important to keep in mind that depending on others to soothe us can actually increase feelings of vulnerability. That said, however, some of the ways we can reassure ourselves do involve others. To offer a few examples, when we’re upset, we can think about–or actually contact–someone whom we’re confident really cares about us. Or we can turn our attention away from ourselves, and in comforting someone else (perhaps through volunteer work) paradoxically experience ourselves as comforted too. After all, our sense of self-worth almost always benefits from experiencing ourselves as valued by others. And–on a non-human level–we can always pet, or talk to, our dog or cat (whose immediate positive response is virtually guaranteed!). A bit more self-indulgently, we can soothe both body and mind by arranging for a relaxing massage. Alone, we can self-soothe by journaling about what’s troubling us. In giving full vent to our negative feelings we can begin to mollify them. Or we can employ one of dozens of ways to relax ourselves–whether through deep breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, yoga, meditation, visualization, guided imagery, or self-hypnosis. We can take a walk in nature (and let ourselves absorb all its peace, beauty and harmony). Whether it be the rustling of leaves in the wind, the dynamic sound of the surf, or the musical balm of songbirds, we can get back some of the tranquility we may have lost. We can nurture ourselves with a long, warm shower or bubble bath. We can listen to soothing music. We can even engage in some form of exercise, which simultaneously can relax our muscles and quiet our restless mind. But more than anything else, we can talk ourselves into a calmer state by remembering that we’ve survived situations like this before–that finally it’s not such a big deal. Being kind, gentle and understanding with ourselves, we can supply the support and reassurance needed to restore our emotional balance. We can review what left us agitated and try to appreciate it (and ourselves) with more detachment, even humor–a humor that can enable us to grasp the whole situation more realistically and move from a narrowly egocentric to a more philosophical perspective. Or we might simply go outdoors and look at the sun, or stars–again, in the attempt to re-assess our upset feelings in a far broader context, to realize how easy it is for us to magnify what, at last, is hardly catastrophic. Finally, there’s a whole miscellany of things we can do to help ourselves feel better about whatever may have yanked our emotional chain. We can do something imaginative or creative-whether in art, music or make-believe. We can daydream. We can read something that entertains or inspires us. We can run an errand or do a task that we find pleasant, maybe even pleasurable. We can offer ourselves some sort of treat (hopefully, a healthy one!). We can pick flowers, or buy them. We can burn incense. We can walk barefoot on grass, earth or sand. We can release our internal tensions through dance or song (maybe even accompanying ourselves with a musical instrument). We can watch or play with a child. In any number of ways, we can reconnect with our less serious and more sensuous, spontaneous, fun-loving side.   Ultimately, if feeling vulnerable is about feeling threatened, rejected, powerless, out of control, or unloved, we can learn how to confront these distressing experiences more comfortably. By coming to deeply believe in ourselves (warts and all), we no longer need to depend on anyone else to make us feel okay. Unconditionally self-accepting , we can validate our behaviors and soothe our feelings all by ourselves. Perhaps more than anything else, this is what becoming a fully functioning adult is all about. Unquestionably, it’s the essence of true personal power.   Note: Part 1 of this post focused on our tendency to  deny our vulnerability, wheras Part 2 centered on ways that we can become more self-validating.

Originally posted here:
The Power to Be Vulnerable (Part 3 of 3)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Freedom

October 17, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

For the October 2008 issue of Psychology Today, I had the pleasure of interviewing Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the world’s preeminent Muslim anti-Islamist.  Born into a strict Muslim tribe in Somalia, Ayaan Hirsi Ali fled to the Netherlands to avoid a forced marriage and was eventually elected to parliament. After she made a film condemning Islamic radicalism, her coproducer Theo Van Gogh was murdered—and the killer left a note on the body warning Ali she was next. She now lives in hiding, but remains a major critic of radical Islam. During the course of the interview, we discussed her feminism, her loss of faith in Islam after 9/11, and the murder of her friend Theo Van Gogh. She also spoke candidly about survivor’s guilt, what it’s like to live in hiding, and how it feels to be hated. Below is a more complete version of the interview that appears in the magazine . —Jay Dixit The Interview How did your traumatic early experiences affect how you look at the world? I had no idea they were traumatic. Everyone around me was circumcised. We were all beaten. Arranged forced marriage is the Somali tribal culture and tradition. I knew no better. I had not acquired the ability to stand outside the community and judge the community and my place within it. Like everyone else within a group culture, I just did what comes automatically, which is just to survive. How does it feel to go from that to having so much more freedom now? When I first came to the Netherlands, once a month you have to write down how much you spend on what, what is my income. The assumption is that you’re going to have an income every month over and over again! And that you save and you get insurance, and you think of your life 10, 20, 30 years ahead. People from the third world, we just live with the day, in the present. So I find living in freedom becomes very challenging, to map out a life of what do I want to do, when, how. In a way, it’s easier if you’re just told what to do. When I was growing up, no one ever expected me to get an income and divide it up in pieces. You are not consulted as to whom you want to marry. You’re handed over to your husband, and he tells you what to do. Now I have to decide everything myself. I have to make my own choices. This is why when some of the Muslim women send me letters they say life in America or Europe is much more difficult than when they were with their family. And I understand why—because when you are in a constrained situation, you think, "If only I could get out." You don’t think about once you get out what you’re going to do, and how you’re going to cope. When my sister came to Netherlands and there was nothing to rebel against, she cracked. She couldn’t deal with the situation of freedom. How does it feel to live in hiding? For people from a clan society, survival as a way of life comes naturally. When it gets predictable, that’s when questions pop up, like how do I do this, where do I start? I’ve learned to suppress my emotions.   Are you afraid for your life? Yes. But it’s getting less and less. If I give into the fear, then they get what they want, which is to frighten in you into not speaking out, into keeping quiet. Who were your female role models? When we were kids in Kenya, there was literature we had to read: George Orwell, Jane Eyre, Jane Austen. Then there were the fun books kids exchanged. Nancy Drew was one of them. They were my first sense of individualization. And believe it or not, my grandmother. Believe it or not, my mother, in a way—by watching her live her life, the choices she didn’t make. I don’t want to be in a position as helpless as she was. A kind of reverse hero. How have your feelings about an appropriate role for a woman changed? I was brought up to believe that the role of a woman is exclusively that of wife and mother and the years before, you’re only groomed to get to that point. I started to put question marks on that as I become a teenager. I could observe my mother’s life, I could see the other young girls of my age who were married off and the way they lived. It seemed to me very sad and full of despair. They were dependent for life. My view of that changed as I grew up, and very much when I came to the Netherlands. A life of one’s own choice is the best approach. You went from being a Muslim to being an anti-Islamist. What was it like to change so drastically? It was thrilling and frightening and exhilarating, and every time, I have to pinch myself to think this is not all a dream and it’s really true and it’s all possible. It also came at a high cost. I wouldn’t change anything—except the death of Theo van Gogh. Do you have survivor’s guilt about that? Yeah. Every time I think about it. I knew and Theo knew it, and the people at the production company, we all knew it was tense and there was an abstract threat. We just didn’t know exactly what it was going to look like. I regret that we underestimated that it would come in the form of a young Muslim fanatic. None of us could believe that such a thing could happen. Is it easier to bear now that several years have elapsed? Really it just won’t go away. It affects everything I do. Did you think that your personality changed, or just your views? I’ve become more patient, I’ve become more accepting that some things just won’t change. That’s not because people are Muslims but because people are human beings. What surprises people most about you? People come to me and say, you are very different from the fire-spewing feminist we expected. They describe me as soft-spoken and hesitant. After 9/11, you lost your faith in Islam. What was going through your mind? I was shocked into it. I watched the planes and what happened. For me the personal implication was this was done in the name of Islam. It wasn’t something I could forget or push to the back of my mind and get on with my life. In the West we like to believe female genital mutilation and honor killings are being done to women by men. But it’s women who pass down these traditions. In the tribal Islamic order, everyone is caught in the system. Even though my father prohibited my mother from circumcising us, it was my grandmother who did it behind his back, because from her perspective, the idea of her granddaughters remaining unmarried or being ridiculed as filthy and impure was more unbearable than the pain she inflicted on us. What does it feel like to be hated? That’s awful. In a way that’s even worse than the death threats. Some people just hate me because someone has told them I say about the prophet this and about the Qu’ran that. The man who killed Theo van Gogh did not know him, had never interacted with him and never met him. What’s your advice to young women about how to go after what they want in life? In the West the law is such that you can’t be forced into marriage, you can’t be forced into something you don’t want to, at least the authorities will protect you. A life of freedom is in a way more difficult than when choices are made for you. But at least it’s your own freedom and when you do things good you feel proud and grateful and when you make mistakes you have the dignity of learning from those mistakes yourself.

More here:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Freedom

The power of yard signs II: Escalation of commitment

October 12, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

During the primary elections in the Spring, a friend of mine was walking around the neighborhood asking people to put a yard sign on their lawn in support of his favored candidate. By the end of the week, most of the neighborhood was dotted with yard signs. He was doing this 7 or 8 months before the general election. Why? Yard signs are good advertising, of course. If a candidates name is all over the place, then it can increase people’s sense of the popularity of that candidate. It is a standard concept in advertising that reach and frequency increase people’s awareness of a candidate (or brand of products for that matter). But, putting up a yard sign can have an affect on the person who puts out the yard sign as well. In particular, getting someone to put up a yard sign may solidify their commitment to a particular candidate. This process is called escalation of commitment . Classic psychological studies have demonstrated that if you ask people to perform a simple task that they are unlikely to refuse, you can increase their chance of agreeing to a related task that requires a higher investment of time or money later. For example, asking a store owner to put a sign in a window to advertise an upcoming charity auction will increase the chances that they will later agree to donate something to that auction. Asking a patron of a museum to wear a button declaring their support for the museum will increase the likelihood that they will later give a donation to the museum. Those people who put up a yard sign are starting on the road of an escalation of commitment. By putting up the sign, the person is showing a public commitment to a candidate. The candidate is now part of that person’s ingroup. So, this person is likely to interpret this candidate’s actions favorably over the course of the campaign. This person is now more likely to talk about the candidate in conversations. Elections are long processes, and people may change their minds about candidates over time. Starting with this initial commitment of a yard sign makes a person less likely to change their mind about this candidate later. This individual might even be more likely to make donations to that candidate later. So, the power of yard signs goes beyond the impact that the sign may have on others. The act of putting a sign on your yard will increase your own commitment to the candidate or cause that you are advertising.

The rest is here: 
The power of yard signs II: Escalation of commitment

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

John McCain, risk, and anger

September 29, 2008 in Blogs, Cognitive Daily by Cognitive Daily

Thomas Levenson has written an interesting post about John McCain and his fascination with high-stakes gambling. While it’s clear that his gambling habit isn’t going to put McCain in any serious financial danger, it does raise questions about his personality. One of the most difficult things voters try to do in an election is to predict the candidate’s future behavior. We know what the candidates have done in the past, but how they’ll respond in future crises is what will matter most if they are elected. If a new crisis emerges, will the new president take risks, or play it safe? One test psychologists have used to understand risk-taking behavior is the “Asian disease problem.” Imagine that a disease originating in Asia has been transported to the U.S. and is expected to cause 600 deaths. The president has to decide between two possible approaches to the problem. Which should he choose? Let’s use a poll to collect responses (make sure you respond before you read any further!): If a disease was coming to the US, and 600 people were expected to die, what should the President do? ( polls ) Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Excerpt from: 
John McCain, risk, and anger