Are toddlers incapable of learning from TV? [Cognitive Daily]

January 21, 2009 in Blogs, Brain & Behaviour by BrainAndBehaviour

There’s lots of evidence that most TV isn’t beneficial to toddlers, and it may even be harmful . But can’t kids learn from TV too? Isn’t that supposed to be what shows like Teletubbies, Barney, and Sesame street are all about? For older children, three and above, it does seem to be true that some learning can occur, but for two-year-olds and younger, the evidence tells a different story. Few studies have shown any evidence that two-year-olds can learn from TV anywhere near as well as they learn from real-world experiences. While they clearly can distinguish between nonsense programming and real shows, they don’t do much at all with the information presented in the shows. One study found they can’t imitate actions shown on TV as well as live actions, and another showed they don’t learn labels for objects from TV shows. Perhaps most intriguing are two studies, one by G.L. Troseth and J.S. DeLoache, and another by K.L. Schmitt and Daniel Anderson. In these experiments, two-year-olds were shown videos of experimenters hiding objects in a room. Then the toddlers were allowed into the room and told to find the object. Accuracy ranged from 44 percent to 25 percent, despite the fact that there were only from four to six possible hiding places in the room. Their performance was no better than if they had simply searched the room at random, with no video to help them. Many toddlers did seem to look in the right spot after watching the first video, but if the task was repeated with a different hiding place, they simply returned to the original spot, ignoring the new video evidence. Do toddlers just have difficulty translating from a small screen to full-sized reality? When Jim and Nora were toddlers, they loved Barney the Dinosaur, but cowered in fear when they saw a life-sized human in a Barney suit. Or maybe toddlers struggle with converting a two-dimensional television image into a three-dimensional physical space. Or perhaps they believe that the things on the TV inhabit their own tiny world inside the box, unrelated to the larger, outside world. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

Original post:
Are toddlers incapable of learning from TV? [Cognitive Daily]

A recipe for happiness or procrastination?

January 19, 2009 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

A  story today in the New Zealand Herald reports that the CALM (Computer Assisted Learning Method) Web site allows students to download audio files that provide information about long-lasting happiness – ways to harness mental resilience, healthy relationships and finding meaning in life. Do these downloads have a downside? Even this short news story indicates that they might. Based on positive psychology, Dr. Tony Fernando ( Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Auckland ) originally designed the Web site for medical students. As William Liando quoted Dr. Fernando in today’s New Zealand Herald, "A lot of them are incredibly smart and gifted young people, but what they often don’t know is there’s a very high level of stress [in their academic life]." Dr. Fernando wanted to help by providing resources for students to cope with this stress. The content of the Web site is certainly based on what recent research tells us about happiness (e.g., it’s not what we own that makes us happy), and it’s not my purpose today to comment on the Web site per se. What caught my attention in this brief news report was a concluding quote of a student user. Liando writes, "Third-year medical student Phillip Chao is a convert and told the Herald the site helped him most before and during exam time. ‘Instead of listening to music or doing other things when I feel like I’ve had enough of studying, I can go to the CALM website and listen to a few meditation sessions.’ However, the 19-year-old, who downloads the audio files to his iPod for convenience, warned it could also be a tool of procrastination. He said he occasionally used his time on the website to stay away from his books " (emphasis added). Ah, the irony of seeking happiness on the Internet, the procrastination superhighway. Although there is much to be gained, potentially, in taking the time to learn about ways to harness mental resilience, healthy relationships and finding meaning in life, to the extent that this pursuit derails the successful pursuit of our personal projects – in this case Phillip’s medical studies – we really may undermine our happiness. How so? Other research has also demonstrated that the successful pursuit of our goals is a route to happiness (see Goal Progress and Happiness and Getting off to a good start: An upward spiral of happiness ). Procrastination on the other hand is associated with negative emotions, particularly guilt . Avoiding the online procrastination trap Monitor your time on line. Most of us make rational decisions (e.g., it will only take a minute to download that file to my iPod) over irrationally short periods of time (i.e., a minute later, we face the same decision). Without realizing it, hours can slip by as we take the same rational decision – " it will only take a minute "  – one minute at a time. Consider doing the following: Put a clock somewhere prominent to make time salient to you. Set a time limit on your Internet browsing and stick to it. Acknowledge that you are actually taking a break from the task at hand, so that you’re honest with yourself that you’re not really on task anymore even though you’re still at your desk. As Neil Postman has argued so well in books such as Technopoly and Amusing Ourselves to Death , technology is a "double-edged" sword. It takes thought and strategies to use it wisely, even in the pursuit of happiness. © 2009 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.

View original post here: 
A recipe for happiness or procrastination?

Lies Addiction Experts Tell, #1 — addiction is an equal-opportunity despoiler

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

A famous poster released by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism depicts a range of people from every kind of background and claims that each represents the "typical alcoholic." The point: there is no typical alcoholic and, by extension, everyone is equally susceptible to alcoholism and addiction. Unfortunately, the science of epidemiology knocks this idea for a loop. But we don’t need epidemiology to tell us what everyone already knows.  Do you believe that Native Americans living in poverty are no more likely to become alcoholic than doctors? Really? Have I got a bridge to sell you – or else, you can become an addiction and alcoholism expert.  These worthies tell us that, since addiction is a disease, it can just as readily befall people in any social situation. In fact, the reliable ways social factors predict addiction and substance abuse prove addiction is not a disease. "Well," you say, "there are more drugs in poor neighborhoods, and that’s why there is more addiction in these places." Really? Have I got a National Survey on Drug Use and Health for you. The better-educated you are and the higher your socioeconomic status, the more likely you are to drink, but the less likely you are to drink unhealthily. And kids from better-off economic backgrounds are at least as likely to use drugs as kids in poor neighborhoods. People with more control of their lives don’t avoid substances – they control their substance use. It really is Psych 101. Yes, successful, smart people succumb to addictions. And don’t we love to read about them! They prove that "perfect" people are not perfect. But, more often than not, being raised under comfortable economic conditions, growing up in an in-tact non-violent family, doing well in school, living in a good neighborhood, not having a major emotional issue – you’re unlikely to be sidetracked by substance abuse and addiction. And the opposites of all of these characteristics are risk factors for addiction. As I point out in Addiction-Proof Your Child , everyone in school knows who the high-risk children are – that’s why they’re called "high risk" – the ones who don’t fit in, who have troubled home lives and their own emotional problems, who get poor grades and don’t participate in school activities, and who early on get in trouble with authorities. "Now, wait a second," you say – "that sounds like me as a kid, and I turned out fine." Really? You had a bad economic and family situation, poor study habits, frequent emotional distress, no constructive interests? This last distinguishes many who fall outside the high-risk pale. If you had a strong motivation to pursue something as a kid, you were the opposite of high risk.  This is why any good school administration will encourage whatever positive predilections kids exhibit, even if they’re not the kind that lead to careers in medicine, law, or nuclear physics. You only need one strong set of skills and interests to build a life. But even if you don’t translate a childhood interest into a career, it teaches you to focus and to marshal your resources in ways that provide lifelong lessons, values, and skills. Why do addiction experts love to tell us the opposite of what every school teacher – every sensible person – knows is true? We’ve already seen that they want to sell us a bill of goods. But the delusion that addiction is unrelated to an individual’s social and personal resources is critical because it causes us to misallocate our resources in worrisome ways. For example, United States government agencies are now honeycombed with addiction prevention and treatment programs. Who would vote against more addiction programs? But these programs and expenditures come at the cost of downplaying fundamental job training, housing support, education, skills training etc. – programs which address the foundation for non-addicted lives. We are actually systematically undermining the basis for preventing addiction in our society with our focus on addiction! I know what you’re thinking – I must have been one of those high-risk children who didn’t get along in school. Ask me one night when you catch me in a bar, and I’ll tell you all about it. © 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 more here:
Lies Addiction Experts Tell, #1 — addiction is an equal-opportunity despoiler

Happiness Outliers

December 28, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Like many of you, I have recently read Malcolm Gladwell’s new book Outliers, which presents his perspective on success and the people who achieve it. Like his previous books, Outliers is well-written and provocative. We should all pause for a positive psychology moment and be grateful that such a talented writer is among us. Gladwell’s concern is with celebrated accomplishment like that attained by John D. Rockefeller, the Beatles, and Bill Gates. Prodigious achievement is an often over-looked member of the positive psychology family. Getting much more positive psychology attention are the warm and fuzzy family members, the ones we want to hug because they hug back: happiness, hope, kindness, and love. In contrast, accomplishment is elite and exclusive and for many of us not nearly so embraceable. Nonetheless, accomplishment matters mightily and obviously contributes to the life worth living. The arguments advanced in Outliers square with the research as I know it. First, prodigious achievement does not simply happen because of an individual’s genius. Talent matters but is not sufficient. Rather, achievement results from the alignment of all sorts of factors external to the individual: being born in the right time and place, having access to appropriate resources, and receiving instruction and encouragement. No one does it alone. There are no self-made men or women. Rugged individualism is ruggedly wrong. Second, before success is achieved, someone needs to put in years of work perfecting a craft, whatever it may be. Gladwell suggests 10,000 hours as the minimum commitment, and this may be an underestimate. Psychologists who study achievement talk about the 10-Year Rule, meaning that people who make important contributions to a particular field have usually devoted a full decade to the mastery of necessary knowledge and skills. Psychologists also talk about the 12-Seven Rule, meaning that this decade needs to be filled with 12-hour work days, seven days a week. Sound daunting? Of course, but American Idol notwithstanding, there are no shortcuts to excellence. This conclusion may not be what many young people want to hear. I sat on a train the other day next to a young woman. We talked about her career aspirations, and I gently mentioned the 10-Year Rule. She kept changing the topic to "positive imaging" as a better principle to follow. I persisted because it is irresponsible for those of us who know better to let our children think that success comes easy or overnight, that it is just a matter of finding one’s passions and interests, printing business cards, starting websites, or – heaven forbid – simply wishing and hoping for success. Third, Gladwell stresses the role of legacy in achievement, by which he means the affordances of the cultural group into which one is born. In given times and places, legacy makes achievement in a particular domain easier. For example, Gladwell discusses Jewish lawyers from a generation past who were not hired by elite (i.e., WASP-y) law firms and thus had to start their own firms. These elite law firms also did not handle certain sorts of cases – like the occasional corporate takeover – which necessarily fell into the laps of the "other" law firms. As business and legal landscapes changed to make corporate takeovers more common and exceedingly lucrative, it is not surprising who flourished. In closing, I would like to suggest that the ideas in Outliers may apply to another sort of achievement: happiness. Here I mean more than somewhat above-the-scale midpoint life satisfaction. I mean prodigious happiness, not extraverted mania but a life that entails walking on sunshine, one that makes onlookers shake their head and say wow. Each of us probably knows a few people who are happy in this prodigious way. Were they simply born that way? Would they be happy in any and all circumstances? Extrapolating from Gladwell’s book, I say no. A cheerful temperament and secure attachment may set the stage, but a happiness outlier, no less than an achievement outlier, further represents a perfect storm of enabling factors, many external to the person, as well as the absence of disabling factors. This sounds fatalistic and probably not the starting point for a self-help book. But remember the role played by sustained practice in the lives of achievement outliers. There are things we can do to be happier, but these probably take many years to perfect. Research suggests that happiness and life satisfaction do not increase with age. If we take these data at face value, they mean either that people are not trying to be happier or – more likely – that they do not know how to do so. Perhaps this can be a long-term contribution of positive psychology. However, positive psychologists need to do more than provide a reasonable formula. We also need to provide the warning label: This will take a really long time! Can we speak about a happiness legacy? Gladwell’s discussion of legacy is the most interesting part of his book but also the most tenuous. "Culture" is a sprawling term, and in focusing on one aspect of culture to explain achievement, he necessarily ignores all of the others that may also be crucial. So, he attributes the mathematical accomplishments of East Asian school children to the fact that China, Japan, and Korea are rice-based economies. It takes a lot of hard work to grow rice, a cultural lesson presumably carried into the classroom even if a student is not the child or grandchild of rice farmers. True. But there are other features of East Asian cultures that might also matter. Gladwell mentions some of these – e.g., "number" names in East Asian languages are short and consistent. He does not mention the possibilities that the written languages of China, Japan, and (until 1446) Korea engage different parts of the brain than the Western alphabet. He does not mention Confucianism, which has infused East Asia for centuries and not only extols hard work but also places the teacher at the top of the respect pyramid. But I digress. What does a happiness legacy look like? It would be a culture that stresses the sorts of things that lead to a good and satisfied life: family, friends, community, freedom, tolerance, engagement, meaning, and purpose (see my earlier blog entry Book Review: The Geography of Bliss) . It would likely not be a culture that stresses hedonism, materialism, or ruthless competition. It would certainly not be one that tolerates or rewards meanness (see my earlier blog entry Positive Psychology and Assholes). It might even be one in which there were no Wednesdays (see my earlier blog entry Happy Days and Happy Times). That said, I suspect that happiness legacies can be more local. Indeed, to paraphrase Tip O’Neill, perhaps all happiness legacies are local. What is encouraging is that local cultures can be changed. Gladwell provides several intriguing examples of legacy change. He describes how South Korean airlines, once quite dangerous because of culturally-mandated deference that led co-pilots never to challenge pilots, even as their planes flew dangerously off course, became much safer by mandating the use of English – and all the bluntness that entailed – in the cockpits. Gladwell describes how the acclaimed KIPP schools have changed the cultural legacy of their students. As I see it, the KIPP schools in effect have created East Asian classrooms in the inner cities of the United States. Wow. How can we create a cultural legacy of happiness? If you have read any of my other blog entries, you know my answer: Let other people matter. And that means moving beyond the slogan and working diligently over the years to make it so.   © 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.

More here: 
Happiness Outliers

The Dance of Experience and Time

December 21, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Before Scott, my beloved husband, fell from a sleeping loft, sustaining the devastating traumatic brain injury that transformed our lives, I divided experience into two distinct kinds, both of which any satisfying life depends upon. The first consists of those pleasurable transitory experiences, often sensual–like eating, sex, art–that quickly vanish. The second is the kind of stable, future-oriented experience you build upon–work accomplished, knowledge accumulated, habit inculcated, skills expanded, resources conserved. But at some point in a long life the future begins to seem increasingly illusory, or at least a bad bet. Keep accumulating knowledge, conserving your eyesight and your money–for what? At that point it may be time to forget about self-improvement and start to read only what grabs you; ignore the calories and pig out; stay up listening to music half the night; take in a movie in the afternoon. I had begun to brood on this dilemma back when we entered our seventies, wondering if the time hadn’t come to start rebalancing our accounts by turning our sights from the future to the present and ourselves from ants to grasshoppers, who–face it–probably have more fun. As addicted as ever to hope, which always faces forward, and with no diminishment in energy despite my age, I knew it might take considerable effort to pull off such a change, but I was ready to give it a try. Then, with Scott’s accident (as I recount in my memoir TO LOVE WHAT IS), the longstanding relationship between present and future in our lives abruptly collapsed. Whereas I, fixated on healing him, examined minutely everything he said or did for its bearing on his eventual recovery, he, whose disability left him ignorant of the day, the month, the season, the year, and unable to remember the previous moment or think ahead to the next one, could conceive of nothing but the immediate present. Which meant that the kind of experience he had spent his life accumulating in order to expand his capacities became impossible for him, just as abandoning myself to the pleasures of the moment became impossible for me. Dancing, for example, which I’d always done for the sheer instantaneous joy of it, became for me primarily a means of exercising his muscles to build up his strength. Instead of each of us partaking of both kinds of experience, as we always had, after Scott’s brain injury I found we had no choice but to divide the two kinds between us, forcing me to abandon any carefree sense of time and forcing us both to inhabit disparate time frames. With his short-term memory completely shot, he dwelt in the present moment, while I, focused on the prospect that my efforts would heal him, found myself living in and for the future. Which meant that from the time of his accident on, we were permanently out of sync, except on those rare occasions when we came together to rendezvous in our common long-term past. © 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 Dance of Experience and Time

The 7 hardest addictions to quit

December 15, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Here are – in reverse order of difficulty – the seven addictions people find hardest to quit. 7. Cocaine . Cocaine is an episodic-use drug. It is one moreover associated with certain lifestyles – at one time (if not now) people in the financial industry and entertainment fields – and more often younger people. Studying long-term users of cocaine, Ronald Siegel found most moderated, controlled, or quit their use over time. Patricia Erickson and Bruce Alexander surveyed the research and found that fewer than 10 percent of cocaine addicts continued their addictions for substantial periods. After cocaine use peaked in the 1980s, most middle-class users quit (although use in inner cities continued some time longer). Remarking on this phenomenon, David Musto concluded: "The question we must ask ourselves is not why people take drugs, but why do people stop." He surmised that people with fewer resources had less to counterbalance their addictions. 6. Alcohol . Alcohol is the addiction most written about, both in scientific literature and as recounted in personal memoirs. Alcoholics Anonymous members swear AA is the only way to recover; treatment experts claim alcoholism is inescapable without treatment. But epidemiological research does not find this is true. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism in 2005 published the results of its National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. NESARC conducted 43,000 face-to-face interviews with a sample of Americans about their lifetime alcohol and drug use. Among these, 4,422 were classifiable at some point in their lives as alcohol dependent (or alcoholic). Somewhat more than a quarter had received any kind of treatment (including in an emergency room, attending AA, etc.). Among the large majority who went untreated, fewer than a quarter drank alcoholically at the time of the interview. Most (about two-thirds) of this group continued drinking non-alcoholically. 5. Valium. In general, drugs used for pacifying purposes (which are usually depressants), taken regularly over long periods of time, are hard to quit. This holds for sedatives, sleeping pills, barbiturates, and tranquilizers. Several best-sellers have been written about the difficulty in quitting Valium (benzodiazepine tranquilizers): Barbara Gordon’s I’m Dancing as Fast as I Can and Betty Ford’s The Times of My Life . A prominent New York City newscaster, Jim Jensen, recounted in People how he readily quit cocaine but couldn’t get off Valium: "Valium withdrawal soon plunged him into a massive depression that left him unable to eat or sleep. It took two more months in two hospitals for him to regain his mental and physical health." Ah, but Americans love these drugs, need them to survive – although in good part they have been supplanted by antidepressants. 4. Heroin . Powerful analgesics, taken regularly, are difficult for many (but not most) people to quit. After all, most of us have had intravenous supplies of narcotics in the hospital, followed by prescriptions for powerful analgesics when we went home. What is remarkable is not so much that heroin can produce serious withdrawal for some, but how variable this syndrome is and how comparable it is to other depressant and painkiller drugs and analgesics (like Vicodin and OxyContin), which are the fastest growing drugs of abuse and today are taken by the majority of illicit narcotics users and overdose victims. So much has been written about heroin withdrawal, it is mainly worth noting that when people quit the drug with little difficulty (as the major league ballplayer Ron LeFlore did when he entered prison and took up baseball) it is simply considered impermissible to describe or portray this aspect of their stories. 3. Cigarettes . In ratings by cocaine and alcohol addicts, smoking is regularly cited as the more difficult drug to quit, generally on par with or more difficult than heroin. Nonetheless, more than 40 million living Americans have quit smoking. While impressive, this still only represents about half of all of those ever addicted to cigarettes – although a higher percentage of those in higher socioeconomic groups have quit. When I speak to recovering people at addiction conferences I ask, "What is the toughest drug to quit?" By acclimation, the audience shouts out, "cigarettes" or "smoking." I then ask, "How many people in this room have been addicted to cigarettes but are now off them?" Half to two-thirds – often hundreds of people – in the room raise their hands. "Wow," I enthuse. "And how many have used any kind of therapy – medical or a support group – to quit?" Never have more than a small handful done so. 2. Potato chips. I use potato chips, of course, to stand for all kinds of alluring but fattening foods. These comfort foods, which deprive more Americans of life years than any other substance, are inextricably integrated with our own lives, and with the lives of all Americans. Although overweight is disapproved and regularly lectured against, it still doesn’t have the stigma of drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes, so that hidden (and not so hidden) food addictions are more readily tolerated. That gastric bypass surgery is growing so rapidly shows that this is the addiction people find hardest to quit, even those for whom it causes serious, life-threatening health conditions. In fact, we will never resolve our massive food addictions in the United States, but we hope to come up with medical cures to prevent their negative effects, as if we would succeed by simply deciding to let smokers continue to smoke noncancerous cigarettes. 1. Love . Ah, love is the hardest addiction to quit. It certainly causes more murders and suicides than any other addiction. And if you think people miss smoking, consider what people are like when they break up with long-time lovers or get divorced – even when they hate their spouses! On the other hand, we read regularly about people who totally sacrificed their lives to a lover who betrayed them or otherwise destroyed their psyches, yet who still didn’t quit the relationship – what is the answer, after all, when an abuse victim is asked why they simply don’t leave an abusive spouse? "Because I love him, and can’t live without him." Don’t despair, however, no matter what your addiction is. The large majority of addicts give up every kind of addiction . So can you. That most people do it, one way or another, tells you that it lies within your power. Graphic, ADDICTION TO LOVE by B_neoZEN, at www.DEVIANTART.com © 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 from the original source:
The 7 hardest addictions to quit

No Respect

December 9, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Readers who follow my work will know that I am always on the lookout for signs of "what depression is to us" – evidence, in our daily discourse, of how we understand mood disorder informally. Asked directly, many people might say that depression is a mental illness and thus a disease . But in the sphere of more or less unexamined thought, depression is the Rodney Dangerfield of aliments. Yesterday’s New York Times contains a worrisome indicator, in the form of a letter to the editor. The author is commenting on an article that I discussed in this space last week, about the way that the British balance cost and benefit in assessing medical interventions. The correspondent says that at age 57 she is taking several drugs in the treatment of a high-stage colon cancer. Since the medications are expensive, she indicates, she might worry over whether she should instead conserve health care dollars for someone younger; but then she sees how pharmaceutical companies waste resources by advertising remedies for (presumably minor) ailments, "too much or too little . . . incontinence, tingling in legs, hair loss, sleep, sexual drive or depression." Now I am no fan of drug company advertising, and I see the optional nature of hair restoration. Impaired sex drive is demoralizing if you’re the sufferer — certainly we worry over it when antidepressants are the cause — but we may want to concede the letter-writer’s point. With incontinence we’re getting far into the realm of conventional medical concern. Still, what leaps out from that list is depression. How did mood disorder get to be a petty annoyance? Setting mental suffering and impairment aside (and why should we do that ?), have we lost sight of the many conditions for which depression is a risk factor or that depression complicates gravely: heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and arguably, yes, certain cancers? Surely these illnesses are not on the "trivial" list. Here, I am alluding to a small fragment of an argument I make at length elsewhere . Apropos, this week my younger son called me into his room to look at an on-line exercise from his high school Spanish IV textbook, Enfoques . On the computer screen was a vocabulary quiz in the form of multiple-choice questions. One went: which of these four does not belong? The choices were la depressión (depression), la gripe (flu), la enfermidad (Illness or disease), and la tos (cough). You can make a case for enfemidad , on the grounds that the other three are specific, while illness is general; perhaps you can make a case for tos , since cough is a symptom while the other words refer to disease. But according to the program, the odd term out is . . . you guessed it. "Dad," my son said, in that dry tone teenagers use with their clueless parents, "It’s not happening." © 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: 
No Respect

Some people are more distractible than others … sometimes, that is

November 3, 2008 in Blogs, Cognitive Daily by Cognitive Daily

Take a look at this quick movie. You’ll be shown a “ready” screen, followed by a quick flash of eight letters arranged in a circle. Your job is to spot either a “Z” or a “K” in that circle of letters, while ignoring other letters appearing outside of the circle. You’ll see two different circles of letters in the movie. Each circle will either contain a Z or a K. Again, ignore the letters appearing outside of the circle. Go ahead, give it a shot. Just watch the video once! What order did you see the Z and the K in? Let’s make this a poll. What letters did you see? ( surveys ) I don’t expect that we’ll uncover all the nuances of this phenomenon in such a short demonstration, but I think it’s quite probable that most viewers will have correctly identified the letter in the second circle, where the other letters were all “O”. That makes sense — there are fewer distractors, so the problem is easier. Sophie Forster and Nilli Lavie showed hundreds similar movies to 61 volunteers. As in our demonstration, there were two types of displays. Displays like the first one in our example, where the target letter was displayed next to many different, similarly shaped letters, are clearly more difficult. These are called “high load” displays because they require more perceptual resources to process. Displays like the second one in our demo are called “low load.” Again, as in our demo, viewers were looking for one of two possible letters. Read the rest of this post… | Read the comments on this post…

See the original post: 
Some people are more distractible than others … sometimes, that is

Avatar of BrainAndBehaviour

by Vaughan

I am a committee, chaired by a hedonist

October 25, 2008 in Blogs, Mind Hacks by Vaughan

Psychologist Paul Bloom has written a wonderfully eclectic article for The Atlantic magazine about the psychology of pleasure and why it suggests that we have multiple situation-specific selves. The piece is a little disjointed in places but it is packed full of information and if nothing else you get a good sense of the enthusiasm for this developing field. One area of pleasure research not mentioned in Bloom’s piece is the fascinating work of Michel Cabanac, who has a theory that pleasure is the decision-making currency of the brain. New Scientist had an excellent article on Cabanac’s work which you can read online, and makes an excellent complement to The Atlantic piece. However, Bloom is more concerned with how we resist the temptation of pleasure using ‘self-binding’ – in other words, doing things that will reduce the chances of us succumbing to temptation later on. Like getting someone to hide your cigarettes if you’re trying to give up. For adult humans, though, the problem is that the self you are trying to bind has resources of its own. Fighting your Bad Self is serious business; whole sections of bookstores are devoted to it. We bribe and threaten and cajole, just as if we were dealing with an addicted friend. Vague commitments like “I promise to drink only on special occasions” often fail, because the Bad Self can weasel out of them, rationalizing that it’s always a special occasion. Bright-line rules like “I will never play video games again” are also vulnerable, because the Bad Self can argue that these are unreasonable—and, worse, once you slip, it can argue that the plan is unworkable. For every argument made by the dieting self—“This diet is really working” or “I really need to lose weight”—the cake eater can respond with another—“This will never work” or “I’m too vain” or “You only live once.” Your long-term self reads voraciously about the benefits of regular exercise and healthy eating; the cake eater prefers articles showing that obesity isn’t really such a problem. It’s not that the flesh is weak; sometimes the flesh is pretty damn smart. Link to Atlantic article ‘First Person Plural’. Link to NewSci piece ‘The Pleasure Seekers’.

View original here:
I am a committee, chaired by a hedonist

To rumor is human.

October 20, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

The Snopes family is a fictitious collection of characters from the novels of American author William Faulkner. The Snopes are a populous and pernicious lot-in true Faulkner style, they include arsonists, bigamists, con-men, extortionists, and usurers. Regularly consumed with revenge and driven by ambition, they are not a very pleasant set of relations. Snopes.com is one of the most popular rumor investigation sites on the World Wide Web. Like the Snopes family, rumors breed quickly, often fool us, and may be motivated by less than exemplary purposes. Snopes.com has kept owners Barbara and David Mikkelson quite busy since 1993. In early 2007, they estimated that the site evaluates some 3,000 rumors. Such a sizeable number is not surprising. Rumors are a ubiquitous feature of our social and informational landscapes. Let’s consider a few of the settings where social interaction and communication occur: the Web, newspapers, the workplace, and among friends and family. Rumors thrive in all of these venues. They abound on the World Wide Web: A Google search using the terms "rumor" or "rumour" one morning in March of 2007 yielded over 32 million websites. A Google Blog Search yielded 32,505 blogs posting these words that week. A search of Google Groups during the same period turned up 771 electronic discussion groups employing these terms. Rumors are also plentiful in newspaper reports. Searching LexisNexis for the words "rumor" or "rumour" in the headlines or texts of stories reported in major newspapers in a single week produced 688 hits; a Google News search yielded 7,743 news stories. In addition, rumors proliferate in the corporate world: In 1998, a sample of seasoned public relations officers-most were senior vice-presidents of communication at Fortune 500 companies-stated that harmful hearsay had reached their ears on average nearly once per week. I once conversed with a middle manager who uttered a sentiment I hear repeatedly in workplace settings undergoing any type of change: "We are swimming in rumors." And of course rumors flourish in our face-to-face conversations with friends and family. This listing scratches only the surface: many rumors are not labeled as such. Often, we aren’t aware that a statement is a rumor. When I identify an information claim as a "rumor" it means that I am in some doubt about its veracity. This type of speech typically begins with a cautionary prefix such as "I don’t know if this is true but I heard that…" or even "Listen to this rumor I heard!" However, hearsay is often passed along as fact, with full confidence in its veracity. "Seventy-five percent of the American public is dehydrated because they don’t drink six to eight glasses of water per day." This false rumor came to me as one of the many forwarded emails I receive each day. There was no trace of doubt anywhere in the message, and the person who sent it to me believed it fully. (Indeed, she was simply trying to be helpful.) Rumors may even be reported as official news in a venerable newspaper. During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, exaggerated accounts of New Orleans residents looting, killing, raping, and shooting at rescuers were reported as fact after the city’s mayor mistakenly verified them. In Atlanta in March 2007, talk show callers complained that elementary school teaching positions were being given to illegal aliens from Jamaica, and that students couldn’t understand them because of a thick Jamaican accent. These false rumors were passed along as fact, without any cautionary prefix. In short, not only do rumors labeled as "rumors" abound, but rumors posing as facts also make up much of our social exchange. Knowing that some of what is passed around as fact-is in fact rumor-should be a little unsettling. Some of what we accept together as true is certainly false. This implies a gloomy conclusion about humans: Are people so credulous that they simply accept any information that crosses their path? There is much evidence that people can be quite gullible. Many people pass along preposterous rumors-and believe them. However, gullibility is only part of the reason why people accept and pass rumors without question. Even when the hearer is generally skeptical, most situations don’t seem to call for skepticism. Most of the time trusting what other people tell us works for us, lubricates social relationships, bolsters our existing opinions, and doesn’t result in an obvious disaster-even if it is just plain wrong. Indeed, civilization generally relies on our tendency to trust others-and we tend to punish those who are caught violating that trust In any event, we don’t have the resources to investigate every bit of information that comes our way. If we did greet each item of information with extensive enquiry and skepticism, we would have little remaining time or energy to live life. Generally, we find it necessary to verify only the issues that are important to us. We may accept rumors without question because of an innate gullibility, but more importantly, this easy acceptance works for us much of the time. Why are rumors such a regular part of peoples’ experience? What is it about being human that sets the stage for rumor activity? The answers can be found in two fundamental features of human nature. First, people are social and relational entities. There is something especially "we" about our encounter with existence, even for the solitary loners among us. John Donne’s memorable poetic phrase "No man is an island" suggests this sentiment. Like most creatures we seem to be designed for social interaction. We talk together, eat together, work together, we trade, barter, and bicker. A large part of what it means to be human is to communicate with one another. We also view ourselves in relation to other persons-a man may be a father, a friend, or a follower. As psychologist Susan Fiske put it, we are fundamentally social beings. Second, humans have a deeply rooted motivation to make sense of the world. From ancient times men and women have been conceived as rational embodied entities; flesh and blood creatures in which reside the faculties of sensing, perceiving, thinking, deciding, believing, and choosing. In other words we are sense-making beings. To make sense is to give meaning to our sensations, to put a context around them so that they gain significance and fit into an understanding that coheres. It means looking at the picture side rather than the tangled underside of a woven tapestry. To make sense is to put our experiences into perspective so that they can be understood, known about, navigated, and predicted. Without the ability to make sense, our world would be a "buzzing, blooming confusion." Making sense of the world makes sense. So, we are fundamentally social beings and we possess an irrepressible instinct to make sense of the world. Put these ideas together and we get shared sensemaking: We make sense of life together. Rumor is perhaps the quintessential shared sensemaking activity. It may indeed be the predominant means by which we make sense of the world together. Some time ago a promising young professor in my department died tragically after being struck by a truck on Interstate Highway 390 near Rochester, New York. It happened early one wintry morning the day after Super Bowl Sunday. The news of this event was, of course, startling. That Monday was full of sadness, yes, but also confusion, incomplete information, speculation … and rumor. We first heard that he had been in an accident but that he was all right and in the hospital recovering. Sadly, we found out later that this was not the case. We next heard that he was struck by an eighteen-wheeler in the southbound lane, but that he had been motoring northbound that morning at 5:00 AM. How could this have happened? The weather had been very bad that morning-a blinding snow on that part of the highway. The southbound lane was separated from the northbound lane by 100 feet of grass. We pieced together that he had skidded into the wide median "valley" between the lanes, had perhaps become disoriented because of the heavy snowfall, and had unfortunately walked across the southbound lane seeking help when the truck hit him. Questions remained however: Why had he been traveling from the south in the first place? (He lived much further north). Why was he traveling so early in the morning (5:00 AM)? We stood in huddled groups, speculating about exactly what had happened. Rumor was an integral part of that morning’s experience. Our journey together on this earth is characterized to one degree or another by uncertainty. We see only in part, not the whole. Rumor-shared sensemaking-is one element of our collective response to this component of the human condition. Indeed, rumor is the peoples’ shared sensemaking activity par excellence. It attends all of life’s activities. It has been around for as long as humans have lived with uncertainty. It reflects the fundamentally social and sense making character of the human race. Rumor activity therefore represents something basic, central, and significant about who we are.

Go here to see the original:
To rumor is human.