AU Blogspot

 
               Thanks to Chris Gladis for permission to use this Photo.

Psychology studies that rely on deceiving participants have shown we often have little clue what’s going on in our own minds. But what about in everyday situations where trickery isn’t involved?

Here are four everyday situations - shopping, reading, watching TV and judging other people - and four experiments that show how little we know in each situation about what’s really going on in our minds (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).

Shopping

For this study researchers set themselves up in a mall pretending to carry out a consumer survey on nightgowns and nylon stockings. Passersby were asked to evaluate what they were told were four different nightgowns and four different pairs of stockings. In fact, all four items were identical.

Quite by accident they discovered a positional effect for the identical goods: people seemed to prefer the item that was on the far right. In fact this effect was really obvious for the stockings. The right-most pair, although identical to the left-most was preferred by a factor of four to one.

When asked why they had chosen a particular item, no one mentioned its position. Even when experimenters suggested to people that the position might have an effect, most participants looked at best very confused and at worst utterly dismissive.

Result: these people didn’t have a clue why they preferred one identical pair of stockings over another.

Reading

In this study participants read a passage from the novel ‘Rabbit, Run’ by John Updike. The extract from the book involves an emotionally charged scene in which an alcoholic mother, while washing her baby in the bath, accidentally drowns and kills her.

Click here to read the rest of this entry… 

 
              Thanks to Jordan Garn for permission to use this Photo.

I have never liked the term “learning disability,” preferring instead to use the term “learning difference.” Is this just more PC-speak? It seems to me that the identification of somebody as “learning disabled” is rather arbitrary. We don’t refer to people as “athletically disabled” or “musically disabled,” and send them to remedial classes. A literate culture cares a lot about verbal and mathematical skills, but in other realities, these talents might not count for much. Should we ever be so stupid as to bomb ourselves, my guess is that the Hell’s Angel is more likely to survive the new world order than the accountant.

We know that many serious conditions have compensatory aspects that keep them in the population, such as the protection from malaria that is the flip side of sickle cell anemia, or the creativity that seems to correlate with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Obviously, not all conditions have such benefits, but it is interesting to consider the ones that do.

Having spent a lot of time with my two favorite people with dyslexia, Mr. F and Karen, I was always dazzled by what they did well. Yes, writing was a struggle, especially for Karen, whose love of public relations plopped her in some exceedingly challenging reporting classes in the journalism departments of her universities. No spell check on lab work? Catastrophe! But these struggles were always offset by some amazing creativity. Karen just had her first-year research project accepted for presentation at the prestigious International Public Relations Conference …do I sound like a proud Mom or what? (more…)

A classic 1931 experiment shows how the mechanics of our own problem-solving are often a puzzle to us.

The process of human creativity is both fascinating and, at the same time, mystifying. Understanding the mental processes of great thinkers offers an enormous reward to any who can replicate them: immortality. Perhaps if we really understood what was going through their minds, we too could create an object or idea that would live long after our deaths.

This idea motivated Brewster Ghiselin to collate the problem-solving processes of great thinkers and artists from Poincare to Picasso (Ghiselin, 1952). Unfortunately, as I mentioned in ‘The Hidden Workings of Our Minds‘, these great thinkers usually report being mere onlookers to their own mental processes. They seem unable to identify what prompted their discoveries and even, when they’re actually happening.

The problem is that these reports were usually made many years after the original thought processes. Picasso may simply have forgotten what prompted him to create the first ever cubist painting ‘Les Demoiselles d’Avignon’ (detail above). Perhaps if we’d asked him exactly what was going through his mind right after he painted it, the answer would have been more accurate.

A classic psychology study from 1931 suggests, though, that he still wouldn’t have been able to tell us what was going on in his mind. This experiment neatly demonstrates how we often don’t have a clue how we solve a problem.

Click here to read the rest of this entry… 

 
             Thanks to Liam Kelly for permission to use this Photo.

An award-winning social psychology experiment reveals why we often fail to bargain effectively with each other. This deceptively simple experiment examines the effect of two vital aspects of bargaining: threat and communication.

Bargaining is one of those activities we often engage in without quite realizing it. It doesn’t just happen in the boardroom, or when we ask our boss for a raise or down at the market, it happens every time we want to reach an agreement with someone. (more…)

The tone of an email is incredibly easy to misinterpret, explains emotional intelligence expert Daniel Goleman, writing in the New York Times. The main problem is there is no channel to convey our emotion - other than emoticons which are notoriously crude.

We’ve all done it: written something that’s meant to be a joke in an email and then received a cold response when the message is misunderstood. Or received an email we can’t make head nor tail of. Is this a joke or are they being serious?

Causes of miscommunication

Common email misperceptions include:

Positive emails are reinterpreted as neutral while neutral emails become negative.

• Recipients rate jokes as less funny than the person who sent them.
• Emailers overestimate how effectively they can communicate feelings.
• Recipients also overestimate how well they can understand feelings.
• Small initial differences between email correspondents can easily grow, sometimes causing the breakdown of relationships.

The cause of these misperceptions is the gap between how we feel when we are writing and the ambiguous meaning of the actual words on the screen. As we are writing we ‘hear’ the emotional content of an email, but forget there’s no way to telepathically send this emotional content to the recipient. Researchers suggest we do this because people are naturally egocentric, we assume that others understand how we are feeling when often they don’t.

             Thanks to Jules Minus for permission to use this Photo.

Read More… 

After reading Christine Kenneally’s The First Word: The Search for the Origins of Language (2007) I could see that most theorists agree with me that language must have started small: With single words. None of the theorists seem to use my other guiding principle: Lightning doesn’t strike twice in one place for different reasons. If two rare events — such as (a) a sound in the night that sounds like a burglar and (b) in the morning your wallet is gone — might be due to the same thing, they probably are. Use of this principle means that how language evolved should fit into a larger explanation.

Humans differ from our closest primate relatives — not to mention all other species — in many ways, of course. One big difference is language; but there are many others. Application of the lightning-strikes-twice principle means that language probably began for the same reason as the other differences.

The overwhelming difference between humans and other species is that humans specialize in terms of jobs. Two randomly-selected people almost surely make their living doing quite different things all day. No other species does this. Two randomly-selected members of any other species almost surely make their living doing the same thing all day. The story I am trying to tell in my human evolution posts is how humans came to specialize like this. (I believe the aquatic ape theory is right, but it’s about an earlier stage of human evolution, before job specialization.)

For me, the question of how language evolved becomes the question: How did single-word language promote job specialization? This has an obvious answer: It promoted trade, which job specialization obviously requires. The first words were nouns — in particular, the names of objects (chair, knife, bag, etc.). These words promoted trade because:

1. They served as advertising. It became much easier to tell others that you or someone else had something to trade. It’s weird that there is no word for the other side of the picture: Wanting something. Single words also made it much easier to broadcast that there was something you wanted.

2. They emphasized function. The words chair, knife, and bag describe the function of the objects they name. Objects have many other qualities, of course: color, location, ownership, age, materials, etc.

               Thanks to Ben Marcus for permission to use this Photo.

Common words tend to hide those qualities and emphasize function. Trades based on function became easier to arrange than trades based on desires for other qualities. The first words helped people trade for stuff they could use, in other words.

Single words work perfectly as advertising. They are still used this way. In a Guatemalan market, I heard a man shout the Spanish word for “toothpaste” over and over. Lots of businesses use single words on their signs to indicate what they sell. Early names, moreover, reflected what a person would have to give in trade: Smith, for example.

People who criticize evolutionary explanations sometimes say it is impossible to have evidence. Not so. In the case of language, you can examine how single words are used today. Sure, new ways of using language have grown up; but they are unlikely to have made old uses impossible. There are dozens of things you can’t do with single words. But you certainly can advertise and request (”fork?”).

Dr. Seth Roberts
Author of The Shangri-La Diet
AU Special Guest Blogger

*Dr. Seth Roberts is a renowned psychologist and author of the critically acclaimed book, The Shangri-La Diet.  Mr. Roberts is one of those rare types of innovative thinkers that change the way you perceive the world.  We’re honored that Seth Roberts has provided us with the opportunity to share his dynamic perspectives with the AU student community.  Seth’s dedication to scientific inquiry and experimental analysis serves as an inspiration to all those interested in the mysteries of the body and mind.  Visit Seth’s blog to learn more about Seth Roberts’ life and work.  Thanks Seth!