Should you start talking to yourself?

It’s Tuesday evening, near 6 o’clock, and you’re dashing about, looking forlorn on aisle 5.  You’re staring at the supermarket shelves, but can’t seem to find where the peanut butter lives. What might you do?  Start talking to yourself, out loud (“peanut butter, peanut butter”).

Apparently, what works for the young ones (have you ever heard a toddler talk to themselves, while tying their shoes?), apparently works for adults as well.  Researchers have found that talking to oneself, out loud, facilitates both cognition and visual processing.

Why does this method work?  Perhaps it’s because our auditory system is activated when we hear the words “peanut butter.”  Or perhaps it’s because our cognitive system is activated when we produce the thought . . . that creates the words “peanut butter.”  No matter, say the researchers, the bottom line is clear: when we’re in search mode, saying the words of the missing object (our keys, our hair brush, the blue sweater that I just took off), or even silently mouthing the words, apparently triggers our system in a positive way.

In their study, psychologists Gary Lupyan (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and Daniel Swingley (University of Pennsylvania), explain: "People often talk to themselves, yet very little is known about the functions of this self-directed speech . . . It is been commonly observed that children spend a considerable time talking to themselves. . . . One way to understand this seemingly odd behavior is by considering that language is more than simply a tool for communication, but rather than it alters ongoing cognitive (and even perceptual) processing in nontrivial ways."

In an article published on livescience.com, Lupyan was quoted as saying: “The general take-home point is that language is not just a system of communication . . . I'm arguing [that] it can augment perception, augment thinking.”

Lupyan and Swingley caution, however, that self-talk, at times, can actually slow the search process. Apparently, the key is how familiar the object is – in other words, if the object you’re searching for is familiar, self-talk will help; if the object is less well known, self-talk may impede the search.

Most beneficial forms of self-talk

Rin Mitchell, writing for the web site bigthink.com, expands on the notion that self-talk can improve brain function.  Drawing on research, Mitchell explains that the most beneficial forms of self-talk “are with instructional and thought and action. Instructional self-talk is when you tell yourself each step you need to take in order to complete something while in the process, such as driving a car. Thought and action is the act of setting a goal for yourself and a strategy as to how to accomplish the goal before taking action.”

What does Mitchell recommend? “Start talking to yourself to increase the performance and function of your brain. . . .The key is to practice doing it until it becomes natural. You can use specific ‘cue words’ in your self-talk to help you in whatever goal or task you would like to complete. Eventually, you will learn how to self-talk in a way that benefits you the most in every situation.” 

##

What works better – positive or negative thinking?

There’s a new strategy in town for achieving your goals – it’s called “mental contrasting” and it demonstrates that, if we wish to reach our goals, we have to do more than simply visualize them.  The term “mental contrasting” was coined by Gabriele Oettingen and colleagues (at New York University’s psychology lab) and their studies support the notion that simply visualizing a positive outcome doesn’t particularly work.  

In reviewing Oettingen’s studies, psychologist Christian Jarrett, in an article posted on www.99u.com, explained: “. . . visualizing our aims as already achieved can backfire. The positive imagery can be inspiring at first, but it also tricks the mind into relaxing, as if the hard work is done. This means the more compelling the mental scene of success, the more likely it is that your energy will seep away.”

Oettingen and Andreas Kappes, in a paper titled “Mental Contrasting of Future and Reality,” explained: “In mental contrasting, people first imagine the attainment of a desired future (e.g., becoming a lawyer, writing an article) and thereafter reflect on the present reality that stands in the way of attaining the desired future (e.g., excessive partying, having little time). Thus, contrasting fantasies about the future with reflections on reality is a problem-solving strategy . . . .”

So what works better?  Indulging in thoughts about reaching your goal, or mental contrasting? Oettinger and colleagues report on their findings:

“Participants in one condition were taught to use mental contrasting regarding their everyday concerns, while participants in the other condition were taught to indulge. Two weeks later, participants in the mental-contrasting condition reported to have fared better in managing their time and decision making during everyday life than those in the indulging condition. By helping people to set expectancy-dependent goals, teaching the metacognitive strategy of mental contrasting can be a cost- and time-effective tool to help people manage the demands of their everyday life.”

In one fascinating study, Oettingen and colleagues evaluated the impact of positive vs. negative feedback on goal achievement.  Here’s how they set it up, as described by Jarrett:

“Dozens of volunteers took part in what they thought was an investigation into creativity. Half the study participants were given false feedback on a test of their creative potential, with their results inflated to suggest that they'd excelled. In advance of the main challenge – a series of creative insight problems – some of the participants were then taught mental contrasting: writing about how good it would feel to smash the problems, and then writing about the likely obstacles to achieving that feat, such as daydreaming.

"The best performers on the insight problems were those participants who'd received the positive feedback about their potential and who'd performed mental contrasting. They out-classed their peers who'd received inflated feedback but only indulged in positive thoughts, and they outperformed those participants who'd received negative feedback (regardless of whether they, too, performed mental contrasting).”

Bottom line: the best time to employ mental contrasting (that is, focusing on obstacles to overcome) is when you’re in positive mood, when excitement is high and adrenaline is flowing, not when you’re down in the dumps.  So wait until the energy flows, and then consider the steps you need to take to get there, wherever there might be.

##

What 167-year-old college may be going out of business in four years?

You’ve probably never visited their campus, and you have never met an alumni.  This college offers no formal lecture halls and continues to operate tuition-free (that said, you may, in a way, be a major donor).  The college specializes in political science, and “graduates” precisely 540 individuals every four years. 

We’re talking, of course, about the Electoral College*.  Some political historians predict that the College may be closing shop come 2016, based on forecasts that Romney could lose the election despite winning the popular vote.  It’s happened before in American history – that is, the candidate who won the popular vote came up short in the Electoral College, but this would be the first time that it would deny the Republicans the White House. 

The current movement to eliminate the Electoral College is called NPVIC (the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) and over the last four years, a majority of state legislatures have actively debated joining the Compact. Here’s how it works: individual states approve a law which says that all of their electoral votes will be awarded to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.  So, for example, if South Carolina were to pass such a law (they have not yet), and Romney wins the popular vote, all 9 of South Carolina’s electors would be awarded to Romney. 

To date, eight states, plus the District of Columbia, have passed such a law – and here’s the creative part: in each case, the law doesn’t go into effect until the states in the Compact make up the majority of the electoral votes (that is, 270 electoral vote from a total of 538).  Currently, the eight states, plus DC, total 132 electoral votes (the eight states are: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington).

In 1969, the U.S. government came close to abolishing the Electoral College when Congress voted to amend the Constitution.  At the time, 38 state legislatures were required to approve the federal legislation, but only 31 ratified, and the movement has laid dormant since then, until now. 

Proposing to abolish or amend the Electoral College is nothing new. The federal web site www.archives.gov explains that over the past 200 years, “over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject.” But the NPVIC may be the one that sticks because of three factors:

 

1.       The NPVIC route does not require amending the Constitution;

2.       If Romney wins the popular vote, and loses the White House, this would be the first time that a Republican would have been denied the White House; and

3.       Over the last four years, at least one house in 31 state legislatures has approved a bill to comply with the NPVIC (though in 22 states, the agreement has not become law).

A 2011 Gallup poll found that 62% of Americans favor replacing the Electoral College with a straight out popular vote, but there are strong arguments for retaining the current system – most notably that it protects small states and minority interests.  Explained Michael Racette this August, on the web site www.2paragraphs.com:

 

“The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to less populous states, which the framers thought they needed. Because a small state’s few electoral votes might make the difference in a close election, the current system encourages candidates to take into consideration the needs and concerns of those states in developing an election platform (and in governing, if elected). This tends to result in (as the framers hoped) the nomination of candidates with broad national appeal. The abilities of ethnic minorities to influence the national election outcome are also enhanced in the current system, because those population groups tend to live in or near large cities in large states, thus encouraging candidates to consider their interests in hopes of capturing large blocks of Electoral College votes.

“For instance, according to the 2010 U.S. Census, persons identifying themselves as ‘Hispanic or Latino’ comprised 16% of the national population, but far greater portions of the populations of large electoral states such as Texas (38%), California (38%), Colorado (21%), and Florida (23%), as well as some other smaller ‘swing’ states, whose votes might be enough to tip the balance in favor of a candidate in a close election. The voting power of minority groups would arguably decrease with a direct national popular vote because candidates might be less inclined to champion their interests or concerns in favor of majority interests.”

 * The term “Electoral College” was first written into law in 1845, though the term itself does not appear in the Constitution.

 

 

Saying “I’m sorry”: Do women apologize more than men?

One more stereotype out the window, according to a study from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.  Lead researcher Karina Schumann and colleagues conducted two creative studies to examine whether women, as is generally believed, apologize more than men.  Their findings were revealing and no doubt will help couples improve their relationships, by understanding the dynamics behind what is called “apology behavior.”

The findings, in a nutshell: women and men apologize at the same frequency, that is, once a person has decided that they’ve “committed an offense” (that is, done something that deserves an apology), men and women apologize at the same rate.  And in the same manner.  Yes, the study found, women do apologize more often, but only because they rate “offenses” differently than men. Explained Schumann: "It seems to be that when [men] think they've done something wrong they do apologize just as frequently as when women think they've done something wrong. It's just that they think they've done fewer things wrong.”

The study reported: “Female and male transgressors apologized for an equal proportion of their offenses (approximately 81%). Moreover, there was no gender difference in how men and women apologized. It appears that once men and women categorized a behavior as offensive, they were equally likely to apologize for it, and their apologies were similarly effusive.”

Schumann and colleagues created two studies to examine the gender differences in apology behavior:

Study #1 involved daily diaries, study #2 asked participants to evaluate the perceived severity of specific transgressions. Some examples, from study #2:

Scenario #1: College-aged participants imagined that they were two days late sending their section of a joint class assignment to their friend. Because of the delay, their friend had to postpone studying for a midterm.

Scenario #2: Participants imagined snapping at their friend after returning home grumpy from school.

Scenario #3: Participants imagined accidentally waking their friend at 3:00 a.m. Because of the disturbance, the friend attended a job interview the next morning after only a few hours of sleep.

As predicted, study #2 revealed that men indeed rate transgressions less severely than do women.

And why does apology behavior matter? Explained the researchers: “[Apologies matter because] they reduce anger and aggression and promote forgiveness and relationship well-being (Darby & Schlenker, 1982; McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997; Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 1989). Although apologies are not all-powerful, their general effectiveness suggests that gender differences in apology behavior could have significant implications for interpersonal interactions.”

The researchers added: “For example, if women perceive offenses that their male romantic partners do not notice, women might interpret an absence of an apology as evidence that their partners are indifferent to their well-being. Similarly, men may regard their female partners as overly sensitive and emotional. Unlike previous interpretations that emphasized a gender difference in willingness to apologize, however, our interpretation does not imply that one gender is at fault for potential disagreements about whether an apology should be offered. Rather, we suggest that men and women unwittingly disagree at an earlier stage in the process: identifying whether or not a transgression has even occurred.”

Presidential Politics: Why so much vitriol?

I’m a bit perplexed.  These are two good men. Solid. Resilient. Resourceful. Organized. Diplomatic. Thoughtful. Intelligent. So why do Americans spend so much time bashing the candidate they plan to vote against? 

Both are family men, both recognize that a strong family unit is a core principle underlying a vibrant society.  They’re both patient and well studied, with a good sense of humor. And they both get it. Without question, as the debate last week illustrated, they’re both intent on improving the economy and job opportunities for Americans (albeit through different pathways). And they’re both interested in strengthening America’s standing in the world, protecting us from the myriad dangers we face daily. 

Why then such acrimony? 

Personally, I find both Romney and Obama to be quite likeable. 

Over the last year and a half, we’ve watched Romney endure an absolute thrashing.  And he’s still standing.  Any normal human being would be exhausted by now, weathered from the pounding of the press, the demands of his own party and the constant critique from the opposition (first, in the primaries, and now, in the general election).  Survival of the fittest?  No question. His credentials remain first class – an impressive business career, coupled with a standout Olympic performance and the Governorship of Massachusetts.

What’s the problem here? 

Then there’s Obama.  Cool under pressure, thoughtful and studied, he’s taken a broken economy and laid the groundwork for future growth.  And while he was piecing together a fix for the worst economic crisis since 1929, Obama was also ending a war in Iran, drawing down from a war in Afghanistan, shepherding a law aimed at arresting our nation’s health care disaster, building stronger international relations, investing in renewable energy and supporting moves worldwide toward democracy. 

What’s the problem here? 

Both men care deeply about the country, and both recognize that the nation’s huge and growing debt stands ready to co-opt this country’s future.  They get it.  But fixing it stands next to impossible, when you’re trying to simultaneously maintain a strong defense and support Americans in need (and no, seniors with healthy portfolios don’t need to receive social security checks).  Let’s face it: our nation’s budget challenge boils down to just four major areas:  defense, social security, Medicare and Medicaid. Taken together, these four represent more than 60% of the budget. 

Back in 1985, as a Washington, DC journalist, I covered the White House daily, reporting on the economic decisions being made by Congress and then President Ronald Reagan.  The decisions then are no different than those today, in style or substance.  The more pressing challenge, it seems, is reducing the level of angst both in Congress and the American public.

Recent polls reveal that only 18% of Americans approve of the job that Congress is doing.  And it’s clear, congressional gridlock is crippling this country.  But I wonder, at times, how the American public would rate itself.  If asked: “Do you approve of the job that Americans are doing?” in terms of resolving conflict and working together, how would we fare?  How much time do we take to honestly, sincerely, genuinely entertain other views? It’s up to us to sort through the vitriol and work together to find solutions.

So let’s back off. Let’s find a way to support the candidate of our choice without bashing the opposition. Yes, differences exist, both in style and platform, and that’s what we’ll base our vote on next month.  But if we, as Americans, don’t take the high road – at the office cooler, in the clubhouse or at Ladies Night Out – how pray tell will our congressional counterparts ever get there.

Would you (even) want a memory like this?

Extraordinary. Remarkable. Impossible.

As I read through the studies, of these singular human beings, and their powers of recall, these are the words that kept popping into my head. Once you see what they can do, I’m certain you’ll agree. In the research literature, there have been only two reported cases (AJ-female and HK-male) of hyperthymesia (thymesia, in Greek, means “remembering”), that is, a case of superior autobiographical memory. 

Up for a challenge? Try to match your memory against theirs.  Take a glance at the dates and events below and see how many you can recall (answer are below). 

What happened on these dates (and on what day of the week?)

Aug. 16, 1977

June 6, 1978

May 25, 1979

Nov. 4, 1979

May 18, 1980

Oct. 5, 1983

Jan. 17, 1994

Dec. 21, 1988

May 3, 1991

May 4, 2001

On what date did this happen?

Plane crash in San Diego?

Who shot JR episode?

Persian Gulf War begins?

Rodney King beating?

OJ Simpson verdict?

Bombing at Atlanta Olympics?

Death of Princess Diana?

Concorde Crash?

Election date for G.W. Bush

Election dates for Clinton?

For people like AJ and HK, this task is back of the hand.  Researchers Elizabeth Parker, Larry Cahill and James McGaugh from UCLA and USC presented these 10 dates to AJ and asked her to name the significant event that took place on that day. She nailed all 10. Then they flipped it and presented 10 events and asked her to name the precise date. Once again, perfection.

And it gets better: researchers asked AJ (born in 1967) to write down the precise date on which Easter fell in each of the prior 24 years.  Inside of ten minutes, AJ completed the feat to near perfection (examples: April 6, 1980, March 26, 1989 – in all, she missed just one date, and that by two days).  For good measure, AJ added a personal entry next to each date: for example, on March 30, 1997, AJ had “dinner with J and C (friends),” and on April 12, 1998, “house smells like ham, M (friend) over.” 

Enter HK, born in 1989, also with superior autobiographical memory. Similar to AJ, HK’s memory grew dramatically in the pre-teen years, and rose to near perfection by about age 14.  According to a report last year in Research Digest (a publication of the British Psychological Society), researchers decided to test HK’s memory by choosing four dates from each year of his life since his first memory (at age 3 and a half).  For each of these 80 dates, according to the Research Digest report, researchers “gathered at least three facts from HK’s family, medical records and the historical records for his neighborhood in Nashville.” Research Digest reports that HK was then asked “ ‘Can you tell me what happened during your day on Jan. 2, 2001’ [and] his  answers, often detailed, were transcribed and fact-checked.” Accuracy was astounding, said the researchers.

To illustrate, the Research Digest report contains this extraordinary exchange between HK and a television interviewer in Nashville:

"So if I give you a random day you could tell me what you were doing on that day?" we asked him.

He confidently replied, "Yes."

So we quizzed his memory, randomly asking about the first Saturday of July 2009.

"The first Saturday of July, 2009, I went to Mr. Bradford's, we got ready, went to a picnic at the Huddlestun's house," he explained.

Like a rolodex, Derryberry walked us through each memory, even what he had for lunch. It was BBQ, in case you're curious.

But what surprised us the most was when he revealed what unfolded later that day.

"Between 4 and 5 somebody came out of the house and said that Steve McNair had been shot and killed," he recalled.

Sure enough, it was the day Titans player Steve McNair was murdered in his Nashville apartment.

But was it a lucky guess? We asked about Saturday October 4, 2008? 

HK said he watched the Vanderbilt football game.

"They beat Auburn on Saturday, October, 4, 2008 to make Vandy 5-0. They beat Auburn 14- 13 that day," he remembered.

He was right, again.

Researchers have analyzed the brain function of both AJ and HK, hoping to use their findings to help memory-impaired individuals in the general population. Indeed, HK’s neurologist Dr. Brandon Ally points out that "Autobiographical memory is one of the first things that tends to break down in Alzheimer's disease, so if we can understand the opposite pattern perhaps it can help us learn about memory in general,” as reported in Research Digest.

And while brain stimulation to parts of the brain has shown promise in patients with Alzheimer’s Disease, the Research Digest report explained: “Ally and his team acknowledged that ‘unique case studies such as HK are not easily translated or generalized to the normal population’, and so should be interpreted with caution. That said, they argued their results provide further evidence for the role of the amygdala in autobiographical memory. ‘Further, perhaps the present findings can help guide future regions of brain stimulation in memory-disordered populations, with the goal of improving memory function,’ they speculated.”

JK’s answers to the date quiz:

Aug. 16, 1977 – Tuesday, Elvis died; June 6, 1978 – Proposition 13 passed in CA; May 25, 1979 – plane crash, Chicago; Nov. 4, 1979 – Iranian invasion of US Embassy; May 18, 1980 – Sunday, Mt. St. Helens erupted; Oct. 5, 1983 – Wednesday, bombing in Beirut, killed 300; Jan. 17, 1994 – Monday, Northridge earthquake; Dec. 21, 1988 – Lockerby plane crash; May 3, 1991 – last episode of Dallas; May 4, 2001 – Robert Blake’s wife killed. 

Answers (dates) AJ gave to events:

San Diego crash – Sept. 25, 1978; JR – Nov. 21, 1980; Gulf War – Wednesday, Jan. 16, 1991; Rodney King beating – March 3, 1991; OJ Simpson verdict – Tuesday, Oct. 3, 1995; Atlanta bombing – July 26, 1996; Princess Diana – Aug. 30, or 31, 1997 (depending on France or US); Concorde – July 25, 2000; Elections date – G.W. Bush – Nov. 7, 2000; Clinton – Nov. 3, 1992 and Nov. 5, 1996. 

##

If your first name is easy to pronounce, do people like you more?

Pregnant couples take note!  Apparently, the name that your parents give you can shape your life in significant ways. 

Two recent studies found the following:

1.       Fluency = likeability.  A study out of New York University found that if your first name is easy to pronounce, people like you more; and

2.       “Negative” names = worse life outcomes.  A European study claims that people with “negative” names “influence life outcomes for the worse.” According to the study authors, as quoted in BPS Digest: “Seemingly benign factors, such as first names, add up in real life, gaining considerable collective power in predicting feelings, thoughts and behavior.”

Fluency

We’ll explain the significance in a moment, but first take 20 seconds to pronounce (yes, out loud), the following 10 names:

1.Leszczynska

2.Vougiouklakis
3.Colquhoun
4.Loughnane
5.Mathieson
6.MacDonaugh
7.Kupka
8.Jarvis
9.Matson
10.Sherman

According to an article by Dave Mosher, in Wired.com, study subjects were asked “to rank 50 surnames according to their ease or difficulty of pronunciation, and according to how much they liked or disliked them.” In follow-on studies, Mosher explained, study subjects “were asked to vote for hypothetical political candidates solely on the basis of their names.” In a third study, added Mosher, subjects were asked to vote on candidates “about whom they knew both names and some political positions.”

The findings?  Said Mosher: “Altogether the researchers found that a name’s pronounceability, regardless of length or seeming foreignness, mattered most in determining likability. Ease of pronunciation accounted for about 40 percent of off-the-cuff likability.”

The study, titled “The name-pronunciation effect: Why people like Mr. Smith more than Mr. Colquhoun,” was conducted by Adam Alter, from New York University, and colleagues Simon Lahama and Peter Kovala from the University of Melbourne.

Negative first names*

“Can negative first names cause interpersonal neglect?” That’s the opening salvo posed by study authors Jochen Gebauer, Mary Leary and Wiebke Neberich, who conducted a series of experiments to test their hypothesis. Using German online dating services, they concluded: “Across all studies, negatively named individuals were more neglected by other online-daters.” The study authors pointed out that “this form of neglect arguably mirrors a name-based life history of neglect, discrimination, prejudice or even ostracism.” Further, the authors found that those individuals with “negative” names had lower self-esteem, less education and a higher incidence of smoking.  Concluded the authors: “These results are consistent with the name-based interpersonal neglect hypothesis: Negative names evoke negative interpersonal reactions, which in turn influence people’s life outcomes for the worse.”

(*You might now be asking: what constitutes a “negative” name? Fair question. In the study, and accompanying write-ups, authors alternately used phrases such as “unattractive,” “unpopular” or “unfashionable” name.  In each case, it appears that the evaluation – of whether a name is positive or negative – was assessed by asking people to rank order names in terms of appeal. One reality, of course, is that certain names, over time, easily rise or fall in their likeability).   

##

To improve your creativity, what color should you glance at?

Want to spark your creativity? Try glancing at the color green.  About to do some proofreading? Peer at something red.  Preparing for a major test, or presentation, where brain performance is key?  A touch of blue might do.
 
Welcome to the emerging world of color psychology. 

According to new research out of the University of Munich, a glimpse of green appears to activate “the type of pure, open (mental) processing required to do well on creativity tasks” according to lead researcher Stephanie Lichtenfeld, who was quoted in Pacific Standard Magazine earlier this year.

The Pacific Standard article, authored by Tom Jenkins, explains that, across the board (that is, in a full range of experiments using both picture-based and word-based assessments of creativity) green outperformed white, gray, red and blue (talk about envy). But worry not for other members of the color wheel – they’ve had their day in the sunshine (see details, below).

For instance, Jenkins points out that recent studies have linked red to “sexual attractiveness, the perception of danger and adherence to strict standards.” And Jenkins cites a 2010 paper in which “teachers gave harsher grades when correcting papers using red ink.” 

Lichtenfeld and colleagues ran four experiments that demonstrated the power of green, first exposing subjects to a range of colors, then asking them to perform a series of tasks to demonstrate creativity (for example, participants were asked to draw as many objects as they could from a geometric shape).

More colorful findings: 

• Online auctions? A study in the Journal of Consumer Research, as reported in Science Daily, found that if you’re selling a product on eBay, use a red background. It will lead individuals to make higher bids in auctions, but lower offers in negotiations;

• Referee bias? In a 2008 report, Science Daily reported the following: “Psychologists Norbert Hagemann, Bernd Strauss and Jan Leibing from the University of Munster specifically found that referees tended to assign more points to tae kwon do competitors dressed in red than those dressed in blue.”

• First date?  No surprise, perhaps, but men are disproportionately attracted to women dressed in red (the hidden power behind lipstick?).  In one study, conducted by University of Rochester psychologists Andrew Elliot and Daniela Niesta, one set of participants was shown a photograph of a woman in a red shirt, while another group of participants was shown the same woman in a blue shirt. Men were asked how attracted they were to the woman and asked, among other questions: "Imagine that you are going on a date with this person and have $100 in your wallet. How much money would you be willing to spend on your date?" According to the Science Daily article, “under all of the conditions, the women shown framed by or wearing red were rated significantly more attractive and sexually desirable by men than the exact same women shown with other colors.”

• Memory? Proofreading? According to a 2009 report in Science Daily, a University of British Columbia study found that the color red enhances our attention to detail. According to the Science Daily article: “Red boosted performance on detail-oriented tasks such as memory retrieval and proofreading by as much as 31 per cent compared to blue.”

• In the gym? A study published last year in the Journal Emotion, and reported in Science Daily, found that when humans see red, their reactions become faster and more forceful (but the physical benefits are short-lived); and

• Buying toothpaste? Apparently, we’re attracted to certain products based on a combination of their background color and the associated message.  For example, Juliet Zhu from the Sauder School of Business (University of British Columbia), found that people were more receptive to a new, fictional brand of toothpaste that focused on negative messages such as "cavity prevention" when the background color was red, whereas people were more receptive to aspirational messages such as tooth whitening when the background color was presented in blue.

What’s the scientific cure for hangovers?

Finally!  A scientific cure for hangovers.  And no, it doesn’t involve drinking the next morning.  Unless it’s water, or juice (possibly, coffee).

In a brilliantly prepared two minute video (available on youtube.com), Mitchell Moffit and Gregory Medlock reveal what they call “The Scientific Cure for Hangovers,” and walk us through (rather quickly, I must say), what’s going on in your body and which remedies will ease the pain, physiologically speaking.  And at least one expert site (www.webmd.com) agrees: forget the pills. Disregard the hair-brained myths. Don’t bother with the burnt toast. Let science show you the way (or, more aptly, the way back).    

Some of their recommendations may surprise you (“hmmm, never heard of that”), others will be all too familiar. But their suggestions are indeed scientifically based and, encouragingly, are in sync with the most popular MD on TV - Dr. Oz.  

In no particularly order:

1. Carb up – Before you drink, carb up.  Eat a good deal of fatty foods and carbohydrates.  It gives the alcohol something to hold on to. 

2. H-too-oh – Before, during and after you drink, drink up. Water. Water. Water. It’s all about processing.  If you can go one-for-one (a full beer, wine or margharita, chased by a full glass of water), go for it. You might take a few more breaks, but your liver will love you in the morning.

3. Clear liquids – where possible, stick to clear liquids. According to Dr. Oz’s web site: “. . . the alcohol you drink should be the color of water.” This is because darker alcohols contain more congeners, which causes hangovers.  WebMD.com adds: “Red wine contains tannins, compounds that are known to trigger headaches on some people. Malt liquors, like whiskey, also tend to produce more severe hangovers. If you're worried about how you'll feel in the morning, the gentlest choices are beer and clear liquors, such as vodka and gin.”

4. Beer before Liquor? Moffit-Medlock recommend: “If you’re drinking beer, drink it before liquor.”

5. Did someone say breakfast? The next morning, eat some eeggs, and perhaps some bananas and fruit juice (eggs will soak up liver toxins, bananas will recoup lost electrolytes, fruit juices will rebuild your vitamin supply). Dr. Oz’s web site explains: “If you wake up with a hangover, Dr. Oz says to eat something – especially eggs. ‘Eggs are effective because the eggs, in their yolk, have something called N-acetyl-cysteine,’ he says. ‘What it really is, is a way of giving your body antioxidants, and those antioxidants are critically important to your liver that's going to battle right now trying to cleanse all the junk that's left over.’ ”

6. Aspirin – the next morning, take aspirin, not Tylenol (Tylenol can interfere with liver function and your liver is already working overtime). 

So, before heading to bed, avoid the pasta and the painkillers (better to take them when you wake up). And, in the morning, push aside the Bloody Mary*. Stick with science. Go for steak or pizza before your first martini, and eggs in the AM.  And keep pouring down the H2O.  It’s your best shot. 

* From webmd.com: “More alcohol in the morning does nothing but postpone a hangover. The worst symptoms hit when blood-alcohol levels drop to zero. If you have a screwdriver at breakfast, this moment will just come later in the day.”

##

Are smart people more prone to thinking errors?

We begin with two simple questions, drawn from a study which examines how people think.  Here goes:

·         Question #1: A bat and ball cost a dollar and ten cents. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? (take a second, we have time)

·         Question #2: In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?

The answers . . . appear below*. And while you ponder, consider this:

As humans, we like to think of ourselves as rational beings, capable of digesting and processing information and emerging with a sound, reasonable answer, or decision.  But decades of research has substantiated that, when it comes to thinking, we aren’t rational at all.  Instead, we take mental shortcuts (as when answering questions one and two) and exhibit a range of biases that lead us astray. 

A recent study sought to learn whether smart people are less prone to such biases, that is, whether intelligence provides some kind of a buffer against bias.  Their conclusion? Apparently not. Said the study authors: “. . . cognitive ability provides no inoculation at all from the bias blind spot.” Ah, the bias blind spot**.  Yes, we all have one – it’s when we think that biased thinking is more prevalent in others than in ourselves.

And here’s the crazy part – the smarter you are, the larger your bias blind spot. The findings come from a recent study conducted by Richard West and Russell Meserve of James Madison University, and Keith Stanovich of the University of Toronto.  And, they maintain, self-awareness and introspection don’t appear to help – that is, no matter how self-aware you are, and how introspective you are, you’re still prone to exhibit these common mental biases (an unnerving conclusion, to be sure).

What kind of biases are we talking about? (that even smart people suffer from):

·         The Planning Fallacy – the tendency to underestimate how long it will take a complete a task;

·         Framing Effect – this effect explains why a food item labeled “98% fat free” is more desirable than one labeled “contains 2% fat”;

·         Myside Bias – this is the tendency to ignore evidence when you already have an opinion on a subject;

·         Anchoring Bias – a quick story best illustrates this type of bias, courtesy of Jonah Lehrer, in an article he crafted for The New Yorker: “Subjects were first asked if the tallest redwood tree in the world was more than X feet, with X ranging from eighty-five to a thousand feet. Then the students were asked to estimate the height of the tallest redwood tree in the world. Students exposed to a small ‘anchor’—like eighty-five feet—guessed, on average, that the tallest tree in the world was only a hundred and eighteen feet. Given an anchor of a thousand feet, their estimates increased seven-fold”;

·         Base-Rate Neglect – this is when we ignore probabilities and focus too much on the specific situation; and

·         Outcome Bias – this type of bias shows up when we judge the quality of a decision on how the decision worked out.

So let’s recap: we are all prone to various biases, and being smart doesn’t seem to mitigate them (in some cases, it actually hurts). And neither self-awareness nor introspection appear to weaken these biases.  What’s a human to do?  (thinking . . . thinking )   

* answer #1: the ball costs 5 cents. And if you missed it, don’t feel too badly. Reportedly, 50% of students at Harvard, Princeton and MIT also gave the incorrect answer. Answer #2: 47 days

** in his article, Lehrer points to one theory on why the bias blind spot exists: “One provocative hypothesis is that the bias blind spot arises because of a mismatch between how we evaluate others and how we evaluate ourselves. When considering the irrational choices of a stranger, for instance, we are forced to rely on behavioral information; we see their biases from the outside, which allows us to glimpse their systematic thinking errors. However, when assessing our own bad choices, we tend to engage in elaborate introspection. We scrutinize our motivations and search for relevant reasons; we lament our mistakes to therapists and ruminate on the beliefs that led us astray.”

Do you believe in magic? (of course you do, and you’re healthier for it)

By and large, magic takes a bad rap.  Scientists and intellectuals, not to mention the rest of us, tend to believe that magical thinking – often known as superstition – is a bit of nonsense.  But Matthew Hutson, in his new book “The Seven Laws of Magical Thinking: How Irrational Beliefs Keep Us Happy, Healthy and Sane,” makes a compelling case that magic is a substantial ally which helps us navigate life.  

Hutson’s thesis is straightforward: magic offers psychological benefits that logic and science cannot, namely “a sense of control and a sense of meaning.” At times, many would argue, superstition makes us feel better and perform better (quick example: say you believe in the power of a lucky charm – doing so creates an illusion of control which boosts your self-confidence and leads to an actual improvement in performance).   

Do you believe in magic?

If you knock on wood (I do), carry a lucky charm (I don’t), believe that “luck is in your hands” (sometimes), or sense that rooting for the U.S. to win their Olympic opener will help them do so (I did), then you believe in magic. Which brings us to that well-warn phrase: “Everything happens for a reason.”  This notion has a formal name – teleological reasoning – and it assumes that intentions and goals lie behind even clearly purposeless entities such as hurricanes. Hutson’s hypothesis? “When lacking a visible author, we end up crediting an invisible one – God, karma, destiny . . . ”  Magical beliefs, according to Hutson, are “basic habits of mind” and they “add structure and meaning to a chaotic and absurd universe.”

What does the research say? Some examples:    

·         Lucky golf ball – in one study, subjects handed a “lucky” ball drained 35% more golf putts than those with a “regular” ball (this study was conducted by psychologist Lysann Damisch, University of Cologne);

·         Lucky charm – in another study, “subjects performed better on memory and word games when armed with a lucky charm,” according to Hutson;

·         Reciting psalms – a study of Israel women found that those who recited psalms during the violence benefited from reduced anxiety (this study was conducted by Richard Sosis, University of Connecticut);

·         Turning points in your life – in this study, subjects were asked to reflect on a turning point in their lives, and, according to Hutson, “the more that they felt that the turning point was fated, the more that they believed ‘it made me who I am today’ and ‘it gave meaning to my life.’” Explained Hutson: “. . . belief in destiny helps render your life a coherent narrative, which infuses your goals with a greater sense of purpose. This works even when those turning points are harmful . . . ”

Huston’s conclusion: Belief in magic – as we all do – does not make us foolish. Instead, it makes us human.

Does everyone lie? (and what situations make us lie more?)

Over the last decade, author and professor Dan Ariely has run a series of experiments designed to examine the roots and causes of dishonesty, and his ready conclusion is that, under the right circumstances, virtually everyone lies.  For his part, Ariely, author of “The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty,” is rather concerned about this cultural phenomenon.

Ariely maintains that, when it comes to honesty, people are constantly weighing two opposing forces – “we want to benefit from cheating” (i.e., more money) “vs. we want to being perceived as an honest, honorable person.”  Ariely insists that “it’s the small-scale mass cheating, and not the high profile cases,” (think Madoff, Enron) “that is most corrosive to society.”

It’s important, of course, to clarify what we mean by lying. At times, we lie to gain advantage (so often, money is the driver, as we finagle our expense report, insurance claim, taxes or resumes). But Ariely isn’t concerned about the white lie, he’s worried that we’re spending too much time guarding against the Madoffs, and too little time looking in the mirror.

So what would Ariely have us do? 

As a first step, he would probably have us sign our tax forms at the top instead of the bottom, pledging that the data we are about to enter is correct, honest and accurate. Currently, of course, we sign our tax forms, and other similar documents, at the bottom, after we have done the deed. And Ariely maintains that fines and enforcement are not effective tools.  He explains: “[Fines and enforcement are] “probably going to be of little consequence when it comes up against the brute psychological force of ‘I'm only fudging a little’ or ‘Everyone does it’ or ‘It's for a greater good.’”

What Ariely found was that when people were prepped to be honest (that is, sign first, not last), they were more honest.  Here’s how he described one experiment:

             “. . . my colleagues and I ran an experiment at the University of California, Los Angeles. We took a group of 450 participants, split them into two groups and set them loose on our usual matrix task.* We asked half of them to recall the Ten Commandments and the other half to recall 10 books that they had read in high school. Among the group who recalled the 10 books, we saw the typical widespread but moderate cheating. But in the group that was asked to recall the Ten Commandments, we observed no cheating whatsoever. We reran the experiment, reminding students of their schools' honor codes instead of the Ten Commandments, and we got the same result. We even reran the experiment on a group of self-declared atheists, asking them to swear on a Bible, and got the same no-cheating results yet again.

             “This experiment has obvious implications for the real world. While ethics lectures and training seem to have little to no effect on people, reminders of morality—right at the point where people are making a decision—appear to have an outsize effect on behavior.”

------------------
* The Matrix Test – To examine how honest people are, Ariely and his colleagues used what is called the Matrix Test, a three by four grid with numbers in each square.  Participants are asked to, as quickly as they can, find numbers in the grid that add up to ten, and participants are rewarded (with cash) based on their accuracy and speed.  In their experiments, Ariely and his colleagues, kept changing the conditions under which participants solved the Matrix Test in order to isolate which elements influence cheating the most (for example, when a person saw someone else cheating, they were far more likely to cheat themselves; when a person knew they were helping teammates, that too increased the level of cheating).

When is the best time to make a decision?

You’re going to laugh at this one, but apparently the best time to make a decision . . . is when your bladder is full.  I know, that sounds crazy. But a recent study insists that it’s so. And a search of the literature found two other “best times” – after a full night’s sleep (no surprise here) and when you stomach is full. 

 Interesting. Eat, drink and sleep. I guess biology works.  Here’s the research:

A Full Bladder

Apparently, controlling your bladder makes you better at controlling yourself, according to a study led by Mirjam Tuk, of the University of Twente in the Netherlands. According to an article published last year in Science Daily, “psychological scientists [know] that activation of bodily desires” – sexual excitement, hunger, thirst – “can actually make people want other, seemingly unrelated, rewards more.”

To learn more about this phenomenon, Tuk and her colleagues set up a series of experiments to see if self-control over one bodily desire would generalize to other areas.  In the experiments, subjects consumed various amounts of water, then were asked to make a series of decisions on rewards (for example, whether to accept a small immediate reward vs. a larger, but delayed, reward).   Assessing the study’s results, the Science Daily article wondered: “. . . perhaps stores that count on impulse buys should keep a bathroom available to customers, since they might be more willing to go for the television with a bigger screen when they have an empty bladder.”

Tuk’s conclusion, according to an article in Inc: “Because feelings of inhibition all originate from the same area of the brain – self-control in one area can affect self-control in others.”

Sleep works (and coffee won’t help make better decisions)

Researchers at Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital have found that people who are sleep deprived perform less well on a standardized test simulating real-life decisions.  Study subjects were given a series of decision-making challenges, then fed moderate doses of stimulants (coffee, amphetamines) through the night. The stimulants improvee psychomotor vigilance and alertness, but only sleep helped recovery the subjects’ decision-making powers. 

So when you face an important decision, and someone tells you to sleep on it, take their advice – not just because they’ll have more time to think it over, but because of the sleep itself. Here’s how the researchers put it:

“These findings are consistent with prior research showing that sleep deprivation leads to suboptimal decision-making on some types of tasks, particularly those that rely heavily on emotion processing regions of the brain, such as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Moreover, the deficits in decision-making were not reversed by commonly used stimulant countermeasures, despite restoration of psychomotor vigilance and alertness. These three stimulants may restore some, but not all, aspects of cognitive functioning during sleep deprivation.”

On a full stomach?

In independent research, a study led by Shai Danziger from Ben Gurion University found that judges’ decisions were directly correlated with food consumption – that is, the more sated the judge, the more likely they were to grant parole.  The data, analyzed in an article last year in Discover Magazine, was quite striking – it showed that, after breakfast, an average of 65% of inmates were granted parole but that the number declined sharply through the morning, until the first food break, when the number soared back to near 65%. 

Danziger and colleagues analyzed 1,112 parole board hearings made by eight Jewish-Israeli judges who averaged 22 years on the bench.  Their verdicts represented 40% of all parole requests in a 10-month period and each judge heard between 14-35 cases (spending an average of 6 minutes on each decision).  As one would expect, judges were less likely to grant parole to prisoners considered as potential re-offenders, or those not in a rehab program.  But the influence of their food consumption was totally unexpected, even by the judges themselves (who Danziger interviewed). 

Explained Danziger: “When we face repetitive decision-making tasks, it drains our mental resources” and when we face “choice overload” we opt for the easiest choice, which in this case is to deny parole.  Taking a food break appears to replenish our resources.  In explaining his findings, Danziger noted that the results were consistent across all judges, and were not due to discrimination or quotas.

Danziger’s bottom line: judges, even experienced ones, are vulnerable to the same psychological biases as everyone else.

##

*Tuk’s results, the Science Daily article noted, appear to run counter to the concept of “ego depletion” which asserts that we have a finite well of self-control (in other words, the more we restrain ourselves, the harder it is to exert self-control in other areas).  The theory was developed by Rou Baumeister, a psychologist at Florida State University who maintains that decision-making ability can be thought of as a muscle. But when it comes to your bladder, ego depletion might not apply, given that it’s an automatic, unconscious process.

Can you cultivate self-compassion?

Apparently, the answer is yes.  And the benefits are lifelong, and can be life changing. Author Dr. Kristin Neff tells us how, and we'll share her insights in a moment.

But first, ask yourself three questions: 1. How often do I criticize myself? 2. When I criticize myself, what good does it do?  3. Does it motivate me into taking action or does it discourage me, and leave me more tense and anxious?  

Neff maintains that most of us are used to focusing on our flaws – constantly judging ourselves, condemning our mistakes and criticizing our own missteps. In her book, Self-Compassion: Stop Beating Yourself Up and Leave Insecurity Behind, Neff insists that all of this is counterproductive. In their place, she suggests that we focus on building self-compassion, which she says consists of three components: self-kindness, common humanity and mindfulness.  A word about each:  

·         Self-kindness means actively comforting ourselves, “stopping the constant self-judgment and disparaging internal commentary that most of us have come to see as normal.”  

·         Common humanity means understanding that we share a common human experience with others, that we are all interconnected and that we all suffer.  Compassion, Neff points out, means “to suffer with.”   

·         Mindfulness means clearly seeing and accepting what is happening right now, without judgment, according to Neff. She writes: “The idea is that we need to see things as they are, no more, no less, in order to respond to our current situation in the most compassionate—and therefore effective—manner.”

Change your self-talk

On her web site, www.self-compassion.org, Neff provides a series of tools for cultivating self-compassion.  Some of her exercises include:

 ·         Change your self-talk.  Explains Neff: “Make an active effort to soften the self-critical voice, but do so with compassion rather than self-judgment (i.e., don’t say ‘you’re such a bitch’ to your inner critic!). Say something like: ‘I know you’re trying to keep me safe, and to point out ways that I need to improve, but your harsh criticism and judgment is not helping at all. Please stop being so critical, you are causing me unnecessary pain.”

 ·         Questioning. Neff asks us to think about self-criticism, and the role that it plays in our lives.  She asks: “When things go wrong, do we tend to feel cut off from others . . . with the irrational feeling that everyone else is having a better time of it then you, or do you get in touch with the fact that all humans experience hardship in their lives?”

 ·         Writing/Journaling.  Neff offers this unique idea – picture an imaginary friend who knows your every strength, your every weakness, “a friend who understands your life history and the millions of things that have happened in your life to create you as you are in this moment."  Then have this imaginary friend write a letter to you, expressing deep compassion for who you are.  Neff asks: “What would this friend write in order to remind you that you are only human, that all people have both strengths and weaknesses? And if you think this friend would suggest possible changes you should make, how would these suggestions embody feelings of unconditional understanding and compassion? As you write to yourself from the perspective of this imaginary friend, try to infuse your letter with a strong sense of his/her acceptance, kindness, caring and desire for your health and happiness.”

 Neff’s bottom line: “[It’s difficult] to be an imperfect human being in this extremely competitive society of ours.” But we are all capable of cultivating self-compassion, and quieting the voice of our inner critic.  

"Being self-compassionate means that whether you win or lose, surpass your sky-high expectations or fall short, you still extend the same kindness and sympathy toward yourself, just like you would a good friend.”

What are your signature strengths?

What are your greatest strengths, and how can you make the most of them?

Are you socially intelligent? A critical thinker? Are you someone who perseveres?  Do you bring people together?  How do you regard honesty, fairness, spirituality and love?

The VIA Institute on Character has created a list of 24 signature strengths, grouped into six categories called “virtues” -- the Virtue of Wisdom, of Courage, of Humanity, of Justice, of Temperance and of Transcendence (see below for details). And the Institute’s primary goal is simple: to help you create the best life possible by understanding, and accessing, your greatest strengths.  They offer a fascinating (and free) online survey (www.viacharacter.org), which has been taken by more than 1.3 million people worldwide.  The survey is currently offered in 17 languages.

Explains the Institute: “We aim to fill the world with greater virtue – more wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance and transcendence.” If you take the survey, it will reveal your top five, then share specific recommendations on how best to implement those in your life.

Writing for www.psychcentral.com earlier this year, author and psychologist Ryan Niemiec pointed out that “It’s all too common for people to underuse their strengths.”  One of Niemiec’s examples was particularly powerful. Said Niemiec:

“Janet discovered her highest strength is prudence. Prudence gets a bad rap. It is often lumped with being a ‘prude’ or someone who doesn’t have fun. In reality, prudence can be seen as ‘cautious wisdom,’ thinking before one speaks, and being careful about one’s choices.

“All her life, Janet had beaten herself up for not being enough of a risk-taker, not living life fully, and always holding back when new situations arose. But, when viewed as her signature strength, it turns out prudence has served her well. Janet is a successful businesswoman and project manager and sees how this naturally-occurring prudence strength has helped her become who she is today. She is conscientious, goal-oriented, and is well-organized – all common characteristics of a prudent person.

“Janet realized that she actually had been living life fully and did take risks, but her approach was to give pause to reflect a bit before taking action. Seeing this, her appreciation for herself deepened.”

Below are the Institute's 24 signature strengths:

The Virtue of Wisdom
· Creativity: original, adaptive, ingenuity
· Curiosity: interest, novelty-seeking, exploration, openness to experience
· Judgment: critical thinking, thinking things through, open-minded
· Love of Learning: mastering new skills & topics, systematically adding to knowledge
· Perspective: wisdom, providing wise counsel, taking the big picture view

The Virtue of Courage
· Bravery: valor, not shrinking from fear, speaking up for what’s right
· Perseverance: persistence, industry, finishing what one starts
· Honesty: authenticity, integrity
· Zest: vitality, enthusiasm, vigor, energy, feeling alive and activated

The Virtue of Humanity
· Love: both loving and being loved, valuing close relations with others
· Kindness: generosity, nurturance, care, compassion, altruism, “niceness”
· Social Intelligence: aware of the motives/feelings of oneself & others

The Virtue of Justice
· Teamwork: citizenship, social responsibility, loyalty
· Fairness: just, not letting feelings bias decisions about others
· Leadership: organizing group activities, encouraging a group to get things done

The Virtue of Temperance· Forgiveness: mercy, accepting others’ shortcomings, giving people a second chance
· Humility: modesty, letting one’s accomplishments speak for themselves
· Prudence: careful, cautious, not taking undue risks
· Self-Regulation: self-control, disciplined, managing impulses & emotions

The Virtue of Transcendence· Appreciation of Beauty and Excellence: awe, wonder, elevation
· Gratitude: thankful for the good, expressing thanks, feeling blessed
· Hope: optimism, future-mindedness, future orientation
· Humor: playfulness, bringing smiles to others, lighthearted
· Spirituality: religiousness, faith, purpose, meaning