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.