Are you a mover, perceiver, stimulator or adaptor?

What’s your dominant thinking mode?

A new book has us thinking again, about how we process the world, how we make plans and how diligent we are in executing those plans (whether it’s planning a meal or building a business).  Authors Stephen Kosslyn (Harvard neuroscientist) and G. Wayne Miller (author, filmmaker) urge us to think about how we think (they call it the theory of cognitive modes), and the implicit hope is that the more we understand our own thinking pattern, the more capable we’ll be in teaming with others, and achieving our goals. 

Kosslyn and Miller crafted their own personality test to help us learn what type of thinker we are (I took the test – more about that, in a moment), and they hope that their body of work advances a sea of personality tests, the most famous of which is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator – which measures individual preferences on four continuums: extraversion-introversion, sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling, judging-perceiving.  

Kosslyn and Miller begin by thoroughly debunking the long-held notion that we’re either left-brained or right-brained. The authors declare:

“The popular left/right story has no solid basis in science. The brain doesn't work one part at a time, but rather as a single interactive system, with all parts contributing in concert, as neuroscientists have long known. The left brain/right brain story may be the mother of all urban legends: It sounds good and seems to make sense—but just isn't true.”

In an article written for the Wall Street Journal this past fall, the authors explain that their new theory “has emerged from the field of neuropsychology, the study of higher cognitive functioning – thoughts, wishes, hopes, desires and all other aspects of mental life.” They first explain the anatomical aspects of brain function (top-brain vs. bottom-brain), and then detail four cognitive modes or thinking styles – mover, perceiver, stimulator and adaptor.

Thinking Mode #1: Mover

Explain the authors: “According to the theory, people who habitually rely on Mover mode are most comfortable in positions that allow them to plan, act and see the consequences of their actions. They are well suited to being leaders.”  The authors name names – hypothesizing that Oprah Winfrey, the Wright Brothers, FDR and NASCAR’s Bill France Jr. are all “movers.”

Thinking Mode #2: Perceiver

Who might be a perceiver? The authors tab the Dali Lama and Emily Dickinson, given that people in perceiver mode “try to make sense in depth of what they perceive; they interpret their experiences, place them in context and try to understand the implications.” But, the authors maintain: “. . . they don't make and execute grand plans. By definition, such people – including naturalists, pastors, novelists – typically lead lives away from the limelight. Those who rely on this mode often play a crucial role in a group; they can make sense of events and provide a bigger picture. In business, they are key members of teams, providing perspective and wisdom but not always getting credit.”

Thinking Mode #3: Stimulator

Stimulators, report Kosslyn and Miller, “. . . often create and execute complex and detailed plans . . . but fail to register consistently and accurately the consequences of acting on those plans.  They don't update or correct their plans when events unfold in unexpected ways. Such people may be creative and original, able to think outside the box even when everybody around them has a fixed way of approaching an issue. At the same time, they may not always note when enough is enough. Their actions can be disruptive, and they may not adjust their behavior appropriately.” Who do the authors believe fall into the “Stimulator” mode?  Tiger Woods and social activist Abbie Hoffman.

Thinking Mode #4: Adaptor

Alex Rodriguez and Elizabeth Taylor are considered “adapters,” according to the authors, who explain: “[Adaptors are people who . . . are not caught up in initiating plans, nor are they fully focused on classifying and interpreting what they experience. Instead, they become absorbed by local events and the immediate requirements of the situation. They are responsive and action-oriented and tend to ‘go with the flow’. Others see them as free-spirited and fun to be with. Because they can easily embrace the plans of others, those who typically operate in Adaptor mode can be valuable team members. In business, they often form the backbone of an organization, carrying out essential operations.” 

And how did my test turn out? After 20 questions, they said that my thinking style is “stimulator.” My report said simply: “You think in situational Stimulator Mode: you tend to make and act on plans, but do not always register consequences and adjust plans accordingly, but are particularly context dependent.”  Perhaps. But these four areas now help me understand why my wife and I get along so well – we have totally different thinking styles. 

Steve Ferber is author of “21 Rules to Live By.”

##

Procrastination: 6 tips for doing today . . . what you’d rather put off ’til tomorrow

My favorite tip is #6, called "positive procrastination" which, honestly, sounds a bit oxymoronic. It's a phrase that I've never heard before and is one of six tips I’m about to share on the art-of-putting-things-off.

But before we explore each tip, this brief historical interlude: in the 1970s, roughly 5% of Americans admitted to regularly procrastinating; today it’s an impressive 26% (based on a survey a few years ago). Leading to this wanting question: do we procrastinate more, or are people just more willing to admit it?

On to the six tips:

Tip #1: Give your friend $100

This could get expensive.  It’s called a "commitment device" and here’s how it works: give your friend $100 and if you complete the task at hand by, say, 8pm, you get your $100 back.  It you don't make the 8 o'clock deadline, you're out the $100 and your friend now must donate the funds to the charity of their choice.  Explains author Eric Barker, writing for www.bakadesuyo.com: "The most important thing is the default position.  You can’t say: 'I will give them $100 if I fail.' No, you give the $100 first."

Tip #2: Manage your mood

This may sound a bit obvious, but people tend to procrastinate more when they're in a bad mood. Knowing that, the trick is to find a way to improve your mood, and then contemplate tackling that dreaded task.

Says Barker:

"If you’re really going to be motivated, you need to feel something. Having a rational goal in mind or thinking you want something just isn’t enough.  What moves you? What inspires you? Try that . . . because glib as it may sound, changing your mood can change your mind."

Tip #3: Take a minute (yes, just one) to create a plan

With pen and paper in hand, set your stopwatch, or kitchen time, to a single minute. Your challenge is to sketch a quick-and-dirty plan to tackle that daunting task list (e.g., paying the bills, doing your taxes, vacuuming, weeding the yard).   Given that you're only planning for 60 seconds, this step-by-step can't be comprehensive. Instead, simply jot down a start time (e.g., Tuesday night, from 8pm-9pm), a rough schedule, plus the first action step. 

Tip #4: Break the project into smaller concrete tasks

Explains Jocelyn Glei, writing for www.99u.com:

"It turns out that the manner in which a task is presented to someone – or the way in which you present it to your brain – has a significant impact on how motivated you will be to take action. A study led by researcher Sean McCrea at the University of Konstanz in Germany recently found that people are much more likely to tackle a 'concrete task' (e.g., writing about the steps to open a bank account) 'than an abstract task' (e.g., writing about why someone might want to open a bank account)."

  

Tip #5: Use deadlines to create opportunities

For most of us, 'deadline' is dirty word.  But Glei objects, and explains: 'The default take on deadlines is typically to consider them to be cumbersome and stressful. Yet, from another perspective, a deadline can be viewed as a huge benefit to any project. Without the urgency of a hard deadline pushing a project to completion, it's easy for you, your team, or your client to lose focus. We've all worked on agonizing projects where the timeline just bleeds on and on, merely because the flexibility is there."  As illustrator Christoph Niemann pointed out in a 99U interview, "Deadlines can actually help us by creating a fixed window of opportunity that requires us to be focused, pragmatic, and decisive."

Tip #6: Create Positive Procrastination

Barker, writing for www.bakadesuyo.com, quotes Dr. John Perry (author of "The Art of Procrastination") who insists that the key to productivity is to make more commitments – not less, but "to be methodical about it," according to Barker. Barker explains: "At the top of your to-do list, put a couple of daunting, if not impossible, tasks that are vaguely important-sounding (but really aren't) and seem to have deadlines (but really don't). Then, farther down the list, include some doable tasks that really matter." Barker quotes Perry, who says: "Doing these tasks becomes a way of not doing the things higher up on the list."

A similar tip is described by Piers Steel, author of The Procrastination Equation:

"My best trick is to play my projects off against each other, procrastinating on one by working on another." Dr. Steel says it's based on sound principles of behavioral psychology: "We are willing to pursue any vile task as long as it allows us to avoid something worse."

##

Are you spending your money in the happiest way?

Visit any Barnes & Noble and the financial shelves will be chock full of books telling us how to make money, or invest it more wisely.  But a new book called “Happy Money: The Science of Smarter Spending,” by Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton, presents an entirely new perspective – challenging us to focus instead on how we spend money (one of the book's taglines: "If you don't think money buys happiness, you're just not spending it the right way"). Dunn and Norton’s bottom line: when it comes to swiping your credit card, don’t always trust your instincts – trust the research (which forms the basis for their five principles).

Said one reader, whose book review appeared at goodreads.com:

“Once you get past a certain level of income, where your basic needs are met, having more money doesn’t make you happier. But HOW you spend your money CAN make your happier. Spending your money on experiences, delaying gratification, etc. can make you enjoy what you do spend on.”

Here then are Dunn and Norton’s five principles:

1.       Buy Experiences. The authors maintain that spending your money on experiences will, in the long run, create more happiness than purchasing material objects.  Experiences yield social connection and interaction, and therefore lead to more happiness (and better stories) over time.

2.       Make It A Treat. Author Dunn told RadioBoston: “The fundamental barrier to human happiness is our tendency to get used to what we’ve got.” The point is transparent – the more you are exposed to something, the less impact it has.  In her interview with RadioBoston Dunn said people should “think about what they like best, and save it for special occasions, or take a break between indulgences.” The authors encourage us to “turn our favorite things back into treats.”  Observed Barry Schwartz, in his book review for the LA Times: “There isn’t much point to drinking $50 wine if it starts tasting like $10 wine, so keep that good wine for special occasions, no matter how rich you are.” Added Schwartz: “Adaptation to good things may be the biggest challenge we face when it comes to getting satisfaction out of our lives.”

3.       Buy Time. Dunn and Norton urge us to ask one simple question before buying: “How will this purchase change the way I use my time?” The authors explain: “When people focus on their time rather than their money, they act like scientists of happiness, choosing activities that promote their well-being.” Norton told RadioBoston: “Time is such an amazing and valuable resource that we feel so restrained. It can be more motivating than money.” RadioBoston sums up the authors’ intent: “Purchases that lead to more free time, or time spent more productively or with friends and family, are better than material goods.”

4.       Pay Now, Consume Later. Imagine if you walked into a restaurant and paid for the meal right away.  Then, after your drank the wine, and consumed the delicious appetizers, entrée and dessert, you just left.  No bill to reconcile at the end.  How would that make you feel? That’s the basic principle underlying principle #4, which, interestingly enough, is the opposite of how we use credit cards (consume now, pay later). Explained Schwartz: “When we separate the moment of purchase from the moment of consumption, we gain in two ways: we separate the costs from the benefits in time. And we get to savor the thing or experience we’ve purchased in the time period between the moment of purchase and its consummation.” So the next time you buy tickets for a concert or a play, focus on the joy of anticipation.

5.       Invest in Others.  It’s a familiar recommendation, and the research in this area is sound: people feel better when they spend on others, rather than themselves. But not if we’re pressured to spend (as in charitable donations) – that often makes us feel worse. And the research says that these principles are true across cultures and are detectable “among children before the age of two,” according to the authors. 

So the next time you spend some money, make sure it’s Happy Money. You’ll be richer for it. 

Should we still be celebrating Independence Day?

I’d vote yes, and I suppose that most of our fellow 316 million Americans would agree. Having said that, it seems to me that July 4^th is more about celebrating freedom (and the principles underlying the American story) than about achieving independence. The link is unassailable – freedom, equality and democracy are indeed a direct result of our bid for independence, some 237 years ago, but watching Old Glory wave in the breeze, I think more about our place in the world pantheon than our battle with Britain two centuries ago. 

Yet, as I drive both on and off Daniel Island, and past the resplendent line of Old Glories, I can’t help but wonder why we don’t spend similar time celebrating our connection with the world. In the history of man, some 115 billion people have been born, we among them, and of that vast sum, 7.1 billion people are here among us.  We are, in the final analysis, fellow travelers on the same voyage – all members of the World community. Each one of us, when asked where we’re from, can answer the same: Planet Earth.  We are all members of the same tribe, and though, as a group, we have not fought together for independence (from, perchance, Venus?), we are linked together in a special way. 

Yet, amid that reality, nationalism (defined as “supporting the aspirations of a single nation” or “devotion and loyalty to one’s own country”) has its limits.  I’m proud to be an American, and feel exceptionally lucky to have been born on American soil, and afforded the opportunity and support that comes with being an American citizen. There’s a reason that people from all over the world continue to flock here.  And while our legislators currently are struggling to do what’s best for the country, the underlying principles remain strong. 

The United States, after all, is the longest running democracy in the history of the world, and while threats persist, witnessing the seamless transition of Presidential power on the front lawn of the Capital (one president sworn in, one waving goodbye from their chopper), we all can feel whole in the notion that the experiment works, that “this nation . . . can endure.”

But, in a larger sense, one could argue that we spend too little time thinking of ourselves as a whole.  As an international community, we do join hands on certain occasions (e.g., Earth Day, International Women’s Day*), but perhaps a bit more time could be devoted to humanism, or globalism, or inter-nationalism. As a member of the animal kingdom, humans seem intent on becoming #1, indeed, all major U.S. systems are based on it (e.g., corporate America, our political system, the world of sports, et al).  Yet being #1 in any arena naturally means there’s a two and a three. Take education. Currently, the US ranks #17 worldwide; yet, if our system meets the necessary criteria for success, then our rank is irrelevant; conversely, if we rank #1, yet fail to meet our students’ needs, our standing in the international community is no cause for celebration. Sure, competition stirs growth, but it also breeds disharmony.

So as we celebrate the 4^th, consider for a moment hanging a World Flag outside of your porch. I’m ordering mine today. 

 
* according to online sources, there are dozens of “international days.” These include, of course, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day and April Fool’s Day (yes, they’re celebrated worldwide) plus less notable entrants: Thinking Day (February 22^nd), Friendship Day (August 5^th), International Talk-Like-a-Pirate Day (September 19^th) and Inventor’s Day” (in 1983, President Ronald Reagan declared February 11^th as National Inventor’s Day – Thomas Edison’s birthday, for those keeping score).  In addition, the UN’s 39 international days include: International Day of Peace (September 21^st), International Day for the Eradication of Poverty (October 17^th), International Day for Tolerance (November 16^th) and Human Rights Day (December 10^th).

Are you an introvert, an extrovert or, perchance, an ambivert?

I have a confession. Before last week, I had never heard the word “ambivert.”  Apparently, it’s been around since the 1920s (where have I been?) and is now gaining some verbal traffic thanks to a recent study that asked: are extroverts the best salespeople? (note: one in nine U.S. jobs is in sales).

Conventional wisdom insists that in the field of sales, it’s the extrovert – that outgoing, vibrant personality – that excels.  But a new study led by organizational psychologist Adam Grant (Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania) upends that decades-long notion and forcefully claims that ambiverts – people who skillfully blend the art of talking, with the art of listening – are the best salespeople.

And he has the data to prove it.  Grant gathered three months of sales records from 300 salespeople (each one took an extensive personality assessment beforehand) to see which personality did the best. His findings?  The ambiverts finished on top – in a three-month period, they made 24% more in sales revenue than introverts, and 32% more in revenue than extroverts. 

Said the study abstract:

“Despite the widespread assumption that extraverts are the most productive salespeople . . . ambiverts achieve greater sales productivity than extraverts or introverts do. Because they naturally engage in a flexible pattern of talking and listening, ambiverts are likely to express sufficient assertiveness and enthusiasm to persuade and close a sale but are more inclined to listen to customers’ interests and less vulnerable to appearing too excited or overconfident.”

In analyzing the study results, David DiSalvo, writing for Forbes, pointed out:

“Perhaps even more surprising, Grant found that the two extreme personality types pulled in roughly the same percentage of sales.  Being highly extroverted wasn’t even a plus when compared against the personality type we generally think of as the worst candidate for high-performance sales.

“The reason for these results may simply be that extroverts pour it on a bit too thick for their own good, and this tendency negates any charismatic advantages they might otherwise enjoy. For example, their overflowing enthusiasm for the sale can cause them to not listen closely enough to the needs of the customer, and this in turn hurts their chances of closing the sale.”

I must admit, I’ve always paused when I hear friends label themselves, or others, as introverts or extroverts. We are, after all, rather complex human beings, and boiling our entire personality down to a single word seems, how shall we say, so imprecise. Now that a third classification is on the board, perhaps we’ll start to break away from these labels. 

More than that, Grant’s findings open the door for a full scale reassessment – both by sales managers and prospective employees.  Explained Grant, in a story by Phillynews.com: “My findings suggest that less-extroverted people may be missing out on productive careers . . . and hiring managers may be missing out on star performers."

Grant is author of the book “Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success.”

##

Ethics and wealth: is there a link?

Apparently so, according to a series of seven studies that found that people who have the most act the worst. 

Researchers, funded in part of the National Science Foundation, explored whether upper class vs. lower class individuals were most likely to: break the law while driving, take valued goods from others, lie during negotiations, cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize and endorse unethical behavior in a work setting. In each case, wealthier individuals acted the worst. 

Why?  Explained lead researcher Paul Piff of UC Berkeley, as quoted in the at www.nsf.gov: "The relative privilege and security enjoyed by upper-class individuals give rise to independence from others and a prioritization of the self and one's own welfare over the welfare of others--what we call 'greed,”, and greed, the researchers explained “is a robust determinant of unethical behavior."  The report’s authors noted: “Plato and Aristotle deemed greed to be at the root of personal immorality, arguing that greed drives desires for material gain at the expense of ethical standards.”

Piff told www.guardian.com: "If you occupy these higher echelons, you start to see yourself as more entitled, and develop a heightened self-focus. . .  . Your social environment is likely more buffered against the impact of your actions, and you might not perceive the risks of your behavior because you are better resourced, you have the money for lawyers and so on."   Joining Piff in the research were Daniel M. Stancato, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton and Dacher Keltner of UC Berkeley and Stéphane Côté of the University of Toronto.

Here’s a look at the research, conducted both in the field and in the lab. 

Who’s more aggressive on the road? 

Researchers created two scenarios to test whether people who drive more expensive cars take more liberties on the road  (the PNAS report noted: “. . . vehicles are reliable indicators of a person’s social rank and wealth”).  In one study, observers stood near a busy four-way intersection (stop signs on each side) and recorded whether drivers cut off other vehicles by crossing the intersection without waiting their turn (the researchers controlled for time of day, driver’s perceived sex and age). In a second study, observers recorded who was more likely to cut off pedestrians at a crosswalk.  In both cases, according to the PNAS study, upper-class drivers were “significantly more likely” (based on statistical variation) to cut off other vehicles and drive through the crosswalk.

Would you take the candy?

In this study, participants were presented with a jar of individually wrapped candies, to see how much they would take. They were told that the candy was for children in a nearby laboratory, “but you are free to take some if you would like.” Before they were given this directive, participants were “primed” by having them compare their station in life with others. Explained the PNAS report: “Central to our hypothesis, participants in the upper-class rank condition took more candy” (twice as much, in fact) “that would otherwise go to children . . . than did those in the lower-rank condition.”

In a job negotiation, would you reveal critical data?  

In the next study, participants assumed the role of a boss and were asked to negotiate a salary with a job candidate.  Each participant was fed information about the job, including the fact that the job was about to be eliminated.  What did the researchers find?  That a person’s attitude toward greed (based on two independent measures) was directly related to how truthful they were in the negotiation. In other words, those who had the most positive attitudes toward greed were less likely to tell the candidate that the job was going to be eliminated. 

Would you inflate your numbers?

To test the link between greed and cheating, participants were asked to report their total score from a series of dice rolls, and were told that the higher their score, the more likely they would be to claim a prize (note: the participants didn’t actually roll the dice, instead they were presented with a series of numbers, that appeared to be random). What happened? No surprise – participants who placed a higher value on greed also lied about their total score. Said the PNAS report: “These results further suggest that more favorable attitudes toward greed among members of the upper class explain, in part, their unethical tendencies.”

##

Who’s happier, older people or younger people?

The two research findings that I’m about to share may, at first, appear contradictory.  We shall explain. 

·         Research finding #1: older people are happier than they’ve ever been (indeed, people across all generations become happier as they age); and

·         Research finding #2: younger people, on an absolute level, are happier than their older counterparts.

How can this be?  The reason, of course, is that how happy you are (the term of art is “psychological well-being”) has more to do with when you were born, and not how old you are.

Researchers from NIH, the National Institute on Aging and Florida State University analyzed thousands of records, on people born from 1885 to the present, and arrived at this significant conclusion: a person’s overall well-being is related to what generation they grew up in. 

Lindsay Abrams, writing for The Atlantic, explains: “People born at the turn of the 20th century, between 1885 and 1925, started out lowest on the well-being scale. Each successive generation, stretching across almost a century to people born in 1980, had a slightly more positive outlook.” Added Abrams: “This also means that while older adults appear, as a whole, to be the least happy generation, right now they're happier than they've ever been.”

“Psychological well-being,” as defined by researchers, is an overall sense of life satisfaction, one that often translates into life success (i.e., relationships, career, financial).  Explained the researchers: “Life satisfaction increased over the participants’ lifetimes. This trend remained even after factors like health, medication, sex, ethnicity, and education were taken into account.”  Said lead researcher Angelina Sutin, as quoted recently in Time magazine: “Once we accounted for the fact that people grew up in different eras, it turns out, on average, people maintain or increase their sense of well-being as they get older.”

What this new research suggests is that previous findings were flawed when they concluded that age was the reason the elderly have a lower sense of well-being.  Apparently, it has more to do with life experiences, and generational challenges, such as the Great Depression and economic trauma. The Time magazine article pointed out: “People born in 1940, for example, scored nearly 3 times higher on measures of well-being related to the time period immediately preceding the survey (responses to items like ‘I enjoyed life’ and ‘I was happy’), compared to those born in 1900.”

In the same Time article, Sutin offered the following observation: “We assume that all of that loss would make older adults unhappy. It’s harder to see the benefits of aging: feelings of pride for children and grandchildren, a meaningful career, more confidence, wisdom. There are a lot of reasons to be happy in older adulthood, but they may not be as visible as the losses.” When they are, however, it turns out that happiness is one of the benefits that come with age.

Co-authors on this research include Antonio Terracciano, also of Florida State University College of Medicine and a guest researcher at the NIA; Yuri Milaneschi of the National Institute on Aging and VU University Medical Center; and Yang An, Luigi Ferrucci and Alan B. Zonderman of the National Institute on Aging, NIH.