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).   

##