Tag Archives: psychology

the “end of history” effect applied to individuals

Leave a reply

At first I thought that, since this article is from the BBC, it might be about arrogant westerners realizing the world doesn’t revolve around them. But no, it is about the idea of a person’s personality changing over time, and how you might take that into account when making decisions today.

To test whether the end of history illusion would extend to people’s personal values, the researchers recruited a new sample of 2,700 participants, who were asked to state the importance of concepts such as hedonism, achievement, tradition in their lives – before imagining their responses 10 years in the past or 10 years in the future. Sure enough, the end-of-history illusion was in full force: people recognised how their values had shifted in the past but were unlikely to predict change in the future…

“Both teenagers and grandparents seem to believe that the pace of personal change has slowed to a crawl and that they have recently become the people they will remain,” the researchers concluded in their original paper. “History, it seems, is always ending today…”

More seriously, the end-of-history illusion could place us on career paths that fail to give us fulfilment in the long-term. You might have considered that a high salary was more important than inherent interest in the work you were doing – and that could well have been true at the time. When you reached your 30s, however, those values might have shifted – now you might be yearning for passion rather than an enormous pay packet. “Here’s the problem: when faced with new career directions or job prospects, if we make mistakes in considering what we think will matter, we may opt to take (or not take) paths that we’ll later regret,” Hershfield notes.

BBC

If I think about a “bucket list” I might have made when I was younger, it might have included things like living abroad, starting a business, and skydiving. I have done one of those three things at this point, and I am no longer interested in the other two. If I were making a new bucket list today, it would still include some periodic travel, but with long stretches at a “home base” that is comfortable and predictable. I think it is always useful to try to imagine a “future you” looking back on a decision. Maybe we should be imagining two or three “future yous” and trying to make decisions they might all agree on.

Right now, I feel like I could spend a month or a year just sitting around reading books and maybe emerge as a whole human being ready for social contact again. But that is from years and years of overstimulation from work and family life with virtually no breaks. So that is one question I have, is our personality on any given day an “equilibrium” personality or is it partially a reflection of what has happened to us recently. I might not be classified as a “neurotic” person the first day after I get back to work after vacation, and then I might seem extremely neurotic on the second day depending on what is thrown at me at work and at home by other neurotic people and how much (okay, to be realistic, whether I get any) down time in between. Maybe, just maybe, my work and family life will calm down as I get older and my equilibrium personality will be able to shine.

transactional analysis

Leave a reply

My high school actually had a mandatory class on transactional analysis, a model of human interactions developed by Eric Berne in the 1950s. I didn’t find it particularly helpful at the time, and haven’t heard much about it since then. But it is interesting:

At the heart of Berne’s model are three ego states that live in each of us: the Child (the most natural, vulnerable, and spontaneous part of our personality, keeper of our creative vitality and our most unalloyed capacity for pleasure); the Parent (the part of us that unconsciously mimics the psychological responses of our parents as we observed them in childhood); and the Adult (the competent and self-possessed part of us capable of making sound decisions in our best interest). All three coexist within us, and all three play into our social interactions…

But beyond the simplest and most complementary exchange — one Adult issuing the stimulus, another Adult giving the response — most of social transactions are a chaos of mismatched and ever-switching ego states. The confusion — the wounding — happens when the lines of communication cross and the interaction becomes not between two people in parallel and consistent ego states, but between one part of one person and a different part of the other: Child-Adult, Adult-Parent, Parent-Child, and all the other possible non-equivalences. This basic pattern, a diagram of which became the book’s cover, is what defines a game — “an ongoing series of complementary ulterior transactions progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome” — a patterned, self-defeating psychological interchange, in which one ego state issues a stimulus concealing the emotional need of another ego-state, then receives a response to the hidden message and reacts negatively to it, frustrating both parties and garbling communication in a way that injures intimacy.

The Marginalian

If I were going to give my younger self advice, I would say don’t assume you know what other people are thinking. Even when you are interacting with others, your thoughts and emotions usually have to do a lot more with what is going on in your own mind and body than theirs. So don’t assume you know what they are thinking or what their intentions are, or what type of reaction they are trying to elicit from you. That’s sounds like funny advice – don’t ascribe intentions to people. People certainly have intentions, but when you try to guess what they are you will often be wrong. See listen and observe, think, and then make up your own mind. Even if they do have malign intentions, which happens more rarely than my younger self would have thought, you still have some control over your emotional reaction and near total control over your own behavior. If you are a person who can be quick to anger, like my younger self, it is better to walk away from the offending person and take some time to reflect than to react in the moment. Some people will take this as a sign of weakness or “nonassertiveness”, but I have learned that reacting in anger is usually unpleasant for everyone, including me, and I tend to regret it later. I will confront that person later in a more rational frame of mind, if I feel the confrontation is worth it, but often I decide it is not. So pick your battles carefully, younger self, and there are not too many battles worth picking.

microdosing

Leave a reply

There are people taking small doses of LSD and other psychedelics every day for their possible/suspected health benefits, and there may actually be some science behind this.

Microdosing psychedelics – the regular consumption of small amounts of psychedelic substances such as LSD or psilocybin – is a growing trend in popular culture. Recent studies on full-dose psychedelic psychotherapy reveal promising benefits for mental well-being, especially for depression and end-of-life anxiety. While full-dose therapies include perception-distorting properties, microdosing may provide complementary clinical benefits using lower-risk, non-hallucinogenic doses. No experimental study has evaluated psychedelic microdosing, however; this pre-registered study is the first to investigate microdosing psychedelics and mental health. Recruited from online forums, current and former microdosers scored lower on measures of dysfunctional attitudes and negative emotionality and higher on wisdom, open-mindedness, and creativity when compared to non microdosing controls. These findings provide promising initial evidence that warrants controlled experimental research to directly test safety and clinical efficacy. As microdoses are easier to administer than full-doses, this new paradigm has the exciting potential to shape future psychedelic research.

psychedelics, the cure for…everything?

Leave a reply

Serious research suggests psychedelics may be an effective cure for depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and addiction, among other things. This article also compares reported experiences under psychedelics to meditation, which I found interesting.

What is happening when a person meditates? If you meditate in a dedicated way, for long enough, most people say that they start to experience a spiritual change. Why did meditation make people feel they were being changed in a way that was mystical — and what did that even mean? He stumbled across the psychedelics studies from the 1960s, and it seemed to him that the way people described feeling when they took psychedelics was very similar to the way people described when they were in a state of deep meditation. He began to wonder if they were, in some strange sense, two different ways of approaching the same insight. Could investigating one unlock the secrets of the other? …

When you take a psychedelic, most people will have a spiritual experience – you get a sense that your ego-walls have been lowered, and you are deeply connected to the people around you, to our whole species, to the natural world, to existence. But it turns out the intensity of the spiritual experience varies from person to person. For some people, it will be incredibly intense; for some people, mild; and some people have no spiritual experience at all. At Johns Hopkins, the team discovered that many of the positive effects correlate very closely with the intensity of the spiritual experience. So if you had a super-charged spiritual experience, you got the benefits very heavily; and if you had no spiritual experience, you didn’t have many positive effects.

Okay, I don’t usually go here, but let’s say just for the sake of argument that religion is not objectively true. Then these spiritual experiences people tend to have while under the effects of drugs, meditation, and prayer actually come from inside us, are baked into our minds in some way. And maybe people who have more of them really are happier and better off, which would seem to be a good thing maybe even if they are not objectively true.

sarcasm, knowledge and creativity

Leave a reply

I’ve always preferred to keep my news and entertainment separate, which has always made me mildly uncomfortable with comedy news purveyors like Stewart, Colbert, and Oliver. But there is some evidence that better informed and more creative people are drawn to sarcasm. From Smithsonian:

Sarcasm seems to exercise the brain more than sincere statements do. Scientists who have monitored the electrical activity of the brains of test subjects exposed to sarcastic statements have found that brains have to work harder to understand sarcasm.

That extra work may make our brains sharper, according to another study. College students in Israel listened to complaints to a cellphone company’s customer service line. The students were better able to solve problems creatively when the complaints were sarcastic as opposed to just plain angry. Sarcasm “appears to stimulate complex thinking and to attenuate the otherwise negative effects of anger,” according to the study authors.

The mental gymnastics needed to perceive sarcasm includes developing a “theory of mind” to see beyond the literal meaning of the words and understand that the speaker may be thinking of something entirely different. A theory of mind allows you to realize that when your brother says “nice job” when you spill the milk, he means just the opposite, the jerk.

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-science-of-sarcasm-yeah-right-25038/#QlY3dyz2ZcXfK45p.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

I remember that after living abroad and returning to the United States, the all-pervasive sarcasm and irony in our media and culture is one thing that really struck me. And while living abroad, I found I had to tone down my ironic tone because people from other cultures often didn’t pick up on it, at least at first.

why propaganda works

Leave a reply

Here’s an article from the Journal of Experimental Psychology explaining (at least one reason) why propaganda is effective. When we hear things repeated, we are more likely to believe them, and this is true even if we have prior knowledge to the contrary. The reason is simply that it takes more mental effort for your brain to process new information than to access information it already has in storage.

Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 993-1002.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000098

In daily life, we frequently encounter false claims in the form of consumer advertisements, political propaganda, and rumors. Repetition may be one way that insidious misconceptions, such as the belief that vitamin C prevents the common cold, enter our knowledge base. Research on the illusory truth effect demonstrates that repeated statements are easier to process, and subsequently perceived to be more truthful, than new statements. The prevailing assumption in the literature has been that knowledge constrains this effect (i.e., repeating the statement “The Atlantic Ocean is the largest ocean on Earth” will not make you believe it). We tested this assumption using both normed estimates of knowledge and individuals’ demonstrated knowledge on a postexperimental knowledge check (Experiment 1). Contrary to prior suppositions, illusory truth effects occurred even when participants knew better. Multinomial modeling demonstrated that participants sometimes rely on fluency even if knowledge is also available to them (Experiment 2). Thus, participants demonstrated knowledge neglect, or the failure to rely on stored knowledge, in the face of fluent processing experiences.

how would people react to alien life?

Leave a reply

Here’s an interesting study from Frontiers in Psychology about how people might react to the discovery of real extraterrestrial life.

How will humanity react to the discovery of extraterrestrial life? Speculation on this topic abounds, but empirical research is practically non-existent. We report the results of three empirical studies assessing psychological reactions to the discovery of extraterrestrial life using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) text analysis software. We examined language use in media coverage of past discovery announcements of this nature, with a focus on extraterrestrial microbial life (Pilot Study). A large online sample (N = 501) was asked to write about their own and humanity’s reaction to a hypothetical announcement of such a discovery (Study 1), and an independent, large online sample (N = 256) was asked to read and respond to a newspaper story about the claim that fossilized extraterrestrial microbial life had been found in a meteorite of Martian origin (Study 2). Across these studies, we found that reactions were significantly more positive than negative, and more reward vs. risk oriented. A mini-meta-analysis revealed large overall effect sizes (positive vs. negative affect language: g = 0.98; reward vs. risk language: g = 0.81). We also found that people’s forecasts of their own reactions showed a greater positivity bias than their forecasts of humanity’s reactions (Study 1), and that responses to reading an actual announcement of the discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life showed a greater positivity bias than responses to reading an actual announcement of the creation of man-made synthetic life (Study 2). Taken together, this work suggests that our reactions to a future confirmed discovery of microbial extraterrestrial life are likely to be fairly positive.

new studies about drugs

Leave a reply

Here are a bunch of new studies on drugs, both legal and illegal. Now, I am not advocating drug use. I am just advocating being aware of scientific research and making responsible decisions that reflect one’s personal risk tolerance. I would also point out that some legal drugs, like alcohol, tobacco, and prescription pain killers, are absolutely proven to cause harm to a lot of people, while some illegal drugs are not. I don’t take illegal drugs personally, because the idea of not knowing where they came from or what is in them is too scary for me. Nonetheless, here we go.

Recent studies have found that:

  • There is no association between marijuana use and heart disease.
  • There is a strong association between common pain killers, including ibuprofen, and heart disease, in “high doses”. I do not know if high doses include the Extra Strength Advil I can buy over the counter.
  • There is no clear link between marijuana use by pregnant women and any adverse effects on babies, although there is the “theoretical potential“. There is a strong link between alcohol and adverse effects on babies – I won’t even bother citing studies, they are easy to find.
  • “Magic mushrooms” are considered nontoxic, but they can have profound psychological effects. People who already have suicidal tendencies somewhat frequently attempt suicide while taking them, which is disturbing.

So I think there are pretty clear reasons to support medical use of marijuana and hallucinogens, and any side effects of recreational use should probably be treated as social or medical problems rather than law enforcement ones. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a gradual trend toward legalization, and eventual co-opting of access to these drugs by the mainstream government and corporate world. And next time I have a headache, I think I will just drink a glass of wine and go to bed rather than reaching for the ibuprofen bottle.

Bohm dialogue

Leave a reply

From Wikipedia: Bohm Dialogue (also known as Bohmian Dialogue or “Dialogue in the Spirit of David Bohm”) is a freely flowing group conversation in which participants attempt to reach a common understanding, experiencing everyone’s point of view fully, equally and nonjudgementally.[1] This can lead to new and deeper understanding. The purpose is to solve the communication crises that face society,[2] and indeed the whole of human nature and consciousness. It utilizes a theoretical understanding of the way thoughts relate to universal reality. It is named after physicist David Bohm who originally proposed this form of dialogue.

I would like to be part of a team some day where a range of ideas can be thoroughly explored without shouting and arguing, and where nobody feels like they have lost if their initial pet idea is not the final decision.