Reality, today's physicists tell us, is created by the vibrations of exquisitely tiny superstrings in ten spatial dimensions. Ten dimensions? Most of us have barely gotten used to the idea that there are four. Using simple geometry and an easygoing writing style, author Rob Bryanton starts with the lower dimensions that we are all familiar with, then uses those concepts to build one layer upon another, ultimately arriving at a way of imagining the tenth dimension.
Imagining the Tenth Dimension Site
Showing posts with label Ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ideas. Show all posts
12.02.2008
The Story Of Stuff
From its extraction through sale, use and disposal, all the stuff in our lives affects communities at home and abroad, yet most of this is hidden from view. The Story of Stuff is a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world. It'll teach you something, it'll make you laugh, and it just may change the way you look at all the stuff in your life forever.
Watch The Story Of Stuff Here
Why Do We Forget Things?
One of the most powerful tools of the human mind is our memory. It is the ultimate teacher within. Learning from our own mistakes is one of the most basic forms of education. A young child gets too close to a stove and burns his hand; he commits it to memory to stay away from a hot stove. But why do we remember certain events and forget others, even if they seem just as important? The ability to remember is a critical tool of survival. We need to remember. The question is: how can we unlock our minds and remember more accurately? The answer is a child-like imagination.
The key to recall is organization. The use of mnemonic techniques helps us to organize our thoughts and file them in logical places within our memory warehouse. As was mentioned earlier, the answer to unlocking our minds and our memories is a child-like imagination. Using vivid visual imagery, we associate words in a series of ridiculous scenarios within our mind's eye. The result is a memory that is organized and methodical. The more we practice these techniques, the more they become second nature to us. The brain is an enormous resource of potential energy. The problem is that most of us don't know how to maximize this potential.
The Wisdom of the Heart from the 14th Dalai Lama
The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is the spiritual and exiled leader of the Tibetan people. Born in northeastern Tibet, he was recognized at the age of 2 as the reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama. After the suppression of the Tibetan national uprising in 1959, His Holiness escaped to India where he was given political asylum. Dalai Lama is a Mongolian title, which means "Ocean of Wisdom". "Dalai" means "ocean" in Mongolian, and "Lama" (bla ma) is the Tibetan equivalent of the Sanskrit word "guru", and is commonly translated to mean "spiritual teacher". He seems like a pretty awesome dude. Here's some of his wisdom in the form of ten things to remember:
1. Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible.
2. Open your arms to change, but don't let go of your values.
3. Sleep is the best meditation.
4. Spend some time alone every day.
5. We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves.
6. Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.
7. We can live without religion and meditation, but we cannot survive without human
affection.
8. Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions.
9. If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them.
10. The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis.
Wikipedia.com
11.24.2008
11.20.2008
Ganzfeld Hallucinations
The cognitive science journal Cortex has just released a special issue on the neuropsychology of paranormal experiences and belief, and contains a fantastic article on hallucinations induced by the Ganzfeld procedure.
The Ganzfeld procedure exposes the participant to 'unstructured' sensations usually by placing half ping-pong balls over the eyes so they can only see diffuse white light and by playing white noise through headphones.
It is probably best known for its uses in parapsychology experiments, but it is also used to induce hallucinations and sensory distortions which are much more likely to occur in the absence of clearly defined sensory experiences.
The article reviews the sorts of hallucinations reported in during these experiments and discusses what electrophysiology (EEG or 'brain wave') studies tell us about what happens in the cortex when these perceptual distortions kick off.
Some of the descriptions of hallucinations are really quite striking:
“For quite a long time, there was nothing except a green-greyish fog. It was really boring, I thought, ‘ah, what a non-sense experiment!’ Then, for an indefinite period of time, I was ‘off’, like completely absent-minded. Then, all of sudden, I saw a hand holding a piece of chalk and writing on a black-board something like a mathematical formula. The vision was very clear, but it stayed only for few seconds and disappeared again. The image did not fill up the entire visual field, it was just like a ‘window’ into that foggy stuff.”
“an urban scenery, like an empty avenue after a rain, large areas covered with water, and the city sky-line reflected in the water surface like in a mirror.”
“a clearing in a forest [Lichtung], a place bathed in bright sun-shine, and the trunks of trees around. A feeling of a tranquile summer afternoon in a forest, so quiet, so peaceful. And then, suddenly, a young woman passed by on a bicycle, very fast, she crossed the visual field from the right to the left, with her blond long hair waving in the air. The image of the entire scene was very clear, with many details, and yes, the colours were very vivid.”
“I can see his face, still, it's very expressive… [I could see] only the horse that comes as if out of clouds. A white horse that jumped over me.”
“A friend of mine and I, we were inside a cave. We made a fire. There was a creek flowing under our feet, and we were on a stone. She had fallen into the creek, and she had to wait to have her things dried. Then she said to me: ‘Hey, move on, we should go now’.”
“It was like running a bob sleigh on an uneven runway right down… [There] was snow or maybe water running down… I could hear music, there was music coming from the left side below.”
“In the right side of the visual field, a manikin suddenly appeared. He was all in black, had a long narrow head, fairly broad shoulders, very long arms and a relatively small trunk…. He approached me, stretching out his hands, very long, very big, like a bowl, and he stayed so for a while, and then he went back to where he came from, slowly.”
You can simulate the Ganzfeld procedure in your own home by taping two half ping-pong balls over your eyes and listening to the radio tuned to static in an evenly lighted room.
The other articles in the special issue are also fascinating, and range from a study finding greater body asymmetry is related to higher levels of unusual beliefs - likely reflecting asymmetrical brain development, to an experiment looking at the cognitive psychology of people who believe they've been abducted by aliens.
Needless to say, there's many more fascinating studies and Cortex has the advantage of not only being a leading neuropsychology journal but also making its material freely available as open-access articles. Enjoy!
[Via Cortex special issue]
11.07.2008
12 Barack Obama Quotes on Technology
The historic U.S. Presidential election has come to an end with Barack Obama emerging victorious against John McCain. Obama will become the forty-fourth President of the United States and the first African-American to be elected for the highest office.
Some of my tech savvy readers are probably wondering how will Obama utilize technology to help improve the U.S. and world economy. That is why I'm going to share to you some of Barack Obama's tech related quotes to learn more about his plans. I also included links to the quotes' sources. Enjoy!
* "To restore America's competitiveness, we must recruit a new generation of science and technology leaders by investing in diversity."
SOURCE
* "Together, we could open up government and invite citizens in, while connecting all of America to 21st century broadband. We could use technology to help achieve universal health care, to reach for a clean energy future, and to ensure that young Americans can compete -- and win -- in the global economy..."
SOURCE
* "I will recruit new teachers and make new investments in rural schools, we'll connect all of America to 21st century technology and telecommunications."
SOURCE
* "We are a land of moon shots and miracles of science and technology that have touched the lives of millions across the planet."
SOURCE
* "As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."
SOURCE
* "Ensuring that the US continues to lead the world in science and technology will be a central priority for my administration."
SOURCE
* "I'll change the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology."
SOURCE
* "We will fire government managers who aren't getting results, we will cut funding for programs that are wasting your money, we will use technology and lessons from the private sector to improve efficiency across every level of government."
SOURCE
* Obama said the nation needs to invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and clean coal technology "so the use of coal does not degrade our environment. We can do that if we are investing in the technology, the research and the development."
SOURCE
* "We must adapt and make tradeoffs among systems originally designed for the Cold War and those required for current and future challenges. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like unmanned aerial vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft--which may not be glamorous to politicians, but are the backbone of our future ability to extend global power."
SOURCE
* Obama said if elected his government would "harness technology to confront the biggest challenges that America faces".
SOURCE
* Pointing to President Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon, Mr. Obama said: "I will set big goals for this country as president - some so large that the technology to reach them does not yet exist."
SOURCE
Via Gizmodo.com
Some of my tech savvy readers are probably wondering how will Obama utilize technology to help improve the U.S. and world economy. That is why I'm going to share to you some of Barack Obama's tech related quotes to learn more about his plans. I also included links to the quotes' sources. Enjoy!
* "To restore America's competitiveness, we must recruit a new generation of science and technology leaders by investing in diversity."
SOURCE
* "Together, we could open up government and invite citizens in, while connecting all of America to 21st century broadband. We could use technology to help achieve universal health care, to reach for a clean energy future, and to ensure that young Americans can compete -- and win -- in the global economy..."
SOURCE
* "I will recruit new teachers and make new investments in rural schools, we'll connect all of America to 21st century technology and telecommunications."
SOURCE
* "We are a land of moon shots and miracles of science and technology that have touched the lives of millions across the planet."
SOURCE
* "As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."
SOURCE
* "Ensuring that the US continues to lead the world in science and technology will be a central priority for my administration."
SOURCE
* "I'll change the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology."
SOURCE
* "We will fire government managers who aren't getting results, we will cut funding for programs that are wasting your money, we will use technology and lessons from the private sector to improve efficiency across every level of government."
SOURCE
* Obama said the nation needs to invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and clean coal technology "so the use of coal does not degrade our environment. We can do that if we are investing in the technology, the research and the development."
SOURCE
* "We must adapt and make tradeoffs among systems originally designed for the Cold War and those required for current and future challenges. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like unmanned aerial vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft--which may not be glamorous to politicians, but are the backbone of our future ability to extend global power."
SOURCE
* Obama said if elected his government would "harness technology to confront the biggest challenges that America faces".
SOURCE
* Pointing to President Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon, Mr. Obama said: "I will set big goals for this country as president - some so large that the technology to reach them does not yet exist."
SOURCE
Via Gizmodo.com
10.27.2008
Why to Start a Startup in a Bad Economy
Really great article by Paul Graham about starting a new startup even with the economy getting worse these days.
Click Here to Read
Click Here to Read
8.28.2008
I think I believe in change
I believe in change. I mean…I think I believe in change. As a sentence, it looks so alone. But as I grow up and possibly decide to become a slightly better writer, that sentence could come out as "I trust my belief in the idea of customary evolution." Now, if I drop out of college, and party all of my brain cells to death like innumerable other students at my old school then it may turn out to be a prolonged, beautiful…belch.
Some people retort to my belief that "people don't change, situations do," but I don't think I believe that. As long as we have a problem with ourselves, we will try and change it. From a minor change of thought to a major change of life, we are always subconsciously correcting our problems. I didn't want to be the expelled thirty year old who ended up living with his parents for the rest of his life, because he directly insulted the principal and my friends don't always have to cater to my needs for me to be in a good mood. I just didn't know it, until today. You cannot force and detect change while it's in the process. It happens and it happens a lot.
And, I am a person who's changed a lot. From new situations and new people come new problems. With new problems, comes the need for change. A year ago, the sentence would've been ridden with spelling errors and wouldn't be my actual thoughts – it would be made hastily - to try and please the people I thought were "cool." And, now, slightly more mature and less careless, and at a crossroad of uncertainty such as one many teens are at, the sentence is simply, "I think I believe in change." This, I think I believe.
Some people retort to my belief that "people don't change, situations do," but I don't think I believe that. As long as we have a problem with ourselves, we will try and change it. From a minor change of thought to a major change of life, we are always subconsciously correcting our problems. I didn't want to be the expelled thirty year old who ended up living with his parents for the rest of his life, because he directly insulted the principal and my friends don't always have to cater to my needs for me to be in a good mood. I just didn't know it, until today. You cannot force and detect change while it's in the process. It happens and it happens a lot.
And, I am a person who's changed a lot. From new situations and new people come new problems. With new problems, comes the need for change. A year ago, the sentence would've been ridden with spelling errors and wouldn't be my actual thoughts – it would be made hastily - to try and please the people I thought were "cool." And, now, slightly more mature and less careless, and at a crossroad of uncertainty such as one many teens are at, the sentence is simply, "I think I believe in change." This, I think I believe.
8.27.2008
More proof that guys and girls think totally different when it comes to communication
Current mood: fascinated
Really interesting article about the communication between guys and girls by a linguistics expert:
"Can't We Talk?" (condensed from: You Just Don't Understand)
by Deborah Tannen
A married couple was in a car when the wife turned to her husband and asked, "Would you like to stop for a coffee?"
"No, thanks," he answered truthfully. So they didn't stop.
The result? The wife, who had indeed wanted to stop, became annoyed because she felt her preference had not been considered. The husband, seeing his wife was angry, became frustrated. Why didn't she just say what she wanted?
Unfortunately, he failed to see that his wife was asking the question not to get an instant decision, but to begin a negotiation. And the woman didn't realize that when her husband said no, he was just expressing his preference, not making a ruling. When a man and woman interpret the same interchange in such conflicting ways, it's no wonder they can find themselves leveling angry charges of selfishness and obstinacy at each other.
As a specialist in linguistics, I have studied how the conversational styles of men and women differ. We cannot lump all men or all women into fixed categories. But the seemingly senseless misunderstandings that haunt our relationships can in part be explained by the different conversational rules by which men and women play.
Whenever I write or speak about this subject, people tell me they are relieved to learn that what has caused them trouble - and what they had previously ascribed to personal failings - is, in fact, very common.
Learning about the different though equally valid conversational frequencies men and women are tuned to can help banish the blame and help us truly talk to one another. Here are some of the most common areas of conflict:
Status vs. Support.
Men grow up in a world in which a conversation is often a contest, either to achieve the upper hand or to prevent other people from pushing them around. For women, however, talking is often a way to exchange confirmation and support.
I saw this when my husband and I had jobs in different cities. People frequently made comments like, "That must be rough," and "How do you stand it?" I accepted their sympathy and sometimes even reinforced it, saying, "The worst part is having to pack and unpack al the time."
But my husband often reacted with irritation. Our situation had advantages, he would explain. As academics, we had four-day weekends together, as well as long vacations throughout the year and four months in the summer.
Everything he said was true, but I didn't understand why he chose to say it. He told me that some of the comments implied: "Yours is not a real marriage. I am superior to you because my wife and I have avoided your misfortune." Until then it had not occurred to me there might be an element of one- upmanship.
I now see that my husband was simply approaching the world as many men do: as a place where people try to achieve and maintain status. I, on the other hand, was approaching the world as many women do: as a network of connections seeking support and consensus.
Independence vs. Intimacy.
Since women often think in terms of closeness and support, they struggle to preserve intimacy. Men, concerned with status, tend to focus more on independence. These traits can lead women and men to starkly different views of the same situation.
When Josh's old high-school friend called him at work to say he'd be in town, Josh invited him to stay for the weekend. That evening he told Linda they were having a house guest.
Linda was upset. How could Josh make these plans without discussing them with her beforehand? She would never do that to him. "Why don't you tell your friend you have to check with your wife?" she asked.
Josh replied, "I can't tell my friend, 'I have to ask my wife for permission'!"
To Josh, checking with his wife would mean he was not free to act on his own. It would make him feel like a child or an underling. But Linda actually enjoys telling someone, "I have to check with Josh." It makes her feel good to show that her life is intertwined with her husband's.
Advice vs. Understanding.
Eve had a benign lump removed from her breast. When she confided to her husband, Mark, that she was distressed because the stitches changed the contour of her breast, he answered, "You can always have plastic surgery."
This comment bothered her. "I'm sorry you don't like the way it looks," she protested. "But I'm not having any more surgery!"
Mark was hurt and puzzled. "I don't care about a scar," he replied. "It doesn't bother me at all."
"Then why are you telling me to have plastic surgery?" she asked.
"Because you were upset about the way it looks."
Eve felt like a heel. Mark had been wonderfully supportive throughout her surgery. How could she snap at him now?
The problem stemmed from a difference in approach. To many men a complaint is a challenge to come up with a solution. Mark thought he was reassuring Eve by telling her there was something she could do about her scar. But often women are looking for emotional support, not solutions.
When my mother tells my father she doesn't feel well, he invariably offers to take her to the doctor. Invariably, she is disappointed with his reaction. Like many men, he is focused on what he can do, whereas she wants sympathy.
Information vs. Feelings.
A cartoon shows a husband opening a newspaper and asking his wife, "Is there anything you'd like to say to me before I start reading the paper?" We know there isn't - but that as soon as the man begins reading, his wife will think of something.
The cartoon is funny because people recognize their own experience in it. What's not funny is that many women are hurt when men don't talk to them at home, and many men are frustrated when they disappoint their partners without knowing why.
Rebecca, who is happily married, told me this is a source of dissatisfaction with her husband, Stuart. When she tells him what she is thinking, he listens silently. When she asks him what is on his mind, he says, "Nothing."
All Rebecca's life she has had practice in verbalizing her feelings with friends and relatives. But Stuart has had practice in keeping his innermost thoughts to himself. To him, like most men, talk is information. He doesn't feel that talk is required at home.
Yet many such men hold center stage in a social setting, telling jokes and stories. They use conversation to claim attention and to entertain. Women can wind up hurt that their husbands tell relative strangers things they have not told them.
To avoid this kind of misunderstanding, both men and women can make adjustments. A woman may observe a man's desire to read the paper without seeing it is a rejection. And a man can understand a woman's desire to talk without feeling it is a manipulative intrusion.
Orders vs. Proposals.
Diana often begins statements with "Let's." She might say "Let's park over there" or "Let's clean up now, before lunch."
This makes Nathan angry. He has deciphered Diana's "Let's" as a command. Like most men, he resists being told what to do. But to Diana, she is making suggestions, not demands. Like most women, she formulates her requests as proposals rather than orders. Her style of talking is a way of getting others to do what she wants - but by winning agreement first.
With certain men, like Nathan, this tactic backfires. If they perceive someone is trying to get them to do something indirectly, they feel manipulated and respond more resentfully than they would to a straightforward request.
Conflict vs. Compromise.
In trying to prevent fights, some women refuse to oppose the will of others openly. But sometimes it's far more effective for a woman to assert herself, even at the risk of conflict.
Dora was frustrated by a series of used cars she drove. It was she who commuted to work, but her husband, Hank, who chose the cars. Hank always went for cars that were "interesting" but in continual need of repair.
After Dora was nearly killed when her brakes failed, they were in the market for yet another used car. Dora wanted to buy a late-model sedan from a friend. Hank fixed his sights on a 15-year-old sports car. She tried to persuade Hank that it made more sense to buy the boring but dependable car, but he would not be swayed.
Previously she would have acceded to his wishes. This time Dora bought the boring but dependable car and steeled herself for Hanks' anger. To her amazement, he spoke not a word of remonstrance. When she later told him what she had expected, he scoffed at her fears and said she should have done what she wanted from the start if she felt that strongly about it.
As Dora discovered, a little conflict won't kill you. At the same time, men who habitually oppose others can adjust their style to opt for less confrontation.
When we don't see style differences for what they are, we sometimes draw unfair conclusions: "You're illogical," "You're self- centered," "You don't care about me." But once we grasp the two characteristic approaches, we stand a better chance of preventing disagreements from spiraling out of control.
Learning the other's ways of talking is a leap across the communication gap between men and women, and a giant step towards genuine understanding.
Really interesting article about the communication between guys and girls by a linguistics expert:
"Can't We Talk?" (condensed from: You Just Don't Understand)
by Deborah Tannen
A married couple was in a car when the wife turned to her husband and asked, "Would you like to stop for a coffee?"
"No, thanks," he answered truthfully. So they didn't stop.
The result? The wife, who had indeed wanted to stop, became annoyed because she felt her preference had not been considered. The husband, seeing his wife was angry, became frustrated. Why didn't she just say what she wanted?
Unfortunately, he failed to see that his wife was asking the question not to get an instant decision, but to begin a negotiation. And the woman didn't realize that when her husband said no, he was just expressing his preference, not making a ruling. When a man and woman interpret the same interchange in such conflicting ways, it's no wonder they can find themselves leveling angry charges of selfishness and obstinacy at each other.
As a specialist in linguistics, I have studied how the conversational styles of men and women differ. We cannot lump all men or all women into fixed categories. But the seemingly senseless misunderstandings that haunt our relationships can in part be explained by the different conversational rules by which men and women play.
Whenever I write or speak about this subject, people tell me they are relieved to learn that what has caused them trouble - and what they had previously ascribed to personal failings - is, in fact, very common.
Learning about the different though equally valid conversational frequencies men and women are tuned to can help banish the blame and help us truly talk to one another. Here are some of the most common areas of conflict:
Status vs. Support.
Men grow up in a world in which a conversation is often a contest, either to achieve the upper hand or to prevent other people from pushing them around. For women, however, talking is often a way to exchange confirmation and support.
I saw this when my husband and I had jobs in different cities. People frequently made comments like, "That must be rough," and "How do you stand it?" I accepted their sympathy and sometimes even reinforced it, saying, "The worst part is having to pack and unpack al the time."
But my husband often reacted with irritation. Our situation had advantages, he would explain. As academics, we had four-day weekends together, as well as long vacations throughout the year and four months in the summer.
Everything he said was true, but I didn't understand why he chose to say it. He told me that some of the comments implied: "Yours is not a real marriage. I am superior to you because my wife and I have avoided your misfortune." Until then it had not occurred to me there might be an element of one- upmanship.
I now see that my husband was simply approaching the world as many men do: as a place where people try to achieve and maintain status. I, on the other hand, was approaching the world as many women do: as a network of connections seeking support and consensus.
Independence vs. Intimacy.
Since women often think in terms of closeness and support, they struggle to preserve intimacy. Men, concerned with status, tend to focus more on independence. These traits can lead women and men to starkly different views of the same situation.
When Josh's old high-school friend called him at work to say he'd be in town, Josh invited him to stay for the weekend. That evening he told Linda they were having a house guest.
Linda was upset. How could Josh make these plans without discussing them with her beforehand? She would never do that to him. "Why don't you tell your friend you have to check with your wife?" she asked.
Josh replied, "I can't tell my friend, 'I have to ask my wife for permission'!"
To Josh, checking with his wife would mean he was not free to act on his own. It would make him feel like a child or an underling. But Linda actually enjoys telling someone, "I have to check with Josh." It makes her feel good to show that her life is intertwined with her husband's.
Advice vs. Understanding.
Eve had a benign lump removed from her breast. When she confided to her husband, Mark, that she was distressed because the stitches changed the contour of her breast, he answered, "You can always have plastic surgery."
This comment bothered her. "I'm sorry you don't like the way it looks," she protested. "But I'm not having any more surgery!"
Mark was hurt and puzzled. "I don't care about a scar," he replied. "It doesn't bother me at all."
"Then why are you telling me to have plastic surgery?" she asked.
"Because you were upset about the way it looks."
Eve felt like a heel. Mark had been wonderfully supportive throughout her surgery. How could she snap at him now?
The problem stemmed from a difference in approach. To many men a complaint is a challenge to come up with a solution. Mark thought he was reassuring Eve by telling her there was something she could do about her scar. But often women are looking for emotional support, not solutions.
When my mother tells my father she doesn't feel well, he invariably offers to take her to the doctor. Invariably, she is disappointed with his reaction. Like many men, he is focused on what he can do, whereas she wants sympathy.
Information vs. Feelings.
A cartoon shows a husband opening a newspaper and asking his wife, "Is there anything you'd like to say to me before I start reading the paper?" We know there isn't - but that as soon as the man begins reading, his wife will think of something.
The cartoon is funny because people recognize their own experience in it. What's not funny is that many women are hurt when men don't talk to them at home, and many men are frustrated when they disappoint their partners without knowing why.
Rebecca, who is happily married, told me this is a source of dissatisfaction with her husband, Stuart. When she tells him what she is thinking, he listens silently. When she asks him what is on his mind, he says, "Nothing."
All Rebecca's life she has had practice in verbalizing her feelings with friends and relatives. But Stuart has had practice in keeping his innermost thoughts to himself. To him, like most men, talk is information. He doesn't feel that talk is required at home.
Yet many such men hold center stage in a social setting, telling jokes and stories. They use conversation to claim attention and to entertain. Women can wind up hurt that their husbands tell relative strangers things they have not told them.
To avoid this kind of misunderstanding, both men and women can make adjustments. A woman may observe a man's desire to read the paper without seeing it is a rejection. And a man can understand a woman's desire to talk without feeling it is a manipulative intrusion.
Orders vs. Proposals.
Diana often begins statements with "Let's." She might say "Let's park over there" or "Let's clean up now, before lunch."
This makes Nathan angry. He has deciphered Diana's "Let's" as a command. Like most men, he resists being told what to do. But to Diana, she is making suggestions, not demands. Like most women, she formulates her requests as proposals rather than orders. Her style of talking is a way of getting others to do what she wants - but by winning agreement first.
With certain men, like Nathan, this tactic backfires. If they perceive someone is trying to get them to do something indirectly, they feel manipulated and respond more resentfully than they would to a straightforward request.
Conflict vs. Compromise.
In trying to prevent fights, some women refuse to oppose the will of others openly. But sometimes it's far more effective for a woman to assert herself, even at the risk of conflict.
Dora was frustrated by a series of used cars she drove. It was she who commuted to work, but her husband, Hank, who chose the cars. Hank always went for cars that were "interesting" but in continual need of repair.
After Dora was nearly killed when her brakes failed, they were in the market for yet another used car. Dora wanted to buy a late-model sedan from a friend. Hank fixed his sights on a 15-year-old sports car. She tried to persuade Hank that it made more sense to buy the boring but dependable car, but he would not be swayed.
Previously she would have acceded to his wishes. This time Dora bought the boring but dependable car and steeled herself for Hanks' anger. To her amazement, he spoke not a word of remonstrance. When she later told him what she had expected, he scoffed at her fears and said she should have done what she wanted from the start if she felt that strongly about it.
As Dora discovered, a little conflict won't kill you. At the same time, men who habitually oppose others can adjust their style to opt for less confrontation.
When we don't see style differences for what they are, we sometimes draw unfair conclusions: "You're illogical," "You're self- centered," "You don't care about me." But once we grasp the two characteristic approaches, we stand a better chance of preventing disagreements from spiraling out of control.
Learning the other's ways of talking is a leap across the communication gap between men and women, and a giant step towards genuine understanding.
8.26.2008
The Ideas of Others
Every once in a while people say some of the most profound things and luckily what they say jut happens to get written down for others to read. These are some of my favorite quotes. Feel free to add any of your favorites in the comments.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." -Abraham Lincoln
"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round heads in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify them, or vilify them. But the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do." -Jack Kerouac
"Sometimes we have to choose between what is right and what is easy." -Albus Dumbledore"
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." -Mark Twain
"Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent."
— Eleanor Roosevelt
"There is not any memory with less satisfaction than the memory of some temptation we resisted." - James Branch Cabell
"The important thing is this: to be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become." -Charles Du Bos
"Age is not a particularly interesting subject. Anyone can get old. All you have to do is live long enough." - Groucho Marx
"In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes." - Andy Warhol
"When the time comes to leave, just walk away and don't make a fuss."
"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and people in glass cities shouldn't fire missles."
"Artwork that is only about wanting to be famous will never make you famous. Fame is a by-product of doing something else. You don't go to a restaurant and order a meal because you want to have a shit." -Banksy
"you must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and forgets the gift." -Albert Einstein
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth" - Oscar Wilde
"Irony has only emergency use. Carried over time, it's the voice of the trapped who have learned to enjoy their cage." -Lewis Hyde
"Counting your time is not so important as making your time count."
"there's one thing worse than people talking about you, that's people not talking about you." -Oscar Wilde
"On Arturo Toscanini's 80th birthday, someone asked his son, Walter, what his father ranked as his most important achievement. The son replied, 'for him there can be no such thing. Whatever he happens to be doing at the moment is the biggest thing in his life - whether it is conducting a symphony or peeling an orange.'"
- Ardis Whitman
1905-1990, Writer and Lecturer
"Over time I've realized that you can only understand life backwards but you have to live it forwards."
"It's takin' whatever comes your way, the good AND the bad, that give life flavor. It's all the stuff rolled together that makes life worth livin'." -Animal Crossing: Wild World
"Friends: People who know you well, but like you anyway."
"2 rules to success in life. 1. Don't tell people everything you know."
"Modesty is the only sure bait when you angle for praise."-Lord Chesterfield
"Time is nature's way of making sure everything doesn't happen at once."
"Springtime is the land awakening. The March winds are the morning yawn." -Lewis Grizzard
"Laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning up to do afterward." - Kurt Vonnegut
"Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated." - Confucius
"You have succeeded in life when all you really want is only what you really need." - Vernon Howard
"People are, if anything, more touchy about being thought silly than they are about being thought unjust." - E. B. White
"No one needs a smile as much as a person who fails to give one"
"Maturity is the ability to postpone self-gratification."
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth" - Oscar Wilde
"Age is not a particularly interesting subject. Anyone can get old. All you have to do is live long enough." - Groucho Marx
"Irony has only emergency use. Carried over time, it's the voice of the trapped who have learned to enjoy their cage." -Lewis Hyde
"Counting your time is not so important as making your time count."
"In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes." - Andy Warhol
"On the whole human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time." - George Orwell
"I don't wanna get lost in the ocean."
"There's no exception to the rule that everyone thinks they're an exception to the rule" - Banksy
"When the time comes to leave, just walk away and don't make a fuss."
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and forgets the gift." -Albert Einstein
"there's one thing worse than people talking about you, that's people not talking about you." -Oscar Wilde
"The wise man asks himself the reason for his mistakes. The fool asks others."
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." -Abraham Lincoln
"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round heads in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify them, or vilify them. But the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do." -Jack Kerouac
"Sometimes we have to choose between what is right and what is easy." -Albus Dumbledore"
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." -Mark Twain
"Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent."
— Eleanor Roosevelt
"There is not any memory with less satisfaction than the memory of some temptation we resisted." - James Branch Cabell
"The important thing is this: to be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become." -Charles Du Bos
"Age is not a particularly interesting subject. Anyone can get old. All you have to do is live long enough." - Groucho Marx
"In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes." - Andy Warhol
"When the time comes to leave, just walk away and don't make a fuss."
"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and people in glass cities shouldn't fire missles."
"Artwork that is only about wanting to be famous will never make you famous. Fame is a by-product of doing something else. You don't go to a restaurant and order a meal because you want to have a shit." -Banksy
"you must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and forgets the gift." -Albert Einstein
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth" - Oscar Wilde
"Irony has only emergency use. Carried over time, it's the voice of the trapped who have learned to enjoy their cage." -Lewis Hyde
"Counting your time is not so important as making your time count."
"there's one thing worse than people talking about you, that's people not talking about you." -Oscar Wilde
"On Arturo Toscanini's 80th birthday, someone asked his son, Walter, what his father ranked as his most important achievement. The son replied, 'for him there can be no such thing. Whatever he happens to be doing at the moment is the biggest thing in his life - whether it is conducting a symphony or peeling an orange.'"
- Ardis Whitman
1905-1990, Writer and Lecturer
"Over time I've realized that you can only understand life backwards but you have to live it forwards."
"It's takin' whatever comes your way, the good AND the bad, that give life flavor. It's all the stuff rolled together that makes life worth livin'." -Animal Crossing: Wild World
"Friends: People who know you well, but like you anyway."
"2 rules to success in life. 1. Don't tell people everything you know."
"Modesty is the only sure bait when you angle for praise."-Lord Chesterfield
"Time is nature's way of making sure everything doesn't happen at once."
"Springtime is the land awakening. The March winds are the morning yawn." -Lewis Grizzard
"Laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning up to do afterward." - Kurt Vonnegut
"Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated." - Confucius
"You have succeeded in life when all you really want is only what you really need." - Vernon Howard
"People are, if anything, more touchy about being thought silly than they are about being thought unjust." - E. B. White
"No one needs a smile as much as a person who fails to give one"
"Maturity is the ability to postpone self-gratification."
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth" - Oscar Wilde
"Age is not a particularly interesting subject. Anyone can get old. All you have to do is live long enough." - Groucho Marx
"Irony has only emergency use. Carried over time, it's the voice of the trapped who have learned to enjoy their cage." -Lewis Hyde
"Counting your time is not so important as making your time count."
"In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes." - Andy Warhol
"On the whole human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time." - George Orwell
"I don't wanna get lost in the ocean."
"There's no exception to the rule that everyone thinks they're an exception to the rule" - Banksy
"When the time comes to leave, just walk away and don't make a fuss."
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and forgets the gift." -Albert Einstein
"there's one thing worse than people talking about you, that's people not talking about you." -Oscar Wilde
"The wise man asks himself the reason for his mistakes. The fool asks others."
8.07.2008
What Makes People Tick?
October 2nd, 2007 in Communication, Featured
Four Rules to Understand What Makes People Tick
Breaking down human behavior into rules might seem like a gross simplification. But even with the complexities, it is easy to fall into the same mistakes. I'd argue that many heated fights, lost sales and broken hearts are caused by a few critical errors. If you make the wrong assumptions, you've lost before you begin. By keeping in mind these rules, you can avoid repeating the same mistakes.
Rule One: People Mostly Care About Themselves
People aren't thinking about you. A damaging myth to buy into is believing the amount of time you think of yourself compares to the amount of time others think of you. In reality they are nowhere close. Take a look at this chart:
I've used this example before but I believe it deserves repeating. Take a look at the different slices of this chart. The biggest is the time you spend thinking about yourself. The second is the time spent thinking about relationships, but how they affect you. What does Julie think of me? Will my boss give me a raise or fire me? Do my friends respect me or just tolerate me?
Only a tiny sliver is devoted to empathy. Empathy is the rare occasion where you think through the perspective of another person. When I've discussed these ideas previously, many people argue I'm being far too generous with my chart. In reality that sliver is probably even smaller.
This means that you occupy only a tiny percentage of a persons thoughts. Waiting for people to invite you, becoming embarrassed at a minor faux-pas or emphasizing what others think of you come from failing to use this rule. Almost all people are far too self-absorbed to notice.
Rule Two: People are Motivated by Selfish Altruism
To say all behavior is strictly selfish would be misleading. It fails to account for acts of charity, ethics and why people don't just cheat, swindle and lie all the time. Selfish altruism is a broader category that covers why people do nice things as a way to get what they want.
By studying primates, researchers noticed four main categories of selfish altruism. I believe they are the same categories we use, even if slightly more sophisticated:
1. Dominance - Some primates will give help as a way of asserting dominance in the group. It is as if they are saying, "Look at how powerful I am that I can give some of my resources to help you."
2. Reciprocity - You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. The idea is that I do a favor for you with the assumption it will be returned one day. If the cost to me is less than the benefit towards you, I might help you even if I can't predict an immediate payback.
3. Trade - If we both have something the other person wants, we have a reason to interact. While reciprocity is vague on the details of a payback, trade is direct.
4. Familial - It makes sense, from an evolutionary perspective, to help those who might share your genes.
By looking through this lens of selfish altruism, you can better make decisions. Viewing people as completely uncaring or selfish is incomplete. But expecting people to think of you constantly and do nice things for free is dangerous.
Rule Three: People Don't Think Much
I believe we drastically overestimate what we do intentionally. Subconscious patterns, environmental stimulus and programmed reflexes occur frequently, even if we later take credit for them.
The conscious mind is a relatively new addition to the human operating system. And it's been designed to cleverly take credit for a lot of decisions it doesn't really make. If someone asks you to be unbiased in making a decision, it is probably best to just laugh.
The implication of this is that appealing entirely to thoughts won't work. Since a bulk of decision making is made in the background, you need to target that background if you want to be influential. You don't need to be manipulative, just smart enough to recognize that snap judgments mean a lot and your communication is more than just words.
Rule Four: Conformity is the Norm
You become your environment. Uniqueness and individuality tend to warp to fit the people around you. This is true of other people as it is for yourself. It means you should be careful who you pick as friends, partners and colleagues.
This is why I believe it is important to keep a varied social group. When you interact with people from completely different backgrounds, beliefs and behaviors on a regular basis you are more likely to see different perspectives. This also means you have more control in picking who you want to be.
Applying the Four Rules
Here are some applications of these rules you might want to consider:
* What layers are you communicating with? If people are selfish, self-absorbed and fail to think much, just working on the words you use isn't enough. Everything about you is communicating something, and unless you get that message straight, the most persuasive argument won't win anyone over.
* Give reminders. Although some people are meticulously organized, most aren't. Give people the reminders they need so you don't get left out unintentionally.
* What's your social value? This isn't your worth as a person, but what you have to offer in terms of other peoples needs and wants. It is easy to get depressed about human issues, if you don't see the calculations behind it. Improve the value you offer and you can access the selfish altruism in us all.
[Via Four Rules To Understand What Makes People Tick]
Four Rules to Understand What Makes People Tick
Breaking down human behavior into rules might seem like a gross simplification. But even with the complexities, it is easy to fall into the same mistakes. I'd argue that many heated fights, lost sales and broken hearts are caused by a few critical errors. If you make the wrong assumptions, you've lost before you begin. By keeping in mind these rules, you can avoid repeating the same mistakes.
Rule One: People Mostly Care About Themselves
People aren't thinking about you. A damaging myth to buy into is believing the amount of time you think of yourself compares to the amount of time others think of you. In reality they are nowhere close. Take a look at this chart:
I've used this example before but I believe it deserves repeating. Take a look at the different slices of this chart. The biggest is the time you spend thinking about yourself. The second is the time spent thinking about relationships, but how they affect you. What does Julie think of me? Will my boss give me a raise or fire me? Do my friends respect me or just tolerate me?
Only a tiny sliver is devoted to empathy. Empathy is the rare occasion where you think through the perspective of another person. When I've discussed these ideas previously, many people argue I'm being far too generous with my chart. In reality that sliver is probably even smaller.
This means that you occupy only a tiny percentage of a persons thoughts. Waiting for people to invite you, becoming embarrassed at a minor faux-pas or emphasizing what others think of you come from failing to use this rule. Almost all people are far too self-absorbed to notice.
Rule Two: People are Motivated by Selfish Altruism
To say all behavior is strictly selfish would be misleading. It fails to account for acts of charity, ethics and why people don't just cheat, swindle and lie all the time. Selfish altruism is a broader category that covers why people do nice things as a way to get what they want.
By studying primates, researchers noticed four main categories of selfish altruism. I believe they are the same categories we use, even if slightly more sophisticated:
1. Dominance - Some primates will give help as a way of asserting dominance in the group. It is as if they are saying, "Look at how powerful I am that I can give some of my resources to help you."
2. Reciprocity - You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. The idea is that I do a favor for you with the assumption it will be returned one day. If the cost to me is less than the benefit towards you, I might help you even if I can't predict an immediate payback.
3. Trade - If we both have something the other person wants, we have a reason to interact. While reciprocity is vague on the details of a payback, trade is direct.
4. Familial - It makes sense, from an evolutionary perspective, to help those who might share your genes.
By looking through this lens of selfish altruism, you can better make decisions. Viewing people as completely uncaring or selfish is incomplete. But expecting people to think of you constantly and do nice things for free is dangerous.
Rule Three: People Don't Think Much
I believe we drastically overestimate what we do intentionally. Subconscious patterns, environmental stimulus and programmed reflexes occur frequently, even if we later take credit for them.
The conscious mind is a relatively new addition to the human operating system. And it's been designed to cleverly take credit for a lot of decisions it doesn't really make. If someone asks you to be unbiased in making a decision, it is probably best to just laugh.
The implication of this is that appealing entirely to thoughts won't work. Since a bulk of decision making is made in the background, you need to target that background if you want to be influential. You don't need to be manipulative, just smart enough to recognize that snap judgments mean a lot and your communication is more than just words.
Rule Four: Conformity is the Norm
You become your environment. Uniqueness and individuality tend to warp to fit the people around you. This is true of other people as it is for yourself. It means you should be careful who you pick as friends, partners and colleagues.
This is why I believe it is important to keep a varied social group. When you interact with people from completely different backgrounds, beliefs and behaviors on a regular basis you are more likely to see different perspectives. This also means you have more control in picking who you want to be.
Applying the Four Rules
Here are some applications of these rules you might want to consider:
* What layers are you communicating with? If people are selfish, self-absorbed and fail to think much, just working on the words you use isn't enough. Everything about you is communicating something, and unless you get that message straight, the most persuasive argument won't win anyone over.
* Give reminders. Although some people are meticulously organized, most aren't. Give people the reminders they need so you don't get left out unintentionally.
* What's your social value? This isn't your worth as a person, but what you have to offer in terms of other peoples needs and wants. It is easy to get depressed about human issues, if you don't see the calculations behind it. Improve the value you offer and you can access the selfish altruism in us all.
[Via Four Rules To Understand What Makes People Tick]
8.04.2008
Philosophy and maybe the proof of God’s existence?
Can't remember where I read this but its interesting non-the-less.
One of the most far-reaching consequences of the rationalism of the Enlightenment was the undermining of basic Christian faith among the educated classes. The effect was unintended because the project of many Enlightenment philosophers was to prove the existence of God using reason: Descartes and Leibniz assumed that God's existence could be rationally proved, indeed God was a necessary part of their philosophy.
There are many traditional "proofs" for the existence of God, and we will look at three of them: The argument from design, the ontological argument and the cosmological argument.
Traditional "proofs" of God's Existence
1) The argument from Design.
If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricate mechanism was not the outcome of mere chance, that it had been designed.
Now look at the universe; is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be God.
2) The ontological argument
God is the perfect being. As He is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God lacked existence He would not be perfect, as He is perfect he must exist.
3) The cosmological argument (God as "First cause")
Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God.
Pascal's Wager
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.)
His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures.
If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished.
Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?
Kant
Kant attempted to show how philosophy could prove the existence of God. Unfortunately, for him his previous work showed that we could not know reality directly as thing-in-itself. What is real in itself is beyond our experience. Even if God exists, we can not know God as he really is.
For Kant the Christian could have faith in God, and this faith would be consonant with reason and the categorical imperative. Given that human beings have the autonomy to create moral values, it would not be irrational to believe in a God who gives purpose to the moral realm.
Hegel
Hegel thought that the God of religion was an intuition of Absolute Spirit or Geist. Hegel's Geist is not like the transcendent (outside of our consciousness) God of traditional Christianity. For Hegel God is immanent and when we have understood that history is the process of Geist coming to know itself it appears that we are all part of Geist, or God.
Feuerbach and Marx
For Feuerbach and Marx religion is seen as the projection of the human essence onto an ideal: God does not make man. Rather "God" is the invention of human consciousness. Marx also sees that religion is part of an ideological view that encourages the oppressed to accept their fate. As he says: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions."
Søren Kierkegaard
Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) agreed with Kant that the existence of God could not be proven by reason. However Kierkegaard did not think that it was rational to believe in God, rather one should have faith in God even if this seems to reason to be absurd. To put it another way reason has no place in faith. God is beyond reason.
Kierkegaard is regarded as the first existentialist.
Nietzsche: The Death of God
"Have you not heard the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly, 'I seek God!, I seek God!' ... Why, did he get lost? Said one. Did he lose his way like a child? Said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated?... The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances.
"'Whither is God'? He cried. 'I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers...'"
"...the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they to were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out. 'I came too early,' he said then; 'my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering -it has not yet reached the ears of man."
In these passages Nietzsche is showing the inevitable unfolding anthropocentrism (lit. putting man at the centre of the world) implicit in philosophy since Kant. If we view our existence through human categories, then our concept of God is itself a human creation.
Nietzsche is not simply asserting his atheism; he is suggesting that once we are aware that the concept of God is our own creation we can no longer base our religious and moral beliefs on any notion of a divine external reality.
In the period that Nietzsche was writing, the death of God was just beginning. Western thought was starting to face the prospect of a radical change in its orientation, and it wasn't quite ready to own up to it yet.
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche represent opposite reactions to the inability of rationality to give a rock solid theoretical proof of God's existence. Kierkegaard calls for us to embrace God even if it seems an absurdity, while Nietzsche says it is time for us to create a new mode of being, with human creativity at its centre.
The atheist existentialist Sartre accepted God's death and much of his writing is attempt to look at the human condition in a world that is without a prime mover who could have provided a basis and structure for the understanding of being.
The twentieth century
Anglo American analytic philosophers of the twentieth century have tended to agree that philosophy may help us clarify religious concepts, without giving us a secure foundation for religious belief.
Many people claim to have had a religious experience, to have experienced the divine directly. This experience is direct and is of a different quality to sensory experience or intellectual discovery, and therefore outside of the scope of philosophy.
The view that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by philosophy has not stopped developments in modern theology. Theologians are attempting to balance the anthropocentric view of God presented by philosophers since the Enlightenment with the need to provide a spiritual path and a guide to an ethical and meaningful way of life.
One of the most far-reaching consequences of the rationalism of the Enlightenment was the undermining of basic Christian faith among the educated classes. The effect was unintended because the project of many Enlightenment philosophers was to prove the existence of God using reason: Descartes and Leibniz assumed that God's existence could be rationally proved, indeed God was a necessary part of their philosophy.
There are many traditional "proofs" for the existence of God, and we will look at three of them: The argument from design, the ontological argument and the cosmological argument.
Traditional "proofs" of God's Existence
1) The argument from Design.
If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricate mechanism was not the outcome of mere chance, that it had been designed.
Now look at the universe; is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be God.
2) The ontological argument
God is the perfect being. As He is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God lacked existence He would not be perfect, as He is perfect he must exist.
3) The cosmological argument (God as "First cause")
Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God.
Pascal's Wager
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.)
His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures.
If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished.
Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?
Kant
Kant attempted to show how philosophy could prove the existence of God. Unfortunately, for him his previous work showed that we could not know reality directly as thing-in-itself. What is real in itself is beyond our experience. Even if God exists, we can not know God as he really is.
For Kant the Christian could have faith in God, and this faith would be consonant with reason and the categorical imperative. Given that human beings have the autonomy to create moral values, it would not be irrational to believe in a God who gives purpose to the moral realm.
Hegel
Hegel thought that the God of religion was an intuition of Absolute Spirit or Geist. Hegel's Geist is not like the transcendent (outside of our consciousness) God of traditional Christianity. For Hegel God is immanent and when we have understood that history is the process of Geist coming to know itself it appears that we are all part of Geist, or God.
Feuerbach and Marx
For Feuerbach and Marx religion is seen as the projection of the human essence onto an ideal: God does not make man. Rather "God" is the invention of human consciousness. Marx also sees that religion is part of an ideological view that encourages the oppressed to accept their fate. As he says: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions."
Søren Kierkegaard
Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) agreed with Kant that the existence of God could not be proven by reason. However Kierkegaard did not think that it was rational to believe in God, rather one should have faith in God even if this seems to reason to be absurd. To put it another way reason has no place in faith. God is beyond reason.
Kierkegaard is regarded as the first existentialist.
Nietzsche: The Death of God
"Have you not heard the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly, 'I seek God!, I seek God!' ... Why, did he get lost? Said one. Did he lose his way like a child? Said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated?... The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances.
"'Whither is God'? He cried. 'I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers...'"
"...the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they to were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out. 'I came too early,' he said then; 'my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering -it has not yet reached the ears of man."
In these passages Nietzsche is showing the inevitable unfolding anthropocentrism (lit. putting man at the centre of the world) implicit in philosophy since Kant. If we view our existence through human categories, then our concept of God is itself a human creation.
Nietzsche is not simply asserting his atheism; he is suggesting that once we are aware that the concept of God is our own creation we can no longer base our religious and moral beliefs on any notion of a divine external reality.
In the period that Nietzsche was writing, the death of God was just beginning. Western thought was starting to face the prospect of a radical change in its orientation, and it wasn't quite ready to own up to it yet.
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche represent opposite reactions to the inability of rationality to give a rock solid theoretical proof of God's existence. Kierkegaard calls for us to embrace God even if it seems an absurdity, while Nietzsche says it is time for us to create a new mode of being, with human creativity at its centre.
The atheist existentialist Sartre accepted God's death and much of his writing is attempt to look at the human condition in a world that is without a prime mover who could have provided a basis and structure for the understanding of being.
The twentieth century
Anglo American analytic philosophers of the twentieth century have tended to agree that philosophy may help us clarify religious concepts, without giving us a secure foundation for religious belief.
Many people claim to have had a religious experience, to have experienced the divine directly. This experience is direct and is of a different quality to sensory experience or intellectual discovery, and therefore outside of the scope of philosophy.
The view that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by philosophy has not stopped developments in modern theology. Theologians are attempting to balance the anthropocentric view of God presented by philosophers since the Enlightenment with the need to provide a spiritual path and a guide to an ethical and meaningful way of life.
6.06.2008
Lifting the Lid on the Science of Persuasion
Current mood: blank
Very Interesting article I found on the web:
Cajole your boss into giving you a raise, win someone round to your point of view, or persuade your partner it's their turn to put out the trash - getting people to do what you want can be very handy. Persuasion is a key element of all human interaction, from politics to marketing to everyday dealings with friends, family and colleagues. "Persuasion is a basic form of social interaction," says Eric Knowles, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. "It is the way we build consensus and a common purpose."
Unfortunately persuasion is both notoriously difficult to pull off and almost impossible to resist when done well. Psychologists have long been fascinated by persuasion - why some people are more persuasive than others and why some strategies work where others fail. Over the next six pages we bring together some recent insights into the science of persuasion.
For those who don't want to be persuaded, there are lessons here too. Knowing the strategies charmers and advertisers adopt can help you resist their guile.
1 Be a mimic
WHEN you're aware of it, it's one of the most infuriating behaviours imaginable. Yet mimic someone's mannerisms subtly - their head and hand movements, posture and so forth - and it can be one of the most powerful forms of persuasion. That's the conclusion of a number of recent studies.
William Maddux at the INSEAD business school in Fontainebleau, France, explored the effect of mimicry on 166 students in two role-play experiments, one involving negotiation between job candidates and recruiters, the second between buyers and sellers (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol 44, p 461). In both cases, the outcome of negotiations was better for the would-be persuaders when they employed subtle mimicry. For example, in the buyer-seller experiment, 67 per cent of sellers who mimicked their target secured a sale, as opposed to 12.5 per cent of those who did not.
Another study by Robin Tanner at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, asked students to discuss a new soft drink with sales reps (both the reps and the drink were fictitious, though the students did not know this). Half of the reps were instructed to mimic the physical and verbal behaviour of half of the students they spoke to.
These "chameleon" reps elicited more positive ratings of the drink, and volunteers they mimicked consumed more of it during the chat. "Ours is the first study to show that mimicry can essentially enhance persuasion in interpersonal interactions," says Tanner. Intriguingly, people felt especially positive about the drink and its market prospects when the mimic explicitly stated their vested interest in the success of the drink (Journal of Consumer Research, vol 34, p 754).
It is possible, though, that the reps in the "no mimicry" group subconsciously resorted to mimicry. Jeremy Bailenson and Nick Yee of Stanford University got round this by using virtual reality avatars. They asked 61 students to watch and listen to an avatar arguing that students should carry ID cards at all times - an unpopular proposal. For one group, the avatar moved in a pre-programmed human-like way. In the other, computers tracked the students' head movements, which the avatar mimicked after a 4-second delay (previous studies suggested a delay of 2 to 4 seconds works best). Students who had been mimicked were more likely to respond favourably.
But be warned, overt mimicry can backfire on the mimic, or at least be very embarrassing if detected, says Tanner. "It's far from a free shot at persuasiveness."
The crucial factors are: be subtle, leave a delay and, whatever you do, if you think there's even the slightest chance you've been rumbled, stop.
2 Look at it this way...
IF YOU want to bring people round to your point of view, try "framing", a favourite tactic of spin doctors. "Framing is about leading people to think about an issue or opinion in a way that is advantageous to you," explains George Bizer of Union College in Schenectady, New York. "For example, opponents of inheritance taxes prefer to frame them as 'death taxes'."
Framing is a key tactic in election campaigns, so Bizer wanted to see whether voters were more or less persuadable to change their views when asked to frame them in different ways.
He asked 69 undergraduates to read an article about two fictitious candidates' views and policies (one candidate, Rick, was conservative, while the other, Chris, was liberal). Half of the students had to choose between the two statements: either "I support Rick" or "I oppose Rick"; the other half chose between equivalent statements about Chris. Participants also rated their preference for both candidates on a sliding scale from "strongly support" to "strongly oppose".
They then read another article, this time arguing against the merits of their preferred candidate, and then had their opinions reassessed. Overall, people whose preference for a candidate had been expressed in terms of opposition to the other candidate were less likely to modify their opinions (Political Psychology, vol 26, p 553). "A simple change in framing - leading people to think of their evaluations in terms of whom they oppose instead of whom they support - leads to stronger, more resistant opinions," says Bizer.
These findings fit with a broad body of research suggesting that negative information frequently has a more powerful influence than positive messages. So if you want to sway someone when they choose between two options, a good tactic is to be negative about the option you don't want them to pick.
3 Less is more
IN MOST battles, outnumbering your opponent will hand you victory, and it would seem common sense that the more arguments you can call on, the more persuasive you'll be. Yet, the evidence suggests otherwise. A number of studies have revealed that the more reasons people are asked to come up with in support of an idea, the less value they ascribe to each. The result: asking people to "think of all the reasons why this is a good idea" is likely to backfire, and may serve to harden their views.
Zakary Tormala and Richard Petty of Ohio State University, working with Pablo Briñol at the Autonomous University of Madrid in Spain, demonstrated the effect in 2002. The researchers told 59 university students that there was a plan to introduce new exams into their courses - an unwelcome prospect. They then asked half the students to produce two reasons why this was a bad idea, and the other half eight reasons. On average, students who supplied just two arguments against the proposal were subsequently more opposed to the exam policy than those who gave eight.
Tormala and colleagues argue that the ease with which we can summon up thoughts affects how much confidence we place in them, and it is generally easier to think of two reasons for believing something rather than eight. This finding has some clear practical implications. "If you want to persuade people by getting them to think positively about your message, idea, product or whatever, ask them to generate just a few positive thoughts - three at most - because that's easy and they'll feel confident about their positive thoughts," says Tormala.
Conversely, next time you're in an argument, avoid the temptation to spin the "give me one good reason" line; it'll only strengthen your adversary's hand.
4 Grind them down
HUNGER is a powerful thing, but how many times have you reached for a quick snack, only to regret it when it's lying heavily in your stomach? Just as your standards for food quality can slip when your stomach is empty, so you should avoid engaging in argument or doing battle with sales people when your mental batteries are running low. Conversely, if you're trying to be persuasive, strike when your target is running low on mental energy.
Edward Burkley of Oklahoma State University in Stillwater studied the impact of cognitive exhaustion on the resistance levels of 78 students. The plan was to try to convince them to accept one month's summer holiday instead of three. Half the students came to the study fresh. But the other half first had to complete a self-control task in which they wrote down all thoughts that came into their heads while suppressing any thoughts about a white bear.
This task, Burkey argued, would use up some of their reserves of self-control. He found that the students who had performed the white bear task were less resistant to the idea of giving up two months of holiday.
Burkley also studied the flip side of this effect. He asked a different group of 72 students to rate the plan to shorten their holidays. Half were told it would be implemented within two years, making it personally relevant. The other half were told it would not be implemented for 10 years. He wanted to test the hypothesis that students presented with the two-year scenario would use up more of their mental resources, because they would be more motivated to argue against that unwelcome suggestion.
The students then had to try to complete an (unbeknown to them) unsolvable puzzle - a technique commonly used in such studies to measure how much self-control a person has. On average, students in the 10-year group persisted for more than a minute longer before giving up, suggesting they were less mentally exhausted than those in the two-year group (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 34, p 419).
Of course, there is a form of mental exhaustion that doesn't require thought: nag them into submission. Children have got this technique sussed, says Burkley.
5 The medium is the means
IN THIS fast-paced world, we seldom have time for face-to-face meetings. You are just as likely to conduct your personal and business negotiations by email, or some other electronic medium, as you are in person. How does this impact your powers of persuasion?
The question intrigued Rosanna Guadagno of the University of Alabama and Robert Cialdini of Arizona State University, who have been comparing the persuasive power of online communication with face-to-face meetings.
In a study published in 2002, Guadagno and Cialdini had a group of students discuss the introduction of new exams (Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, vol 6, p 38). The group was split into same-sex couples. Unbeknown to the subjects, each pair included an accomplice of the experimenters whose role was to provide arguments in favour of the idea. Half the discussions took place in an online chatroom, the other half sat face-to-face.
While overall men rated the proposals similarly whether they participated in the electronic or face-to-face sessions, women in face-to-face sessions rated them more highly than those who only took part online. Guadagno and Cialdini suggest this is because groups of women tend to form communal bonds and reach agreement. Electronic communication disrupts the exchange of social cues women use to establish a communal bond and is therefore less conducive to persuasion.
On the other hand, groups of men typically try to establish their competence and independence, which can lead to competitive encounters. When two men who have not met before debate a point, online interaction is about as effective and persuasive as face-to-face.
But if they have met and had a competitive exchange, subsequent face-to-face meetings are less productive, whereas online exchanges fare far better. So while online communication can prevent women "connecting", it can help men suppress competitive urges that hamper persuasion.
So, if you're a woman and want to persuade other women you'd be better off meeting face-to-face, while men are less confrontational if contacted by email. The researchers are now studying these effects in mixed couples.
6 Style over substance
IT WAS midnight when the knock came at the door. It was "Paul", a "neighbour", who'd "just moved in". He spoke non-stop, without pause or hesitation, detailing a problem with a truck that had run out of gas and his need for $20, which he would, of course, return first thing in the morning. Later, Kurt often looked back and wondered just how it was he got taken in so easily.
"Paul" was a master of his craft: Kurt later learned that four other people on the street had also been taken in by the con.
Maybe we shouldn't be so surprised when things like this happen. Persuasion, it turns out, may have as much to do with how you say something as what you're saying. And the less time you're allowed to think about the content, the more the style of delivery matters. At least, those are the findings of two marketing professors who decided to tease style and substance apart.
John Sparks at the University of Dayton in Ohio and Charles Areni at the University of Sydney, Australia, knew from earlier work on courtroom transcripts that people equated certain kinds of speech with lack of credibility. In particular, hesitant phrases such as "I mean", "you know" and "isn't it?" reduced a speaker's power. But no one had looked at the exact relationship between style and content.
The researchers asked 118 undergraduates to read a transcript of a testimonial about a scanner. In one version, the speaker used hesitations like "I mean" and "ummm"; in the other, he used none. They also gave half the students enough time to read it thoroughly, while the others got just 20 seconds, to see how limiting a person's understanding of the substance would alter the persuasiveness of the style.
The researchers found that in both versions style was important. When hesitant language was used, people were less easily convinced that this was a scanner worth buying - even when it was a better scanner at a lower price. Style was especially important, the researchers found, when time was limited (Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol 38, p 37). "If you can't pay attention to what the speaker is saying," Sparks says, "you pay attention to how they say it."
So take a lesson from Paul, the conman. If you want to be persuasive, don't stumble, pause or use language that shows hesitation. And for goodness sake, don't give your listeners time to think about what you're really saying.
7 Get them angry
ANGERING people may seem like an odd way to go about persuading them, but according to Monique Mitchell Turner, a communications professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, it is seriously underrated as a tool of persuasion.
Much study has gone into how emotions aid persuasion. The best known and most studied is fear. It serves well in campaigns that try to steer you clear of certain activities, like smoking or unprotected sex.
But fear doesn't always work, says Turner, and over time, people become more resistant to scare tactics. The same applies to guilt. It can be effective (think of maternal guilt), but not once people clue into the fact they're being manipulated. Worse, it has to be carefully calibrated: too much and people resist. "We don't want people telling us we're bad people," says Turner.
Anger is different. For one thing, it's focused on someone else's misdeeds, not your own. Also, it's a very utilitarian emotion, she says, usually in response to a perceived injustice. "Anger makes people feel empowered," Turner says.
There has been a long debate, she says, about whether anger can be constructively harnessed. In studying groups that employ anger as a tactic - most notably animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, as well as environment organisations and even political campaigns - she has found that, given the right conditions, it can.
First, people have to be convinced that the issue is relevant to them, that it affects them or their children or their community. At that point, says Turner, you need to hammer home what's wrong with the world as it is. Once you have got people roiled up, you can offer them a way to remedy the situation (Public Relations Review, vol 33, p 114).
"When those feelings of anger are accompanied by the feeling that there is a solution to this problem, then the message is more likely to be persuasive," she says.
8 Resistance isn't futile
HISTORICALLY, psychologists studying persuasion have concentrated on what makes certain messages more appealing than others. But over the past few years researchers have begun revising that idea. A growing body of evidence suggests that breaking down people's resistance to persuasion can be even more important.
The reason for this is that people are naturally suspicious of attempts to persuade them. This is especially true if they think they are being duped.
In laboratory studies, merely reminding people that they are vulnerable to manipulation - for example, showing them magazine adverts with celebrities or models endorsing products they clearly know nothing about - makes them generally more difficult to persuade (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 83, p 526).
So far so obvious, but there's a useful point here. Resistance means that very persuasive arguments can backfire. People who successfully resist persuasion often become even more entrenched in their wrong-headed opinions, and the stronger, more credible or authoritative they perceive the attempt at persuasion to be, the more certain of their opinions they become when they resist it (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 83, p 1298).
At first blush, this seems paradoxical. You might think a strong, authoritative argument would hold greater sway. Not necessarily. It seems that if people resist good arguments presented by an expert, they conclude their own arguments must be even stronger.
This sets up a bit of a catch-22. "If you want to change people's attitudes, it's good to have strong arguments," says Zakary Tormala of Stanford University. "But if they manage to resist your message, they might become more certain of the very attitudes you want to change."
How to overcome this deadlock? Tormala's colleague Richard Petty of Ohio State University says: "Present positions closer to your target's views, then move them towards your goal a little at a time." You could also try charming them by boosting their self-esteem. "When people feel good about themselves, they are more open to challenging messages," he says.
Very Interesting article I found on the web:
Cajole your boss into giving you a raise, win someone round to your point of view, or persuade your partner it's their turn to put out the trash - getting people to do what you want can be very handy. Persuasion is a key element of all human interaction, from politics to marketing to everyday dealings with friends, family and colleagues. "Persuasion is a basic form of social interaction," says Eric Knowles, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. "It is the way we build consensus and a common purpose."
Unfortunately persuasion is both notoriously difficult to pull off and almost impossible to resist when done well. Psychologists have long been fascinated by persuasion - why some people are more persuasive than others and why some strategies work where others fail. Over the next six pages we bring together some recent insights into the science of persuasion.
For those who don't want to be persuaded, there are lessons here too. Knowing the strategies charmers and advertisers adopt can help you resist their guile.
1 Be a mimic
WHEN you're aware of it, it's one of the most infuriating behaviours imaginable. Yet mimic someone's mannerisms subtly - their head and hand movements, posture and so forth - and it can be one of the most powerful forms of persuasion. That's the conclusion of a number of recent studies.
William Maddux at the INSEAD business school in Fontainebleau, France, explored the effect of mimicry on 166 students in two role-play experiments, one involving negotiation between job candidates and recruiters, the second between buyers and sellers (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol 44, p 461). In both cases, the outcome of negotiations was better for the would-be persuaders when they employed subtle mimicry. For example, in the buyer-seller experiment, 67 per cent of sellers who mimicked their target secured a sale, as opposed to 12.5 per cent of those who did not.
Another study by Robin Tanner at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, asked students to discuss a new soft drink with sales reps (both the reps and the drink were fictitious, though the students did not know this). Half of the reps were instructed to mimic the physical and verbal behaviour of half of the students they spoke to.
These "chameleon" reps elicited more positive ratings of the drink, and volunteers they mimicked consumed more of it during the chat. "Ours is the first study to show that mimicry can essentially enhance persuasion in interpersonal interactions," says Tanner. Intriguingly, people felt especially positive about the drink and its market prospects when the mimic explicitly stated their vested interest in the success of the drink (Journal of Consumer Research, vol 34, p 754).
It is possible, though, that the reps in the "no mimicry" group subconsciously resorted to mimicry. Jeremy Bailenson and Nick Yee of Stanford University got round this by using virtual reality avatars. They asked 61 students to watch and listen to an avatar arguing that students should carry ID cards at all times - an unpopular proposal. For one group, the avatar moved in a pre-programmed human-like way. In the other, computers tracked the students' head movements, which the avatar mimicked after a 4-second delay (previous studies suggested a delay of 2 to 4 seconds works best). Students who had been mimicked were more likely to respond favourably.
But be warned, overt mimicry can backfire on the mimic, or at least be very embarrassing if detected, says Tanner. "It's far from a free shot at persuasiveness."
The crucial factors are: be subtle, leave a delay and, whatever you do, if you think there's even the slightest chance you've been rumbled, stop.
2 Look at it this way...
IF YOU want to bring people round to your point of view, try "framing", a favourite tactic of spin doctors. "Framing is about leading people to think about an issue or opinion in a way that is advantageous to you," explains George Bizer of Union College in Schenectady, New York. "For example, opponents of inheritance taxes prefer to frame them as 'death taxes'."
Framing is a key tactic in election campaigns, so Bizer wanted to see whether voters were more or less persuadable to change their views when asked to frame them in different ways.
He asked 69 undergraduates to read an article about two fictitious candidates' views and policies (one candidate, Rick, was conservative, while the other, Chris, was liberal). Half of the students had to choose between the two statements: either "I support Rick" or "I oppose Rick"; the other half chose between equivalent statements about Chris. Participants also rated their preference for both candidates on a sliding scale from "strongly support" to "strongly oppose".
They then read another article, this time arguing against the merits of their preferred candidate, and then had their opinions reassessed. Overall, people whose preference for a candidate had been expressed in terms of opposition to the other candidate were less likely to modify their opinions (Political Psychology, vol 26, p 553). "A simple change in framing - leading people to think of their evaluations in terms of whom they oppose instead of whom they support - leads to stronger, more resistant opinions," says Bizer.
These findings fit with a broad body of research suggesting that negative information frequently has a more powerful influence than positive messages. So if you want to sway someone when they choose between two options, a good tactic is to be negative about the option you don't want them to pick.
3 Less is more
IN MOST battles, outnumbering your opponent will hand you victory, and it would seem common sense that the more arguments you can call on, the more persuasive you'll be. Yet, the evidence suggests otherwise. A number of studies have revealed that the more reasons people are asked to come up with in support of an idea, the less value they ascribe to each. The result: asking people to "think of all the reasons why this is a good idea" is likely to backfire, and may serve to harden their views.
Zakary Tormala and Richard Petty of Ohio State University, working with Pablo Briñol at the Autonomous University of Madrid in Spain, demonstrated the effect in 2002. The researchers told 59 university students that there was a plan to introduce new exams into their courses - an unwelcome prospect. They then asked half the students to produce two reasons why this was a bad idea, and the other half eight reasons. On average, students who supplied just two arguments against the proposal were subsequently more opposed to the exam policy than those who gave eight.
Tormala and colleagues argue that the ease with which we can summon up thoughts affects how much confidence we place in them, and it is generally easier to think of two reasons for believing something rather than eight. This finding has some clear practical implications. "If you want to persuade people by getting them to think positively about your message, idea, product or whatever, ask them to generate just a few positive thoughts - three at most - because that's easy and they'll feel confident about their positive thoughts," says Tormala.
Conversely, next time you're in an argument, avoid the temptation to spin the "give me one good reason" line; it'll only strengthen your adversary's hand.
4 Grind them down
HUNGER is a powerful thing, but how many times have you reached for a quick snack, only to regret it when it's lying heavily in your stomach? Just as your standards for food quality can slip when your stomach is empty, so you should avoid engaging in argument or doing battle with sales people when your mental batteries are running low. Conversely, if you're trying to be persuasive, strike when your target is running low on mental energy.
Edward Burkley of Oklahoma State University in Stillwater studied the impact of cognitive exhaustion on the resistance levels of 78 students. The plan was to try to convince them to accept one month's summer holiday instead of three. Half the students came to the study fresh. But the other half first had to complete a self-control task in which they wrote down all thoughts that came into their heads while suppressing any thoughts about a white bear.
This task, Burkey argued, would use up some of their reserves of self-control. He found that the students who had performed the white bear task were less resistant to the idea of giving up two months of holiday.
Burkley also studied the flip side of this effect. He asked a different group of 72 students to rate the plan to shorten their holidays. Half were told it would be implemented within two years, making it personally relevant. The other half were told it would not be implemented for 10 years. He wanted to test the hypothesis that students presented with the two-year scenario would use up more of their mental resources, because they would be more motivated to argue against that unwelcome suggestion.
The students then had to try to complete an (unbeknown to them) unsolvable puzzle - a technique commonly used in such studies to measure how much self-control a person has. On average, students in the 10-year group persisted for more than a minute longer before giving up, suggesting they were less mentally exhausted than those in the two-year group (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 34, p 419).
Of course, there is a form of mental exhaustion that doesn't require thought: nag them into submission. Children have got this technique sussed, says Burkley.
5 The medium is the means
IN THIS fast-paced world, we seldom have time for face-to-face meetings. You are just as likely to conduct your personal and business negotiations by email, or some other electronic medium, as you are in person. How does this impact your powers of persuasion?
The question intrigued Rosanna Guadagno of the University of Alabama and Robert Cialdini of Arizona State University, who have been comparing the persuasive power of online communication with face-to-face meetings.
In a study published in 2002, Guadagno and Cialdini had a group of students discuss the introduction of new exams (Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, vol 6, p 38). The group was split into same-sex couples. Unbeknown to the subjects, each pair included an accomplice of the experimenters whose role was to provide arguments in favour of the idea. Half the discussions took place in an online chatroom, the other half sat face-to-face.
While overall men rated the proposals similarly whether they participated in the electronic or face-to-face sessions, women in face-to-face sessions rated them more highly than those who only took part online. Guadagno and Cialdini suggest this is because groups of women tend to form communal bonds and reach agreement. Electronic communication disrupts the exchange of social cues women use to establish a communal bond and is therefore less conducive to persuasion.
On the other hand, groups of men typically try to establish their competence and independence, which can lead to competitive encounters. When two men who have not met before debate a point, online interaction is about as effective and persuasive as face-to-face.
But if they have met and had a competitive exchange, subsequent face-to-face meetings are less productive, whereas online exchanges fare far better. So while online communication can prevent women "connecting", it can help men suppress competitive urges that hamper persuasion.
So, if you're a woman and want to persuade other women you'd be better off meeting face-to-face, while men are less confrontational if contacted by email. The researchers are now studying these effects in mixed couples.
6 Style over substance
IT WAS midnight when the knock came at the door. It was "Paul", a "neighbour", who'd "just moved in". He spoke non-stop, without pause or hesitation, detailing a problem with a truck that had run out of gas and his need for $20, which he would, of course, return first thing in the morning. Later, Kurt often looked back and wondered just how it was he got taken in so easily.
"Paul" was a master of his craft: Kurt later learned that four other people on the street had also been taken in by the con.
Maybe we shouldn't be so surprised when things like this happen. Persuasion, it turns out, may have as much to do with how you say something as what you're saying. And the less time you're allowed to think about the content, the more the style of delivery matters. At least, those are the findings of two marketing professors who decided to tease style and substance apart.
John Sparks at the University of Dayton in Ohio and Charles Areni at the University of Sydney, Australia, knew from earlier work on courtroom transcripts that people equated certain kinds of speech with lack of credibility. In particular, hesitant phrases such as "I mean", "you know" and "isn't it?" reduced a speaker's power. But no one had looked at the exact relationship between style and content.
The researchers asked 118 undergraduates to read a transcript of a testimonial about a scanner. In one version, the speaker used hesitations like "I mean" and "ummm"; in the other, he used none. They also gave half the students enough time to read it thoroughly, while the others got just 20 seconds, to see how limiting a person's understanding of the substance would alter the persuasiveness of the style.
The researchers found that in both versions style was important. When hesitant language was used, people were less easily convinced that this was a scanner worth buying - even when it was a better scanner at a lower price. Style was especially important, the researchers found, when time was limited (Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol 38, p 37). "If you can't pay attention to what the speaker is saying," Sparks says, "you pay attention to how they say it."
So take a lesson from Paul, the conman. If you want to be persuasive, don't stumble, pause or use language that shows hesitation. And for goodness sake, don't give your listeners time to think about what you're really saying.
7 Get them angry
ANGERING people may seem like an odd way to go about persuading them, but according to Monique Mitchell Turner, a communications professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, it is seriously underrated as a tool of persuasion.
Much study has gone into how emotions aid persuasion. The best known and most studied is fear. It serves well in campaigns that try to steer you clear of certain activities, like smoking or unprotected sex.
But fear doesn't always work, says Turner, and over time, people become more resistant to scare tactics. The same applies to guilt. It can be effective (think of maternal guilt), but not once people clue into the fact they're being manipulated. Worse, it has to be carefully calibrated: too much and people resist. "We don't want people telling us we're bad people," says Turner.
Anger is different. For one thing, it's focused on someone else's misdeeds, not your own. Also, it's a very utilitarian emotion, she says, usually in response to a perceived injustice. "Anger makes people feel empowered," Turner says.
There has been a long debate, she says, about whether anger can be constructively harnessed. In studying groups that employ anger as a tactic - most notably animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, as well as environment organisations and even political campaigns - she has found that, given the right conditions, it can.
First, people have to be convinced that the issue is relevant to them, that it affects them or their children or their community. At that point, says Turner, you need to hammer home what's wrong with the world as it is. Once you have got people roiled up, you can offer them a way to remedy the situation (Public Relations Review, vol 33, p 114).
"When those feelings of anger are accompanied by the feeling that there is a solution to this problem, then the message is more likely to be persuasive," she says.
8 Resistance isn't futile
HISTORICALLY, psychologists studying persuasion have concentrated on what makes certain messages more appealing than others. But over the past few years researchers have begun revising that idea. A growing body of evidence suggests that breaking down people's resistance to persuasion can be even more important.
The reason for this is that people are naturally suspicious of attempts to persuade them. This is especially true if they think they are being duped.
In laboratory studies, merely reminding people that they are vulnerable to manipulation - for example, showing them magazine adverts with celebrities or models endorsing products they clearly know nothing about - makes them generally more difficult to persuade (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 83, p 526).
So far so obvious, but there's a useful point here. Resistance means that very persuasive arguments can backfire. People who successfully resist persuasion often become even more entrenched in their wrong-headed opinions, and the stronger, more credible or authoritative they perceive the attempt at persuasion to be, the more certain of their opinions they become when they resist it (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 83, p 1298).
At first blush, this seems paradoxical. You might think a strong, authoritative argument would hold greater sway. Not necessarily. It seems that if people resist good arguments presented by an expert, they conclude their own arguments must be even stronger.
This sets up a bit of a catch-22. "If you want to change people's attitudes, it's good to have strong arguments," says Zakary Tormala of Stanford University. "But if they manage to resist your message, they might become more certain of the very attitudes you want to change."
How to overcome this deadlock? Tormala's colleague Richard Petty of Ohio State University says: "Present positions closer to your target's views, then move them towards your goal a little at a time." You could also try charming them by boosting their self-esteem. "When people feel good about themselves, they are more open to challenging messages," he says.
4.15.2008
A good line.
Current mood: calm
"Over time I've realized that you can only understand life backwards but you have to live it forwards." I don't remember where I heard that but I think it's pretty profound.
"Over time I've realized that you can only understand life backwards but you have to live it forwards." I don't remember where I heard that but I think it's pretty profound.
4.13.2008
Bad Habits
Current mood: argumentative
Its funny but I was just thinking about bad habits today. It seems like people are the only things on earth that create their own bad habits.
More on this later perhaps....
Its funny but I was just thinking about bad habits today. It seems like people are the only things on earth that create their own bad habits.
More on this later perhaps....
4.10.2008
Admitting your own Personal Suck
Current mood: enlightened
I just realized something the other day. It always bugged me and I couldn't quite explain what it was. Some seemingly random (lucky?) people have become really good at identifying their weaknesses and developing the compensatory psychic muscle needed to shore up their vulnerabilities. Forget stuff? Write stuff down. Get easily distracted? Set a timer. Burdened with pointless interruptions? Leave the office. Find the erroneous code in your system and eliminate the bugs. Find the quickest, minimalist, most elegant solution that could possibly work. Can it really be that simple? Sure, to an outsider looking in, it's all "no duh" stuff, right? I mean, why would anyone need to be reminded that things can be written down on cards and kept organized? Well, to be honest… A lot of us need a unexpected amount of reminding. Seriously. How do some people stay skinny so easy? How can some people draw anything they see? Why are some people math whizzes? How can some people be so funny with little or no effort? If you ask these questions to any of those people with those skills you yearn for, you'll probably end up the same answer every time: "I dunno. It's just how I am." And so the rest of us generously proportioned, uncreative, math-retarded, not-funny people stare and stew like the loser in the old Charles Atlas ad. "Why can't I have that?" Because, you can't just turn it on and instantaneously become what you wish you were. It takes reflection, consideration, reiteration, and a personal dedication to facing the stuff at which you suck. And everyone sucks at something. You totally suck at something. Don't let it discourage you. Interestingly enough, I found an interesting article online that talked about how the application of two totally opposite ideas can have the same effect on a problem. Think about this:
"Outline: Plan everything you're going to write, scene by scene, all the way through to the end. Do your research while you're outlining, so by the time you start writing the actual story, you're already living in that world. With a detailed enough outline, the actual writing becomes a matter of choosing the right words to describe what you've already decided to tell. You can concentrate on style and let the plot take care of itself, because you've already done that part."
"Don't outline: Don't plan ahead at all. Feel the lure of the blank page. Trust your instincts and dive into the story, and don't look back until you're done."
(http://sfwa.org/writing/strategies.html)
It's not about one being smart and the other dumb. It's about understanding what's really significant and helping a given person solve a given problem. Your brain and its behavior isn't some kit you can put together from a page of plans. You're always thinking, obsessing, and changing as you go through your day. There's more than one path, and, dimes to donuts, you'll sooner or later end up losing it if you try to find just one. I guess I'm saying I like the idea that once you've started owning up your "individual suck," you can sample from an endless list of options of tricks that may or may not help you make your life better. As long as you don't lose any fingers and can still get most of your work done on time, where's the damage in experimenting? Try something. Then try the opposite. Then try the orthogonal. Every bit that falls short teaches you a little something that might come in handy some day. As they say, mistakes can be a buddhist gift.
The only damage you'll find more difficult to repair comes from the doors you've decided to close forever. Try patching your own "individual suck" with crazy, ridiculous, incredibly obvious solutions. You'll learn where your problems are and eventually you'll probably have a pretty good idea where the solutions are hiding too.
Onwards…
I just realized something the other day. It always bugged me and I couldn't quite explain what it was. Some seemingly random (lucky?) people have become really good at identifying their weaknesses and developing the compensatory psychic muscle needed to shore up their vulnerabilities. Forget stuff? Write stuff down. Get easily distracted? Set a timer. Burdened with pointless interruptions? Leave the office. Find the erroneous code in your system and eliminate the bugs. Find the quickest, minimalist, most elegant solution that could possibly work. Can it really be that simple? Sure, to an outsider looking in, it's all "no duh" stuff, right? I mean, why would anyone need to be reminded that things can be written down on cards and kept organized? Well, to be honest… A lot of us need a unexpected amount of reminding. Seriously. How do some people stay skinny so easy? How can some people draw anything they see? Why are some people math whizzes? How can some people be so funny with little or no effort? If you ask these questions to any of those people with those skills you yearn for, you'll probably end up the same answer every time: "I dunno. It's just how I am." And so the rest of us generously proportioned, uncreative, math-retarded, not-funny people stare and stew like the loser in the old Charles Atlas ad. "Why can't I have that?" Because, you can't just turn it on and instantaneously become what you wish you were. It takes reflection, consideration, reiteration, and a personal dedication to facing the stuff at which you suck. And everyone sucks at something. You totally suck at something. Don't let it discourage you. Interestingly enough, I found an interesting article online that talked about how the application of two totally opposite ideas can have the same effect on a problem. Think about this:
"Outline: Plan everything you're going to write, scene by scene, all the way through to the end. Do your research while you're outlining, so by the time you start writing the actual story, you're already living in that world. With a detailed enough outline, the actual writing becomes a matter of choosing the right words to describe what you've already decided to tell. You can concentrate on style and let the plot take care of itself, because you've already done that part."
"Don't outline: Don't plan ahead at all. Feel the lure of the blank page. Trust your instincts and dive into the story, and don't look back until you're done."
(http://sfwa.org/writing/strategies.html)
It's not about one being smart and the other dumb. It's about understanding what's really significant and helping a given person solve a given problem. Your brain and its behavior isn't some kit you can put together from a page of plans. You're always thinking, obsessing, and changing as you go through your day. There's more than one path, and, dimes to donuts, you'll sooner or later end up losing it if you try to find just one. I guess I'm saying I like the idea that once you've started owning up your "individual suck," you can sample from an endless list of options of tricks that may or may not help you make your life better. As long as you don't lose any fingers and can still get most of your work done on time, where's the damage in experimenting? Try something. Then try the opposite. Then try the orthogonal. Every bit that falls short teaches you a little something that might come in handy some day. As they say, mistakes can be a buddhist gift.
The only damage you'll find more difficult to repair comes from the doors you've decided to close forever. Try patching your own "individual suck" with crazy, ridiculous, incredibly obvious solutions. You'll learn where your problems are and eventually you'll probably have a pretty good idea where the solutions are hiding too.
Onwards…
4.01.2008
Stop whining....
Current mood: annoyed
I guess I'll write - since it's on my mind today - that I'm realizing how much it pays to stop and pay attention whenever you hear yourself mentally whining.
Nobody likes a whiner, even when it's yourself. So it makes sense to be attentive to amount of which your internal monologue is becoming personally insufferable. As with body odor and not flossing, chances are good that others have already noticed things about you before you have, so - you know - congratulations on making it to the party.
Furthermore, and possibly more importantly, that whining should be telling you something. Whining is the white smoke in your tail pipe that means you're wasting mental oil. It means you're unconsciously allocating cycles to something that you cannot, would not, or should not be wasting your time thinking about. Otherwise, why would it be bothering you, right? You'd be either free of it or done with it.
Once you pinpoint where that whine's coming from, that's the perfect opportunity to decide what the hell the hang-up is. Because if it's worth whining and droning about, it's worth deciding what obstacle (barrier?) in either the "real world" or your own brain is keeping something from happening.
And once you figure out that obstacle, there's more than enough methods that exist to help you accomplish what you need to get passed it all in a way that's sane and sensible. But you can't finish a task you don't fully understand, so allow yourself the personal comfort of unpacking the problem behind the problem.
Put automotive-wise? Compulsively adding a new bottle of oil every other day doesn't repair your smoke problem: it feeds it. As an alternative, use the smoke as a warning that it's about time to trace the cracks in your engine.
As for me? Ya… Now I'm feeling a little better and a little less whiny.
Onwards…
I guess I'll write - since it's on my mind today - that I'm realizing how much it pays to stop and pay attention whenever you hear yourself mentally whining.
Nobody likes a whiner, even when it's yourself. So it makes sense to be attentive to amount of which your internal monologue is becoming personally insufferable. As with body odor and not flossing, chances are good that others have already noticed things about you before you have, so - you know - congratulations on making it to the party.
Furthermore, and possibly more importantly, that whining should be telling you something. Whining is the white smoke in your tail pipe that means you're wasting mental oil. It means you're unconsciously allocating cycles to something that you cannot, would not, or should not be wasting your time thinking about. Otherwise, why would it be bothering you, right? You'd be either free of it or done with it.
Once you pinpoint where that whine's coming from, that's the perfect opportunity to decide what the hell the hang-up is. Because if it's worth whining and droning about, it's worth deciding what obstacle (barrier?) in either the "real world" or your own brain is keeping something from happening.
And once you figure out that obstacle, there's more than enough methods that exist to help you accomplish what you need to get passed it all in a way that's sane and sensible. But you can't finish a task you don't fully understand, so allow yourself the personal comfort of unpacking the problem behind the problem.
Put automotive-wise? Compulsively adding a new bottle of oil every other day doesn't repair your smoke problem: it feeds it. As an alternative, use the smoke as a warning that it's about time to trace the cracks in your engine.
As for me? Ya… Now I'm feeling a little better and a little less whiny.
Onwards…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
