Pathological #optimism?

A recent pop-science article in the NYT says “debate continues on hazards of electromagnetic waves.” It points out that the first disturbing findings date back half a century, and it has been more recently established that kids living near high-voltage power lines have measurably higher rates of leukemia. There have also been some sporadic, potentially disturbing finding regarding cell phones and other equipment. So why hasn’t this become a burning public health concern? I would guess it’s the same reason which recently led a top military commander to testify to a US senate committee that things in Afghanistan were really, truly looking up, despite some apparent evidence to the contrary – chronic optimism, or what some psychologists call “positivity bias.” This is the mindset which can lead you to conquer the Aztec empire with a company of desperados, land a few men on the moon, and win some hot and a cold war. I would guess it can also lead you into Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, and let you maintain confidence in a virtualized financial matrix (or, dare I say, fly a passenger airliner over a war zone).

You’ve got talent!

An article in the NYT revisits the old nature-vs.-nurture debate (“How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall? Talent”). It is related to a new meta-study which appears to debunk the 10,000-hours rule made famous by Michael Gladwell. The piece starts with the following observation: “The 8-year-old juggling a soccer ball and the 48-year-old jogging by, with Japanese lessons ringing from her earbuds, have something fundamental in common: At some level, both are wondering whether their investment of time and effort is worth it.”

Yes, indeed. I have no doubt in my mind that this is exactly what someone like 8-year-old Diego Armando Maradona would think, kicking a ball in some South American shanty town – no matter how “weird” it may sound.

Macht makes right

It’s no fun facing a real existential dilemma. Whom should I root for – the team which relies on the most pathetic and obnoxious football/soccer player in living memory; or the team representing (albeit imperfectly) the nation whose leaders twice sank the “world” in bloody conflict last century – and which provided thousands of gleeful executioners for the delusional and murderous Nazi regime? After much soul searching, I opted for the latter. Why? Because they seemed poised to score a rare victory for “civilization” in the early 21^st century. And because I could not really suppress my dislike of Ronaldo – no matter how politically incorrect it might seem.

Revenge of the extrovert?

With all due respect, this must be one of the most groundless theories in the social sciences since Keynes famously mis-predicted the 15-hour work week. It is the “brain child” of Jennifer O. Grimes, a “Millennial” prospective psychologist bent on finally cracking the “introvert” walnut. She has developed an “energy theory” according to which introversion and extraversion can be related to fleeting self-representations (“If you think about planning and really putting together something in your mind, that could be argued to be introversion. But unless you act and channel the energy outward, it's not bringing to extroverted observable fruition the introverted plan.”); or the personality traits of introverts (if we take these to be a bit less transient) would place them on (or very close to) the autism spectrum – just dial these qualities up a bit, and you will get into typical Asperger’s symptoms. This is, I must say, a very extroverted way of analyzing introversion.

Don’t worry – ever…

On the Edge web site, Steven Pinker offers a scientific dissection of “writing in the 21^st century.” Toward the end of his analysis, he slips in the following obligatory warning:

“Another intellectual error we must be suspicious of is the ever-present tendency to demonize the younger generation and the direction in which culture and society are going. In every era there are commentators who say that the kids today are dumbing down the culture and taking human values with them. Today the accusations are often directed at anything having to do with the Web and other electronic technologies—as if the difference between being printed on dead trees and displayed as pixels on a screen is going to determine the content of ideas. We're always being told that young people suck: that they are illiterate and unreflective and un-thoughtful, all of which ignores the fact that every generation had that said about them by the older generation. Yet somehow civilization persists.”

As I have noted earlier, someone could have made the same observation in Rome circa 400 A.D., and smirked at the Cassandra’s who fail to see the obvious truth. But the paper-vs.-pixels debate is worth revisiting, too.

Don’t be “good”

Much research in psychology and neuroscience has found that we have a virtually limitless ability to rationalize problems away. A case in point is the argument offered by Aaron Hurst on a few weeks ago (“Being ‘Good’ Isn’t the Only Way to Go”). He begins by noting that many members of the corporate work force apparently struggle to find purpose in their work, so they look for meaning elsewhere – often in volunteering. But they should not really need to do this. In Hurst’s experience, the “satisfaction” employees “expressed” from non-paid work “came from contributing to something greater than themselves, but was also about the opportunity for self-expression and personal growth that such work enabled.” The solution? Just give everyone the impression that they are achieving the latter part of this compound formula for job satisfaction, and they won’t be distracted by search for meaning elsewhere. And, by the way, work in the non-profit sector can be unsatisfying in its own way.

“Depressed, but Not Ashamed”

This is the title of a column in the NYT by two high-school students who edit their school’s newspaper. They argue that depression should be completely destigmatized, so teenagers could freely discuss it as a serious health issue. Good point – which could be taken a step further by saying that perhaps it is the cheerfully adjusted to a depressing educational system (and larger social “matrix”) who should feel some shame. A few psychoanalysts made a similar argument back in the 1960s, but – as we now all know – that was an intellectual and therapeutic dead end. 

The Donald Rumsfeld of IT?

A few weeks ago, the NYT carried an article which asked an intriguing question: “If Steve Jobs were alive today, should he be in jail?” It seems the iconic entrepreneur was involved in some clearly illegal activities: a conspiracy to stop other companies from poaching Apple employees, a scheme aimed at boosting the value of his stock options, etc. Why did he do it? Jobs’s biographer, Walter Isaacson, says he “always believed that the rules that applied to ordinary people didn’t apply to him. … He believed he could bend the laws of physics and distort reality. That allowed him to do some amazing things, but also led him to push the envelope.” And this was his modus operandi in general: “Over and over, people referred to his reality distortion field. The rules just didn’t apply to him, whether he was getting a license plate that let him use handicapped parking or building products that people said weren’t possible. Most of the time he was right, and he got away with it.” Am I the only one who sees an odd parallel here? Except that Rumsfeld wasn’t right about Iraq, and still got away with it – and remains in denial.

Power to the “pro-social psychopaths”!

Is Recep Tayyip Erdogan a hard-headed fundamentalist? Sure. But he seems to have a bigger problem which may eventually sap his power. A few years ago I wrote a paper on perhaps the central paradox of politics – but also in big business or the military . To rise to the top, “leaders” need to have very, very thick skin and unflagging determination; and, since good judgment requires apt affective response, such callousness often undermines their capacity for effective decision-making in crisis situations. This is what the Turkish prime minister had to say following the recent mining disaster: “These are ordinary things. There is a thing in literature called ‘work accident' ... It happens in other workplaces, too. Explosions like this in these mines happen all the time. It's not like these don't happen elsewhere in the world.” What kind of person can say this, really?

The wisdom of spiders

The NYT covers a new study of a rare spider species, one of the very few living in colonies (“Spiders That Thrive in a Social Web”). The scientists who did the study kept some young spiders in the same group of older spiders, and moved others repeatedly from one group to another. According to the NYT article, “the researchers showed that spiders exposed to the same group day after day developed stronger and more distinctive personalities than those that were shifted from one set of spiders to the next. Moreover, the spiders in a stable social setting grew ever less like one another over time.” It should be hardly surprising that the socially mobile spiders were more alike, with less pronounced personal quirks. After all, the break-up of stable, small-scale human communities and social mobility have long been associated with the emergence of a “protean” self – superficial, malleable, and supremely adaptable. But the spider study also contains another lesson which I hope some of my students can take to heart.

The added value of pleasant vices

Almost a decade ago, economist Steven Levitt pronounced he had solved the biggest mystery in American criminology. Why had levels of violent steadily clime declined since their peak in the early 1990’s? Because abortion was legalized – so fewer unwanted babies, who would be more likely to become criminals, were born. It’s an elegant theory, but there is a slight problem with it. It can’t be proven – or refuted – through statistical analysis. Abortion is entangled countless other social “variables,” so its “causal” impact on crime rates can be established only within a crude abstract model – but this will tell us little about its significance in the non-abstract world of living, breathing, and killing or dying human beings. In fact, I am tempted to offer a different theory which may seem fanciful –and wouldn’t be amenable to empirical validation, either – but may well be more credible. Though someone with Levitt’s unrelenting empirico-analytic bent, however, would typically be impervious to dissuasion or self-doubt.

On teen escapism - or empowerment

When the Divergent movie adaptation came out a couple of weeks ago, New Statesman put out an article with an appropriately ominous article: “No wonder teens love stories about dystopias – they feel like they’re in one.” So what is the true dystopia teens feel they inhabit? According to Laurie Penny, who wrote the piece, the young are now hemmed in by environmental doom and capitalist précarité – so they seek virtual escape through fantasies of teen empowerment. But why would such existential treats be reduced to some sort of grotesque totalitarianism, which itself is reduced pervasive adult sadism? It does not become quite clear, so Penny may have done something we all do – project her own anxieties upon the teen fans she ostensibly writes about.

The self-delusion gap

Katty Kay and Claire Shipman, accomplished TV journalists and book authors, have written a lengthy feature for The Atlantic, “The Confidence Gap.” In it, they argue that highly competent women do not lean in because that lack confidence. As they worked on the article, Katty at one point shared her long-hel suspicion “that her public profile in America was thanks to her English accent, which surely, she suspected, gave her a few extra IQ points every time she opened her mouth.” Claire laughed, but it turned out she harbored excessive modesty, too. And they offer similar examples of other highly successful women in different areas who suffer from a mild form of impostor syndrome. No doubt, Kay and Shipman will be criticized for blaming women for their mostly subordinate position in the corporate world. I see, however, a bigger problem with their theory – the extent to which they take the exaggerated, chest-pounding self-assurance and will to power of Alpha, and even Beta, males as the norm; and think aspiring women should ape them in always charging upward and taking big risks.

Daddy Cool

The current issue of Scientific American Mind has an article on the potentially beneficial influence of fathers on their daughters (“Where is Dad?”). There are always outliers, but much credible research indicates that the physical or emotional absence of their father can predispose girls to earlier puberty and risky sexual behavior. So how does this work, exactly? Some of the psychologists profiled in the article seem to offer some slightly tortured arguments. Two female evolutionary psychologists claim that seeing their fathers leave “provides young girls with a cue about what the future holds in terms of the mating system they are born into.” The abandoned daughters infer that “men don’t stay for long” – hence “finding a man requires quick action.” On the basis of this inference, they make a rational, if subconscious, choice. They opt for an evolutionarily adaptive “reproductive strategy”– to rev up their own reproductive maturation and seek to get pregnant as soon as femininely possible.

“Raising a Moral Child”

This is currently the most emailed article on the NYT site. It is written by Adam Grant, a übernerdy superstar in business psychology about whom I have written earlier. The piece offers a meticulous review of all the research. So, how do you do it? Apparently, by the relentless deployment of evidence-based “interventions” – for example, praise rather than reward (but make sure you praise effort rather than ability), model generous behavior, etc. As Grant judiciously concludes, “people often believe that character causes action, but when it comes to producing moral children, we need to remember that action also shapes character.” How about theories suggesting that moral development depends crucially on attachment, or the forging of strong emotional bonds between parents (or “caregivers”) and children, rather than on shrewd and systemic, quasi-behaviorist manipulation?

A star – or comet – called Lupita

The NYT carries an incisive analysis of the campaign to launch Lupita Nyong’o, the 31-year actress who won an Oscar for her role in “12 Years a Slave,” into much deserved – if slightly delayed – stardom. The title says it all, and captures the Zeitgeist better than tomes of “cultural studies” drivel: “Capitalizing on Her Leap to Stardom: Lupita Nyong’o Gains the Ultimate Prize with a Beauty Contract for Lancôme.” Still, I wanted to preserve a few extra memorable lines for posterity – or at least until “the cloud” is up in the air:

The end of euphemisms?

Jesse Sheidlower, president of the American Dialect Society and author of “The F-Word,” makes the case in the NYT for printing expletives in full (“The Case for Profanity in Print”). He says this is particularly imperative when said expletives are integral to a story (as in the case, among many others, of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland using the four-letter word to refer dismissively to the EU); or when reviewing works of literature and art with expletives in their titles. He thinks not just efforts to render the exact words that were used in a roundabout way, but also replacing some of the letters comprising these with asterisks or dashes, can only serve to obscure important aspects of what needs to be reported or reviewed – and harks back to a bygone year of unnecessary prudishness.

Sunglasses as moral blinders

A recent study found that partcipants wearing sunglasses offered a significantly less fair split of small sums of money to their counterparts. That result was attributed primarily to the sense of anonymity sunglasses seem to provide. A weakened concern for fairness could also result, though, from the reduced amount of light reaching the retina. As I wrote some time ago, there is some research indicating that stronger lighting sharpens emotional sensitivity (over the long term, light falling on the skin also affects the synthesis of vitamin D and other physiological processes, and triggers broad epigenetic adaptations). A reduction of the amount of light falling on the eye could thus induce partial affective dampening – and emotional attunement does appear to have significant influence on moral judgment.

O #Amanpour o mores

Earlier today on “Amanpour,” Amanpour introduced a video clip featuring Angelina Jolie. In her role as special envoy of the UN High Commissioner to Refugees, she was shown interviewing Syrian children in a refugee camp in Lebanon. They spoke of the terrible suffering they had gone through and their continuing nightmares. Next, Amanpour interviewed Jolie’s UN boss, Antonio Guterres. Her first question was something along the lines: “You accompanied Angelina Jolie during her trip to Lebanon. Tell me what made such a profound impression on her there.”

The hyena of Wall Street

In his review of Scorsese’s latest, A. O. Scott asks a curious question: what is the movie, really – satire or propaganda? He apparently leans toward the second, with an important qualification (more on that at the end). He also faults Scorsese for his usual fascination and lack of critical distance from the exploits and protagonist he depicts – in this case, the Leonardo Di Caprio character and the bunch of evil clowns he has gathered around himself (who, Scott points out, are less violent than the “Goodfellas” mobsters – but also a lot less inhibited since they are unconstrained by professed loyalty to any code of conduct and traditional loyalties). I would add that the “debauchery” Scorsese presents to our senses is so grotesquely over the top, so absurd and often carnivalesque, that it takes a serious effort to take it seriously. Still, I would say the truth here is mostly in the eye of the beholder – an age-old truism which has also become a post-modernist cliché.

Let there be light!

A recent study has found that brightness levels of lighting in a room have an effect on emotionality. In a nutshell, brighter light makes individuals feel emotion more strongly – on both the negative and positive sides of the spectrum. The researchers offer a very narrow interpretation of their results: if you want to make a more cool-headed decision, better turn the lights down (and, if possible, avoid neon lighting). The study, though, may have some larger implications. There have been similar findings with respect to sunlight – which could perhaps partly explain why Italians are typically more emotional and impulsive than Germans.

The contradictions of #capitalism – resolved!

In his takedown on “mindfulness” #EvgenyMorozov quotes a curious piece by #ArianaHuffington, “Mindfulness, Meditation, Wellness and Their Connection to Corporate America's Bottom Line.” There, Huffington points to research indicating that mindfulness can make everyone more resistant to stress and thus happier and more productive – boosting both individual happiness and the corporate bottom line: “Stress-reduction and mindfulness don't just make us happier and healthier, they're a proven competitive advantage for any business that wants one." 

Proud to be maladjusted

I am getting a bit tired of all the mental fixes peddled to keep us hapless proles pushing ourselves harder on our virtual, normally hedonic, treadmill. Two now ubiquitous pitches seem particularly irritating. The first is the prescription of “mindfulness meditation” for the purpose of developing single-minded focus and unbendable resilience – even if mental self-control may come at the expense of empathic sensitivity, intuitive associations, pattern recognition, implicit learning, touch with “reality,” justified “depressive realism,” etc. The second miracle cure is related to some research indicating that patients who received botox injections also experienced statistically “meaningful” mood improvement. This is given as an illustration that out facial grimaces – or lack thereof – affect how our brains click. The usual inference is that we should fake it until we make it – not necessarily get regularly botoxed as a cure for emotional dysregulation, but extend our facial muscles in a smile on a regular basis (in addition to bombarding ourselves with positive thoughts).

Noreena

Meet Noreena. She is the owner of web page www.noreena.com. Noreena is not a pop singer who has dropped her last name or taken on a catchy artistic pseudonym. No, she is a bona fide British economist who back in 2001 published a book with the ominous title, The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy. Her Wikipedia entry mentions that according to the UK media she “combines striking beauty with a formidable mind.” So we should be hardly surprised that Noreena has, at this point, achieved near celebrity status - and appeared on numerous chat shows.