NOQ's Journal

Seize the Day

2010-04-19T12:10:00.000-07:00

Here's a puzzle for you: What do you see in this grid above? What do you think it represents?

Okay, it's not a difficult puzzle. The answer is "one year." The columns represent days and the rows are the twelve months of the year, so each day of the year occupies one square.

"Okay," you ask, "so what's the big deal?"

When I look at this grid I get a chill because I'm used to thinking about one year as a long time. Chances are, you do too. But when a year is represented like this, and you can see every day of the year at a glance, suddenly a year doesn't seem so long anymore.

This grid is the layout of a typical table blotter calendar that you can find in any office supply store. It's quite an ordinary, everyday thing. Why should it be any different from a regular yearly calendar that shows the same thing month by month? I'm not sure. Perhaps it is because we've also been conditioned to think of a month as a long time. Perhaps the irregular number of days in a month and the space between months all contribute to that illusion.

In any event, confronting the grid and contemplating its meaning is a sobering experience for me. You cross out a square with each day passes, and no power in Heaven or Earth can bring that day back for you. Once it's gone, it's gone forever. And when another year has passed, all the squares will be crossed out, irrevocably lost. You move on to another grid.

How many more grids do you have? For me, perhaps forty more, if I am lucky. And what is the number forty? It can be expressed as a five-by-eight matrix. The number of table blotters I have left fill the matrix, representing my life. With the passing of each year, one square from this tiny matrix disappears, never to exist again.

If I am lucky. If not, then my matrix - yours too - contains considerably less squares. For all I know I may have just a few more table blotters remaining. The same is true for you.

When you see it this way, you come to the inescapable conclusion that, indeed, life is too short. We hear this platitude so frequently, it has all but lost its power. But now, seen from a fresh angle, the message regains its dark potency. We, all of us, really don't have that much time in this plane of existence. If life is a lesson, it's a crash course.

Source: www.taoism.net/articles/seizeday.htm

++ Autoimmunity ++

2010-03-11T09:04:00.000-08:00

++ Autoimmunity ++

Autoimmunity is the failure of an organism to recognize its own constituent parts as self, which allows an immune response against its own cells and tissues. Any disease that results from such an aberrant immune response is termed an autoimmune disease. Prominent examples include Coeliac disease, diabetes mellitus type 1 (IDDM), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sjögren's syndrome, Churg-Strauss Syndrome, Hashimoto's thyroiditis, Graves' disease, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). See List of autoimmune diseases.

The misconception that an individual's immune system is totally incapable of recognizing self antigens is not new. Paul Ehrlich, at the beginning of the twentieth century, proposed the concept of horror autotoxicus, wherein a 'normal' body does not mount an immune response against its own tissues. Thus, any autoimmune response was perceived to be abnormal and postulated to be connected with human disease. Now, it is accepted that autoimmune responses are an integral part of vertebrate immune systems (sometimes termed 'natural autoimmunity'), normally prevented from causing disease by the phenomenon of immunological tolerance to self-antigens. Autoimmunity should not be confused with alloimmunity

Low-level autoimmunity

While a high level of autoimmunity is unhealthy, a low level of autoimmunity may actually be beneficial. First, low-level autoimmunity might aid in the recognition of neoplastic cells by CD8+ T cells, and thus reduce the incidence of cancer.

Second, autoimmunity may have a role in allowing a rapid immune response in the early stages of an infection when the availability of foreign antigens limits the response (i.e., when there are few pathogens present). In their study, Stefanova et al. (2002) injected an anti-MHC Class II antibody into mice expressing a single type of MHC Class II molecule (H-2b) to temporarily prevent CD4+ T cell-MHC interaction. Naive CD4+ T cells (those that have not encountered any antigens before) recovered from these mice 36 hours post-anti-MHC administration showed decreased responsiveness to the antigen pigeon cytochrome C peptide, as determined by Zap-70 phosphorylation, proliferation, and Interleukin-2 production. Thus Stefanova et al. (2002) demonstrated that self-MHC recognition (which, if too strong may contribute to autoimmune dise ase) maintains the responsiveness of CD4+ T cells when foreign antigens are absent.[1] This idea of autoimmunity is conceptually similar to play-fighting. The play-fighting of young cubs (TCR and self-MHC) may result in a few scratches or scars (low-level-autoimmunity), but is beneficial in the long-term as it primes the young cub for proper fights in the future.

Immunological tolerance

Pioneering work by Noel Rose and Witebsky in New York, and Roitt and Doniach at University College London provided clear evidence that, at least in terms of antibody-producing B lymphocytes, diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and thyrotoxicosis are associated with of loss of immunological tolerance, which is the ability of an individual to ignore 'self', while reacting to 'non-self'. This breakage leads to the immune system's mounting an effective and specific immune response against self determinants. The exact genesis of immunological tolerance is still elusive, but several theories have been proposed since the mid-twentieth century to explain its origin.

Three hypotheses have gained widespread attention among immunologists:

Clonal Deletion theory, proposed by Burnet, according to which self-reactive lymphoid cells are destroyed during the development of the immune system in an individual. For their work Frank M. Burnet and Peter B. Medawar were awarded the 1960 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for discovery of acquired immunological tolerance".

Clonal Anergy theory, proposed by Nossal, in which self-reactive T- or B-cells become inactivated in the normal individual and cannot amplify the immune response.

Idiotype Network theory, proposed by Jerne, wherein a network of antibodies capable of neutralizing self-reactive antibodies exists naturally within the body.

In addition, two other theories are under intense investigation:

The so-called "Clonal Ignorance" theory, according to which host immune responses are directed to ignore self-antigens.

The "Suppressor population" or "Regulatory T cell" theories, wherein regulatory T-lymphocytes (commonly CD4+FoxP3+ cells, among others) function to prevent, downregulate, or limit autoaggressive immune responses.

Tolerance can also be differentiated into 'Central' and 'Peripheral' tolerance, on whether or not the above-stated checking mechanisms operate in the central lymphoid organs (Thymus and Bone Marrow) or the peripheral lymphoid organs (lymph node, spleen, etc., where self-reactive B-cells may be destroyed). It must be emphasised that these theories are not mutually exclusive, and evidence has been mounting suggesting that all of these mechanisms may actively contribute to vertebrate immunological tolerance.

A puzzling feature of the documented loss of tolerance seen in spontaneous human autoimmunity is that it is almost entirely restricted to the autoantibody responses produced by B lymphocytes. Loss of tolerance by T cells has been extremely hard to demonstrate, and where there is evidence for an abnormal T cell response it is usually not to the antigen recognised by autoantibodies. Thus, in rheumatoid arthritis there are autoantibodies to IgG Fc but apparently no corresponding T cell response. In systemic lupus there are autoantibodies to DNA, which cannot evoke a T cell response, and limited evidence for T cell responses implicates nucleoprotein antigens. In Celiac disease there are autoantibodies to tissue transglutaminase but the T cell response is to the foreign protein gliadin. This disparity has led to the idea that human autoimmune disease is in most cases (with probable exceptions including type I diabetes) based on a loss of B cell tolerance which makes use of normal T cell responses to foreign antigens in a variety of aberrant ways.

Genetic Factors

Certain individuals are genetically susceptible to developing autoimmune diseases. This susceptibility is associated with multiple genes plus other risk factors. Genetically-predisposed individuals do not always develop autoimmune diseases.

Three main sets of genes are suspected in many autoimmune diseases. These genes are related to:

Immunoglobulins

T-cell receptors

The major histocompatibility complexes (MHC).

The first two, which are involved in the recognition of antigens, are inherently variable and susceptible to recombination. These variations enable the immune system to respond to a very wide variety of invaders, but may also give rise to lymphocytes capable of self-reactivity.

Scientists such as H. McDevitt, G. Nepom, J. Bell and J. Todd have also provided strong evidence to suggest that certain MHC class II allotypes are strongly correlated with specific autoimmune diseases:

HLA DR2 is strongly positively correlated with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, narcolepsy and multiple sclerosis, and negatively correlated with DM Type 1.

HLA DR3 is correlated strongly with Sjögren's syndrome, myasthenia gravis, SLE, and DM Type 1.

HLA DR4 is correlated with the genesis of rheumatoid arthritis, Type 1 diabetes mellitus, and pemphigus vulgaris.

Fewer correlations exist with MHC class I molecules. The most notable and consistent is the association between HLA B27 and ankylosing spondylitis. Correlations may exist between polymorphisms within class II MHC promoters and autoimmune disease.

The contributions of genes outside the MHC complex remain the subject of research, in animal models of disease (Linda Wicker's extensive genetic studies of diabetes in the NOD mouse), and in patients (Brian Kotzin's linkage analysis of susceptibility to SLE).

Sex

A person's sex also seems to have some role in the development of autoimmunity. Nearly 75% of the more than 23.5 million Americans who suffer from autoimmune disease are women, although it is less-frequently acknowledged that millions of men also suffer from these diseases. According to the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association (AARDA), autoimmune diseases that develop in men tend to be more severe. A few autoimmune diseases that men are just as or more likely to develop as women, include: ankylosing spondylitis, type 1 diabetes mellitus, Wegener's granulomatosis, Crohn's disease and psoriasis. The reasons for the sex role in autoimmunity are unclear. Apart from inherent genetic susceptibility, several animal models suggest a role for sex steroids.

It has also been suggested that the slight exchange of cells between mothers and their children during pregnancy may induce autoimmunity. This would tip the gender balance in the direction of the female.

Another theory suggests the female high tendency to get autoimmunity is due to an imbalanced X chromosome inactivation. The X-inactivation skew theory, proposed by Princeton University's Jeff Stewart, has recently been confirmed experimentally in scleroderma and autoimmune thyroiditis.

Environmental Factors

An interesting inverse relationship exists between infectious diseases and autoimmune diseases. In areas where multiple infectious diseases are endemic, autoimmune diseases are quite rarely seen. The reverse, to some extent, seems to hold true. The hygiene hypothesis attributes these correlations to the immune manipulating strategies of pathogens. Whilst such an observation has been variously termed as spurious and ineffective, according to some studies, parasite infection is associated with reduced activity of autoimmune disease.

The putative mechanism is that the parasite attenuates the host immune response in order to protect itself. This may provide a serendipitous benefit to a host that also suffers from autoimmune disease. The details of parasite immune modulation are not yet known, but may include secretion of anti-inflammatory agents or interference with the host immune signaling.

A paradoxical observation has been the strong association of certain microbial organisms with autoimmune diseases. For example, Klebsiella pneumoniae and coxsackievirus B have been strongly correlated with ankylosing spondylitis and diabetes mellitus type 1, respectively. This has been explained by the tendency of the infecting organism to produce super-antigens that are capable of polyclonal activation of B-lymphocytes, and production of large amounts of antibodies of varying specificities, some of which may be self-reactive.

Certain chemical agents and drugs can also be associated with the genesis of autoimmune conditions, or conditions that simulate autoimmune diseases. The most striking of these is the drug-induced lupus erythematosus. Usually, withdrawal of the offending drug cures the symptoms in a patient.

Cigarette smoking is now established as a major risk factor for both incidence and severity of rheumatoid arthritis. This may relate to abnormal citrullination of proteins, since the effects of smoking correlate with the presence of antibodies to citrullinated peptides.

Pathogenesis of autoimmunity

Several mechanisms are thought to be operative in the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases, against a backdrop of genetic predisposition and environmental modulation. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss each of these mechanisms exhaustively, but a summary of some of the important mechanisms have been described:

T-Cell Bypass - A normal immune system requires the activation of B-cells by T-cells before the former can produce antibodies in large quantities. This requirement of a T-cell can be bypassed in rare instances, such as infection by organisms producing super-antigens, which are capable of initiating polyclonal activation of B-cells, or even of T-cells, by directly binding to the β-subunit of T-cell receptors in a non-specific fashion.

T-Cell-B-Cell discordance - A normal immune response is assumed to involve B and T cell responses to the same antigen, even if we know that B cells and T cells recognise very different things: conformations on the surface of a molecule for B cells and pre-processed peptide fragments of proteins for T cells. However, there is nothing as far as we know that requires this. All that is required is that a B cell recognising antigen X endocytoses and processes a protein Y (normally =X) and presents it to a T cell. Roosnek and Lanzavecchia showed that B cells recognising IgGFc could get help from any T cell responding to an antigen co-endocytosed with IgG by the B cell as part of an immune complex. In coeliac disease it seems likely that B cells recognising tissue transglutamine are helped by T cells recognising gliadin.

Aberrant B cell receptor-mediated feedback - A feature of human autoimmune disease is that it is largely restricted to a small group of antigens, several of which have known signaling roles in the immune response (DNA, C1q, IgGFc, Ro, Con. A receptor, Peanut agglutinin receptor(PNAR)). This fact gave rise to the idea that spontaneous autoimmunity may result when the binding of antibody to certain antigens leads to aberrant signals being fed back to parent B cells through membrane bound ligands. These ligands include B cell receptor (for antigen), IgG Fc receptors, CD21, which binds complement C3d, Toll-like receptors 9 and 7 (which can bind DNA and nucleoproteins) and PNAR. More indirect aberrant activation of B cells can also be envisaged with autoantibodies to acetyl choline receptor (on thymic myoid cells) and hormone and hormone binding proteins. Together with the concept of T-cell-B-cell discordance this idea forms the basis of the hypothesis of self-perpetuating autoreactive B cells. Autoreactive B cells in spontaneous autoimmunity are seen as surviving because of subversion both of the T cell help pathway and of the feedback signal through B cell receptor, thereby overcoming the negative signals responsible for B cell self-tolerance without necessarily requiring loss of T cell self-tolerance.

Molecular Mimicry - An exogenous antigen may share structural similarities with certain host antigens; thus, any antibody produced against this antigen (which mimics the self-antigens) can also, in theory, bind to the host antigens, and amplify the immune response. The idea of molecular mimicry arose in the context of Rheumatic Fever, which follows infection with Group A beta-haemolytic streptococci. Although rheumatic fever has been attributed to molecular mimicry for half a century no antigen has been formally identified (if anything too many have been proposed). Moreover, the complex tissue distribution of the disease (heart, joint, skin, basal ganglia) argues against a cardiac specific antigen. It remains entirely possible that the disease is due to e.g. an unusual interaction between immune complexes, complement components and endothelium.

Idiotype Cross-Reaction - Idiotypes are antigenic epitopes found in the antigen-binding portion (Fab) of the immunoglobulin molecule. Plotz and Oldstone presented evidence that autoimmunity can arise as a result of a cross-reaction between the idiotype on an antiviral antibody and a host cell receptor for the virus in question. In this case, the host-cell receptor is envisioned as an internal image of the virus, and the anti-idiotype antibodies can react with the host cells.

Cytokine Dysregulation - Cytokines have been recently divided into two groups according to the population of cells whose functions they promote: Helper T-cells type 1 or type 2. The second category of cytokines, which include IL-4, IL-10 and TGF-β (to name a few), seem to have a role in prevention of exaggeration of pro-inflammatory immune responses.

Dendritic cell apoptosis - immune system cells called dendritic cells present antigens to active lymphocytes. Dendritic cells that are defective in apoptosis can lead to inappropriate systemic lymphocyte activation and consequent decline in self-tolerance.

Epitope spreading or epitope drift - when the immune reaction changes from targeting the primary epitope to also targeting other epitopes.[15] In contrast to molecular mimicry, the other epitopes need not be structurally similar to the primary one.

The roles of specialized immunoregulatory cell types, such as regulatory T cells, NKT cells, γδ T-cells in the pathogenesis of autoimmune disease are under investigation.

Classification

Autoimmune diseases can be broadly divided into systemic and organ-specific or localised autoimmune disorders, depending on the principal clinico-pathologic features of each disease.

Systemic autoimmune diseases include SLE, Sjögren's syndrome, scleroderma, rheumatoid arthritis, and dermatomyositis. These conditions tend to be associated with autoantibodies to antigens which are not tissue specific. Thus although polymyositis is more or less tissue specific in presentation, it may be included in this group because the autoantigens are often ubiquitous t-RNA synthetases.

Local syndromes may be endocrinologic (diabetes mellitus type 1, Hashimoto's thyroiditis, Addison's disease etc.), dermatologic (pemphigus vulgaris), or haematologic (autoimmune haemolytic anaemia), and involve a specific tissue.

Using the traditional “organ specific” and “non-organ specific” classification scheme, many diseases have been lumped together under the autoimmune disease umbrella. However, many chronic inflammatory human disorders lack the telltale associations of B and T cell driven immunopathology. In the last decade it has been firmly established that tissue "inflammation against self" does not necessarily rely on abnormal T and B cell responses.

This has led to the recent proposal that the spectrum of autoimmunity should be viewed along an “immunological disease continuum,” with classical autoimmune diseases at one extreme and diseases driven by the innate immune system at the other extreme. Within this scheme, the full spectrum of autoimmunity can be included. Many common human autoimmune diseases can be seen to have a substantial innate immune mediated immunopathology using this new scheme. This new classification scheme has implications for understanding disease mechanisms and for therapy development (see PLoS Medicine article. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030297⁠).

Diagnosis

Diagnosis of autoimmune disorders largely rests on accurate history and physical examination of the patient, and high index of suspicion against a backdrop of certain abnormalities in routine laboratory tests (example, elevated C-reactive protein). In several systemic disorders, serological assays which can detect specific autoantibodies can be employed. Localised disorders are best diagnosed by immunofluorescence of biopsy specimens. Autoantibodies are used to diagnose many autoimmune diseases. The levels of autoantibodies are measured to determine the progress of the disease.

Treatments

Treatments for autoimmune disease have traditionally been immunosuppressive, anti-inflammatory, or palliative. Non-immunological therapies, such as hormone replacement in Hashimoto's thyroiditis or Type 1 diabetes mellitus treat outcomes of the autoaggressive response, thus these are palliative treatments. Dietary manipulation limits the severity of celiac disease. Steroidal or NSAID treatment limits inflammatory symptoms of many diseases. IVIG is used for CIDP and GBS. Specific immunomodulatory therapies, such as the TNFα antagonists (e.g. etanercept), the B cell depleting agent rituximab, the anti-IL-6 receptor tocilizumab and the costimulation blocker abatacept have been shown to be useful in treating RA. Some of these immunotherapies may be associated with increased risk of adverse effects, such as susceptibility to infection.

Helminthic therapy is an experimental approach that involves inoculation of the patient with specific parasitic intestinal nematodes (helminths). There are currently two closely-related treatments available, inoculation with either Necator americanus, commonly known as hookworms, or Trichuris Suis Ova, commonly known as Pig Whipworm Eggs.

T cell vaccination is also being explored as a possible future therapy for auto-immune disorders.

++ Autoimmune Disease ++

Autoimmune diseases arise from an overactive immune response of the body against substances and tissues normally present in the body. In other words, the body actually attacks its own cells. The immune system mistakes some part of the body as a pathogen and attacks it. This may be restricted to certain organs (e.g. in thyroiditis) or involve a particular tissue in different places (e.g. Goodpasture's disease which may affect the basement membrane in both the lung and the kidney). The treatment of autoimmune diseases is typically with immunosuppression—medication which decreases the immune response.

There is an on-going discussion about when a disease should be considered autoimmune, leading to different criteria such as Witebsky's postulates.

Development of therapies

In both autoimmune and inflammatory diseases the condition arises through aberrant reactions of the human adaptive or innate immune systems. In autoimmunity, the patient’s immune system is activated against the body's own proteins. In inflammatory diseases, it is the overreaction of the immune system, and its subsequent downstream signaling (TNF, IFN, etc), which causes problems.

A substantial minority of the population suffers from these diseases, which are often chronic, debilitating, and life-threatening. There are more than eighty illnesses caused by autoimmunity.[26] It has been estimated that autoimmune diseases are among the ten leading causes of death among women in all age groups up to 65 years.[27]

Currently, a considerable amount of research is being conducted into treatment of these conditions. According to a report from Frost & Sullivan, the total alliance payouts in the autoimmune/inflammation segment from 1997 to 2002 totaled $489.8 million, where Eli Lilly, Suntory, Procter & Gamble, Encysive, and Novartis together account for 98.6 percent of alliance payouts.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmune_disease

How to Become a Consultant

2009-12-29T20:06:00.000-08:00

Wondering how to become a consultant? Learn how to become a consultant in this article. We cover the definition of a consultant, the risks when you become a consultant, and the kinds of people who become consultants.

Definition of Becoming a Consultant

When you become a consultant, you offer your skills to other people. When you become a consultant, you’re saying you offer skills, knowledge and expertise that businesses or other people can use. A consultant gives advice, solve problems, make recommendations, or provide specialized work, such as programming, editing, designing, writing, or business analysis. Someone who decides to become a consultant is usually paid by the hour, day or project, on commission, or based on performance. They are independent contractors and not employees of the hiring organization.

Risks of Becoming a Consultant

When you become a consultant, you become a risk taker. People who become consultants have freedom to choose their own hours, take vacations when they want, pick clients, refuse assignments and work with a variety of projects. However, to become a consultant, you let go of regular pay, administrative help, benefits and health care, tech support and other things many employees take for granted. When you become a consultant, you may also find yourself working alone, without the moral, creative and administrative support of co-workers.

People who become consultants

New grads

Recent grads often become a consultant because it seems to parallel their academic experience. Short-term projects, lots of clients, research opportunities and bursts of stress followed by periods of calm. However, it’s rate that a recent grad would yet be considered expert enough to become a consultant, regardless of their academic backgrounds. The key here is to present your self as a contract worker - a worker for hire - until you have established a track record and a client list. If you do not yet have the credibility and experience to sell yourself as even a contract worker, seek work in a mid-sized company. You’ll have an opportunity to work on a variety of projects, without being steeped in the bureaucracy of a big company or the administrative duties and chaos of a start-up.

Career changers

People sometimes change careers when they become a consultant. In most cases, these people have honed their skills in a hobby, side business or pet interest, or they have gone back to school to gain new skills. In some cases, they’ve found themselves laid off, bored in retirement or simply aching to try something new. Although their past experience has shaped their outlook, career changers take up new pursuits when they become a consultant. Hot consulting careers for career changers include real estate, financial planning, writing, graphic design, business management, and sales, although the list is endless.

Seasoned experts

A seasoned expert will often become a consultant after spending years in a field or industry. Seen as a true opinion leaders, this veteran will often become a consultant by contracting back to their previous employer and business contacts. This professional often heads into retirement or leave senior management jobs, hoping to become a consultant. The seasoned professional who decides to become a consultant tends to be in high demand, because their specialized knowledge cannot be found elsewhere in the company. This expert will often become a consultant because their old company and colleagues beg them for help.

Life changers

Some people decide to become consultants because of a life change. For them, becoming a consultant is about changing their world — not their career.

* Wanting to work from home while you care for a child or parent.
* Needing to be home when your kids finish school
* Finding yourself unemployed and realizing you’ve got a great opportunity to finally start the business of your dreams
* Realizing you want more control over your life
* Facing medical issues that prevent you from working full-time
* Realizing you don’t like working for a boss
* Being downsized and discovering that other companies need someone with your skills — but not on a full-time basis
* Retiring, but wanting to keep busy
* Wanting to supplement your existing job by moonlighting
* Being offered consulting work and realizing that you’d like to do more of it

Why become a consultant?

Why become a consultant? Become a consultant and change your life.

When you become a consultant, you’re saying goodbye to the predictability, normalness, routine and safety of a regular job. You’re venturing out on your own, into unknown territory. From here on out, you’ll need to survive by your wits, not a paycheck that appears every two weeks without question. The hours may be long and the pay may be meager as you start out.

But, in the long term, your decision to become a consultant may be the best thing for you. You’ll call the shots (well, except when your clients do). You’ll be in charge of scheduling your time. You can refuse projects, dump clients, and focus on work that interests you. You set your rates.

Moreover, you can become a consultant without spending much money. Often, all it takes to become a consultant - at least on paper - are a computer, business cards, a telephone and an Internet connection. Of course, to truly become a consultant, you’ll need clients, expertise, experience and other important pieces of the puzzle. But, unlike starting a restaurant or a store, you can set up your consulting business with minor costs.

Clients for People Who Become Consultants: Who hires consultants?

Businesses, governments and non-profit agencies use consultants. They hire consultants because they need specialized skills or knowledge. In most cases, they hire consultants because they only need the skills or knowledge for a short period of time or for less than a full-time basis.

For example, businesses may hire accountants, tax attorneys and auditors at year-end or at tax time. Other companies may hire marketing consultants to prepare brochures and campaigns just before tradeshow season starts. A non-profit agency might hire an implementation consultant to help roll out a new computer system. Governments might hire writers and editors to help with success stories or speeches. Executives may hire career coaches to help them improve their negotiation skills, manage career changes, or make speeches to the board.

Many consulting fields are not regulated. For example, anyone can claim to be a marketing consultant, tech support consultant, business management consultant, public relations consultant, writer, editor or graphic designer. As a result, companies have to spend more time reviewing the credentials of consultants in general fields. There is more competition, more marketing, more sales, and more difficulty in determining who is qualified to work in these fields. As a result, many people who hire consultants rely on referrals from trusted sources.

Source: http://www.consultantjournal.com/

Nature of Psychology

2009-12-29T20:02:00.000-08:00

What Do Psychologists Do?

Psychologists study the human mind and human behavior. Research psychologists investigate the physical, cognitive, emotional, or social aspects of human behavior. Psychologists in health service provider fields provide mental health care in hospitals, clinics, schools, or private settings. Psychologists employed in applied settings, such as business, industry, government, or nonprofits, provide training, conduct research, design systems, and act as advocates for psychology.

Like other social scientists, psychologists formulate hypotheses and collect data to test their validity. Research methods vary with the topic under study. Psychologists sometimes gather information through controlled laboratory experiments or by administering personality, performance, aptitude, or intelligence tests.

Other methods include observation, interviews, questionnaires, clinical studies, and surveys.

Psychologists apply their knowledge to a wide range of endeavors, including health and human services, management, education, law, and sports. In addition to working in a variety of settings, psychologists usually specialize in one of a number of different areas.

Source: http://www.epsychology.us/nature-of-psychology/

Learn to Manage Emotions

2009-12-28T22:57:00.000-08:00

Managing emotions is an arduous task for some but a skill that is essential to success in business and personal relationships. Often individuals who can not manage their emotions choose dangerous or destructive courses of action.

Emotional control, a trait associated with adulthood, is best learned during adolescence, a life period often characterized by wide swings of powerful emotions.

“There’s a stereotype that teens don’t manage their emotions, their emotions manage them,” said Reed Larson, a professor of family ecology at the University of Illinois.

Accordingly, Larson and colleagues studied if teenagers can be taught to manage their emotions. Their article is published in this month’s journal of Child Development.

“But this study showed that, in an atmosphere of trust and support, teens can become adept at identifying their emotions, learn to recognize the tricks emotions play on people, and begin to understand not only how to control their emotions, but to use them in positive ways,” he said.

The research examined 12 youth programs and found that the students participating in a high-school musical theater production showed particularly rich emotional growth.

Larson conducted open-ended interviews and observations to learn how this growth had taken place. Ten teens were interviewed every two weeks over a three-month period during rehearsals, two adults who led the production were interviewed biweekly, and researchers observed the rehearsals weekly.

“In many ways, this production anticipated an adult workplace. The teens had to work together to achieve a goal, and they gained experience with the emotional dynamics of a group setting,” Larson said.

“There’s nothing like learning how to manage your emotions in a situation in which there are a lot of intense emotions occurring,” he added.

This particular theater program had a culture in which frequent emotions, such as exhilaration, disappointment, anger, and anxiety (think stage fright) were talked about, and there was wisdom and knowledge about how to deal with those emotions, as well as lots of support, he said.

“Frank talk about emotions doesn’t happen in a lot of places. It occurs in some families a lot more than others, and it doesn’t happen much in the classroom at all. Expressing emotions requires an atmosphere of trust,” he noted.

While the teens in this supportive culture were learning lines and assembling props, they learned that some people use emotions to manipulate others, that emotions can be hard to read, and that emotions can play tricks on you and bias your thought processes—ideas many adults still struggle to understand.

One teen said, “One thing drama has taught me is that when you’re tired, you’re more emotional. If I’ve had a long day or the rehearsal’s gone on a little too long, I’m more short-tempered, more emotional in every way than I’d ordinarily be.”

Many reported that restraining their negative reactions to others was one of the most important lessons they learned from their theater experiences. “You can’t always say the first thing that comes to your brain. You don’t attack people. That never works,” said another.

Taking note of other participants’ emotional characteristics made the teens more aware of their own emotional patterns. And many teens learned how to use positive emotion to enhance their work. “If I’ve learned one scene, it’s a big source of motivation, and I carry that over to the scenes I’m not so comfortable with,” a participant said.

But they also learned to control positive and negative emotions to keep the production running smoothly. One teen said, “I’m always happy when I do well and I just want to express it, but that usually comes out as bragging, so I try not to do it much.”

They also realized that their negative emotions could be contagious. One boy described an experience in which others’ lack of preparation upset him. “I can see myself really complaining about it, but if you do, you’re just going to bring the whole show down,” he said.

How can parents promote the emotional growth of their teenagers? “That’s harder,” said Larson.

“As a parent, you don’t have all the information that’s behind your teen’s behaviors. In a theater production, it’s obvious if someone is flubbing their lines; you can often pinpoint what’s upsetting them. But a moody teen can be influenced by all sorts of things–problems with a girlfriend, peer pressure about a party, or a bad test grade.”

“Still, parents can work hard to establish that atmosphere of trust, and there are opportunities for parents to be sensitive,” he said.

Larson believes the lessons these teens learned will serve them well in later life.

“In any adult work setting, people are dealing with feelings about success or failure, coping with jealousy, and navigating all the complexities of interpersonal relationships. Unfortunately, many adults express their emotions in destructive ways,” he said.

“If you’ve learned to manage your emotions as a teenager, you’re way ahead of the game,” Larson said.

Source: http://www.uiuc.edu/

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

2009-12-28T22:52:00.000-08:00

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a theory in psychology that Abraham Maslow proposed in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation, which he subsequently extended to include his observations of man’s innate curiosity. His theory contends that as humans meet ‘basic needs’, they seek to satisfy successively ‘higher needs’ that occupy a set hierarchy.

Maslow studied exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that “the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy.”[1] Malsow also studied 1 percent of the healthiest college student population in order to obtain empirical research.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is often depicted as a pyramid consisting of five levels: the four lower levels are grouped together as deficiency needs associated with physiological needs, while the top level is termed growth needs associated with psychological needs. While deficiency needs must be met, growth needs are the need for personal growth.

The basic concept is that the higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus once all the needs that are lower down in the pyramid are mainly or entirely satisfied. Once an individual has moved past a level, those needs will no longer be prioritized.

However, if a lower set of needs is continually unmet for an extended period of time, the individual will temporarily re-prioritize those needs – dropping down to that level until those lower needs are reasonably satisfied again. Innate growth forces constantly create upward movement in the hierarchy unless basic needs remain unmet indefinitely.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

Attraction and Body Language Signs You Must Know

2009-12-28T22:51:00.000-08:00

Majority of men in all over the world has lesser penchant for words compared to women. They relay on simple body language to show their anger, happiness, sadness and even attraction towards women. Men who do not know how to express their emotions well be more prone to commit domestic violence towards their spouse. This is a big show of action. However, men are also unknowingly sending out smaller signals throughout the day.

Men’s body language can be sent from their face, their hand gestures, legs position and body posture. Attraction and body language goes hand in hand. It is difficult for a man to hide their attraction towards a woman especially when he is also sexually yearning for her. Hiding sweaty palms in pockets, using their handkerchief to wipe their forehead, these are all signs from men who are nervous when faced with women they are attracted to. Subtle actions like winking or lifting of eye brows can be a cute playful sign to show women that they are giving them extra attention or they are amused. When men felt intimidated or cornered during conflicts, they will fold their arms across their chest which acts as a protective barrier of sort. Men in serious thought will stroke their chin; when in deep complex thought will pinch the bridge of their nose; and when in frustration will pull their hair or clench their fist.

Body language signs allow men to show how strong they are, to rise above others and to let women know they are searching for a mate. The stronger the maleness from their body language, the more women will be attracted to them. Body language is not something that can be taught. They are developed as men grow up. A born leader will have body language of a leader while a cowardly wimp will have body language of a wimp. Women can read it and detect what kind of man the person is.

Men’s body language is the best kind of straight forward non-verbal communication. Largely perfected for hunting and mating in the ancient times, men are still unconsciously using it to hunt for their prey. Giving long eye contact is a sure way to let a woman know that he has his eyes and heart glued on her. Eyes tilted to one side or focusing on other things will show that the man is bored and has his attention elsewhere. When a man is lying, he will usually make a lot of hand gestures and touching of face. An annoyed man will stand with legs apart ready to launch an attack.

Body language signs are easily interpreted when it comes from a man. They are not known for pretending by using body language. That is why most male criminals easily gave away their guilt when confronted during interrogations. Women on the other hand can be good actors using body language and fake emotions. They can cry even when they are not sad or smile when they are not happy.

Visit Flirtbodylingo.com for more tips like this on attraction and body language so that you will have better understanding and be ready when your date is showing the right body language signs.

Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Simon_Atasinchi

EIGHT WAYS TO SPOT EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION

2009-12-28T01:53:00.000-08:00

EIGHT WAYS TO SPOT EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION

Emotional Manipulation is also “Covert Aggression”. See: “Psychopaths: Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing”. Here is a list adapted from an article by Fiona McColl

1. There is no use in trying to be honest with an emotional manipulator.

You make a statement and it will be turned around. Example: I am really angry that you forgot my birthday. Response: “It makes me feel sad that you would think I would forget your birthday, I should have told you of the great personal stress I am facing at the moment – but you see I didn’t want to trouble you. You are right I should have put all this pain ( don’t be surprised to see real tears at this point) aside and focused on your birthday.

Sorry.” Even as you are hearing the words you get the creeped out sensation that they really do NOT mean they are sorry at all – but since they’ve said the words you’re pretty much left with nothing more to say. Either that or you suddenly find yourself babysitting their angst!! Under all circumstances if you feel this angle is being played – don’t capitulate!

Do not care take – do not accept an apology that feels like bs. If it feels like bs – it probably is. Rule number one – if dealing with an emotional blackmailer TRUST your gut. TRUST your senses. Once an emotional manipulator finds a successful manoeuvre – it’s added to their hit list and you’ll be fed a steady diet of this sh**.

2. An emotional manipulator is the picture of a willing helper.

If you ask them to do something they will almost always agree – that is IF they didn’t volunteer to do it first. Then when you say, “OK thanks” – they make a bunch of heavy sighs, or other non verbal signs that let you know they don’t really want to do whatever said thing happens to be. When you tell them it doesn’t seem like they want to do whatever – they will turn it around and try to make it seem like OF COURSE they wanted to and how unreasonable you are.

This is a form of crazy making – which is something emotional manipulators are very good at. Rule number two – If an emotional manipulator said YES – make them accountable for it. Do NOT buy into the sighs and subtleties – if they don’t want to do it – make them tell you it up front – or just put on the walk-man headphones and run a bath and leave them to their theater.

3. Crazy making – saying one thing and later assuring you they did not say it.

If you find yourself in a relationship where you figure you should start keeping a log of what’s been said because you are beginning to question your own sanity –You are experiencing emotional manipulation.

An emotional manipulator is an expert in turning things around, rationalizing, justifying and explaining things away. They can lie so smoothly that you can sit looking at black and they’ll call it white – and argue so persuasively that you begin to doubt your very senses. Over a period of time this is so insidious and eroding it can literally alter your sense of reality.

WARNING: Emotional Manipulation is VERY Dangerous! It is very disconcerting for an emotional manipulator if you begin carrying a pad of paper and a pen and making notations during conversations. Feel free to let them know you just are feeling so “forgetful” these days that you want to record their words for posterity’s sake.

The damndest thing about this is that having to do such a thing is a clear example for why you should be seriously thinking about removing yourself from range in the first place. If you’re toting a notebook to safeguard yourself – that ol’ bs meter should be flashing steady by now!

4. Guilt.

Emotional manipulators are excellent guilt mongers. They can make you feel guilty for speaking up or not speaking up, for being emotional or not being emotional enough, for giving and caring, or for not giving and caring enough. Any thing is fair game and open to guilt with an emotional manipulator. Emotional manipulators seldom express their needs or desires openly – they get what they want through emotional manipulation.

Guilt is not the only form of this but it is a potent one. Most of us are pretty conditioned to do whatever is necessary to reduce our feelings of guilt. Another powerful emotion that is used is sympathy. An emotional manipulator is a great victim. They inspire a profound sense of needing to support, care for and nurture.

Emotional Manipulators seldom fight their own fights or do their own dirty work. The crazy thing is that when you do it for them (which they will never ask directly for), they may just turn around and say they certainly didn’t want or expect you to do anything! Try to make a point of not fighting other people’s battles, or doing their dirty work for them. A great line is “I have every confidence in your ability to work this out on your own” – check out the response and note the bs meter once again.

5. Emotional manipulators fight dirty.

They don’t deal with things directly. They will talk around behind your back and eventually put others in the position of telling you what they would not say themselves. They are passive aggressive, meaning they find subtle ways of letting you know they are not happy little campers.

They’ll tell you what they think you want to hear and then do a bunch of jerk off sh** to undermine it. Example: “Of course I want you to go back to school honey and you know I’ll support you.” Then exam night you are sitting at the table and poker buddies show up, the kids are crying the TV. blasting and the dog needs walking – all the while “Sweetie” is sitting on their donkey looking at you blankly.

Dare you call them on such behaviour you are likely to hear, “well you can’t expect life to just stop because you have an exam can you honey?” Cry, scream or choke ‘em – only the last will have any long-term benefits and it’ll probably wind your butt in jail.

6. If you have a headache an emotional manipulator will have a brain tumour!

No matter what your situation is the emotional manipulator has probably been there or is there now – but only ten times worse. It’s hard after a period of time to feel emotionally connected to an emotional manipulator because they have a way of de-railing conversations and putting the spotlight back on themselves.

If you call them on this behavior they will likely become deeply wounded or very petulant and call you selfish – or claim that it is you who are always in the spotlight. The thing is that even though you know this is not the case you are left with the impossible task of proving it. Don’t bother – TRUST your gut and walk away!

7. Emotional manipulators somehow have the ability to impact the emotional climate of those around them. When an emotional manipulator is sad or angry the very room thrums with it – it brings a deep instinctual response to find someway to equalize the emotional climate and the quickest route is by making the emotional manipulator feel better – fixing whatever is broken for them.

Stick with this type of loser for too long and you will be so enmeshed and co-dependent you will forget you even have needs – let alone that you have just as much right to have your needs met.

8. Emotional manipulators have no sense of accountability.

They take no responsibility for themselves or their behavior – it is always about what everyone else has “done to them”. One of the easiest ways to spot an emotional manipulator is that they often attempt to establish intimacy through the early sharing of deeply personal information that is generally of the “hook-you-in-and-make-you-sorry-for-me” variety.

Initially you may perceive this type of person as very sensitive, emotionally open and maybe a little vulnerable. Believe me when I say that an emotional manipulator is about as vulnerable as a rabid pit bull, and there will always be a problem or a crisis to overcome.

Source URL: http://www.epsychology.us/eight-ways-to-spot-emotional-manipulation/

Physical Pain and Emotional Pain: More Similar Than You Think

2009-12-28T00:00:00.000-08:00

Physical Pain and Emotional Pain: More Similar Than You Think
By Jonathan Rottenberg, Ph.D.
Created Dec 23 2009 - 4:30pm

New research led by psychologist C. Nathan DeWall of the University of Kentucky and reported in the journal Psychological Science suggests that physical pain and emotional pain may be more similar than you think.

In a first experiment, volunteers were randomized either to take 1,000 mg/day of acetaminophen (the equivalent of 2 extra strength Tylenol) or a placebo (inert tablets). Participants completed measures of hurt feelings. The researchers found that particants who were taking acetaminophen tended to report less hurt feelings over time relative to participants who were taking placebo.

A second experiment brought these ideas into an fMRI scanner. Here the researchers had the volunteers take a larger daily dose of acetaminophen (2,000mg) for three weeks. To allow the researchers to examine neural responses to social rejection, participants went into a scanner and played a computer game in which they were rejected. Brain regions associated (in other studies) with both social pain and physical pain were more active in the placebo subjects when they were rejected than in the acetaminophen group. In other words, acetaminophen dulled the brain's reponse to rejection.

Early media reports have naturally seized on the consumer implications of this study. Those implications are timely! Should you take a prophylactic Tylenol before your overbearing relatives arrive for Christmas dinner? Your Uncle Lou is in particularly rare form, perhaps a double dose is needed?

I am more intrigued by the scientific implications.

From the patient's perspective, the pain caused by rejection is as every bit as real as the pain caused by a stiff joint. In interviewing depressed people, I've often been struck by the tremendous blurring between physical and emotional pain. In depression, everything hurts. Now we have a demonstration that our bodily systems for registering social and physical pain overlap in their response to a common household drug.

We usually talk about emotional and physical pain in different terms. And we conventionally take a different drug for a wounded ego than for a wounded arm. But emotional and physical pain may be more similar than you think. This observation makes good sense if we assume that evolution is a conservative force.

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/36299

The Pursuit of Happiness

2009-12-27T23:32:00.000-08:00

The Pursuit of Happiness
Created Dec 15 2008 - 12:00am

Welcome to the happiness frenzy, now peaking at a Barnes & Noble near you: In 2008 4,000 books were published on happiness, while a mere 50 books on the topic were released in 2000. The most popular class at Harvard University is about positive psychology, and at least 100 other universities offer similar courses. Happiness workshops for the post-collegiate set abound, and each day "life coaches" promising bliss to potential clients hang out their shingles.

In the late 1990s, psychologist Martin Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania exhorted colleagues to scrutinize optimal moods with the same intensity with which they had for so long studied pathologies: We'd never learn about full human functioning unless we knew as much about mental wellness as we do about mental illness. A new generation of psychologists built up a respectable body of research on positive character traits and happiness-boosting practices. At the same time, developments in neuroscience provided new clues to what makes us happy and what that looks like in the brain. Not to be outdone, behavioral economists piled on research subverting the classical premise that people always make rational choices that increase their well-being. We're lousy at predicting what makes us happy, they found.

It wasn't enough that an array of academic strands came together, sparking a slew of insights into the sunny side of life. Self-appointed experts jumped on the happiness bandwagon. A shallow sea of yellow smiley faces, self-help gurus, and purveyors of kitchen-table wisdom have strip-mined the science, extracted a lot of fool's gold, and stormed the marketplace with guarantees to annihilate your worry, stress, anguish, dejection, and even ennui. Once and for all! All it takes is a little gratitude. Or maybe a lot.

But all is not necessarily well. According to some measures, as a nation we've grown sadder and more anxious during the same years that the happiness movement has flourished; perhaps that's why we've eagerly bought up its offerings. It may be that college students sign up for positive psychology lessons in droves because a full 15 percent of them report being clinically depressed.

There are those who see in the happiness brigade a glib and even dispiriting Pollyanna gloss. So it's not surprising that the happiness movement has unleashed a counterforce, led by a troika of academics. Jerome Wakefield of New York University and Allan Horwitz of Rutgers have penned The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow into Depressive Disorder, and Wake Forest University's Eric Wilson has written a defense of melancholy in Against Happiness. They observe that our preoccupation with happiness has come at the cost of sadness, an important feeling that we've tried to banish from our emotional repertoire.

Horwitz laments that young people who are naturally weepy after breakups are often urged to medicate themselves instead of working through their sadness. Wilson fumes that our obsession with happiness amounts to a "craven disregard" for the melancholic perspective that has given rise to our greatest works of art. "The happy man," he writes, "is a hollow man."

Both the happiness and anti-happiness forces actually agree on something important—that we Americans tend to grab superficial quick fixes such as extravagant purchases and fatty foods to subdue any negative feelings that overcome us. Such measures seem to hinge on a belief that constant happiness is somehow our birthright. Indeed, a body of research shows instant indulgences do calm us down—for a few moments. But they leave us poorer, physically unhealthy, and generally more miserable in the long run—and lacking in the real skills to get us out of our rut.

Happiness is not about smiling all of the time. It's not about eliminating bad moods, or trading your Tolstoy-inspired nuance and ambivalence toward people and situations for cheery pronouncements devoid of critical judgment. While the veritable experts lie in different camps and sometimes challenge one another, over the past decade they've together assembled big chunks of the happiness puzzle.

What is happiness? The most useful definition—and it's one agreed upon by neuroscientists, psychiatrists, behavioral economists, positive psychologists, and Buddhist monks—is more like satisfied or content than "happy" in its strict bursting-with-glee sense. It has depth and deliberation to it. It encompasses living a meaningful life, utilizing your gifts and your time, living with thought and purpose.

It's maximized when you also feel part of a community. And when you confront annoyances and crises with grace. It involves a willingness to learn and stretch and grow, which sometimes involves discomfort. It requires acting on life, not merely taking it in. It's not joy, a temporary exhilaration, or even pleasure, that sensual rush—though a steady supply of those feelings course through those who seize each day.

There has been real progress in understanding happiness and how to get it. Here are the greatest hits, as it were, that jump out from the research.

Some People Are Born Happy

Some lucky souls really are born with brighter outlooks than others; they simply see beauty and opportunity where others hone in on flaws and dangers. But those with a more ominous orientation can alter their outlook, at least to a point. They can learn to internally challenge their fearful thoughts and negative assumptions—"she thinks I'm an idiot," "I'm going to get fired," "I'll never be a good mom"—if not eliminate them altogether. Engaging in positive internal dialogue is actually a mark of the mentally healthy.

Getting What You Want Doesn't Bring Lasting Happiness

You think happiness would arrive if you were to win the lottery, or would forever fade away if your home were destroyed in a flood. But human beings are remarkably adaptable. After a variable period of adjustment, we bounce back to our previous level of happiness, no matter what happens to us. (There are some scientifically proven exceptions, notably suffering the unexpected loss of a job or the loss of a spouse. Both events tend to permanently knock people down a notch.)

Our adaptability works in two directions. Because we are so adaptable, points out Sonja Lyubomirsky, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Riverside, we quickly get used to many of the accomplishments we strive for in life, such as landing the big job or getting married. Soon after we reach a milestone, we start to feel that something is missing. We begin coveting another worldly possession or eyeing a social advancement.

But such an approach keeps us tethered to the "hedonic treadmill," where happiness is always just out of reach, one toy or one notch away. It's possible to get off the treadmill entirely, Lyubomirsky says, by focusing on activities that are dynamic, surprising, and attention-absorbing, and thus less likely to bore us than, say, acquiring shiny stuff.

Pain Is a Part of Happiness

Happiness is not your reward for escaping pain. It demands that you confront negative feelings head-on, without letting them overwhelm you. Russ Harris, a medical doctor-cum-counselor and author of The Happiness Trap, calls popular conceptions of happiness dangerous because they set people up for a "struggle against reality." They don't acknowledge that real life is full of disappointments, loss, and inconveniences. "If you're going to live a rich and meaningful life," Harris says, "you're going to feel a full range of emotions."

The point isn't to limit that palette of feelings. After all, negative states cue us into what we value and what we need to change: Grief for a loved one proves how much we cherish our relationships. Frustration with several jobs in a row is a sign we're in the wrong career. Happiness would be meaningless if not for sadness: Without the contrast of darkness, there is no light.

Mindfulness Brings Happiness

Mindfulness, a mental state of relaxed awareness of the present moment, marked by openness and curiosity toward your feelings rather than judgments of them, is a powerful tool for experiencing happiness when practiced regularly. "If you bring mindfulness to bear on negative feelings, they lose their impact. Just let them be there without struggling against them, and you'll eventually feel less anxiety and depression," Harris says. Don't banish your negative feelings, but don't let them get in the way of your taking productive actions, either.

Happiness Lies in the Chase

Action toward goals other than happiness makes us happy. Though there is a place for vegging out and reading trashy novels, easy pleasures will never light us up the way mastering a new skill or building something from scratch will.

And it's not crossing the finish line that is most rewarding; it's anticipating achieving your goal. University of Wisconsin neuroscientist Richard Davidson has found that working hard toward a goal, and making progress to the point of expecting a goal to be realized, doesn't just activate positive feelings—it also suppresses negative emotions such as fear and depression.

Yes, Money Buys Happiness—At Least Some Money and Some Happiness

Money does buy happiness, but only up to the point where it enables you to live comfortably. Beyond that, more cash doesn't boost your well-being. But generosity brings true joy, so striking it rich could in fact underwrite your happiness—if you were to give your wealth away.

Happiness Is Relative

Whether or not we are keeping up with the Joneses—a nagging thought known as status anxiety—affects how happy we are. Some are more obsessed with status than others, but we're all attuned to how we're doing in life relative to those around us. To stop status worries from gnawing at your happiness, choose your peer group carefully. Owning the smallest mansion in a gated community could make you feel worse off than buying the biggest bungalow in a less affluent neighborhood.

Options Make Us Miserable

We're constantly making decisions, ranging from what to eat for dinner each night to whom we should marry, not to mention all those flavors of ice cream. We base many of our decisions on whether we think a particular preference will increase our well-being. Intuitively, we seem convinced that the more choices we have, the better off we'll ultimately be. But our world of unlimited opportunity imprisons us more than it makes us happy. In what Swarthmore psychologist Barry Schwartz calls "the paradox of choice," facing many possibilities leaves us stressed out—and less satisfied with whatever we do decide. Having too many choices keeps us wondering about all the opportunities missed.

Happiness Is Other People

Positive psychologist Chris Peterson, a professor at the University of Michigan, says the best piece of advice to come out of his field is to make strong personal relationships your priority. Good relationships are buffers against the damaging effects of all of life's inevitable letdowns and setbacks.

Do Your Happiness Homework

You can increase positive feelings by incorporating a few proven practices into your routine. Lyubomirsky suggests you express your gratitude toward someone in a letter or in a weekly journal, visualize the best possible future for yourself once a week, and perform acts of kindness for others on a regular basis to lift your mood in the moment and over time. "Becoming happier takes work, but it may be the most rewarding and fun work you'll ever do," she says.

Happiness Hinges on Your Time Frame

Feeling happy while you carry out your day-to-day activities may not have much to do with how satisfied you feel in general. Time skews our perceptions of happiness. Parents look back warmly on their children's preschool years, for example. But Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University found that childcare tasks rank very low on the list of what makes people happy, below napping and watching TV. And yet, if you were to step back and evaluate a decade of your life, would a spirited stretch of raising children or a steady stream of dozing off on the couch each day in between soap operas illustrate a "happier" time? Evaluate your well-being at the macro as well as the micro level to get the most accurate picture of your own happiness.

You're Wrong About What Will Make You Happy and You're Wrong About What Made You Happy

Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert discovered a deep truth about happiness: Things are almost never as bad—or as good—as we expect them to be. Your promotion will be quite nice, but it won't be a 24-hour parade. Your breakup will be very hard, but also instructive, and maybe even energizing. We are terrible at predicting our future feelings accurately, especially if our predictions are based on our past experiences. The past exists in our memory, after all, and memory is not a reliable recording device: We recall beginnings and endings far more intensely than those long "middles," whether they're eventful or not. So the horrible beginning of your vacation will lead you astray in deciding the best place to go next year.

Gilbert's take-away advice is to forgo your own mental projections. The best predictor of whether you'll enjoy something is whether someone else enjoyed it. So simply ask your friend who went to Mexico if you, too, should go there on vacation.

Happiness Is Embracing Your Natural Coping Style

Not everyone can put on a happy face. Barbara Held, a professor of psychology at Bowdoin College, for one, rails against "the tyranny of the positive attitude." "Looking on the bright side isn't possible for some people and is even counterproductive," she insists. "When you put pressure on people to cope in a way that doesn't fit them, it not only doesn't work, it makes them feel like a failure on top of already feeling bad."

The one-size-fits-all approach to managing emotional life is misguided, agrees Julie Norem, author of The Positive Power of Negative Thinking. In her research, the Wellesley professor of psychology has shown that the defensive pessimism that anxious people feel can be harnessed to help them get things done, which in turn makes them happier. A naturally pessimistic architect, for example, can set low expectations for an upcoming presentation and review all of the bad outcomes that she's imagining, so that she can prepare carefully and increase her chances of success.

Happiness Is Living Your Values

If you aren't living according to your values, you won't be happy, no matter how much you are achieving. Some people, however, aren't even sure what their values are. If you're one of them, Harris has a great question for you: "Imagine I could wave a magic wand to ensure that you would have the approval and admiration of everyone on the planet, forever. What, in that case, would you choose to do with your life?"

Once you've answered honestly, you can start taking steps toward your ideal vision of yourself. You can tape positive affirmations to your mirror, or you can cut up your advice books and turn them into a papier-mâché project. It doesn't matter, as long as you're living consciously. The state of happiness is not really a state at all. It's an ongoing personal experiment.

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200812/the-pursuit-happiness

Happiness Breeds Success…and Money!

2009-12-27T23:29:00.001-08:00

Happiness Breeds Success…and Money!
By Sonja Lyubomirsky
Created Jul 18 2008 - 12:52pm

I had a rather interesting experience this week appearing on the CNBC show, The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch. The theme was that being happy will bring you cash. Over the top? Absolutely. Ridiculously enthusiastic and fakely combative? Definitely. The people were all very nice though, and I had fun (even after the first segment, when the executive producer told everyone they were doing “a great job,” but then pulled me aside and ordered me “to amp it up”).

So, does happiness deliver dollar bills? Well, actually, the evidence suggests it does.

I’ll explain how, but allow me first to backtrack for a moment.

As an experimental social psychologist who has been studying happiness for almost 20 years, I’m often asked, “What makes people happy?” Until a few years ago, my answer always reflected the common wisdom and empirical findings in my field – “It’s relationships, stupid.” That is, I always responded that our interpersonal ties – the strength of our friendships, familial bonds, and intimate connections – show the highest correlations with well-being.

Imagine my surprise then, after Ed Diener, Laura King, and I conducted a meta-analysis (a “study of studies”) of 225 studies of well-being. I wholly expected to discover that social relationships – more than any other variable – would be both causes and consequences of being happy. However, what I observed was something rather different. One factor towered over relationships in its connection with happiness. That factor was work.

The evidence, for example, demonstrates that people who have jobs distinguished by autonomy, meaning and variety – and who show superior performance, creativity, and productivity – are significantly happier than those who don’t. Supervisors are happier than those lower on the totem pole, and leaders who receive high ratings from their customers are happier than those with poor ratings. And, of course, the income that a job provides is also associated with happiness, though we now all know that money has more of an impact when we have less of it.

Why does our work make us happy? Because it provides us a sense of identity, structure to our days, and important and meaningful life goals to pursue. Perhaps even more important, it furnishes us with close colleagues, friends and even marriage partners.

The story doesn’t end there, however. Studies reveal that the causal direction between happiness and work runs both ways. Not only do creativity and productivity at the office make people happy, but happier people have been found to be more creative and productive. They are better “organizational citizens” (going above and beyond their job duties), better negotiators, and are less likely to take sick days, to quit, or to suffer burnout.

The most persuasive data regarding the effects of happiness on positive work outcomes (as opposed to vice versa) come from longitudinal studies – that is, investigations that track the same participants over a long period of time. These studies are great. For example, people who report that they are happy at age 18 achieve greater financial independence, higher occupational attainment and greater work autonomy by age 26. Furthermore, the happier a person is, the more likely she will get a job offer, keep her job, and get a new job if she ever loses it. Finally, one fascinating study showed that people who express more positive emotions on the job receive more favorable evaluations from their supervisors 3.5 years later.

But the point that really interested Donny Deutsch and his producers is that all of this applies to income. Not only does greater wealth make people (somewhat) happy, but happy people appear more likely to accrue greater wealth in life. For example, research has demonstrated that the happier a person is at one point in his life, the higher income he will earn at a later point. In one of my favorite studies, researchers showed that those who were happy as college freshmen had higher salaries 16 years later, when they were about 37!

But before we find yet another reason to be envious of very happy people (not only do they get to feel great, but they get to have good jobs and make more money as well!), consider what the research on happiness and work suggests. It suggests that, when it comes to work life, we can create our own so-called “upward spirals.” The more successful we are at our jobs, the higher income we make, and the better work environment we have, the happier we will be. This increased happiness will foster greater success, more money, and an improved work environment, which will further enhance happiness, and so on and so on and so on.

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/1353

"It's what you do now that makes a difference"

2009-12-26T01:41:00.000-08:00

"It's what you do now that makes a difference"

Are you thinking?

Every major brand in Australia is now involved in some form of e-business. Every small business is looking at ways that e-business can make them compete in ways that can make them as competitive as the big players. Every new business venture looks first at how e-business can provide efficiencies and effective ways of reaching their audience.

The growing sophistication of the internet and the expanding needs of business, has meant there is a real need for specialist thinkers who can solve more sophisticated solutions.

However, scratch the surface of many so called internet "specialists" and you'll soon find a fast talking "generalist". One who is well equipped with a set of the buzz words, but no real, strategic thinking.

The internet is not a technology

The big mistake most companies make is believing that the internet is something for the IT department. The internet is not a technology, it is an audience. It is the new channel that your customers are using to find information about you.

We now all know how to Google, where once we used to Yahoo. Google has also taken over from the thick volumes that used to stuff our homes and were formerly known as the Yellow Pages. In fact, over the last few years, the most common use for the whitepages volumes has been to prop up computer monitors.

The internet is a new audience

The internet audience is a little different from the one many businesses have been used to in the past. The new consumer is:

* empowered
* knows you're only one of many choices
* is very loyal
* yet will also leave you in an instant.
* they are your customers, your partners, your workers, your shareholders

Thinking has been involved in the e-business field for a majority of its 17 years.

* It developed the first mass distributed, multi-media disk
* It helped establish Multimedia Victoria
* It's CEO, Mark Bergin, launched Australia's first multimedia expo - Interact.

Today, Thinking is being brought into large and small companies to take a more hands on advisory role. This role now covers the analysis, scoping and foundation work required to establish an e-business culture both within and amongst our clients partners and associates.

Source URL: http://thinking.com.au/website/default.asp

Religious Piety as a Mating Strategy

2009-12-25T23:55:00.000-08:00

Religious Piety as a Mating Strategy
By Douglas Kenrick
Created Dec 24 2009 - 2:47pm

The evolutionary significance of religion is a hot topic. Several researchers have suggested that religious belief is one or another sort of parasitic meme that exploits the existing architecture of the human mind (I made joking reference to this view in my earlier post How the Dawkins Stole Christmas, but I suggest a couple of serious readings below). Others have asked whether religious beliefs might be adaptive in some way -- inspiring group cohesiveness or helping us stay in line when we're not sure whether anyone is watching.

But in some recently published findings Jessica Li, Jason Weeden, Adam Cohen, and I have approached religion from another adaptationist angle. Rather than searching for the causes of heavenly beliefs inside people's heads, we started the search in their corporal bodies, investigating how religious participation might directly serve some people's reproductive strategies.

------------------------------------

In a pair of experiments now in press at the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, we asked people about their belief in God and about the importance of religion in their lives. The most fascinating aspect of the research was this: seeing a lot of highly attractive and available fellow students made subjects profess more belief in God.

Want to guess how it worked? Was it seeing attractive members of the opposite sex that made people more religious? That's what I would have predicted. And I'd have guessed further that the effect would be found in men, for whom a lot of beautiful and available women would mean more opportunities for unrestricted sex. But I was wrong.

What we found instead was this: Women professed more religious piety when they saw beautiful women; men were more likely to look to the heavens when they saw a lot of handsome men.

The findings fit with some earlier research we reported in Evolution and Human Behavior. Weeden, Cohen and I had analyzed data from 21,131 people in the U.S. General Social Survey. We also asked 902 students at four American universities about their family plans, their sexual attitudes, their religious attendance, their moral feelings about stealing, lying, and so on. We found the strongest predictors of attending church were those related to sexual and family values (opposition to infidelity, to premarital sex, to abortion, and the like). When we statistically controlled for the sexual and family value items, the links between religious attendance and the other moral values disappeared.

These earlier findings made two important points. First, conservative attitudes about sex and reproduction are at the heart of people's participation in traditional religious groups. Second, attitudes about sex and family are causes of religious attendance, and not just effects of religious training. The traditional view was that religious teachings cause people to hold conservative attitudes about sex; our findings suggested that conservative attitudes may cause people to become involved in religion.

If our Reproductive Religiosity theory was correct, we reasoned that people might decide to increase or decrease their level of religious participation as a function of whether that participation would advance or hinder their current sexual and reproductive strategies. In fact, we began to wonder whether the link between religiosity and reproduction was malleable enough to move around with a laboratory manipulation. The results of the two experiments in press - showing that people in fact become more religious after seeing attractive competitors - are consistent with this reasoning.

Why does this happen? We think the results fit with the idea that people must choose between a conservative monogamous lifestyle and a more freewheeling unrestricted approach. When you become aware that there are a lot of highly attractive mating competitors out there, it reduces the perceived benefits of playing a fast and loose mating strategy (popular among many undergraduates at schools like Arizona State or UCLA, where mating opportunities might sometimes seem unlimited). For women, a lot of beautiful competitors means less attention from the attractive men who might provide good genes, and perhaps even vie to support your offspring. For men, an abundance of especially handsome and available guys means that if you're playing the field, you may be playing with yourself for most of the game. When circumstances suggest limited opportunities, any normal person -- who does not look like a fashion model - could benefit from those religion-based supports for monogamy.

These findings are especially interesting in light of the traditional tendency to focus on religiosity's roots in genes, temperament, and early childhood upbringing. They suggest that religiosity can also be a flexible strategic response to the current mating environment.

References:

Li, Y.J., Cohen, A.B., Weeden, J., & Kenrick, D.T. (2010). Mating Competitors Increase Religious Beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. In press

Weeden, J., Cohen, A.B., & Kenrick, D.T. (2008). Religious attendance as reproductive support. Evolution & Human Behavior, 29, 327-334.

More on the evolutionary psychology of religious beliefs:

Boyer, P. (2003). Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 119-124.

Johnson, D., & Bering, J. (2006). Hand of God, mind of man: Punishment and cognition in the evolution of cooperation. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 219-233.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2005). Attachment, evolution, and the psychology of religion. New York: Guilford.

Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). God is watching you: Priming God concepts
increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game. Psychological Science,18, 803-809.

Wilson, D. S. (2002). Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

------------------------------------

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/36316

The Atheist Who Came to Christmas

2009-12-25T23:53:00.001-08:00

The Atheist Who Came to Christmas
Created Nov 3 2006 - 12:00am

"I don't want to spend Christmas with an atheist."

When I said this to my best friend, our friendship had already spanned a decade, and her atheism had never been a problem between us, not even at Christmas time. I'm the Christian who never goes to church, and she's the atheist who hosts the traditional Christmas dinner. But during a visit a few months earlier, she had harshly criticized Christians. I had heard it before, but this time it struck something in me. Maybe I wanted Christmas to mean something again, and maybe that something did not include atheists.

Beyond our obsession with finding the perfect gift and more subtle than the stress that comes from forced visitation with family we dislike, lies a true modern-day dilemma: holidays with beloved friends and roommates. We love our friends, but matters of faith can be a sticky issue.

Don't get me wrong. There are great things about friends. First, they're not family. They won't demand that you bake half a dozen pies for Thanksgiving just because your mother did. They won't accuse you of ruining Christmas because you spent the holiday in Aspen with your girlfriend instead of Akron with the clan. These are the people we turn to when a spouse deserts us or when family wounds us. Visiting with a friend during the Yuletide season allows us to vent the pressures of the holidays.

Of course, there is a flip side: The difficult thing about friends is that they're not family. They may not make the same demands that family make, but at least you know what family expects. Hence, your friend's approach to the holidays may create a different kind of stress.

"If people are experiencing tension from friends regarding expression of faith, it's more likely they're encountering someone with a different orientation to faith," says Patrick Hughes, an expert on interpersonal communication and an associate professor of communications studies at Texas Tech University. Regardless of whether two friends are Jewish or Buddhist, Christian or Muslim, how each person approaches his religion matters more than whether or not he shares the same religion with his friend.

When it comes to matters of faith, there are two approaches: intrinsic and extrinsic. For the intrinsic person, religion is an internal affair. Watch this person at the office and you may never guess whether he is Protestant or pagan.

"An intrinsic person doesn't need to go to Midnight Mass to feel she is a better Catholic," explains Hughes. "But a person who is extrinsically oriented needs these social outlets more than she needs religion itself." Indeed, the extrinsic person is a whole different story. In an interfaith marriage, Hughes found, the extrinsic partner tends to be relatively less satisfied because he's constantly trying to get his partner to participate in his religion. Potlucks, prayer meetings, and picnics are things that the extrinsic person needs to practice her religion.

Maybe the holidays bring out a little of the extrinsic in both my friend and me. Hughes does say that some people fall into a third category, those who are both intrinsic and extrinsic.

So before you make plans to spend the holidays with your Buddhist roommate, atheist best friend, or born-again Christian cousin, consider Hughes' advice for the holidays:

* Know your own religious orientation. You either need friends to practice your religion or you don't. If you're normally involved in lots of church activities and social events, you'll be tempted to try to include your non-churchgoing friends during the holidays. When your friend or roommate declines such an invitation, don't push it.
* Realize that even friends of the same faith may have a different orientation to that faith. Tensions will still emerge between two Catholics if one believes that attending Midnight Mass is paramount to celebrating Christmas and the other doesn't.
* When conflict appears inevitable, try to reframe the relationship. Instead of looking at your friend's different faith and approach to the holidays as a hindrance to the relationship, look at it as something that makes your bond unique.

I understand my best friend's approach to Christmas better now. We've talked about how important the gathering of loved ones is to her—regardless of religion. Not long ago we spent Christmas together. This year, though, it sounds like she's planning to spend the holidays with her other best friend, who's Jewish.

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200611/the-atheist-who-came-christmas

Christmas and Consumption

2009-12-25T23:50:00.000-08:00

Christmas and Consumption
By Peter G. Stromberg, Ph.D.
Created Dec 17 2009 - 9:00am

This time of year one is certain to encounter the opinion that we have lost the true spirit of Christmas in the orgy of consumption that has come to characterize our greatest holiday. While I am sympathetic to those who wish to encourage virtues such as charity and gratitude, I'd also like to point out that in fact consumption is as much a part of the true spirit of Christmas as anything else.

Christmas is a ritual, and like all rituals it reflects the social and even political circumstances of the people that practice it. For hundreds of years after Christianity began, the holiday of Christmas did not exist, so in this sense if we want to get back to the original spirit of Christmas we should not celebrate it at all (which, by the way, is what the Puritans did).

Christmas was first established as a church holiday in the fourth century. Conveniently enough it was scheduled on the calendar right at the time of the pagan Roman ceremonies that Christianity was beginning to displace. And even today several of our Christmas traditions are based on the winter solstice rituals practiced by European peoples before their conversion to Christianity. So in this sense, if we want to find the true spirit of Christmas we have to look to pagan ceremonies.

However, what I particularly want to look at here are the changes that occurred in America and Great Britain during the 19th century. At this time, Christmas became a much more important and universal holiday than it had been before, and this was not because churches wanted to put more emphasis on the birth of Jesus Christ. Historians stress that it was a combination of commercial forces and ideas about sentimentality and domesticity-encapsulated in the growing fascination with the new image of Santa Claus-that managed to turn Christmas into a major occasion for gift-giving.

In short, without consumerism we would not have Christmas as we know it. This illustrates a point I have tried to make a number of times before: We live in a culture with two somewhat contradictory sets of values. The first set is the official one, and includes such ideas as responsibility, hard work, religious faith, integrity, etc. The second set is what I have called "shadow values," and includes such ideas as the pursuit of pleasure, self-indulgence, leisure, and sexual desire. In general, the first set of values is associated with work and production, the second set with leisure time and consumption.

We need these two sets of values because our society and economy require us to be highly productive workers and frenetic consumers at the same time. If we did not play both these roles, how could continual economic expansion be ensured? Christmas is simultaneously about both sets of values. Christians give homage to the deity who stands behind our highest values at the same time as almost everyone gives enthusiastic homage the values that remain in the shadows. That's the true spirit of Christmas.

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/36006

Pack Mentality

2009-12-15T23:02:00.000-08:00

My dog had become an adult and instinct kicked in. She became concerned with her place in the pack hierarchy. I learned that our family was her pack, that I was alpha-dog, and that she had no intention of being at the bottom of the pecking order. That meant someone had to be beneath her and the easiest choice was my toddler.

Through training and discipline we got the biting to stop, but to this day she still considers my son subordinate to her.

It’s all about status and exclusivity. And human beings are just as motivated by it as a pack animal. When Abraham Maslow created his Theory of Human Motivation in 1943, he identified five levels of motivation or five needs that humans strive to satisfy. Those needs are, in order: Survival, Safety, Social, Esteem, and Fulfilment.

Status is an esteem need and regardless of where we fall on the economic ladder, we all strive to achieve status before we can move on to the highest need. Whether we admit it or not, we all want to feel as if we are a little bit better than the people around us. We begin to establish that - at least in our own minds - with the accouterments of wealth such as branded clothing, jewelry, luxury automobiles, and exclusive neighborhoods. Even the poorest of people find symbols with which to establish their status. The visibility of these status symbols can create the powerfully motivating emotion of envy.

Most happiness that is acquired by achieving status symbols is short lived. Overtime such trappings become meaningless to us, at which point, we seek genuine achievements to prove our worth. Studies have shown that after reaching a certain income level (usually around $250,000 a year) an individual’s happiness does not increase until they reach the status of super rich (approximately $10,000,000 a year).

But, status can continue to motivate us long after money ceases to do so. Bestowing a new title with added responsibilities yet without any added pay is a common method for rewarding employees.

Volunteers can be motivated in a similar fashion. I was a Boy Scout leader for five years. The Boy Scouts of America rewards its leaders with patches embroidered with colorful square knots that are worn on the adult uniform. Different colored square knots represent the variety of services a volunteer has provided or achievements that he or she has earned. Some square knots represent achievements earned years earlier when the volunteer was a Boy Scout. When I attended formal full uniform functions, I found myself scanning fellow leaders’ square knots to note their status. There is one we all looked for; it is the red, white and blue knot that indicates the wearer earned the highest status in scouting as a youth: the Eagle Scout award.

When the United States was founded, one of its distinguishing characteristics from the rest of the world was the lack of a feudal or caste system. That doesn’t mean status doesn’t exist in America. Indeed it does, but here we must earn it. Best of all, people have a choice and can rise above the station they were born into

Lacking status puts us in the un-comfort zone and drives us to achieve. When you help someone up the social ladder, you can motivate them in a powerful and positive way.

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/35715

Field Guide to The Self-Doubter: Extra Credit

2009-12-15T22:31:00.000-08:00

Field Guide to The Self-Doubter: Extra Credit
By caralynn
Created Nov 17 2009 - 7:47am

Rosalyn Lang has a Ph.D. in molecular biology, has just completed a postdoctoral fellowship at Duke University, and recently launched her own consulting firm. In other words, she's a walking advertisement for what it takes to be successful in science: smarts, opportunity, and perseverance. Yet when she looks back, she takes little credit for her successes. "I felt inadequate the entire time I was in graduate school. If I got a nice compliment, I just felt, 'What? They're trying to pull my leg! I can get kicked out at any minute.'"

One of just two women recruited to her graduate program in the department of molecular and cellular pharmacology at the University of Miami, Lang was also a Florida Scholar—an honor that funded her entire graduate education. Despite these distinctions, she felt undeserving, attributing any triumphs to luck, affirmative action, and sheer elbow grease. "It's a kind of panic driving you to work harder than anyone else," she says.

Lang now realizes she wasn't really an impostor. She just felt like one. Like many highly accomplished women, Lang suffered from "impostor syndrome." On the outside, she was a star and a role model. Secretly, though, she chalked up her successes to powers beyond her control, and meanwhile felt personally responsible for any failures—a feeling shared by 93 percent of African-American female college students, according to one study.

When it comes to personal happiness, Rosalyn Lang was in a no-win situation. If she received awards or praise, she didn't think she deserved them. And if she didn't receive these honors, she tacitly agreed. This strategy can protect you from disappointment, to be sure, but it also deadens the sense of satisfaction that should come with accomplishment. When one self-described impostor was informed that she had been selected for a prestigious scholarship funding two years of study abroad, her reaction was similar to Rosalyn Lang's: "'Really?' All I've been thinking ever since is, 'Oh no, they'll discover they picked the wrong girl!'"

What might explain the yawning gap between these women's self-assessments and the judgments of everyone around them? Like many high achievers—especially female high achievers—they have the sense that their abilities are illusions. One renowned expert in infectious diseases told me that everything she'd achieved in an illustrious career was "a fluke." And despite being in demand as a speaker, she needed to do much more research and reading to prove herself. "There are an awful lot of people out there who think I'm an expert. I'm so much aware of all the things I don't know."

Such dissonance can fuel further achievement, but it also creates anxiety. According to recent studies of medical, dental, and nursing students with impostor feelings, the phenomenon is linked to perfectionism, burnout, and depression. This was true for Rosalyn Lang, whose impostor feelings drove her to work harder. "The work ethic was great. That's the kind of focus you need to get everything done in graduate school," she said. But "internal agony" was how she described her psychological state.

Depression and shying away from challenges are often part and parcel of the syndrome. Despite these risks, impostor syndrome is not a psychological disorder. It doesn't necessarily impair one's ability to live life day to day, and is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

But since the late 1970s, when it was first identified by two clinical psychologists at Oberlin College, Pauline Rose Clance and Suzanne Imes, a number of studies have confirmed that the syndrome exists. When Clance and Imes first happened on impostor feelings in a study of 150 highly successful female doctors, lawyers, social workers, and university professors, they discovered that a high number of these competent women attributed their high salaries, academic honors, and promotions to being in the right place at the right time.

Continued successes, paradoxically, can just add to the anxiety. Valerie Young, a psychologist who leads workshops on impostor syndrome, describes how "rather than offering assurance, each new achievement and subsequent challenge only serves to intensify the fear of being found out." Even fame and fortune can't wipe out that self-doubt— Kate Winslet is an admitted sufferer.

Highly placed public officials have hinted at impostor feelings, too. Take Margaret Chan, who, as head of the World Health Organization, is the most powerful public health official in the world. Yet when asked by a New York Times reporter how she rose to her position, the superbly qualified Chan said it was all a matter of luck. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, too, has sterling credentials. Her perspective? "I am always looking over my shoulder wondering if I measure up."

Certain situations are more likely to elicit impostor feelings: new experiences where one is expected to act like an expert (being an interning physician); highly competitive environments (the Ivy League); or being a "pioneer" (the first in one's family to go to university, or the first minority to succeed in a certain endeavor.)

People who direct critical thoughts or feelings inward are more likely to feel like impostors. So if they receive a negative performance review, internalizers blame themselves, not their boss. Women are more likely than men to be internalizers.

The syndrome affects some men but thrives among women, according to research by two Purdue psychologists, Shamala Kumar and Carolyn Jagacinski. But self-doubt doesn't always make one avoid competition. The women who had the highest scores on the impostor scale were also eager to prove to themselves what other people already knew—that they could excel. And they were different from the men in the comparison group, who, if they felt unsure of themselves, wouldn't enter a contest they thought they wouldn't win.

There's no doubt: People with impostor feelings are often highly motivated strivers. In a race to avoid detection, they out-prepare and out-credential everyone else, so paradoxically, their efforts result in ever higher kudos. Though they continue to succeed, relief comes only with recognizing that impostor syndrome constitutes a real phenomenon. Rosalyn Lang agrees. "Once you recognize it, you can always talk it down. You can say to yourself, 'I've gotten this far for a reason. I'm here because I'm doing great work, and it's where I'm supposed to be. And perfection just does not exist.'"

Six steps for matching perceptions to reality:

* Separate your self-assessments from objective evaluations of your skills. Group-based evaluations, promotions, and letters of reference are less biased than the world seen through "impostor"-colored glasses.
* Give yourself opportunities to compete. Don't let your self-judgment prevent you demonstrating what you know.
* Reduce your isolation. Talk about your feelings with trusted friends and colleagues.
* Seek out a mentor or advocate in your organization who believes in you.
* Enjoy your successes and acknowledge praise when it comes your way. Resist the impulse to deny and deflect compliments.
* Remember that those who project an air of confidence may not know more than you do. Research shows that most people overestimate their abilities.

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/34965

Is Technology Making Us Dumber?

2009-12-14T22:49:00.000-08:00

Is Technology Making Us Dumber?
By John Elder Robison
Created Nov 30 2009 - 1:36pm

I can still remember how impressed I was with my father's academic friends. Whatever I said to them, they always had an answer. I'd point to a ship in my book, and they'd tell me about the Bremen, the Lusitania, and the United States . . . all the great passenger liners. I'd talk about elephants and they answered with stories of Africa, Asia, Hannibal's warriors and the Indian Maharajahs. I was so impressed with their vast knowledge.

I read books all day long, and it seemed like I didn't know a fraction of what those grownups knew. Of course, they were thirty and I was seven, but I wasn't old enough to take subtle points like that into account.

My grandparents didn't know nearly as much. I'd ask my grandmother about helicopters, and she'd just say, Honey child, I don't know a thing about helicopters! When I asked why she didn't know, my grandfather had the answer. Those college people know a little about everything, but nothing about anything. I doubt any of them could plow a field!

I never did get the chance to see if my parents' friends could plow fields. But as I got older, I realized folks who could talk intelligently about many topics were pretty rare, and the ones who knew more than the most superficial tidbits were rarer still. I was just lucky to have a bunch of them in my life early on. So it was a neat thing, finding new people like that as I got older.

By the time I was eighteen, I knew a few good places to look for people who knew something about everything. The Umass Science Fiction Society, for example, was full of geeks with an overabundance of esoteric knowledge. As time passed, I found more and more pockets of arcane understanding throughout the Pioneer Valley, where I lived.

The knowledgeable people I found were always rare and special. Consequently, I grew up believing knowledge was something to be treasured. Not anymore. Any fool with a Blackberry or Iphone can look up life's answers at the drop of a hat, provided there's cell phone service. So where does that leave the knowledgeable geeks of yesterday? I guess what was special has become ordinary, at least on first glance.

What happened? Did the pocket Internet make everyone smarter? Or does it just facilitate snappy comebacks, with a sixty-second web browser delay? I used to think the Internet was a tide that lifted all boats, knowledge wise, but now I wonder if the opposite is true. I think the Internet and information technology in general makes us dumber, in some key ways.

When I was a kid, you had to actually memorize and know the capitals of foreign countries if you wanted to talk geography. And you never knew when that might happen. Even today, I know Ulan Bator is the capital of Mongolia, and Quito is the capital of Ecuador. I can point them out on a map.

So what, today's young people say. The iphone will tell you more about Ulan Bator in sixty seconds than I could possibly remember. That's true, but by relying on the computer, we stop training out minds, and we stop filling our memory banks. By doing so, I believe we diminish our ability to solve life's problems unaided, and we become more and more dependent on machines. When the machines give us answers, we seem superficially smarter, but we really are dumber, because we're not building the networks in our brains to solve a whole host of problems.

Want another example of this? Think navigation. I went my whole life looking at maps and finding my way. I have a long, long history of reaching my destinations, whether on foot, by boat, or by car. I looked at a map, related it to the world around me, and found my way. All too often, navigation today is handed off to a machine. Many motorists can't make sense of a basic road map, or estimate the distance between two points on a printed page. They are lost if their machine loses touch with the satellites.

Most of the time, technology works as it should. People get to their destinations faster thanks to computers. But people who rely on machines have given up something vital yet intangible. They've lost the ability to think it through a navigation problem themselves. They have become slaves to machines out of intellectual laziness, and the laziness makes them less smart. The brain wiring that solves navigation problems allows us to solve other problems too. Computers don't have that flexibility, and neither do we when we abdicate our thinking to machines.

I think this point is lost on many young people today. After all, if they have not developed certain processing abilities in their minds, how can they know what they are missing? I know, because I see what I lose when I rely on technology and it fails. I think of my frustration when my car gets lost, and I recall all those times when I solved my own problems and found my own way, uneventfully albeit a bit slower.

For many people, web browsing has replaced book reading. Recent studies suggest that their attention spans are reduced as a result. When we rely on a computer to look up facts, instead of our own memory, the price may not be obvious. But I believe it's there, and it real.

It's a point to ponder for sure. Easy answers aren't always free.

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/35350

The Gender Surcharge

2009-12-14T22:29:00.000-08:00

The Gender Surcharge
By William Poundstone
Created Dec 2 2009 - 9:05am

The January 2010 Consumer Reports has an article that's sure to provoke some outrage. "Roam any drugstore and you'll see products that seem to be twins, except for one thing: One is for women, the other for men. We discovered that products directed at women-through packaging, description, or name-might cost up to 50 percent more than similar products for men."

For instance, a can of men's Barbasol shaving cream costs $1.69. A skinnier can of the women's version contains less product yet sells for $2.49. Nivea Body Wash for men is $5.49; the same size container of the women's product is $7.49. A four-pack of Schick Quattro razors is $10.49 for men, $10.99 for women. The biggest difference CU found was for Neutragena eye cream, at $9.99 for the gentlemen and $14.99 for the ladies.

Even when prices seem the same, they're not. Both men's and women's Degree antiperspirant cost $3.59 - but the men's version contains 2.7 ounces, v. 2.6 ounces for the women's. And even when products seem to be different, they may not be. Excedrin Menstrual Complete has the same active ingredients, in the same amounts, as the regular Excedrin. But 20 gel caps of Menstrual Complete runs $6.49, v. $5.99 for 20 gels of the regular pain reliever.

The magazine asked the manufacturers to comment. Their explanations ranged from the half-believable (women shave in the shower, so their shaving cream comes in a more expensive rust-resistant can) to the amusingly ingenious (women's Nivea "has skin-sensation technology.")

Psychologists suspect that gender plays a big role in the prices we pay. It is nonetheless tricky to draw conclusions from the shopping aisle, where there are so many variables. Some of the most compelling experiments have used a simple bargaining game, the "ultimatum game." One person is given $10 to split with another. A split might be "I keep $6 and you get $4." Provided the other person agrees, the money is divided as proposed. But should the other person reject the offer, neither gets anything. Think of a vendor in a bazaar setting a price. He want to keep as much profit as possible for himself by naming a high price. But if he demands too high a price, the customers will walk away.

In a typical ultimatum game, the splitter keeps a little more than half of the $10, and the other person OKs the deal. Psychologist and behavioral economist Sara Solnick, now at the University of Vermont, did a clever version of the game focusing on gender. The players sat on opposite sides of a partition and could not see each other. One group learned the first name of their partner and thus knew the partner's gender. Another group never heard names and had no idea whether they were playing with a man or a woman.

The splitters who didn't know their partner's gender offered an average of $4.68 out of $10. But for those who knew their partner was a man, the average offer was a more generous $4.89. When they knew they were dealing with a woman, the average was only $4.37.
Solnick also had players state the minimum offer they would accept. This minimum was higher when they knew their partner was female. Women got the short end of the stick, no matter which role they played.

It's possible that similar dynamics apply in the supermarket aisle. Women's products may cost more because women are a little less price-sensitive than men. Is that unfair? Maybe, but Solnick's experiment leaves little scope for anyone to feel morally superior. Her subjects were college kids too young to remember a pre-feminist past. They probably would have loudly rejected a sexual double standard, had they been asked. But they had no idea this experiment was "about" gender. Both women and men unconsciously set higher "prices" for female partners.

That underlying psychology poses some difficult challenges to our would-be egalitarian society. What's to be done when people who aren't sexist unknowingly act as if they were? It's a question we'll probably be wrestling with for years to come.
As usual, Consumer Reports has this sensible advice for shoppers: Ignore the gender marketing and buy whatever is cheaper.

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/35419

Reconciling Difference

2009-12-14T01:21:00.000-08:00

Reconciling Difference
By Gay Bradshaw
Created Nov 7 2009 - 2:09pm

Her joys, her woes, Her highs, her lows, Are second nature to me now; Like breathing out and breathing in. . . .I've grown accustomed to the trace, Of something in the air; Accustomed to her face. -My Fair Lady

Today, Frederick Loewe's My Fair Lady raises more than a few politically correct eyebrows, yet the musical persists and its closing song, I've Grown Accustomed to her Face, continues to evoke the tender sweetness of love's attachment. John Bowlby also celebrates relational bonds. His bardic trilogy, Attachment, Separation, and Loss, articulates a conceptual arc that has shown equal endurance.

Attachment theory, the roles and importance of early relational transactions in shaping behavior, brain, and mind, has pushed its way across time and disciplines to emerge as a pivotal concept in neuroscience, psychology, and ethology. It is a prime example of what E.O. Wilson called "consilience", the unity of knowledge across disciplines.

Attachment theory's success comes from more than the generation of a good idea. So many fields have taken to attachment because of the nature of Bowlby's scholarship. Psychology was well along its trajectory away from traditions of ethology when the British psychiatrist-psychoanalyst was at work, but unlike others, he maintained a cross-species fluidity reminiscent of Charles Darwin and his work on continuity in the animal kingdom. Bowlby's discourse on attachment effortlessly weaves together macaque, geese, and human social behaviour in his vivid and compassionate discussions of infant-parent relationships.

As to why trans-species perspectives are born only to fade from science's narrative is a good question and a topic for later discussion. However, it is unlikely that this disappearing act will repeat. Now that neuroscience has joined the mix, attachment theory is firmly accepted as an evolutionary (trans-species) mechanism that is common but not necessarily exclusive to our vertebrate kin.

In moving past disciplinary bounds, attachment theory has penetrated from without to within. Relational bonding between child and parent, portrayed so lovingly in the paintings by Picasso and Cassett, is more than "psychobiological attunement with the infant's cognition or behaviour", writes neuroscientist-psychoanalyst Allan Schore. Socioaffective face-to-face coordination orchestrated through visual, somatic and prosodic cues is a mother's "regulation of the infant's internal states of arousal, [and] the energetic dimension of the child's affective state." Yes, there is a reason, neuroscience nods, why sentimental tunes such as Loewe's resonate. Syncopation of gesture, glance, tone, and touch is echoed somatically in the pulse of psychophysiology. We are born to tune and be attuned to each other.

These findings are a huge boon in the quest to resolve science's ambivalence and contradictory attitudes toward species' similarities and differences. Now that we animals have accepted that we all have more or less the same brains, we can get down to figuring out things like: if birds have brains and cultural habits similar to humans such as flocking and defensive behaviour, why haven't they have descended upon humanity in vengeful ways, as in like Alfred Hitchcock's darkly imagined The Birds? After all, modern humans do this to each other and other animals. Or: why don't modern humans self-regulate their populations and resource consumption as many indigenous human cultures have done? Enter Bowlby and friends, stage left.

Attachment theory helps us understand how to approach the concept of difference from the perspective of sameness. Come again? That is correct—we can be different and the same at the same time. Attachment, or more accurately as Schore points out, relational regulation of the brain-mind-body, helps us see the differences between a New Yorker, a cat, and a grizzly bear not as categorical, but as a product of interactive processes of differentiation. The world's rainbow of psychologies and behaviours (and critically what we make of these so-called differences) derive from what experience (nurture) does with its starting material (nature) through relationships (attachment). Who we each become is a fine blend of ingredients and processes.

For example, attachment theory explains why researchers found that Congolese communities were more likely to show forgiving behavior toward a transgressor than their French counterparts. It also explains why one elephant who lost his family during a conservation-managed cull succumbed to symptoms of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and grew up to serial kill rhinoceroses, but another elephant did not.

Attachment and its conceptual doppelgänger, traumatology, also help us understand how and why chimpanzees and humans who have a lot in common genetically, physiologically, and psychologically, are, logically, diagnosed with the same psychiatric symptoms when subjected to torture, and, illogically, discriminated against by science-violating ethical and legal standards. For, whereas researchers are generally comfortable with the idea of physiological and biological continuity (i.e., where differences between bats, cats, humans, and frogs are almost minor idiosyncracies), they are less sanguine when it comes to psychology, or even just the idea of mind and consciousness in species other than humans. Somehow, comparability gets recalibrated in practice when species' lines are crossed.

Rabbits, humans, cats, cockatoos, beagles, and even cockroaches are lumped variously as same or different with as much whimsy as the weather. On one hand, the real-life counterparts of Bugs Bunny, Sylvester, Tweety Bird, Wonder Dog, and Archie are considered to be same-enough to stand in for humans as experimental models in studies spanning stress physiology, psychopharmacology, psychological/relational trauma, neuropsychological development, cultural studies, facial recognition, self-recognition, empathy, reconciliation, social learning, theory of mind, consciousness, tool-use, self-recognition, and (as Alex the famous MIT avian graduate demonstrated) language acquisition. On the other hand, attributes identified in human surrogates that qualify them for experimental sacrifice, ethically disqualify human subjects for research and testing practices. What may be good for the animal goose in scientific experimentation is not good for the human gander, and vice versa. First, there is human-animal mental continuity, then there isn't.

Science, like nature, cannot abide a logic vacuum. So when it encounters puzzles and facts and figures that can't be pushed, pulled, or twisted sufficient to fit what scientists want, then not only do we have a failure to communicate, but the demise of a paradigm. Enter stage right what physicist-cum-philosopher Thomas Kuhn called more colorfully, a scientific revolution.

A scientific shift has been slipping and sliding along for quite some time. One by one, scientists have revolted against Monsieur Descartes' reductionist dichotomies and turned their faces toward the Age of Consilience. Nature versus nurture is now nature and nurture, mind versus body is now mind and body, etc., etc., leading naturally to the biggest merger thus far: humans and other animals together in a species-common model of the mind. Consilience of human knowledge has led to re-conciliation with other animals.

Preeminent neuroscientist-primatologists of the likes of Robert Sapolsky and Frans deWaal urge us to look to the other animals' cultures for living better with one and another. Culture entails social learning of custom, behavior, and critically, knowledge. Subsequently, mental continuity with animal kin implies not only ethical, but epistemic continuity. The chimpanzees, gorillas, parrots, frogs, cats, parrots, mice, and octopi whose neuropsychological and biological attributes have lead to their (ab)use, are now mentally qualified for the roles and responsibility of their (ab)users: leadership in science and knowledge creation.

The new trans-species paradigm is really something new. There are new questions, new objectives, and new ethics to live by. And we can thank a stalwart line of scholars who, by not sacrificing their ethics or intellect to Cartesian splitting, provide us with a rich inheritance to begin partnering with the rest of the animal kingdom.

Gay Bradshaw, PhD, PhD is Executive Director of The Kerulos Center (www.kerulos.org) and co-founder of the Trans-species Institute (www.trans-species.org), Santa Barbara California. She is the author of Elephants on the Edge: What Animals Teach Us about Humanity, an in-depth psychological portrait of elephants in captivity and in the wild. Her work focuses on human-animal relationships and trauma recovery of species that include elephants, grizzly bears, tortoises, chimpanzees, and parrots.

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/34633

Singles: Patterns of Pursuit

2009-12-13T23:21:00.000-08:00

Singles: Patterns of Pursuit
By caralynn
Created Jun 29 2009 - 11:17am

A century ago, a 16-year-old Irish girl reluctantly arrived on Ellis Island, betrothed to a much older pub owner about whom she knew nothing. In love with a boy from her village, Bridget was devastated to become a New World bride. And though her husband was a kind man who stayed with her until his death, they never became close. She often let slip her lingering bitterness.

One hundred years later, my own experience of single life in New York City could not have been more different. Bridget, my great-grandmother, had just one ship ride between adolescence and marriage; I've had 15 years of dating. Her life was charted for her, her own feelings and wishes irrelevant. I had nothing but feelings and wishes to guide me. I had plenty of enriching experiences, but I also felt by turns anxious, rejected, guilty about rejecting others, and just plain lonely. I could choose unwisely, and there'd be no one else to blame. Autonomy is great, but it is not without its burdens. My tale concludes more happily than Bridget's: I have the luxury of looking forward to a life with my true love.

Somewhere between Bridget's arranged marriage and my protracted floundering lies a vast middle ground of single life that can be navigated happily, with an eye toward one's ultimate goal: often, but not always, a committed partnership. It takes only a few principles of human nature, and insight into one's own desires. While there's clearly no formula for how to meet The One, psychologists agree on beliefs and strategies that inadvertently hold people back. This is not to say that the uncoupled are necessarily doing anything wrong; they may just not have stumbled into the right cafe at the right time.

Nonetheless, it's worth taking an inventory of your romantic life. The successful single will be willing to turn a non-defensive eye toward his or her own dating patterns. Here I explore a few romantic cul de sacs that many singles encounter.

Dating Shake-Up #1: Get Out the *%*#$&(*# Door

Lady luck can seat you next to a gorgeous stranger at an open-air jazz concert. Watching TV in your living room, however, hardly facilitates serendipitous encounters. Putting yourself out there is a prerequisite to curing the loneliness that settles over you when you spend too many nights in.

Maybe you dread getting overlooked by people you'd meet if you were socializing. Or perhaps you're afraid that if you do get into a relationship you'll be distracted from other important goals. Whatever the hesitation, online dating could be a good way to get to know who's out there while maintaining control and privacy. Still, if you want to partner up, you'll have to get out eventually.

Ask a trusted friend to act as social coordinator—and simply promise to show up. Talk to someone openly about your self-perceptions to see if they match others' ideas of who you are. Take on new work or extracurricular challenges to increase your self-esteem and your confidence that you can handle the pressures of the singles scene and are an attractive addition to it.

Dating Shake-Up #2: Cut out Choosiness—and Stop Choosing Poorly

Snapshot of the decision-making center of a twentysomething's mind at a dinner party: "The girl sitting next to Chris is friendly, and she's a politics geek, just like me. But there's that speed-dating thing at the brewery next week, plus I haven't written back to that blonde I met online last Thursday...."

Barry Schwartz, a professor of psychology at Swarthmore, has shown how gluts of products paralyze consumers, and he's convinced that dating overload can similarly hamstring singles. "The temptation to not choose is great in a world where there is a large number of options," Schwartz says. He advises shoppers to settle on "good enough" purchases, but finds it much harder to convince singles to apply the strategy to their love lives. "People think they need to find the absolute 'best' romantic partner for them," Schwartz says. "But I believe that making a commitment is an act of faith. If you wait until you're sure, you'll die alone."

Even if you're not too picky, you may consistently fall for people who aren't right for you. You're attracted to bad boys or girls—a shot of adrenaline into a routine-filled life, but a letdown when you need a dependable companion. Or you gravitate toward quiet types, but soon enough feel frustrated with their lack of verbal input.

We learn how to relate to people through our family members and other significant relationships in early life. Sometimes those relationships aren't easy or healthy, but they are what we know. We may have even developed a role to fit into our clan—say, the overachiever or the peacemaker. Say you were the charmer in your home, the one who pulled everyone else out of dour moods. If you were to meet a man who needed constant bucking up, you'd be comfortable and quite effective. But just because the arrangement would feel comfortable and familiar doesn't mean he'd be a great partner who could support you emotionally.

You may even be attracted to particular people out of a desire, conscious or not, to rewrite bad endings. Chicago therapist Wendy Wasson recalls a patient who had a critical, judgmental father. The patient began dating someone who was accepting at first. But when he became distant and negative, she was suddenly desperate to please him. She wasn't consciously aware that her boyfriend shared traits with her father, but Wasson helped her see that on some level she was trying to rework that family dynamic by winning the man over.

If you're not sure whether you have a misguided yen for a certain type, list your past sweethearts' prominent traits. While you're at it, write down ten qualities that describe your ideal relationship. Instead of a grocery list of what you want in another person (blue eyes, likes hockey), this should detail what you value and what you most want someone else to bring out in you (we would hold each other to our goals, we would laugh frequently).

Psychologist M.P. Wylie, a relationships coach, puts clients through this exercise to remind them that all pairings are a pas de deux of personalities. It also encourages people to separate real deal-breakers (doesn't want kids) from nitpicky requirements that might screen out true love. You say you require a college grad, but what if you meet an ambitious autodidact who doesn't have that piece of paper? He or she might fulfill your desire for a partnership that fosters intellectual growth, even though the person wouldn't meet your checklist.

Dating Shake-Up #3: Don't Fall in Love with Love

Nicole had been daydreaming about their third date when his email popped into her inbox. All week she'd built up an ironclad case for why he was perfect for her, and marveled at how their interests dovetailed. Her friends were going to be so impressed!

The message was an unaffectionate request to reschedule. She felt a surge of anger: How could he act like this? Why wasn't he at least excited to see her? She'd set herself up for disappointment because she expected him to conform to her fantasy, and not the reality—they barely knew each other.

Moving too fast, either by projecting hopes onto someone or by speeding up a natural getting-to-know-you phase, skews your ability to objectively judge a prospect.

"If attachment is the glue in relationships, then an accelerated attachment is like super glue. It activates a willingness to overlook and minimize obvious problems, it blinds your vision, and it intoxicates your emotions and hormones so that you feel safe and secure in this newfound love," proclaims psychologist John Van Epp in his book How Not to Marry a Jerk.

In the early stages of romance, it's wise to make non-date-related plans that are as exciting to you as your prospective partner is. And mom was right: Don't jump into bed right away. Sleeping with someone prompts your brain to release neurochemicals such as oxytocin that spur bonding and make you feel more connected to and dependent on your bedmate than is wise at an early juncture. The bonding phenomenon is stronger for women in general, though men who have been without someone for a while can also become overly attached to a new sex partner in the absence of genuine affection, Van Epp says.

Once you know you can truly trust a dating partner, sexual intimacy can strengthen the connections you've already forged. But if the physical aspect of the relationship swamps your total time spent together—ideally in a variety of situations—you're at risk of ending up with someone who won't be good for you in the long run.

You're probably marshaling counterevidence in the form of happily married couples who slept together on their first date and who are convinced that the amorous fast track had no negative impact on the ensuing relationship. That's great for them, but if you want to aim for better relationship outcomes overall, consider waiting it out.

Dating Shake-Up #4: Heed Early Clues to Character

One of my friends stopped dating a smart, sweet, beautiful woman after discovering she possessed, of all horrors, a Celine Dion CD. Another friend continued seeing a guy for six months even though he conducted lengthy phone calls with his ex and other women in front of her.

Assessing a partner's worthiness is part art, part science: You must measure and weigh a constellation of quirks and qualities without losing sight of the whole person. How can you tell whether a single incompatibility is a deal breaker or an annoyance worth tolerating? Keep your eyes open for behaviors that signify distasteful and deeply-rooted attitudes. Don't rationalize consistent displays of disrespect or irresponsibility—observe them carefully. Such bad behaviors will only get worse over time, when people are no longer out to impress you. The best marriages are the ones preceded by happy dating relationships, so take your partner at face value and don't expect situations to magically improve over time.

However, it's only fair to raise your concerns to your partner, and to give him or her a chance to change. Within a healthy relationship some behaviors are moldable. Gently bring up the issue ("sometimes it seems that you're not listening to me when I tell you stories") in order to put it into what Van Epp calls the "machinery" of the relationship. Your girlfriend may need to be reminded a few more times of her habit of spacing out while you talk, but it's possible that after that, she will become a rapt listener. If you catch her daydreaming three or four more times, however, you have your answer as to whether or not she is capable of tuning in. You then must decide if you can live with that trait or not. If you can, discipline yourself to not get upset at the behavior, since you decided to put up with it.

Dating Shake-Up #5: Push Yourself Out of Your Patterns

While it's a vital first step, understanding the patterns in your behavior isn't enough. You must continually make yourself do what doesn't come naturally. It's comfortable for you to reject short men. So say yes to the next one who flirts with you. It's easy for you to become overly dependent on new boyfriends, texting them every hour. So hide your phone and resist the urge. It's tempting to cut things off before your new love starts talking about "the future"—so bring up the topic yourself.

Consider a woman who was magnetized by macho men. Her alluring suitors quickly morphed into angry jerks. The consequent fights and breakups were devastating, and yet they never deterred her from going back for more with a new tough guy. Van Epp encouraged her to accept a date with a sensitive young man. Her mission was to expand her comfort zone: Even if it didn't work out, she'd be more open to prospects like him in the future. She began spending time with him, and he didn't thrill her. But she stuck to it and paced the relationship well, forgoing sexual contact. After a few months, she developed intimate feelings toward him that finally blossomed into a physical attraction. After a year, she fell deeply in love and married him.

Not all experiments in pattern breaking work out so well. Even after you've changed your counterproductive tendencies, you may still get your heart broken. In the face of such disappointments, you must be careful not to beat yourself up or write off every last member of the opposite sex.

Being single longer than you'd expected gives you the opportunity to find your way through a variety of entanglements and to understand how different sides of yourself emerge based on how you conduct your relationships and whom you choose to get close to. It also gives you the chance to build satisfying friendships.

"When singles realize that they need to take responsibility for themselves, they often feel empowered," says Wasson. "And learning to appreciate other emotional bonds helps them build resilience."

Wasson, who was single for much of her life, notes that when she met her partner in her 50s, he truly valued the life she had built for herself. It was, in fact, part of her appeal.

Wasson encourages single men and women to throw themselves into life when they least feel like doing so.

"If you take out a mallet or get cynical, it keeps you from moving on," Wasson says. "Staying confident is, after all, what attracts people."

In retrospect, although it wasn't always pleasant, being single lent me precious time to make and nurture a wealth of friendships. I might not have forged such strong bonds had I not needed dating advice and support. In this sense, my romantic quest was worthwhile in more ways than one.—Carlin Flora

The Commitment-Phobe

The Dilemma:

A commitment-phobe might fear the end of youth, or he (yes, they are often, but by no means always, male) may just be itchy at the thought of a long-term vow. They are not likely to identify themselves as having commitment issues, however, since in their mind there is always a good reason not to move forward with a relationship. Their stasis breeds misery on both sides: The commitment-phobe is paralyzed and his or her partner is left feeling hurt and rejected.

The Plan:

Life sometimes catapults even the most reluctant lover into commitment: Advancing age, housing logistics, or a recognition that the perfect has become the enemy of the good can all reform the staunchest commitment-phobe.

"Sometimes it's easier to leap off the cliff than to walk slowly down the diving board," says psychologist and writer Judith Sills. Many people would be happier eloping than dragging out wedding proposals and plans.

Marriage is a big decision, but it doesn't determine everything that happens thereafter. "We don't make mistakes," says Sills. "We build or create mistakes over time." Paradoxically, the reluctant party's relationship may get much better after he takes the leap. This leaves commitment-phobes locked into a self-fulfilling prophecy: They don't feel passionate enough toward someone, so they break up and then think, "Thank God I didn't commit to her!" But if they had committed, the passion might have flowed after the fact.

There's at least one broad exception. Charles Waehler of the University of Akron found that middle-aged bachelors who are unsatisfied in life and ambivalent about marriage remain conflicted after marriage.

The Single Parent

The Dilemma:

Single parents often fear that their desire to find someone will lead them to overlook their children's needs or feelings. They wonder how their kids will react, and how all of the moving parts of their family and their prospective new love's family will fit together.

The Plan:

Block out a privacy zone, counsels Sills. Kids don't need to know dating details, and they certainly don't need to be confronted with any aspect of their parent's sex life.

When someone is important enough to be introduced to a child, the parent should have him or her over for dinner. But they shouldn't stage-manage. Let everybody find out about each other naturally. And the parent shouldn't do a post-mortem on the encounter, warns Sills. "Sometimes when we put things into words we get committed to a point of view about someone."

Bringing home a new dating partner may very well stir up children's fears about divorce or death or the future. The important thing is to let the kids have such feelings. They will adjust to the situation over time.

And avoid the "pseudo-marriage" trap: If you've been married, it's tempting to rush into sharing lives and household duties with someone. But this can put undue strain on a budding relationship.

The Older Single

The Dilemma:

Younger singles searching for love often look to midlife and beyond with a marked fear that they will still be alone. But midlifers often find the experience of being single easier than it was during their reproductive years, when they may have felt dramatically out of step with married friends, says Wendy Wasson. Suddenly, they're forging new connections with peers who are divorced or widowed.

The newly single camp can be more difficult: People feel like failures after the breakup of a long partnership, or undergo a lengthy grieving process after having experienced a partner's death. Yet Wasson sees a bright side: She's witnessed patients develop a renewed sense of vitality and optimism after a panicky adjustment period. People—especially women—often reorganize their lives around friendships (old and new) and look forward to a more independent and open-ended way of life.

The Plan:

Broadening one's horizons is not just a pragmatic way to approach the social scene; it's also the key to finding unexpected happiness in midlife. In her book Getting Naked Again: Dating, Romance, Sex, and Love When You've Been Divorced, Widowed, Dumped, or Distracted, Judith Sills argues that older singles should consider a wider range of prospects, since they're not looking to create a family. "It doesn't matter if a woman shares your religion, for example, if you're not raising children together," she says. Sills says that women concerned about the lack of available older single men, for example, should not evaluate men they meet in terms of whether they are marriage material, but should rather enjoy and embrace what they do have to offer—be it friendship, companionship, help, or guidance in cultivating new hobbies or interests.

Middle-aged singles may find that the autonomy and social skills they've built up over the years give them a confidence in the world that they never had as young people. In fact, several interview-based studies of single women aged 40 and above revealed that they felt a greater sense of clarity and agency than ever before. They'd managed to fulfill their needs to nurture others (perhaps via nephews and nieces) and to feel supported (often by strong friendships and family ties). Furthermore, they were freer to express themselves since they no longer felt constricted by expectations about marriage that may have once sparked regrets or insecurity.

Author: Carlin Flora

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200906/singles-patterns-pursuit

How to Never Forget Anything Again

2009-12-09T00:10:00.000-08:00

How to Never Forget Anything Again

The human brain is a wonderful thing, but it’s a bit faulty as a tool for remembering things. Luckily for us (and for our frazzled brains), technology has stepped in to help out.

With the proper habits and the right tools, you and your brain won’t have to remember a thing again.

There are a host of tech tools that can help with taking notes, managing projects and to-dos, and manage your email and calendar needs just fine. Though I’ll include the best choices below, these tools are just one piece of the puzzle. There are more elegant methods (ever scheduled something in Google Calendar via voicemail?)…

To really never have to remember a thing again, you have to combine a few tools in smart and comprehensive fashion, and even more important, you have to develop specific habits that will ensure that things don’t slip between the cracks … because the cracks just get bigger and bigger with more time and more data.

In this post I’ll look at some of the requirements of a “Never Forget Again” system, along with 4 key habits for using that system. I’ll include my setup, as well as some other tools you can use to develop your own setup.

A Comprehensive System

What are all the things you need to remember? There are many types of data, from phone numbers and emails to tasks and projects, from follow-ups to status reports, from errands and appointments to websites and photos, and from random ideas to notes for class or about a book, etc..

A comprehensive system will handle all these things and allow you to save them, access them, and be reminded of them with ease. There shouldn’t be a lot of fuss.

Sound about right? Let’s take a look at the system and tools — then the habits — needed to do all this.

My Setup

This might sound a bit complicated to some, but I assure you all of these tools are simple, easy to use, powerful, fast, and fun to use. Those are my criteria. I use a setup the includes Evernote, Gmail, Gcal, Anxiety and Jott. These tools allow me to capture any information, at any time, and retrieve the information quickly and easily.

Let’s take a look at how:

1. Evernote: This is a great app for storing just about any information you want. In fact, if you wanted to simplify your setup, you could almost just use Evernote to remember everything. It can hold notes, clip web pages, store photos and audio notes, and more. Really cool feature: snap a picture of something on your camera phone, and send it to Evernote … then Evernote will scan the image and you can search for words within the note. This makes sending yourself notes really easy — you can take pictures of business cards, menus, receipts, documents and more … and it’s automatically searchable. Evernote is available on PCs, Macs, on the web and on mobile devices such as Blackberries and the iPhone … and it syncs very easily across all these platforms, which makes it available from anywhere. Need to find a note while on the road? Just access Evernote with your mobile device and do a quick search. It really works well for just about everything.
2. Gmail: My favorite email app, Gmail uses archive and search (along with labels if you like) to quickly store and retrieve any information you need. I also send quick emails to Evernote from Gmail, allowing me to turn emails into notes that will be retrieved from anywhere. I also use a Firefox plugin to combine Gmail with Gcal (see below) so I can see emails and my calendar in one view.
3. Gcal: Also known as Google Calendar, Gcal is accessible from anywhere and just works really well. I set up reminders if I want to make sure to remember something, and it’ll send me an email or text message. Need to remember to follow up on something? Set a reminder in Gcal for one week from now. Get used to setting up reminders quickly in your calendar, and you won’t have to remember anything.
4. Anxiety: I actually play around with lots of to-do apps, but my current one is Anxiety. It’s very lightweight and very simple, and it sits right on my Mac. I don’t like to keep actions in my email program, so when I receive an email that requires an action, I just quickly add a to-do item to Anxiety (it just takes a quick keystroke to do that). There are lots of other great to-do apps that can be integrated with the other apps on this list, but I don’t need anything complicated — I like my apps to be light and fast.
5. Jott: This handy app ties everything together, and is very valuable for when you’re on the go. Just call Jott from your cell phone and leave a message, and it’ll be sent to your email … or to another service you specify. For example, I’ve set up Evernote as one of my Jott contacts, so that when I send a Jott message to Evernote, it’s automatically added to my Evernote database and is searchable later. I’ve also added Gcal so that I can easily set up appointments and reminders while on the road. Other to-do items go to Gmail, where I’ll process them later to add to my to-do app.

Finally, I use Quicksilver on the Mac to make everything faster. I can easily send an email from Gmail, add an appointment in Gcal, or send a note to Evernote, by using the fast keyboard magic of Quicksilver — with a few keystrokes, the information is entered and sent, with no mouse required, and no apps required to be opened.

4 Critical Habits

If you want a system to work, you’ve got to develop the habits to make it work. It’s that simple — without the habits, the system will fall apart — always. You’ve done it again and again, and so have I: set up a great system that works for a few days, maybe even a week. Then it slowly falls by the wayside.

Focus on developing these habits for one month. If you can do that, the habits should stick.

1. Make a note, immediately. This is perhaps the most important habit. If you can teach yourself to make a note of things right away, immediately, without putting it off, you’re halfway there. Someone give you some contact information? Make a note and save it, right now. Receive an email that requires an action? Put it on a to-do list, right now. Want to remember this website, or have a receipt you need to save? You get the picture. Don’t put it off.
2. Use your lists and tools, consistently. The next most important habit. A list, a calendar, a note-taking app … none of these are worth anything if you don’t use them on a consistent basis. For some of these tools, that means checking them daily. For others, it might be 2-3 times daily or even more often. Tie these actions to something already firmly established in your daily routine: for example, check your calendar and email list right when you get into work, check your email before you leave work, or check your notes right when you get back from lunch. Find what works for you, but you get the idea.
3. Make it quick and painless. If it’s difficult to add a note or save information, you’ll put it off sometimes. Same thing with retrieving the info — you don’t want to go digging through folders or waiting on a slow application to load just to get something. You want it fast and easy, or it won’t work.
4. Archive and search, don’t file. Along the lines of the above item, it’s better to use a quick search function than to have to remember where you saved something. If it takes too long to find, you will stop using your system. Archiving stuff (instead of filing into folders) and then searching work fastest — Gmail is one of the best examples of that in action.

Alternative Tools and Set-ups

The tools I use are just some of the great options available. See below for other apps I recommend.

Note-taking Tools

1. OneNote: This is the default note-taking tool for anyone who uses Microsoft Office, and it’s very powerful. Unfortunately for some of us, it only runs on Windows I believe.

2. Yojimbo: A Mac-only program, Yojimbo is beloved by its many users for its power, flexibility, and easy of use. It’s super fast to add things into Yojimbo, which is a great selling point.

3. Backpack and Packrat: One of the best of many web apps for collecting info, Backpack is versatile and easy to use. You can store notes, text, images, links and more … and send items via email and SMS text messages. It also has a calendar and reminders. For Mac OSX users, there’s also a desktop application, Packrat, that works well with Backpack for off-line needs.

4. Text files: The simplest method of all — and one that I’ve used with success. Create a series of text files for different needs, and copy and paste your notes into the appropriate text files. I have text files for ideas, to-do items, errands, notes and shopping lists. Small and fast. Works very quickly if you use a program such as Quicksilver for opening the appropriate text file or even adding text to the end of the file without having to open it.

Email Apps

1. Mail.app: Mac OSX users love their Mail.app, a program that comes with Macs and that has some very powerful filters for manipulating emails and to-do items. Can sync with different computers if you use Apple’s online service.Webmail: If you don’t like Gmail, there are many other types of webmail, including Yahoo or Hotmail. I just think Gmail’s the best.

2. Outlook: Of course, Outlook is the default mail program for PCs, and it’s actually a pretty good program for capturing most of your data, including calendar and to-do items, although I won’t list it in the categories below because it’s already listed here.

Calendars

1. iCal: Free, simple, but great calendar program for Mac users.

2. 30 Boxes: Good online program, but not as good as Google Calendar, in my opinion.

3. Sunbird: Open-source, cross-platform calendar app from Mozilla, the creator of Firefox.

To-do Apps

1. Things: Awesome Getting Things Done app for the Mac. Simple, easy to use.

2. Omnifocus: Another GTD program for the Mac, maybe the most powerful there is.

3. iGTD: Yet another great GTD program for the Mac. It’s hard to choose between these three.

4. RTM: Remember the Milk is probably the most popular online to-do app, and it’s extremely flexible — you can integrate it with Gmail, Twitter, Jott, text messages, email and more. Other good online to-do apps include Nozbe and Vitalist.

On-the-go Tools

1. Mobile devices: the iPhone, Blackberry and various PDAs are all good choices for capturing tasks and information on the go.

2. Pocket notebook: You can also go retro and use a small notebook (or index cards) for capturing data. I use a Moleskine pocket notebook. Enter the data into your computer when you get home.

###

This guest post was written by Leo Babauta.

===================================================

Source: http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2008/09/17/how-to-never-forget-anything-again/

Everybody Lies Differently

2009-12-09T00:04:00.000-08:00

Everybody Lies Differently
By Dan Hill, Ph.D.
Created Feb 13 2009 - 2:58pm

There is no one single lying muscle in people's faces. And that's probably a good thing. Otherwise, I'm afraid that many of us would want to pay a plastic surgeon a visit. After all, as the new Fox prime-time hit program Lie to Me proclaimed in its opening episode back in January, the average person, that's you and I alike, may lie as often as three times every 10 minutes.

Why is lying on my mind this week? Two words: Alex Rodriguez.

I was in Miami last Saturday evening when I returned to my hotel room to change for dinner. Suddenly, there as the top news story of the CBS Evening News was the report that A-Rod had tested positive for steroids during the 2003 baseball season - along with a video clip from the third baseman's interview with Katie Couric on 60 Minutes in 2007.

"I've never felt overmatched on the baseball field," A-Rod said, in response to Couric's question about whether the potential future Hall of Fame slugger had ever used performance-enhancing substances. Then he added, "I've always been (in) a very strong, dominant position...I didn't have a problem competing at any level. So, no."

But that was only the end of A-Rod's verbal response to the question. Immediately afterwards, he smirked - a sign of contempt, with the left corner of his mouth rising up and out, forming the kind of tight "pocket tornado" that portrays a lack of respect.

I'm a facial coder, just like the star of Lie of Me. And in fact the person who's the inspiration for Lie to Me, Dr. Paul Ekman, is the person I learned from in getting my start in this field. Now, reading the facial muscle activity of others to detect their emotions isn't an open and shut case. Ekman's system involves 23 different combinations of muscle movements that correspond, in turn, to seven core emotions that go across cultures. Most of the movements can fit more than one emotion.

But that's not true of smirks. They have a single meaning: contempt.

And the moment I saw A-Rod's smirk, I turned to my wife in the hotel room and said: "He's lying." To me, what A-Rod was showing was a dismissal - a distancing - of himself, emotionally, from his own answer. So it was no surprise to me when he confessed shortly thereafter to using steroids.

After all, I'd seen a similar sign of disbelief in one's own answer when Paris Hilton's upper lip had curled upwards in a sign of disgust when she dutifully told Larry King that, having gotten out of jail, she would now transform herself into a "good girl."

Contempt and disgust are, in emotional terms, like first cousins. Really, the primary difference is that contempt is a bit more contemplative, with a moral judgment aspect to it. Disgust is more visceral in its rejection of something or somebody.

Roger Clemens is also, I believe, lying about his record in regards to steroids use. Over time, the truth will come out. But if the truth is that, yes, he used steroids, I won't be surprised. For in Roger's case, the telltale sign I saw from the hurler's testimony before Congress and in the hallways of Congress is that when the question was specific enough, a ballplayer known for his fearlessness on the mound exhibited plenty of fear, with his lips pulling wide.

The reasons why people lie are as varied as the ways in which they betray their true feelings and the likely disconnect between words and emotions. Everyone likes differently. The motives for lying likewise vary. A-Rod and Clemens have all the money they need. So in their cases, we're on to something else: legacy. Both want to be remembered as great players, not as poor liars. In Emotionomics terms, it's hard to put too high of a price tag on pride.

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/3416

Body Language Myths

2009-12-09T00:02:00.000-08:00

Body Language Myths
By Joe Navarro, M.A.
Created Oct 25 2009 - 10:30am

The first myth claims that because we know so much about body language now, it is easy to spot a liar. The second myth, and it is exactly that, a myth, is that eye aversion is indicative of deception.

Beginning in the 1970's so called body language experts began to prattle that body language was the key to determining if someone was lying. Both law enforcement officers and the general public bought into this, and even today, with shows such as Fox Television's "Lie to Me" the myth continues.

In 1985, Paul Ekman and other researchers looked at this myth and found that most of us are no better than chance (50/50) at detecting deception, and very few of us rise above chance. What are often mistaken for signs of deception (nose touching, mouth covering, eye closing, high pitched voice, et. al.) are really pacifiers that help us to relieve stress. These pacifying behaviors are employed both by the guilty and innocent to relieve the stress of an interview. Ekman's work has been replicated many times over and it remains axiomatic, we humans are not very good at detecting deception, even experienced FBI agents such as myself.

The danger of this myth for society arises when poorly trained law enforcement officers perceive pacifying behavior or behaviors of discomfort, as I describe in "What Every Body is Saying," as lying. This often leads to more assertions that the interviewee is lying or more aggressive techniques which will surely increase pacifying behaviors and thus a vicious cycle ensues.

We now have enough DNA exonerations to show us that people under police questioning will confess and sign confessions to end the stress of the interview process, even when they did not commit the crime. In a majority of DNA exonerations, police officers relentlessly kept after the interviewee for hours at a time, contributing to stress and limbic arousal, which were perceived erroneously by those same officers as nonverbals associated with lying. The case of the Central Park Jogger is an example of what happens when police officers mistake nonverbals for signs of deception and relentlessly pursue a confession rather than the truth. In this case 5 young boys served up to 13 years. They were later released when it was determined conclusively someone else had committed the crime (corroborated by DNA and a verifiable confession).

There is a second concern associate with this and that is that juries believing the common myths about lying and deception, often associate (neck touching, hand wringing, facial touching) with deception. I have heard jurors, post trial, mention seeing various pacifying behaviors and equating them with lying. It has always made me wonder how many people in history have gone to prison, or worse were executed, because their bodies were simply transmitting, "I am nervous, I am stressed," but the jury or judge perceive it as deception.

The second nonverbal myth that still permeates has to do with eye avoidance. During conversations or during interviews, eye avoidance is erroneously associated by the general public with deception. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Noted researcher Aldert Vrij found and others have also verified; people who habitually lie, this includes your borderlines, histrionics, anti-socials, Machiavellian personalities, and your psychopaths, actually engage in greater eye contact. Why? Because they know that we look for this behavior and they want to make sure that you are buying their lie. A truthful person can wonder off with their eyes because there is no need to convince, only to convey.

Eye aversion is both personal and cultural. For instance, you may derive great personal comfort in recalling facts or an emotional experience by looking away from someone and focusing on something distant or looking down. The cultural aspect has to do with what we are often taught. For instance, in Latin America and among African Americans, it is instilled in children that when they are being castigated or dressed down by an authority figure they are to avoid looking at the higher authority in the eyes. This is how you show that you are contrite and humble.

This myth about eye avoidance persists and again has social as well legal implications. In social settings it is perceived as someone who is easily distracted or who has a lack of interest. In a legal setting I have seen police officers say to young African Americans, "look at me," when the young men were being contrite and humble. This lack of understanding and ignorance can have mild social effects but it can also escalate into uglier permutations where individuals are shunned or accused of something merely because they were exercising eye aversion.

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/34123

Unlocking the Mysteries of The Artistic Mind It might seem bizarre that science is using art to learn about the mind—looking for hard facts in the m

2009-12-07T21:08:00.000-08:00

Unlocking the Mysteries of The Artistic Mind

It might seem bizarre that science is using art to learn about the mind—looking for hard facts in the most ethereal of places. But great artists turn out to be the world's first neuroscientists.
By Jonah Lehrer, published on July 01, 2009 - last reviewed on August 10, 2009

Consider the flightless fluffs of brown otherwise known as herring gull chicks. Since they're entirely dependent on their mothers for food, they're born with a powerful instinct. Whenever they see a bird beak, they frantically peck at it, begging for their favorite food: a regurgitated meal.

But this reflex can be manipulated. Expose the chicks to a fake beak—say, a wooden stick with a red dot that looks like the one on the end of an adult herring gull's beak—and they peck vigorously at that, too. Should the chicks see a wood stick with three red dots, they peck even faster. Abstracting and exaggerating the salient characteristics of a mother gull's beak strengthens the response. The phenomenon is known as the "peak-shift effect," since a peak pecking response comes from a shifted stimulus. In it lies one of the core principles of visual art.

The Truth in the Lie

In 1906, Pablo Picasso was determined to reinvent the portrait and push the boundaries of realism, and one of his early subjects was Gertrude Stein. After months in his Paris studio, carefully reworking the paint on the canvas, Picasso still wasn't satisfied. He didn't finish the painting until after a trip to Spain.

What Picasso saw there that affected him so deeply has been debated—the ancient Iberian art, the weathered faces of Spanish peasants—but his style changed forever. When he returned to Paris, he gave Stein the head of a primitive mask. The perspective was flattened and her face became a series of dramatic angles. Picasso had intentionally misrepresented various aspects of her appearance, turning the portrait into an early work of cubist caricature.

Despite the artistic license, the painting is still recognizable as Stein. Picasso took her most distinctive features—those heavy, lidded eyes and long, aquiline nose—and exaggerated them. Through careful distortion, he found a way to intensify reality. As Picasso put it, "Art is the lie that reveals the truth."

What's surprising is that such distortions often make it easier for us to decipher what we're looking at, particularly when they're executed by a master. Studies show we're able to recognize visual parodies of people—like a cartoon portrait of Richard Nixon—faster than an actual photograph. The fusiform gyrus, an area of the brain involved in facial recognition, responds more eagerly to caricatures than to real faces, since the cartoons emphasize the very features that we use to distinguish one face from another. In other words, the abstractions are like a peak-shift effect, turning the work of art or the political cartoon into a "super-stimulus."

The sly connection between the instincts of baby gulls and abstract art is the work of V.S. Ramachandran, neuroscientist and director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at the University of California at San Diego. Ramachandran believes the peak-shift effect explains a wide variety of art, from abstract expressionist paintings to ancient religious sculptures like a 12th-century Indian sculpture of the goddess Parvathi with exaggerated feminine features. These creations are all examples of the "deliberate hyperbole" that defines the artistic process, says Ramachandran.

In this sense, the job of an artist is to take mundane forms of reality—whether a facial expression or a bowl of fruit—and make those forms irresistible to the human brain. As Ramachandran puts it, "If herring gulls had an art gallery, they would hang a long stick with three red strips on the wall; they would worship it, pay millions of dollars for it, call it a Picasso, but not understand why they are mesmerized by it. That's all any art lover is doing when buying contemporary art: behaving exactly like those gull chicks."

Ramachandran is a leader in neuroaesthetics, a new scientific field that uses the tools of modern neuroscience, like brain imaging, to unravel the mysteries of art. While much of this research focuses on modern art—it's easier to study visual "hyperbole" in a Picasso than a Vermeer—the scientists believe their findings apply to all artists, even so-called realists. "A Martian who came to earth would be very curious about why all these people go to museums and look at 2D representations," Ramachandran says. "Why does art work? That's the question we're trying to answer."

Reverse-Engineering the Mind

At first glance, the premise of neuroaesthetics seems bizarre: Scientists are using artists to learn about the mind. They're looking for objective facts in the most subjective of places, using paintings and sculptures as sources of experimental data. Sometimes, it seems as if the scientists are simply trying to catch up with insights long ago "discovered" by artists.

"The artist is, in a sense, a neuroscientist, exploring the potentials and capacities of the brain, though with different tools," observes Semir Zeki, a neurobiologist at University College London and director of the Institute of Neuroesthetics. Picasso had an intuitive understanding of the mechanics of vision—which he expressed in his paintings. Likewise, the power of a Rembrandt self-portrait is not an accident: The Old Masters knew how to captivate the eye and the mind, which is why we still gaze at their canvases in museums. Scientists can learn about the mind by reverse-engineering art.

But neuroaesthetics is also trying to bring precision to the study of art. Unlike traditional approaches, which treat the artwork as a product of historical and cultural forces, neuroaesthetics looks at art through the lens of neuroscience. Neuroaesthetics researchers want to decipher the power of a Picasso or a Rembrandt, to explain the sublime in terms of the visual cortex. All the adjectives we use to describe art—vague words like "beauty" and "elegance"—should, in theory, have neural correlates. According to these scientists, there is nothing inherently mysterious about art. Its visual tricks can be decoded. Neuroaestheticians hope to reveal "the universal laws" of painting and sculpture, to find the underlying principles shared by every great work of visual art.

Blame it all on an astonishing set of experiments conducted by David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel in the 1950s. Scientists long assumed the eye was like a camera, and that our visual reality was composed of dots of light, neatly arranged in time and space. Just as a photograph is made up of a quilt of pixels, so must our eyes create a two-dimensional representation of reflected light, which scientists thought was then seamlessly transmitted to the brain.

But Hubel and Wiesel demonstrated that the brain is much stranger than that. Instead of responding to pixels, cells in the visual cortex respond to straight lines and angles of light. The neurons prefer contrast over brightness, straight edges over curves; contrasts allow us to more efficiently pick out objects. Hubel and Wiesel became the first scientists to describe what reality looks like before it has been perceived, when our mind is still creating our sense of sight.

The findings wowed the scientific community and won Hubel and Wiesel the Nobel Prize. It turns out that the raw material of vision is incomprehensibly bizarre, that all of our visual perceptions begin as a jigsaw puzzle of lines, edges, and angles. The experimental results help explain the aesthetic appeal of abstract paintings.

Giving the Mind a Break

When Hubel and Wiesel were still in diapers, Dutch artist Piet Mondrian was painting works in an attempt to show, as he put it, that every visual form is ultimately reducible to "the plurality of straight lines in rectangular opposition." Hoping to reveal the "constant truths regarding forms," Mondrian turned his paintings into minimalist arrangements of rectangles and primary colors. As Zeki, author of Splendors and Miseries of the Brain, notes, the geometrical art of painters like Mondrian and Kazimir Malevich is remarkably similar to the geometry of lines sensed by the visual cortex—as if these painters broke apart the brain and saw how seeing itself occurs.

Mondrian wasn't consciously trying to imitate the receptive fields of our brain cells. He was just trying to create a visually arresting image. But it was precisely that aesthetic impulse, that desire to captivate the eye, that led Mondrian to create such neurologically "accurate" art.

We may enjoy such paintings because the mind is naturally drawn to the kind of visual stimuli that are easier for it to interpret, suggests Ramachandran. It prefers pictures that accommodate its peculiar way of seeing. "It may not be coincidental," write Ramachandran and philosopher William Hirstein, "that what the cells find interesting is also what the organism as a whole finds interesting. And perhaps, in some circumstances, 'interesting' translates into 'pleasing.'"

In other words, the strange beauty of a Mondrian is rooted in the strange habits of visual neurons, obsessed as they are with straight lines. Abstract art seems so bizarre—so unrepresentative of anything at all—but it takes advantage of the innate properties of the brain. The geometric brushstrokes are a nod to the quirks of our visual neurons, which prefer straight lines. As Zeki notes, "If cells in the brain did not respond to this kind of stimulus, then this kind of art would not exist."

Teasing the Brain's Limits

Artists have learned to exploit other features of the visual system, too. The brain is an evolved machine, subject to all sorts of biological constraints. All of our color perception, for example, is wrangled from the responses of three different photoreceptors in the eye. Great art manages to translate these "limitations" into riveting creations.

When Mark Rothko painted an entire canvas in three shades of maroon, or Josef Albers painted his intensely colorful Homage to the Square in five slightly different shades of yellow, these abstract artists were tickling the parts of our visual cortex concerned with the processing of color. The visual cortex excels at perceiving contrasts between different colors, such as blue and yellow, but these paintings deliberately avoided sharp contrasts of color. The result is that the subtly distinct shades seem to shimmer and shift before our very eyes. We are riveted by these stimuli we can't understand.

The strategy of taking advantage of the brain's imperfections isn't confined to modern art. Consider Leonardo da Vinci's portrait of the Mona Lisa, perhaps the most famous painting in the world. The smile is notoriously enigmatic, a precise summary of an ambiguous emotion. But what is it about those slyly upturned lips that make the portrait so intriguing?

Margaret Livingstone, a neuroscientist at Harvard and author of Vision and Art, argues that da Vinci exploits the peculiar structure of the retina. The facial expression of the Mona Lisa fluctuates depending on which part of our retina we are using to look at her mouth, she explains. When we first look at the painting, our eyes are automatically drawn to her eyes, which means our peripheral vision perceives her smile. This part of the retina naturally focuses on the shadows cast by her cheekbones, which serve to exaggerate the curvature of her lips. As a result, our peripheral vision concludes that the Mona Lisa is smiling. Livingstone demonstrated this by blurring the entire painting with Adobe Photoshop to replicate what we would see if we were relying solely on peripheral vision. The end result: a much happier Mona Lisa.

But when we focus on her mouth, the retina ignores the shadows—the blurriness disappears. Instead, we fixate on the lips of the Mona Lisa, which are virtually expressionless. All of a sudden, she is no longer happy: The painting has literally changed before our eyes. This ambiguity is intriguing, Livingstone argues, as we keep staring at the painting to figure out what she's actually feeling. "I do not mean to take away the mystery of Leonardo," Livingstone told the New York Times. "It took the rest of us 500 years to figure out what he was up to."

Bare Spots and the Peekaboo Principle

While much of neuroaesthetics focuses on the most elemental aspects of vision—the sensations detected by the retina and visual cortex—the field is also trying to explain art that engages higher levels of cognition. Look, for example, at a late Cézanne painting. As Cézanne aged, his landscapes became filled by more and more naked canvas. No one had ever done this before. The painting is clearly incomplete, complained critics; how could it be art? Cézanne was unfazed. He knew his paintings were only literally blank.

The incompleteness effect is most apparent in Cézanne's watercolors of Mont Sainte-Victoire and the surrounding Provencal landscape. In these pieces, Cézanne wanted to paint only the essential elements, the necessary skeleton of form. He summarized the river in the foreground as a single swerve of blue. The groves of chestnut trees are little more than dabs of dull green, interrupted occasionally by a subtle stroke of umber. And then there is the mountain. Cézanne often condensed the foreboding mass of Mont Sainte-Victoire into a thin line of dilute paint, just a jagged silhouette. The painting is defined by its voids.

And yet when you look at the painting, the mountain is there, an implacable presence. Our mind easily invents the form that Cézanne's paint barely insinuates. Although the mountain is literally invisible—Cézanne has only implied its presence—its looming gravity anchors the painting. The brain has seamlessly filled in the empty spaces of the canvas.

According to Ramachandran, "Mont Sainte-Victoire" is pleasurable precisely because it is so spare. Cézanne's blank spots force the brain to engage in perceptual problem-solving, as it struggles to find meaning in the brushstrokes. "A puzzle picture (or one in which meaning is implied rather than explicit) may paradoxically be more alluring than one in which the message is obvious," observe Ramachandran and Hirstein. "There appears to be an element of 'peekaboo' in some types of art—thereby ensuring that the visual system 'struggles' for a solution and does not give up too easily." In other words, the search for meaning is itself rewarding: The brain likes to solve problems. We actually enjoy looking for Cézanne's missing mountain.

The "peekaboo" principle explains why subtle erotica (a supermodel shrouded in lingerie) is not only more alluring than hardcore pornography but also has much in common with the fractured forms of cubism. Both compel the mind to assemble reality out of its shards. In both cases, the effectiveness of the pictures depends on their ability to inspire our imagination, to create a sensory problem that our brain wants to solve.

Unweaving the Rainbow

If Playboy and Picasso can be explained by the same principle, is neuroaesthetics really dealing with art? Or is it just revealing the perceptual machinery activated by any complex visual stimulus? After all, it's easy to make the mind engage in problem-solving: Just look at the haphazard lines drawn by a 3-year-old. Are they equivalent to a Cézanne watercolor?

Attempts to define art are nothing new. But Ramachandran is seeking to define it from the perspective of the brain, and he's in the midst of a brain-imaging experiment he believes will help. Subjects lie in an fMRI machine and view examples of kitsch—art objects ridiculed for their shallowness or sentimentality—as well as fine art, like the canvases that hang in museums. A Christmas lawn ornament of Santa Claus might be juxtaposed with a Michelangelo sculpture; an image from a Hallmark card might be compared to a Rembrandt painting. By measuring brain activity, Ramachandran hopes to find out why visual stimuli that seem so superficially similar can generate such different aesthetic reactions.

"The interesting thing about kitsch is that it often looks like art," explains Ramachandran. "But it's not art, because it doesn't trigger the same intensity of feeling." He suggests that while kitsch often relies on the same tricks as great art—universal principles such as the peak-shift effect and the peekaboo principle—these tricks aren't as well executed. "Anybody can learn these visual rules," he says. "But you still need talent and training in order to turn them into fine art."

There will always be something mysterious about the visceral power of a Picasso or the perplexing smile of the Mona Lisa—but that doesn't mean the mystery can't be probed. By articulating the universals of painting and sculpture, the neuroaestheticians allow us to better understand what transforms a mass of brushstrokes into a masterpiece.

And if the brain scanner can't detect any reliable differences between kitsch and art, well, sometimes the failed experiments are the most instructive. It's possible, after all, that art has no universal definition: Perhaps each work of art activates the brain in its own peculiar way. Perhaps there is no lowest common denominator of aesthetic experience that can be detected in an fMRI machine.

The poet John Keats worried that Newton's investigations into color had "unwoven the rainbow," that scientist had destroyed the beauty of light by investigating it. But beauty is not so fragile. Neuroaesthetics doesn't diminish the impact of art or puncture the power of the imagination. Instead, it leaves us with an even more profound appreciation for the intuitive wisdom of great artists. These are the geniuses who captivate us with nothing but a flat surface and some pigment.

"I've always loved art, but now I'm in awe of it," Ramachandran says. "These guys understood the mind in a very deep way. All I'm trying to do is figure out what artists figured out a long time ago."

This is Your Brain on Picasso

10 Perceptual Principles of Great Art

PEAK SHIFT: We find deliberate distortions of a stimulus even more exciting than the stimulus itself—which is why cartoon caricatures grab our attention.

GROUPING: It feels nice when the distinct parts of a picture can be grouped into a pattern or form. The brain likes to find the signal amid the noise.

BALANCE: Successful art makes use of its entire representational space, and spreads its information across the entire canvas.

CONTRAST: Because of how the visual cortex works, it's particularly pleasing for the brain to gaze at images rich in contrast, like thick black outlines or sharp angles—or, as in the geometric art of Mondrian, both at once.

ISOLATION: Sometimes less is more. By reducing reality to its most essential features—think a Matisse that's all bright color and sharp silhouettes—artists amplify the sensory signals we normally have to search for.

PERCEPTUAL PROBLEM SOLVING: Just as we love solving crossword puzzles, we love to "solve" abstract paintings such as cubist still lifes or Cézanne landscapes.

SYMMETRY: Symmetrical things, from human faces to Roman arches, are more attractive than asymmetrical ones.

REPETITION, RHYTHM, ORDERLINESS: Beauty is inseparable from the appearance of order. Consider the garden paintings of Monet. Pictures filled with patterns, be it subtle color repetitions or formal rhythms, appear more elegant and composed.

GENERIC PERSPECTIVE: We prefer things that can be observed from multiple viewpoints, such as still lifes and pastoral landscapes, to the fragmentary perspective of a single person. They contain more information, making it easier for the brain to deduce what's going on.

METAPHOR: Metaphor encourages us to see the world in a new way: Two unrelated objects are directly compared, giving birth to a new idea. Picasso did this all the time—he portrayed the bombing of Guernica, for example, with the imagery of a bull, a horse, and a lightbulb.

SOURCE: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200907/unlocking-the-mysteries-the-artistic-mind

Carrots, Eggs, or Coffee

2009-11-20T07:18:00.000-08:00

A young woman went to her grandmother and told her about her life and how things were so hard for her. She did not know how she was going to make it and wanted to give up. She was tired of fighting and struggling. It seemed as one problem was solved, a new one would pop up.

Her grandmother took her to the kitchen. She filled three pots with water and placed each on a high fire, and soon the pots came to boil. In the first pot she placed carrots, in the second she placed eggs, and in the last she placed ground coffee beans. She let them sit and boil; without saying a word. In about twenty minutes she turned off the burners. She fished the carrots out and placed them in a bowl. She pulled the eggs out and placed them in a bowl. Then she ladled the coffee out and placed it in a bowl.

Turning to her granddaughter, she asked, "Tell me what you see."

"Carrots, eggs, and coffee," she replied. Her grandmother brought her closer and asked her to feel the carrots. She did and noted that they were soft. The grandmother then asked the granddaughter to take an egg and break it. After pulling off the shell, she observed the hard boiled egg. Finally, the grandmother asked the granddaughter to sip the coffee. The granddaughter smiled as she tasted its rich aroma then asked,

"What does it mean, grandmother?"

Her grandmother explained that each of these objects had faced the same adversity: boiling water. Each reacted differently. The carrot went in strong, hard, and unrelenting. However, after being subjected to the boiling water, it softened and became weak. The egg had been fragile. Its thin outer shell had protected its liquid interior, but after sitting through the boiling water, its inside became hardened. The ground coffee beans were unique, however. After they were in the boiling water, they had changed the water.

"Which are you?" she asked her granddaughter.

Thought

2009-07-24T01:29:00.000-07:00

Thought

Thought and thinking are mental forms and processes, respectively ("thought" is both). Thinking allows beings to model the world and to deal with it according to their objectives, plans, ends and desires. Words referring to similar concepts and processes include cognition, sentience, consciousness, idea, and imagination.

Definition

Representative reactions towards stimuli from internal chemical reactions or external environmental factors. The word comes from Old English . þoht, geþoht, from stem of þencan "to conceive of in the mind, consider".

In common language, the word thinking covers numerous diverse psychological activities. It is sometimes a synonym for “tending to believe,” especially with less than full confidence (“I think that it will rain, but I am not sure”). At other times it denotes the degree of attentiveness (“I did it without thinking”) or whatever is in consciousness, especially if it refers to something outside the immediate environment (“It made me think of my grandmother”).

Biology

A neuron also known as a neurone or nerve cell) is an excitable cell in the nervous system that processes and transmits information by electrochemical signalling. Neurons are the core components of the brain, the vertebrate spinal cord, the invertebrate ventral nerve cord, and the peripheral nerves. A number of specialized types of neurons exist: sensory neurons respond to touch, sound, light and numerous other stimuli affecting cells of the sensory organs that then send signals to the spinal cord and brain.

Motor neurons receive signals from the brain and spinal cord and cause muscle contractions and affect glands. Interneurons connect neurons to other neurons within the brain and spinal cord. Neurons respond to stimuli, and communicate the presence of stimuli to the central nervous system, which processes that information and sends responses to other parts of the body for action. Neurons do not go through mitosis, and usually cannot be replaced after being destroyed, although astrocytes have been observed to turn into neurons as they are sometimes pluripotent.

Psychology

Psychologists have concentrated on thinking as an intellectual exertion aimed at finding an answer to a question or the solution of a practical problem.

Cognitive psychology is a branch of psychology that investigates internal mental processes such as problem solving, memory, and language.

The school of thought arising from this approach is known as cognitivism which is interested in how people mentally represent information processing. It had its foundations in the Gestalt psychology of Max Wertheimer, Wolfgang Köhler, and Kurt Koffka , and in the work of Jean Piaget, who provided a theory of stages/phases that describe children's cognitive development. Cognitive psychologists use psychophysical and experimental approaches to understand, diagnose, and solve problems, concerning themselves with the mental processes which mediate between stimulus and response.

Cognitive theory contends that solutions to problems take the form of algorithms—rules that are not necessarily understood but promise a solution, or heuristics—rules that are understood but that do not always guarantee solutions. Cognitive science differs from cognitive psychology in that algorithms that are intended to simulate human behavior are implemented or implementable on a computer. In other instances, solutions may be found through insight, a sudden awareness of relationships.

Id, ego, and super-ego are the three parts of the "psychic apparatus" defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction mental life is described. According to this model, the uncoordinated instinctual trends are the "id"; the organized realistic part of the psyche is the "ego," and the critical and moralizing function the "super-ego."

The unconscious was considered by Freud throughout the evolution of his psychoanalytic theory a sentient force of will influenced by human desire and yet operating well below the perceptual conscious mind. For Freud, the unconscious is the storehouse of instinctual desires, needs, and psychic drives. While past thoughts and reminiscences may be concealed from immediate consciousness, they direct the thoughts and feelings of the individual from the realm of the unconscious.

For psychoanalysis, the unconscious does not include all that is not conscious, rather only what is actively repressed from conscious thought or what the person is averse to knowing consciously. In a sense this view places the self in relationship to their unconscious as an adversary, warring with itself to keep what is unconscious hidden.

If a person feels pain, all he can think of is alleviating the pain. Any of his desires, to get rid of pain or enjoy something, command the mind what to do. For Freud, the unconscious was a repository for socially unacceptable ideas, wishes or desires, traumatic memories, and painful emotions put out of mind by the mechanism of psychological repression. However, the contents did not necessarily have to be solely negative. In the psychoanalytic view, the unconscious is a force that can only be recognized by its effects — it expresses itself in the symptom.

Sociology

Social psychology is the study of how people and groups interact. Scholars in this interdisciplinary area are typically either psychologists or sociologists, though all social psychologists employ both the individual and the group as their units of analysis.

Despite their similarity, psychological and sociological researchers tend to differ in their goals, approaches, methods, and terminology. They also favor separate academic journals and professional societies. The greatest period of collaboration between sociologists and psychologists was during the years immediately following World War II.

Although there has been increasing isolation and specialization in recent years, some degree of overlap and influence remains between the two disciplines.

The Collective unconscious, sometimes known as collective subconscious, is a term of analytical psychology, coined by Carl Jung. It is a part of the unconscious mind, shared by a society, a people, or all humanity, in a interconnected system that is the product of all common experiences and contains such concepts as science, religion, and morality. While Freud did not distinguish between an "individual psychology" and a "collective psychology", Jung distinguished the collective unconscious from the personal subconscious particular to each human being. The collective unconscious is also known as "a reservoir of the experiences of our species."

In the "Definitions" chapter of Jung's seminal work Psychological Types, under the definition of "collective" Jung references representations collectives, a term coined by Levy-Bruhl in his 1910 book How Natives Think. Jung says this is what he describes as the collective unconscious. Freud, on the other hand, did not accept the idea of a collective unconscious.

Philosophy

Philosophy of mind is a branch of modern analytic philosophy that studies the nature of the mind, mental events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness and their relationship to the physical body, particularly the brain. The mind-body problem, i.e. the relationship of the mind to the body, is commonly seen as the central issue in philosophy of mind, although there are other issues concerning the nature of the mind that do not involve its relation to the physical body.

The mind-body problem

The mind-body problem concerns the explanation of the relationship that exists between minds, or mental processes, and bodily states or processes.The main aim of philosophers working in this area is to determine the nature of the mind and mental states/processes, and how—or even if—minds are affected by and can affect the body.

Our perceptual experiences depend on stimuli which arrive at our various sensory organs from the external world and these stimuli cause changes in our mental states, ultimately causing us to feel a sensation, which may be pleasant or unpleasant. Someone's desire for a slice of pizza, for example, will tend to cause that person to move his or her body in a specific manner and in a specific direction to obtain what he or she wants.

The question, then, is how it can be possible for conscious experiences to arise out of a lump of gray matter endowed with nothing but electrochemical properties. A related problem is to explain how someone's propositional attitudes (e.g. beliefs and desires) can cause that individual's neurons to fire and his muscles to contract in exactly the correct manner. These comprise some of the puzzles that have confronted epistemologists and philosophers of mind from at least the time of René Descartes.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought

Solar eclipse of July 22, 2009

2009-07-21T07:20:00.000-07:00

Type of eclipse
Solar eclipse of July 22, 2009
Solar eclipse of July 22, 2009
Gamma	0.0696
Magnitude	1.0799
Saros	136 (37 of 71)
Maximum eclipse
Duration	398 s (6 min 38.8 s)
Location	Pacific Ocean
Coordinates	22°27′08″N 090°28′04″E
Max. width of band	258.4 km
Times (UTC)
Partial eclipse	23:58:18 (Jul 21)
Total eclipse	00:51:16
Central eclipse	00:54:31
Greatest eclipse	02:35:21

The solar eclipse that will take place on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 will be a total eclipse of the Sun. It will be the longest total solar eclipse of the 21st century, lasting at most 6 minutes, 39 seconds. It has sparked tourist interest in eastern China and India.

The eclipse is part of series 136 in the Saros cycle, like the record setting Solar eclipse of July 11, 1991. The exceptional duration is a result of the moon being near perigee, with the diameter of the moon 8% larger than the sun (magnitude 1.080). This is second in the series of three eclipses in a month. There was a lunar eclipse on July 7 and now a solar eclipse on July 22 and then a lunar eclipse on August 6.

Visibility

It will be visible from a narrow corridor through northern Maldives, northern India, eastern Nepal, northern Bangladesh, Bhutan, the northern tip of Myanmar, central China and the Pacific Ocean, including the Ryukyu Islands, Marshall Islands and Kiribati.

Totality will be visible in many large cities, including Surat, Vadodara, Bhopal, Varanasi, Patna, Dinajpur, Guwahati, Chengdu, Nanchong, Chongqing, Yichang, Jingzhou, Wuhan, Huanggang, Hefei, Hangzhou, Wuxi, Huzhou, Suzhou, Jiaxing, Ningbo and Shanghai, as well as over the Three Gorges Dam. According to some experts, Taregana in Bihar is the "best" place to view the event.

A partial eclipse will be seen from the much broader path of the Moon's penumbra, including most of Southeast Asia (all of India and China) and north-eastern Oceania.

Duration

This solar eclipse is the longest total solar eclipse that will occur in the twenty-first century, and will not be surpassed in duration until June 13, 2132. Totality will last for up to 6 minutes and 39 seconds, with the maximum eclipse occurring in the ocean at 02:35:21 UTC about 100 km south of the Bonin Islands, southeast of Japan. The uninhabited North Iwo Jima island is the landmass with totality time closest to maximum, while the closest inhabited point is Akusekijima, where the eclipse will last 6 minutes and 25 seconds.

Earthquake prediction

According to majority of scientists earthquakes are not caused by the moon or any event such as this, no matter how long the eclipse lasts or how significant it is from other eclipses. The moon's gravitational pull is only known to cause tides. In this instance also there is a high probability for a mild change in ocean tides during the eclipse which should not be mistaken for a Tsunami.

However, there has been an unendorsed earthquake prediction by a software developer who specializes in Computer Game physics and has posted an article on a blog post. His statement is based on an existing theory by James O. Berkland originally posted on National Geographic. According to this speculation, the combined gravitational pull of sun and moon during the long total eclipse will cause a undersea tectonic uplift in south of Japan resulting a major tsunami.

However, the author states that this is only a hypothesis and acknowledges that he is not qualified to make a formal prediction. The news is swiftly gaining attention worldwide as an electronic chain letter. Mainstream scientists and media have already rejected this hypothesis stating that there is no credible evidence to prove any correlation between solar eclipses and earthquakes.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_July_22,_2009

The Stop Gap Lover

2009-07-21T00:26:00.000-07:00

“Every single woman has at least three boyfriends – one for each key feminine desire.”

- Xenocrates

Gentlemen, does your girlfriend have a habit of discussing your relationship problems with other dudes? What about girls who insist on having a gay friend? Have you ever noticed your girlfriend or wife spending hours on the phone with some bloke you know she would never sleep with, but it perplexes you anyway? Have you ever noticed that your girlfriend keep a scrawny or overweight, unattractive geek around who always tries to play hero when you exercise your God-given rights to act like a jerk when the game is on or when your boys come over?

Ladies, have you ever wondered why some guys never introduce you to their friends? Have you ever wondered why he only comes over for sex, tv and gifts, but never invites you out to party with him, has never asked you out on a “real” date, or is not interested in meeting your family or friends? What about guys who are always “hiding” when they’re having sexual relations with you? What about those guys who never call after you’ve borne your soul out to them telling them how you feel or after you’ve given them the best sex ever? Do you ever wonder why you’ve had so many great flings, but no real relationships? Are you tired of being some guys’ secret lover?

If you have had any of these concerns, then read on. Herein lies an eye opener for all of you. This article will explain everything.

The Boyfriend Deficit Problem

A woman finds out that there's no such thing as a "prince charming".

Before we can get to the meat of the matter, we need to understand some basic psychological ground rules with respect to women. Sometime ago I discussed the concept of the female edifice. In a nutshell it’s the relational expectation that every woman has of men. She learns this from seeing daddy interact with mommy (or the next best thing on TV dramas). This is where little girls see (for the first time) how great a good man can really be. This is to become the precursor for what every little girl hopes to find in her lover. From here, every woman develops a “shopping list” of all the qualities her perfect mate should have. We shall call this perfect mate “prince charming“.

Now, every woman grows up with this dreamy, prince charming ideal of an all-inclusive übermann; an expectation of guys she will eventually become sexually attracted to. This is what we call the “female edifice”. Because of the female edifice, young girls super-impose their fathers onto their boyfriends. The problem is that her boyfriend is younger than her daddy, and thus will not be as psychologically mature. As such, these men will only have one or two of the many characteristics of a woman’s “prince charming”. Because of this deficit, she will try and ‘fulfill’ those other qualities in other men. This is what leads to the 80/20 rule of marriage.

MISMATCHES

As I said before, every woman has a shopping list of the qualities that make up her ideal prince charming. However, as she gets older, she starts to realise that her shopping list has mismatches on it. For example – every young girl wants a man who is kind, caring, affectionate but not gay. She also wants a man who is, muscular, handy around the house and smart. She also tends to want a man who is strong, assertive, bold and tender in bed. I’m pretty sure most of you guys are laughing hysterically at this point – and you should be for very obvious reasons:

Each of the pair qualities I just mentioned are mismatches. This means that the qualities mentioned in each pair are diametrically opposed to each other. No man exists on the planet that possesses all of these qualities – at least notboth qualities from each pair. It’s either one or the other from each pair. Genetics and environmental conditioning prevent any male from possessing both qualities in each pair. This is nature’s way of ensuring that there is variety in the gene stock by preventing any particular male gene sequence from having a clear and obvious advantage over the others.

VARIETY; THE SPICE OF LIFE – LITERALLY

Variety is good for genetics because it increases the chances of survival of the species as a whole by reducing the probability of recurring bad genes in a particular male’s DNA sequence. When there isn’t enough variety in the gene stock (as would be the case if prince charming was consistently an actual real person), the sequence of bad genes will continue to propagate themselves until it maximizes the probability of passing on a hereditary disease to offspring (such as retardation in worst case scenarios, or unusual ugliness as is the case in many European monarchies where the family condones marriage to cousins).

Concordantly, this is why it is a good thing that “prince charming” does not exist. Any man who is perceived to be perfectly ideal for any woman probably shares too many of her genes and will probably sire a retard. That’s why opposites attract and ultimately work out for the best. That reminds me of a story I read some years ago about a woman who fell in love with a real life prince charming who turned out to be her fraternal twin separated at birth. So again, I cannot stress how important it is that prince charming does not andshould not exist.

THE 80/20 RULE

Women usually come to the awareness that prince charming (like Santa Claus) isn’t real when they hit true cognitive maturity by their late 20’s. When maturity finally sets in, women start to finally realize that they can’t have their cake and eat it too. So what do they do? They switch their man finding strategy. They decide to go for a “best fit” instead of a “best man”; even though sometimes the best man is quite literally the best man at her wedding – but that’s outside the scope of this article. The best fit strategy forces her to prioritize among her shopping list items by asking herself a series of hard questions:

What must I have in the ideal mate?
What can I absolutely not stand in any mate?
What are the most important characteristics that an ideal mate musthave in common with me?
What characteristics are “nice to haves” but not necessarily “happy makers“?

When a woman filters her shopping list using these questions, she will end up with a set of characteristics that are more likely to occur in a man. These characteristics usually make up about 80% of her total shopping list. The other 20% consist of mostly “nice to haves”, but non-functional requirements (meaning they won’t necessarily make her any happier). This is where the 80/20 rule gets its name. Once she finds a guy that fulfills 80% of the requirements on her shopping list, he becomes fit for boyfriend material and is classified as a “best fit”.

A “Best fit” doesn’t necessarily have to be 80% of her entire shopping list. He could just be a dude that fulfills all of her “must haves” but not necessarily her “can’t stands“. Or, he could fulfill all of her “must have in commons” but not all of her “must haves“. In this case, a woman can be using a weighted shopping list. So if her must haves are fewer than her “can’t stands”, a dude can still score 80% if he fills out the requirements she deems most important. Either way, once the tally hits 80%, he’s good to go. However, it doesn’t end here. Even with 80%, he’s not necessarily in the all clear.

Follow me so far? Good, let’s continue:

A woman has needs

Exercising her right to choose

Any male who has ever had to deal with women knows that because of their inherently fickle nature, they are nevertruly satisfied at all times – even when married. In fact, there’s a joke about women scaling an escalator in a building to find men of varying qualities on each floor. The rule is that they can either choose to keep the man on the floor they stopped at and not continue any further, or permanently trade him up for the man on the next floor above. As the women scale the building, they find that on each higher level floor, there’s a man with a better quality than the one on the floor below. As soon as they’ve discovered this pattern, they decide to keep scaling the building all the way to the top floor. On the top floor, they find a man who has none of the qualities of the guys from the previous floors. In fact, he is the worst pick of them all – but because of the rule, they have to pick this guy.

Why are women like this? The answer is simple:

Even though a woman is forced to find a male partner using the 80/20 principle, having a best fit doesn’t guarantee loyalty. What it guarantees is atime-share of her total affection. You may fulfill 80% of her desires – but in the back of her mind, she’s still looking for a guy (or guys) to fulfill the other 20%. The question is, which guy are you? Are you the dude she’s sleeping with? That may mean that you’re the 80% guy – but not necessarily. It could also mean that she’s just using you for the sex, in which case you’re probably the 20% guy (or the bootycall guy – yes, women do it too). Gentlemen, know this: Every woman has at least 3 boyfriends – one for each key feminine desire:

Mr. Sex me
Mr. Love me
Mr. Provide for me

Now I know what you’re thinking; #1 and #2 are the same – right? WRONG! A woman uses both sides of her brain when it comes to sex. Men only use one side (hence why you thought as you did). When it comes to sex, a woman treats sexual intercourse and emotional love as two very separate things. Let’s delve into these in more detail:

MR. SEX ME

Mr. Sex Me is effortlessly attractive - the alpha male.

Mr. Sex me is ideally an übermann – a guy whose sex appeal doesn’t have to be demonstrated. Mr. Sex me is the dude who she finds so sexy that she would loose the panties for him in a heartbeat. This dude represents masculinity in its purest form – a raw concoction of either man meat, brains, brawn, male pheromones or some combination of all of these qualities. He is the man who’s sex appeal is so potent, that just doing normal, trivial, mundane, everyday activities is enough to get a woman sexually aroused. He doesn’t have to work hard to get a woman’s attention – and even those women who try playing hard to get find him frustratingly irresistible.

It should be fair to mention that the personality of these dudes is often immaterial to the quantity of women they will potentially lay before they’re 21. Needless to say, this guy often by right of genetic superiority will assume leadership as Alpha Male of any hunting pack. Mr. Sex me doesn’t have to be the most physically attractive guy in the lot. He just has to have all of the right combination of qualities that would make a woman ogle at him outside a hotel window or do a double take when he passes by.

MR. LOVE ME

Mr. Love Me is the local nice guy who is every girl's best friend.

Mr. Love me is the dude in whom she will satiate her emotional, social and cognitive needs. Now it’s important to note at this stage that Mr. Love me is a very important guy. If a woman doesn’t find Mr. Love Me in her boyfriend, she seeks alternatives. The preferred choice of many women these days is gay male friends. Gay men provide women with all the desires of a male in whom she can confide like a boy friend, without having to worry about him falling for her. A woman’s gay male friend is a cheap, inexpensive, replaceable boyfriend with a non-threatening penis – pretty like much a masculine girlfriend.

Mr. Love Me is also that scrawny or overweight geek who loves to come to her rescue when you act like a jerk on Superbowl Sunday. She would never sleep with him but she keeps him around for all the same reasons she would keep a gay male friend. Even though these guys are straight, their lack of potent masculinity renders them obscure to her as a potential sexual partner – unless they can prove otherwise. However, because these guys (like most stop gap lovers) enjoy being in second place, they will continue to suffer in the friend zone in vacuous obscurity.

Now while Mr. Sex Me gets first dibs on all female conquests, he should not be confused with Mr. Love Me. They are often two very separate individuals. If a woman finds both qualities in the same man, then based on the 80/20 rule, she will marry this dude – but that is rare. But know this: if your girlfriend will sleep with you in a heartbeat, but cries on some other dude’s shoulders (like that scrawny or overweight geek I mentioned earlier), then you are Mr. Sex me. The other dude is her “Mr. Love me”. Mr. Love Me can become Mr. Sex me – but that is also rare. You’d have to mess up really, really bad – pull every jerk move in the book before you loose your status. Sex appeal trumps everything.

MR. PROVIDE FOR ME

Mr Provide for me scores by being very handy. He's gonna get some.

“Mr. Provide for me” is usually just a peripheral friend – a platonic male companion that she usually hangs with when Mr. Sex me is not around and when she doesn’t need a shoulder to cry on. Mr. Provide for me is the dude who can fix her computer, install her HD Tv, fix her plumbing, fix her car, change her tires and answer all of the technical questions in life that a girl shouldn’t have to care about. “Mr. Provide for me” can also be Mr. Sex Me – in fact they are rarely separate people. However, in corporate societies, there is a growing disparity between really educated men who are attractive enough to become “Mr. Sex Me”, who are simultaneously useless at home as handy men. If this is the case, then a separate “Mr. Provide for me” will be in short order and have a potential shot at the love box.

Mr. Provide for me is also the dude who Mr. Sex Me authorises to go out to the movies with her when he has to work late. The interesting thing is that Mr. Provide for me has a much better chance of being promoted to “Mr. Sex Me” than Mr. Love Me, because quantitatively, he literally does more for her than just be her Mr. Fix-it guy. He may end up spending more in person time with her than the other two combined. That’s why, if Mr. Sex Me were to be out of town and Mr. Love Me was tripping because he wasn’t getting any, even if Mr. Provide for me had the smallest cock in the world, he will become prime real estate if her other options have become exhausted. Hence the topic of this post:

The Stop Gap Lover

"Girl, you would not believe who I just slept with!"

A stop gap lover is someone who is temporarily contracted to fulfill a particular desire while the substantive designee for that desire is unavailable for whatever reason. He or she is usually a platonic friend who is not too far down on the ladder of desire for an individual – a “plan B” person if you will. People who are stop gap lovers don’t usually know when they are playing the role of a stop gap lover. This is because the person using them often employs deception and subterfuge – usually granting said lover false hope.

This is why so many unattractive dudes like to play “Mr. Fix it” for a woman they know they could never possibly score with. This is also why so many women gladly play “Ms. Bootycall” for a guy who would never introduce her to his friends. The stop gap lover usually has such a low self esteem, that they have somehow deceived themselves that they don’t deserve any better than this. They may also just be an opportunistic savant who is out to squeeze their genitals into any available crack in someone else’s love nest.

It should be reasonable to note that at this stage that people who fall into the “plan B” sphere of things may or may not appreciate playing second fiddle to someone else’s emotional or sexual desires. That really is determined by the person’s self worth. Some people enjoy being in second place. From an advantageous point of view, it’s inconspicuous, and they are not required to spend any money or have any emotional strings attached after sex. This holds true for both men and women – although the emotional impact is usually more detrimental for women. Needless to say, stop gap lovers differ for men and women. Let’s examine each:

FOR MEN

A stop gap lover swoops in to fill the void of an upset boyfriend.

Playing “Mr. Sex me” for some girl while her boyfriend is tripping balls is very desirable for most men – particularly man-whores who only see women as pieces of meat or trophies to be conquered. Many men like bragging to their friends saying “I hit that” in reference to an impossibly hot, high profile woman who walks by. It’s a major ego booster that earns the respect of his adoring male companions. This usually determines the bragger as the Alpha Male of that hunting party.

Alpha Male status is useful for scoring a lot of tail. This is because many women desire men who other women desire – a propensity that harkens back to the caveman instinct which was useful for preventing the human race from going extinct. However, even Alpha Males can fall in love. When they do, they tend to work hard at shedding that designation as they could in turn become a stop gap lover for a woman who doesn’t reciprocate the same feelings. (We’ll explore the female equivalent of this scenario in a bit).

On the other hand, a man who genuinely loves a woman may want more than just sex. If he is smart enough to determine that the woman he’s having sex with only wants him for that much, he may quickly loose interest, and chase after a woman who fulfills that desire in him. However, as this process is never usually smooth, most men tend to keep that bootycall girl on speed dial until he has sealed the deal with Mrs. Right. The bootycall girl is his stop gap lover who exists merely to provide him with his recurring need for sex until Mrs. Right feels she’s ready to spread her legs for him. Once she does, Ms. Bootycall won’t get as many rings from him – unless Mrs. Right starts tripping or when he has a dry spell (like when Mrs. Right goes away on a long trip – or when they decide to take a break from the relationship for whatever reason).

Even when the deal is sealed, men tend have a simple rule about stop gap lovers: “Always have a plan B”. So while the girlfriend is allowed to get upset or have serious emotional relationship issues, even if a man’s stop gap lover decides to act up, he will never, ever say or do anything to turn her away or otherwise endanger that relationship – no matter how shallow. He will need to summon her when he hits a dry spell. Dry spells are undesireable for guys – so they always keep a stop gap lover around as a “plan B”.

A man’s stop gap lover is usually a woman who is always horny and who loves sex so much that she’d sleep with almost anybody with a remotely conspicuous penis. This is precisely the reason why she is never introduced to his friends (even if she’s a very attractive woman) – because she has probably slept with them too. No guy is stupid enough to introduce the village whore to his hunting posse as his girlfriend. That’d be like a hunter bragging to his comrades about a fish he shot in a barrel. There’s no prestige in an easy catch and no glory in an effortless win.

Ofcourse, there are two sides to every story. Let’s examine this from the woman’s point of view:

FOR WOMEN

Ms. Bootycall vs. Mrs. Right

Playing “Ms. Bootycall” for some guy while his girlfriend (who is his “Mrs. Right”) is tripping tits is very suitable for many women – especially those who get horny even at the sight of something as mundane as cornflakes. Also, some women like to have the bragging rights of overiding the sexual right of way of a powerful man’s wife. It’s a major ego boost that adds volumes to a woman’s self esteem. It gives her the ego unscrupulous audacity of looking at a man’s obnoxious wife at a social event and smiling to herself while thinking – “…I nailed your man, bitch“.

As ridiculous as it sounds, there are many women out there who have just as powerful a sexual urge as the average man. They suffer from the character flaw of having an insatiable desire to be sexually desired and needed by allmen. They like the feeling of being able to conquor any man – especially married ones. They’re the ones that show up at social events looking hotter than a Lambourghini with a vagina. They love taking home a guy they just met. To say that they LOVE sex would be a gross understatement of Biblical proportions. They like to get boned so hard that their brains seep through their ears and nose. If they could sleep with an entire football team or every hot guy in their company’s board of directors, they would.

Like their Alpha Male counterparts, they like to brag to their friends about the knobs of corporate CEO’s, politicians and famous sports personalities that they’ve polished. If these girls are particularly attractive, they are often only scored by high profile men and dudes you read about in magazines. They’re usually the 30 something corporate cosmopolitan women who have either just gone through a divorce or are still single and loving it. They’re the women who live the true “liberated feminine” life who believe that they are only using men to fulfill their sexual whims. They are clearly mistaken.

Concordantly, this is why they never give thought to falling in love – as every woman inevitably does at least once in her entire life. So when they do, that’s when the faeces and the fan become intimately acquainted with each other – because these women only attract men who want to use them as stop gap lovers (simply because they’re easy to get). This is when they find themselves in a true quandary as their natural feminine instinct goes to war with her new found feelings of true love. Her dilemma is as follows:

I’m used to getting any man I want – so do I ignore my feelings and find another who will give me what I need?
OR do I wait around and see if he comes to his senses and loves me?

Women in this position are worse off than their Alpha Male counterparts, since men can switch off their emotional right brain whenever they want (thus eliminating this dilemma altogether). Women on the other hand cannot. So here we have a powerful, super hot woman who is so used picking the men that she wants that she becomes frustrated when the man she finally falls in love with does not reciprocate. He doesn’t invite her out on dates, he doesn’t introduce her to his friends, he is never seen in public canoodling with her, he is always moving like a ninja when they are about to have sex, and he only shows up for sex, tv, and any other goodies she may have the capacity to provide. This is especially true for women who become “sugar mammas” to younger, less successful males.

The problem with these women is that they don’t realise that they’ve spent their entire lives being stop gap lovers for men who were just scratching an itch. When she finally does come to that realisation, it’s usually too late. She has slept with so many men, that even the good men out there have heard about her. While these good men will show her genuine compassion, they will never show her true love in return, because most men don’t want a whore for a wife. The end result is that even these genuinely good men won’t be able to resist the temptation to get free sex from her – and reject her when she (unexpectedly) falls in love with him.

On the other hand, there are women who use men as nothing more than boy toys or smart dildos. The trouble is that the men she uses are sometimes genuinely interested in her as a potential life mate. However, because she gets so much attention from men all day, the good guys usually get used for their emotional satiating skills, but are discarded as soon as an appropriate Mr. Sex Me shows up. Like a black widow spider, she emotionally guts these men like trout, and as soon as they have fulfilled their purpose, she relegates them to the friend zone where no one can hear them scream in anguish. But the story doesn’t end there.

Again, these women are usually a very exciting or very attractive females who have no justifiable reason to be genuine to anyone. They spend so much of their lives being in such high demand, that when when her youth finally fades away and she is rejected for the first time by a prospective male lover, she will break down and cry like a gushing water main. Rejection is a new and frightening thing for them. To make matters worse, these women squandered their youth pursuing hot men who they think they are using. However, her deception is her own. This is because women are at a particular disadvantage in this scenario. Unlike men, women have a relative age cap by when she should ideally maximize her “shelf life”. Men can happily marry any female at any age. As such, these women are only deceiving themselves.

The Solution

You may be wondering at this point why I spent so much time elaborating on the complexity of a woman’s thought process where this issue is concerned. The reason is rather simple actually: Women are cognitively more complex than men. If I may use mathematics to illustrate my point, most men are like simple arithmetic while most women are like complex recursive logarithmic equations. However, despite this disparity in cognitive complexity, both men and women can become stop gap lovers to each other. It happens all the time. Ultimately, that’s not the position either wants to be in.

To avoid becoming a stop gap lover, one does not need to lookout for others. Rather, one needs to lookout for themselves. You are your own worst enemy. If you have found yourself in the position of being someone’s stop gap lover, you have no one to blame but yourself. Humans are opportunistically selfish, evil creatures. Everything we do is ultimately for self gratification. Sometimes, we are so misguidedly selfish, that we ultimately cause harm to ourselves in the pursuit of pleasure and happiness. Here then are the top ways to avoid being taken advantage of as a stop gap lover:

Have some Self Respect – If you don’t respect yourself, nobody will respect you either (even those who claim to respect you). Have some dignity about you. Don’t become so desperate for attention that you would pander yourself to the lowest bidder.
Reciprocation is Key – People who can’t do something as simple as remember your birthday are making a very clear statement about how much they regard your importance – especially if they make a big deal about you remembering theirs. People who love attention but are frugal about dishing it out are more selfish than you care to realise. Walk away.
Have some Self Control – Your desires must be subject to your will, not the other way around. If you love sex so much that you would sleep with anyone who is willing to scratch your itch, it means that you can be manipulated, used and ultimately discarded. Most people will not pass up the opportunity to exploit you for what you’re worth – especially if you have tits.
Trust your instincts – If you know that you’re not a particularly attractive person, an incredibly attractive person who suddenly starts showing you a lot of attention even though they’ve known you for some time is only using you for your base qualities. It means that their primary source of attention has gone AWOL and now they’re exploring their plan B – YOU. When it comes to love, if it seems too good to be true, it most certainly is.
Always have a ‘Plan B’ – I’m not being hypocritical here. If you suspect that you are being played, you will want to have a secondary focus of attention (preferably something that you enjoy doing that doesn’t involve another person). Because I can guarantee you that your heart is going to get broken soon. At the very least, don’t invest as much emotional energy into a practically one-sided friendship. For rest assured, someone who doesn’t care for you as much as you do them, is most likely using you as a stop gap.
Love is Selfish – Remember that love is inextricably selfish. Never forget that. Everybody who is your friend wants something from you. Just make sure that you know exactly what that something is before you make any substantial investments in terms of time, energy and money. Nothing hurts more than not getting a return on relationship investment because you misunderstood the terms of engagement.

Nothing is wrong with being a shoulder to cry on. Just don’t become the shoulder for someone you love who doesn’t love you back. That’s not respectful of yourself. If you do it, do it because you derive joy from seeing them happy – not because their love would make you happy. If not, it’s better to be cold and unaccommodating than to be pretentious. At least then you don’t set any false expectations or set yourself up for disappointment.

Always remember that men and women cannot be friends unless there’s absolutely no attraction between them. Concordantly, don’t cry on the shoulders of someone who you think is attracted to you that you are not interested in. Doing so is putting your own desires before theirs which consequently gives them hope where there is none. If you think like this, then you should probably avoid being in a relationship until you’re ready to grow up.

Everything is wrong with sleeping with someone just because its accessible and easy. There’s no such thing as a woman who is willing to sleep with you with “no strings attached” – not even the village whore. Every woman attaches a great deal of emotional significance to sex. The feeling of “love” is an electro-chemical reaction in the brain. Therefore, a good round of sex doestrigger the production of chemicals that most women naively interpret as “being in love”. This also is why you shouldn’t have sex with people who are your friends. It is interesting to note, that nothing messes up a perfectly good relationship like sex and money.

Conclusively;

People who become stop gap lovers and the people who use them have neither respect for themselves nor each other respectively. This is why there is this “warfare” among men and women in the name of love and sex. Everybody thinks that everybody else is out to get them, so each conspire to get what they want with as little collateral damage to themselves as possible. Nobody is looking at the big picture.

It’s fascinating to me that this whole process is what necessitates the survival of the species, even though there is such a dramatic disparity between men and women. However, after meditating on this quandary more intently, I have surmised that this disparity is just another one of nature’s many ways of propagating only the best genes to ensure the survivability of the species. Men and women who get caught up in these selfish displays of sensationally dramatic, wanton and indiscriminate acts of emotional usury have no intention of passing on their genes. They become so involved in the war-like process of self gratification, that they rarely copulate with a view for producing offspring.

By the time they come to their senses, they are either too old to be desired for marriage (women) or too old to care (men). Thus, ultimately, the world is spared the wayward genetic bastardisations that would have been released into the gene pool from these unfortunate unions, thus preemptively corrupting the fate of humanity. I guess nature is doing all that it can to delay the inevitability of human extinction. While I understand the necessity of these things, it is still a terrible way to waste one’s youth.

Source: http://xenlogic.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/the-stop-gap-lover/

The Anatomy of Belief

2009-07-21T00:22:00.000-07:00

“Conflict over belief is as worthwhile as conflict over a favourite colour.”

- Xenocrates

There are many systems of belief in the world. Most beliefs are propagated by the innate compulsion of their subscribers to derive purpose from the world around them. As such, religion is effectively a moderate transmutation of mythology, philosophy and science. It attempts to be the silver bullet that is the catch-all solution for all of life’s problems. That’s why religion is the most conspicuous of all systems of belief. It attempts to explicitly fill the gaps science and philosophy do not. However, there are some dark, disturbing characteristics about religious belief that a lot of religious people are either unaware of or seem to ignore altogether. Growing up in an environment that catered to the far Christian right taught me a lot of highly valuable lessons about these characteristics. This post details the top ten most valuable lessons I’ve learned about religious cognition. Most of these I learned after intense debate and oftentimes, vicious confrontation:

Lesson #1

“RELIGION DOESN’T CHANGE PEOPLE. RELIGION MERELY CHANGES THEIR PRIORITIES.”

Pat Robertson: Certified Religious Asshole

They told me that Jesus can save anybody. But Jesus doesn’t changeanybody. I thought it was rather precarious that Romans 12:1 says that one should “…become transformed by the renewing of their mind…”. It doesn’t say that “Jesus renews your mind”. The use of the verb “become” insinuates a reflexive action. This seems eerily similar to the doctrine of the Buddhists and Zen philosophers, who advocate self renewal and enlightenment. Interestingly enough, those doctrines don’t use a God of any sort to propagate the idea of change – yet they achieve the same results. In fact, those doctrines are predominantly peaceful movements – even more so than the most popular ones today. What this means is that the church was wrong about suggesting that Jesus changes people. This effectively relegates Jesus to being just a placebo for providing people with the motivation to change. People make the change themselves – or more specifically, their priorities. Allow me to explain:

If you are an asshole, you will still be an asshole even after becoming religious. You will just now become a religious asshole. Instead of being an asshole about who is getting promoted over you at work, you are now an asshole about who gets to lead a Prayer Meeting at church. Instead of being a bully in the workplace, now prefer you bully people at church – using the Bible no less. The religion part only changes your philosophy on life and your focus. It doesn’t change your personality. That part of you is (for the most part) genetically predetermined. This is why no matter which church you go to, you will always find assholes, con-artists, zealots, bullies, and undesirables of every type and description – just like you would find anywhere else in the world. This is also why murderers can claim Islam as their own.

There’s nothing that Jesus or Allah or anybody else will do to change people’s instinctive nature. If that were the case, then it would be pointless to ask Jesus for forgiveness of sins. Again, the idea of asking God for forgiveness is a psychological placebo. The idea that one can be freed of guilt by assuming that some entity outside of themselves has freed one of their guilt absolves that person of any responsibility for their own actions. Now they have this new lease on life to go out there and sin again (this is how the placebo works). If you can forgive yourself, then you don’t need to ask an imaginary friend for forgiveness and the same effect will be achieved. The act of repentance is an act of changing priorities, not personality.

Lesson #2

“YOU ARE EITHER NATURALLY RELIGIOUS OR NATURALLY SECULAR.”

Richard Dawkins: Too smart to believe

You are more likely to be religious if you have an average IQ, accept most of the things you are told, prefer to be diplomatic than counter-aggressive, value loyalty over truth, are emotionally driven and prefer to be told what to think, rather than to think for yourself. You’re also inclined to be religious if you think complexity is unwarranted and are seeking some reason to justify your incapacity to follow philosophical discussions. You are most CERTAINLY more likely to be religious if you have an irrational fear of uncertainty or failure. People with this complex are easily frightened. This is why they tend to subscribe to old wives’ tales, urban legends and religion (among other things).

Religion is not for people who like to think for themselves. It is not for people who like to be 100% certain about most things that can be certified. It is not for people who are naturally curious. Religion is not for people who like to have rational answers for irrational questions, and not irrational answers to rational questions. Religion is not for people who embrace complexity or for people who prefer an interactive discussion instead of a one sided one. Finally, religion is most certainly not for people who embrace failure, obscurity or uncertainty.

Depending on your personality characteristics, you have already been predetermined as a possible candidate for religious assemblies or not. You don’t become converted to a religious cause. You either identify with that kind of circle or you don’t. The conversion process is actually a process of capitulation (usually out of fear or guilt) and in some cases, matriculation (religious by association). Similarly, people don’t become atheists. They are just born with a mind that doesn’t provide them with the capacity to certify uncertainty with uncertainty. This is the reason why people who are secular tend to have a specific type of thought process and people who are religious tend to have another. This is the source of the expression that “reason is the enemy of faith”. This is because either way, belief is not driven by proof – but a will to believe.

Lesson #3

“PEOPLE BALANCE RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR ACTIVITIES TO SATISFY THEIR EMOTIONAL NEEDS”

At worship or a party? Can you tell the difference?

When a person goes to a very intense worship session on Sunday morning (complete with tears of joy, waving hands in the air, screaming & shouting at the top of one’s lungs etc. etc.) they are experiencing exactly the same pyschological manifestation as people who attend a really great party at a local night club. The two environments are virtually identical. It’s lots of great people, great music, and the energy from all the patrons of the event has an overwhelmingly positive effect on any participating individual. However, irrespective of how a person gets their emotional kick, What most people don’t realise is that Christians use church services for all the same reasons that sinners use nightclubs. The scene is different, but the purpose is exactly the same: emotional gratification through social fellowship. It has nothing to do with belief, faith or dogma.

Religious circles, just like secular ones, have rules, roles, expectations and opportunities. If you break those rules you are excommunicated. If you do not assume any of the predefined roles, you are treated as an outcast. If you don’t meet the expectations, your membership is questioned and if you fail to seize an opportunity, someone else will. That’s why just as how a poorly dressed man is ignored in a club, you will find Christians who treat fellow members of the congregation differentl based on socio-economic background. For as I said before, religion doesn’t change people. It only changes their priorities.

Another phenomenon worth noting is that people use secular and religious circles interchangeably to fulfill two co-dependent psychological propensities: The need to satiate their ID (the raw, basic, sinful, animal) and their Super-Ego (the self righting conscience). Throughout the week, people indulge their ID. On the weekend, they indulge their Super-Ego. This yin/yang operation creates a disparity in each psychological proponent, such that as one is satiated, it creates desire in the other. It’s an emotional pendulum that most people wantonly and indiscriminately enjoy. Ask any standard issue church-goer and they will tell you: Jesus died for your sins so that you can commit them.

Lesson #4

“RELIGIOUS PROPENSITY IS INVERSELY CO-RELATIONAL TO VIRTUOSITY”

Too hot for Christianity

There is a very good reason why you’ll primarily find older, unremarkable people at church. The older one becomes, the more cognisant they are of issues of mortality. The less attractive one is, the more likely they will be to seek a place where they will not be judged for that deficit. For those who fear uncertainty or do not understand the world they live in, this is also a key motivator. People who have won the genetic lottery tend to become involved in fields of interest that are traditionally frowned upon by the church. People who are particularly musically talented rarely remain with their congregation of members, especially if it is a conservative one as it limits their scope of success. Everyone else who does not fit into this category, faithfully goes to church.

This disparity can be explained by the phenomenon discussed in lesson 3. It’s the same way how a particularly gifted person doesn’t need to spend a great deal of time in college. The whole point of life is survival. If you are gifted, then you can make money from that. If not, you have to go to school to pick up skills to do the same. Similarly, if you are particularly gifted, most of the emotional needs you have can be satisfied by the reward of fame. If you have no particularly discerning natural gifts, it is highly probable you would seek to satiate those emotional needs in religion.

For example, consider the raw talent that many people are naturally born with. Many music and movie stars began demonstrating their talents while in church. However, as they got older, they started to develop a desire to take their craft further and further. Sooner or later, they will hit a glass ceiling and will have to decide between their faith and a full time career. Most people choose the latter out of frustration. Some, like Jessica Simpson, were quite literally pushed to the latter by their respective religious community. Jessica was turned down by one Christian record label simply because she had rather large breasts and thus did not have enough of that “conservative” appeal they were looking for. Needless to say, she took the “high” road to fame and riches. She still maintains the friendship with her less talented colleagues though – who are still going to church.

Lesson #5

“PROXIMITY DICTATES WHAT YOU BELIEVE.”

Born Christian

Where you are born is a key determinant of what you believe. If you were born in the west, then it is highly probable that you will be staunchly christian. If you were born in the north east, you will be inclined to be either christian or agnostic. If you were born anywhere in the middle east or the south east you will be inclined to be Muslim. If you were born in the far east, you will be inclined to be Buddhist, Zen or a related philosophy. Either way, nurture dictates to a great deal the ideals you firmly hold on to as you grow and mature into an adult. You will be staunchly inclined to the religion that you were born in, irrespective of external factors as an adult. Just as how you are as deeply convicted in your religion of choice, people born in other parts of the world who subscribe to other religions are just as convicted. For that reason, most religious people didn’t choose to become Christian or Muslim. The brain washing process begins at birth. So even if you didn’t explicitly subscribe to any particular religion until some later stage in your life, the fact that you picked the religion most dominant to where you live (and not another from some exotic location) quite explicitly reinforces this fact.

The reason for this phenomenon is that every human mind is born as a blank slate. For reasons of survival, every young mind is designed to grasp onto the first ideas to enter the mind. This causes the brain to be wired in a very specific way. Between the age of 1 and 6, 85% of a child’s personality is wired up. This includes all of their deep seated preferences, which includes their affinity to family, tastes, smells, sounds and yes, even beliefs. This is why it is almost impossible to convert a Christian to Islam or vice-versa, particularly if they were born and raised in that faith. Their brains are already wired to preferone religion over another, so it would be like trying to convert a Honda to a Mercedes Benz. This is the only key determinant between competing faiths. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of one faith over another or the age of one faith versus another.

Furthermore, the mere fact that religions are faith based tosses the whole concept of ‘proof’ and ‘accuracy’ out the window. It also has nothing to do with the archaeological evidence supporting one faith or another. Every religion has supporting archaeological proof. It has nothing to do with the age of a religion. Hinduism is older than Judaism, which is older than Buddhism, which is older than Christianity, which is older than Islam – even though Christianity claims to be the dominant faith. Once an individual has become wired to support one faith or another, it is natural for that person to find every possible evidence to support its validity.

Lesson #6

“THE POPULARITY OF A FAITH SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ITS TRUTH OR ACCURACY AS RELIGION IS SPREAD THROUGH (OFTEN VIOLENT) INDOCTRINATION.”

The Crusaders Conquering the City of Zara in 1202; The Bridgeman Art Library

If it weren’t for the marauding activities of the ancient Roman empire and the subsequent Crusaders of the kingdoms born out of its demise, Christianity would probably already have been replaced by a competing faith nearly a thousand years ago. In a way, that makes it hypocritical for Christians to assail Muslims for channeling a religion of violence. Islam is today where Christianity was 900 years ago. It’s just a process of evolution. Every new religion goes through this phase. It was the same with the Egyptian empire and the Babylonian empire and every subsequent kingdom. Never-the-less, at some age during world history, there was always a dominant religion which consumed world populations. Speaking against that religion at that time would have been treated with similar levels of disdain as they are today. Such is the nature of religious faith.

If you were born during the hey day of the Egyptian empire, speaking against a Pharaoh or cursing a Babylonian god would be greeted with the same reaction as doing so against Allah or Jesus today. This is an inextricable part of the process of indoctrination – which is a conspicuous characteristic of most dominant religions. Religion propagates itself by indoctrination – either through compelling others to subscribe or by force. History has shown that the latter is the preferred and more effective method. The chant of “Islam or death” by many extremist Muslims today is only a reminder of the fact that once every few hundred years, the cycle begins anew. It wasn’t so long ago that Catholics and Protestants were locked in a bloody battle to the death over more or less the same thing.

Lesson #7

“RELIGION PROPAGATES GRAVE INTOLERANCE FOR ANY OTHER VIEWS ON LIFE.”

Violent Muslim protests in London over a silly Danish cartoon.

Each of today’s two major religions assert themselves as the only right religion. Christianity has a number of spin off doctrines which also assert themselves as the only right religion (and so does Islam). What this shows is that while a religion doesn’t mobilize itself without violence, (lesson #6), this characteristic shows a great deal of intolerance for any other philosophical view on life. Interestingly enough, each of today’s major religions purport that they are religions of peace (and they do in fact have teachings that support this). However, the mere fact that they teach intolerance for other ideas, automatically makes room for conflict. This is an especially remarkable observation where culture clashes with religion. From the stoning of news journalists who walk the streets of Jerusalem on the Sabbath, to the violent protests of Muslims over a (poorly drawn) Danish cartoon, religion propagates grave intolerance not only for other competing faiths, but also for other cultures and ways of life.

With that said, there have been more wars fought over or through religion than for any other purpose. The incessant unrest in the middle east which has been going on for thousands of years is a testament to this reality. This is one of the key selling points of atheists, who (surreptitiously) believe that religion tends to do more harm than good. The problem is that as individuals, humanswill be inclined to think differently. Until they agree to disagree, there will be religious war. This becomes exacerbated when those wars become a vicious cycle of revenge, especially where physical possessions and life are concerned. It often treads the boiling point when religion and politics become intertwined, since both concepts are not unlike each other.

Lesson #8

“RELIGIOUS PROOF IS MEANINGLESS SINCE BELIEF IS ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE.”

Acharya S., author: 'The Christ Conspiracy'

Even if all things could be rationally explained, religion would continue to exist. People don’t subscribe to religion because it makes sense. They subscribe to it because of the hope it gives them. Hope is not something that can be objectively rationalised. The sense of Hope that people feel because of religion is a purely psychological effect that can be produced by things other than religion. Therefore the people who subscribe to religion do so simply because they havewilled themselves to believe. This will is almost always based on nurture – i.e. it is highly contingent on the environment where individuals were raised. This is why you cannot rationally explain or prove why you believe in this religion or that, because any proof for belief can be interpreted in a multiplicity of ways.

A very good example is the on-going debate about the historicity of Christ – part of which is being purported by now famous author Acharya S. who wrote “The Christ Conspiracy”. The evidence appears to suggest that Christ didn’t exist, that he was an astro-heliological hybrid concocted from previous religions. That is the unbiased archaeological interpretation of the data – or is it? There are many atheists who agree with her – and many more who flatly disagree. Mind you, the evidence is the same for both sets of people. It’s just that they interpret the same information differently. However, if you are compelled to be Christian, you may be inclined to interpret the same information as God predestining the coming of Christ in the elements and the cultures of other races. Theoretically, both sets of interpretations can work, depending on which side of the fence one chooses to sit.

Another good example is the conflict between Seventh Day Adventists and Sunday worshiping Christians. The SDA’s interpret the Bible as saying that Saturday is the day of worship by the use of the Hebrew word Shabbat (for seventh). The Sunday worshipers contend that the seventh day was previously Sunday before the Roman Empire moved Sunday to being the first day of the week (to honour the Pope). Both sides of the argument are both right and wrong, given all the evidence. However, each side only sticks to their respective positions because of an unrelenting emotional commitment to their decision. Neither side considers the evidence that proves their position wrong for simply that reason. As such, the debate rages on to this very day.

Many of the philosophical conflicts contained in religions and between religions are of exactly the same nature. If you have developed an emotional attachment to an idea, you will interpret any evidence for that idea, even if the evidence can be objectively placed as being against it. This is one of the reasons why Religious debate is effectively pointless (aside from having fun pitting wits against each other). Two schools of thought which clash will never have a resolve to agree on anything. This is because all the contenders come to the discussion to prove that their interpretation is right, but have simultaneously resolved within themselves to not concede any possibility that they are wrong. This is also why it is pointless to argue with people who have attached religious significance to politics. Once there is an unrelenting commitment to an idea, the discussion (and any proof associated with it) becomes moot. The will to believe always trumps the evidence to believe.

Lesson #9

“HOPE IS SIMULTANEOUSLY THE GREATEST HUMAN STRENGTH AND THE GREATEST HUMAN DELUSION.”

Flames engulf the Branch Davidian compound in this April 19, 1993 file photo, in Waco, Texas. Eighty-one Davidians, including leader David Koresh, perished as federal agents tried to drive them out of the compound. (AP Photo/FILE/Susan Weems)

Hope gives people faith and faith gives people purpose. Purpose gives people focus and, focus provides direction. What better way to live your life than when you have a sense of direction? Purpose gives people the sense of “what they are here to do.” So if someone comes along to impose a different faith upon these people, this potentially changes the whole game altogether. It threatens their way of life based on their chosen religious path. This is a major part of the reason why there is religious warfare. Two competing factions are often caught up arguing about which sense of purpose and direction is philosophically better than the other. It’s not very different from arguing about the political philosophies of Democrats and Republicans – but I digress.

Many turn to Religion to grant them that peace of mind that helps them cope with an otherwise rough life – although we all know why (see lesson #3). Can you imagine if someone were to infuse lies into a school of thought that doesn’t require proof for viability? This is what allows evil men to manipulate the mindless masses vis-a-vis religion to accomplish greater nefarious objectives. They are quite literally exploiting a gaping flaw in religion (i.e. faith) to manipulate the hope of millions to drive imperial objectives. This is why there are right wing Christians supporting illegal wars. That is why there are deadly cults like those of Jim Jones and David Koresh. This is why there are Muslims who’ve been manipulated by extremist agendas to commit horrifying acts of suicidal terrorism. How did something as benign as Islam and Christianity become so caught up in the cause of warfare? The answer is simple: In the absence of proof, truth becomes relative. When truth becomes relative, then anything becomes justifiable in the name of religion.

How about deviant sects of religion? Christians have many. Muslims have many. In many of these cases, dogmatic extremism (as is found in the Jehovah’s Witnesses) and abusive bigotry (as is found in the Islamic Taliban – which although is technically a political movement and not such much an Islamic sect) are rampant. Because people are compelled to believe in something that requires no proof, it is easy for them to become caught up in strange congregations with very odd practices and beliefs. The often times militant Seventh Day Adventists come to mind, who (in my experience) have only stopped short of an outright physical scuffle to promote their attempts at indoctrination. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same of Muslims, who’ve killed and maimed over something as trivial as a harmless cartoon depiction.

There’s an expression that goes “Belief kills and belief cures”. The hope of humanity is one of the most poignant aspects of our being that differentiates us from lower animals. Our capacity to possess anticipation for things which we have not yet seen, but have willed ourselves to receive, has medically proven to be a life saver and a motivator for change in our lives. Yet, because of its implicitly simplistic nature, hope is so easily manipulated, that it can transform people who believe in peace, to become violent, monstrous beings. A great many of the wars fought or atrocities committed in the history of mankind have been religiously motivated or fired up by religion. The most conspicuous of these dark acts include:

Elements of the war in Iraq (which is really a modern war between extremist Christianity and extremist Islam)
The Sunni / Shiite conflict within the Iraqi war
911 in New York
7/7 in London
The mass killing of Kurds
The incessant Palestinian / Israeli conflict
The on-going Islamic Jihad
The recurring Catholic / Protestant skirmishes in Northern Ireland
The Serb / Croat / Muslim massacres
The Crusades
The witch hunts
The thirty years war
The French Wars

…just to name a few. When you really think about it, why do we even bother with Religion at all? There are so many people in the world killing each other over make belief. It’s like I said in a previous post: The one thing we’ve learned from history is that we don’t learn.

Lesson #10

“YESTERDAY’S RELIGIONS ARE TODAY’S MYTHOLOGIES. TODAY’S RELIGIONS ARE TOMORROW’S MYTHOLOGIES.”

Ancient Egyptian King practicing religious rituals

Just as how people go to museums to view relics from a dead religion thousands of years ago, the same will happen for the religions of today thousands of years from now. Even though scholars agree that Hinduism is the oldest persisting religion today, it is now only a shadow of its former glory and is predated by many others. Such is the nature of belief systems. There is a very good explanation for this phenomenon: Cognitive evolution. Religions are concocted as a way for mankind to put his universe in a box he can understand. The more man understands, the less mythology is needed in the religion. After a while, the more mythological religion is replaced by another which is less so. Religions which possess a more scientific or philosophic mythology are also driven by more powerful empires. The sophistication of those religions are a representation of the technological maturity of the kingdom and thus, it’s capacity to conquer and expand.

As mankind ages, so does the knowledge he derives from his world. With each age, a religion arises that explains the world better than the religion of the previous age. Each subsequent religion is more scientifically or philosophically accurate than the previous. After a period of turbulent indoctrination, the known world eventually adapts to the newer, more rational religion.

This is what happened between Judaism (more mythological, less philosophical) and Christianity (which is less mythological and more philosophical). This is because from a rational perspective, philosophy trumps mythology and as such, eventually, Christianity overtook Judaism. The same disparity can be seen today between Christianity (more philosophical, less scientific) and Islam (more scientific, less philosophical). This is partly the reason why even though Christianity has the largest subscription, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. I’m not suggesting that Islam will replace Christianity. Rather, Christianity today is considerably more philosophically and scientifically succinct than it was 900 years ago when it was little more than another tall tale.

This cycle will continue to repeat itself for centuries to come until science completely replaces religion altogether. This correlation is ostensible, because religion is pseudo-science and science is pseudo-religion. With cognitive evolution, one school of thought merely evolves into (or replaces) another. There is always a period of violence, but that is human nature’s natural reaction to change. We are now on the cusp of the age of reason. One day, our great descendants will look back at our age with pitiful disdain as they consider the cycle of ignorant bloodshed we have propagated in the name of mythology.

Conclusion

It’s interesting how man’s attempt at understanding his world has become something worth fighting for. Even in the scientific community, there is conflict on theories of the universe (e.g. Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, String Theory vs Quantum Gravity, and others). But scientific conflict rarely amounts to more than intense debate. There is also conflict in political views which regularly moves from nasty to outright violence. However, it’s the conflict in Religion that almost always certifies ground for warfare. Some religions even provide justifiable grounds within their writ upon which war can be waged.

Wouldn’t the world would be a much simpler place if men simply loved one another as much as they loved themselves? Unfortunately, such hope is unfounded. While a flock of birds in the east would never attack a flock from the west, men are not so simplistic. This is because unlike lower animals, men have the capacity for individual thought defined by culturally disparate groups. So long as men have the capacity for individualistic reasoning, there will always be ideological conflict, whether it be religious, philosophical or political.

A belief is an unrelenting commitment to an idea. It is nothing more than an over glorified preference. Debating that commitment is almost always contentious since this will ultimately lead to provocation. The debate is provocative because like a preference, a belief is deep seated in man’s cognitive wiring and thus needs no justification. Upsetting that belief upsets the comfort zone that comes with the belief, along with the way of life and everything else which man has defined around it. This is almost always grounds for conflict, since no man is comfortable with having his life purpose uprooted by someone else’s.

Ultimately, conflict over belief is almost always pointless – especially if neither side is open to being wrong. The only time conflict based on belief is justified is if one’s belief will seriously infract upon the life of another. But even this is subjective, since that justification is also subject to being rooted in belief. This means that belief is intrinsically a double-edged sword. This is why I am now convicted, more than ever before, that conflict over belief is as worthwhile as conflict over a favourite colour.

Source: http://xenlogic.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/the-anatomy-of-belief/

Giant Cow

2009-07-21T00:15:00.000-07:00

Meet Chilli, the world's largest cow, who stands at 6 feet, 6 inches.

Source: http://www.unknownhighway.com/index.php/main/comments/giant_cow/

Introduction To Taguchi Method

2009-07-19T09:23:00.000-07:00

INTRODUCTION TO TAGUCHI METHOD

Every experimenter has to plan and conduct experiments to obtain enough and relevant data so that he can infer the science behind the observed phenomenon. He can do so by,

(1) trial-and-error approach :

performing a series of experiments each of which gives some understanding. This requires making measurements after every experiment so that analysis of observed data will allow him to decide what to do next - "Which parameters should be varied and by how much". Many a times such series does not progress much as negative results may discourage or will not allow a selection of parameters which ought to be changed in the next experiment.

Therefore, such experimentation usually ends well before the number of experiments reach a double digit! The data is insufficient to draw any significant conclusions and the main problem (of understanding the science) still remains unsolved.

(2) Design of experiments :

A well planned set of experiments, in which all parameters of interest are varied over a specified range, is a much better approach to obtain systematic data. Mathematically speaking, such a complete set of experiments ought to give desired results. Usually the number of experiments and resources (materials and time) required are prohibitively large.

Often the experimenter decides to perform a subset of the complete set of experiments to save on time and money! However, it does not easily lend itself to understanding of science behind the phenomenon. The analysis is not very easy (though it may be easy for the mathematician/statistician) and thus effects of various parameters on the observed data are not readily apparent.

In many cases, particularly those in which some optimization is required, the method does not point to the BEST settings of parameters. A classic example illustrating the drawback of design of experiments is found in the planning of a world cup event, say football. While all matches are well arranged with respect to the different teams and different venues on different dates and yet the planning does not care about the result of any match (win or lose)!!!! Obviously, such a strategy is not desirable for conducting scientific experiments (except for co-ordinating various institutions, committees, people, equipment, materials etc.).

(3) TAGUCHI Method :

Dr. Taguchi of Nippon Telephones and Telegraph Company, Japan has developed a method based on " ORTHOGONAL ARRAY " experiments which gives much reduced " variance " for the experiment with " optimum settings " of control parameters.

Thus the marriage of Design of Experiments with optimization of control parameters to obtain BEST results is achieved in the Taguchi Method. "Orthogonal Arrays" (OA) provide a set of well balanced (minimum) experiments and Dr. Taguchi's Signal-to-Noise ratios (S/N), which are log functions of desired output, serve as objective functions for optimization, help in data analysis and prediction of optimum results.

Taguchi Method treats optimization problems in two categories,

[A] STATIC PROBLEMS :

Generally, a process to be optimized has several control factors which directly decide the target or desired value of the output. The optimization then involves determining the best control factor levels so that the output is at the the target value. Such a problem is called as a "STATIC PROBLEM".

This is best explained using a P-Diagram which is shown below ("P" stands for Process or Product). Noise is shown to be present in the process but should have no effect on the output! This is the primary aim of the Taguchi experiments - to minimize variations in output even though noise is present in the process. The process is then said to have become ROBUST.

[B] DYNAMIC PROBLEMS :

If the product to be optimized has a signal input that directly decides the output, the optimization involves determining the best control factor levels so that the "input signal / output" ratio is closest to the desired relationship. Such a problem is called as a "DYNAMIC PROBLEM".

This is best explained by a P-Diagram which is shown below. Again, the primary aim of the Taguchi experiments - to minimize variations in output even though noise is present in the process- is achieved by getting improved linearity in the input/output relationship.

[A] STATIC PROBLEM (BATCH PROCESS OPTIMIZATION) :

There are 3 Signal-to-Noise ratios of common interest for optimization of Static Problems;

(I) SMALLER-THE-BETTER :

n = -10 Log10 [ mean of sum of squares of measured data ]

This is usually the chosen S/N ratio for all undesirable characteristics like " defects " etc. for which the ideal value is zero. Also, when an ideal value is finite and its maximum or minimum value is defined (like maximum purity is 100% or maximum Tc is 92K or minimum time for making a telephone connection is 1 sec) then the difference between measured data and ideal value is expected to be as small as possible. The generic form of S/N ratio then becomes,

n = -10 Log10 [ mean of sum of squares of {measured - ideal} ]

(II) LARGER-THE-BETTER :

n = -10 Log10 [mean of sum squares of reciprocal of measured data]

This case has been converted to SMALLER-THE-BETTER by taking the reciprocals of measured data and then taking the S/N ratio as in the smaller-the-better case.

(III) NOMINAL-THE-BEST :

square of mean

n = 10 Log10 -----------------

variance

This case arises when a specified value is MOST desired, meaning that neither a smaller nor a larger value is desirable.

Examples are;

(i) most parts in mechanical fittings have dimensions which are nominal-the-best type.

(ii) Ratios of chemicals or mixtures are nominally the best type.

e.g. Aqua regia 1:3 of HNO3:HCL

Ratio of Sulphur, KNO3 and Carbon in gun powder

(iii) Thickness should be uniform in deposition /growth /plating /etching..

[B] DYNAMIC PROBLEM (TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT) :

In dynamic problems, we come across many applications where the output is supposed to follow input signal in a predetermined manner. Generally, a linear relationship between "input" "output" is desirable.

For example : Accelerator peddle in cars,

volume control in audio amplifiers,

document copier (with magnification or reduction)

various types of moldings

etc.

There are 2 characteristics of common interest in "follow-the-leader" or "Transformations" type of applications,

(i) Slope of the I/O characteristics

and

(ii) Linearity of the I/O characteristics

(minimum deviation from the best-fit straight line)

The Signal-to-Noise ratio for these 2 characteristics have been defined as;

(I) SENSITIVITY {SLOPE}:

The slope of I/O characteristics should be at the specified value (usually 1).

It is often treated as Larger-The-Better when the output is a desirable characteristics (as in the case of Sensors, where the slope indicates the sensitivity).

n = 10 Log10 [square of slope or beta of the I/O characteristics]

On the other hand, when the output is an undesired characteristics, it can be treated as Smaller-the-Better.

n = -10 Log10 [square of slope or beta of the I/O characteristics]

(II) LINEARITY (LARGER-THE-BETTER) :

Most dynamic characteristics are required to have direct proportionality between the input and output. These applications are therefore called as "TRANSFORMATIONS". The straight line relationship between I/O must be truly linear i.e. with as little deviations from the straight line as possible.

Square of slope or beta

n = 10 Log10 -------------------------------

variance

Variance in this case is the mean of the sum of squares of deviations of measured data points from the best-fit straight line (linear regression).

8-STEPS IN TAGUCHI METHODOLOGY :

Taguchi method is a scientifically disciplined mechanism for evaluating and implementing improvements in products, processes, materials, equipment, and facilities. These improvements are aimed at improving the desired characteristics and simultaneously reducing the number of defects by studying the key variables controlling the process and optimizing the procedures or design to yield the best results.

The method is applicable over a wide range of engineering fields that include processes that manufacture raw materials, sub systems, products for professional and consumer markets. In fact, the method can be applied to any process be it engineering fabrication, computer-aided-design, banking and service sectors etc. Taguchi method is useful for 'tuning' a given process for 'best' results.

Taguchi proposed a standard 8-step procedure for applying his method for optimizing any process,

8-STEPS IN TAGUCHI METHODOLOGY:

Step-1: IDENTIFY THE MAIN FUNCTION, SIDE EFFECTS, AND FAILURE MODE
Step-2: IDENTIFY THE NOISE FACTORS, TESTING CONDITIONS, AND QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS
Step-3: IDENTIFY THE OBJECTIVE FUNCTION TO BE OPTIMIZED
Step-4: IDENTIFY THE CONTROL FACTORS AND THEIR LEVELS
Step-5: SELECT THE ORTHOGONAL ARRAY MATRIX EXPERIMENT
Step-6: CONDUCT THE MATRIX EXPERIMENT
Step-7: ANALYZE THE DATA, PREDICT THE OPTIMUM LEVELS AND PERFORMANCE
Step-8: PERFORM THE VERIFICATION EXPERIMENT AND PLAN THE FUTURE ACTION

SUMMARY :

Every experimenter develops a nominal process/product that has the desired functionality as demanded by users. Beginning with these nominal processes, he wishes to optimize the processes/products by varying the control factors at his disposal, such that the results are reliable and repeatable (i.e. show less variations).

In Taguchi Method, the word "optimization" implies "determination of BEST levels of control factors". In turn, the BEST levels of control factors are those that maximize the Signal-to-Noise ratios. The Signal-to-Noise ratios are log functions of desired output characteristics. The experiments, that are conducted to determine the BEST levels, are based on "Orthogonal Arrays", are balanced with respect to all control factors and yet are minimum in number. This in turn implies that the resources (materials and time) required for the experiments are also minimum.

Taguchi method divides all problems into 2 categories - STATIC or DYNAMIC. While the Dynamic problems have a SIGNAL factor, the Static problems do not have any signal factor. In Static problems, the optimization is achieved by using 3 Signal-to-Noise ratios - smaller-the-better, LARGER-THE-BETTER and nominal-the-best. In Dynamic problems, the optimization is achieved by using 2 Signal-to-Noise ratios - Slope and Linearity.

Taguchi Method is a process/product optimization method that is based on 8-steps of planning, conducting and evaluating results of matrix experiments to determine the best levels of control factors. The primary goal is to keep the variance in the output very low even in the presence of noise inputs. Thus, the processes/products are made ROBUST against all variations.

Source: http://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~apte/CV_PRA_TAGUCHI_INTRO.htm

Pareto principle

2009-07-19T08:56:00.000-07:00

Pareto principle

The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

Business management thinker Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who observed that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. It is a common rule of thumb in business; e.g., "80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients."

Mathematically, where something is shared among a sufficiently large set of participants, there must be a number k between 50 and 100 such that k% is taken by (100 − k)% of the participants. k may vary from 50 in the case of equal distribution, to nearly 100 when a tiny number of participants account for almost all of the resource.

There is nothing special about the number 80% mathematically, but many real systems have k somewhere around this region of intermediate imbalance in distribution.

The Pareto principle is only tangentially related to Pareto efficiency, which was also introduced by the same economist, Vilfredo Pareto. Pareto developed both concepts in the context of the distribution of income and wealth among the population.

In economics

The original observation was in connection with income and wealth. Pareto noticed that 80% of Italy's wealth was owned by 20% of the population. He then carried out surveys on a variety of other countries and found to his surprise that a similar distribution applied.

Because of the scale-invariant nature of the power law relationship, the relationship applies also to subsets of the income range. Even if we take the ten wealthiest individuals in the world, we see that the top three (Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim Helú, and Bill Gates) own as much as the next seven put together.

A chart that gave the inequality a very visible and comprehensible form, the so-called 'champagne glass' effect, was contained in the 1992 United Nations Development Program Report, which showed the distribution of global income to be very uneven, with the richest 20% of the world's population controlling 82.7% of the world's income.

Distribution of world GDP, 1989

Quintile of Population	Income
Richest 20%	82.7%
Second 20%	11.7%
Third 20%	2.3%
Fourth 20%	1.4%
Poorest 20%	1.2%

The Pareto Principle has also been used to attribute the widening economic inequality in the USA to 'skill-biased technical change' - i.e. income growth accrues to those with the education and skills required to take advantage of new technology and globalisation. However, Paul Krugman in the New York Times dismissed this "80-20 fallacy" as being cited "not because it's true, but because it's comforting." He asserts that the benefits of economic growth over the last 30 years have largely been concentrated in the top 1%, rather than the top 20%.

In software

In computer science and engineering control theory such as for electromechanical energy converters, the Pareto principle can be applied to optimization efforts. Microsoft also noted that by fixing the top 20% of the most reported bugs, 80% percent of the errors and crashes would be eliminated. In computer graphics the Pareto principle is used for ray-tracing: 80% of rays intersect 20% of geometry.

Other applications

The Pareto Principle also applies to a variety of more mundane matters: one might guess approximately that we wear our 20% most favoured clothes about 80% of the time, perhaps we spend 80% of the time with 20% of our acquaintances, etc.

The Pareto principle has many applications in quality control.[citation needed] It is the basis for the Pareto chart, one of the key tools used in total quality control and six sigma. The Pareto principle serves as a baseline for ABC-analysis and XYZ-analysis, widely used in logistics and procurement for the purpose of optimizing stock of goods, as well as costs of keeping and replenishing that stock.

The Pareto principle was a prominent part of the 2007 bestseller The 4-Hour Workweek by Tim Ferriss. Ferriss recommended focusing one's activities to those 20% that contribute to 80% of the income. More notably, he also recommends firing the 20% of customers who take up the majority of one's time and cause most trouble.

In human developmental biology the principle is reflected in the gestation period where the embryonic period constitutes 20% of the whole, with the foetal development taking up the rest of the time.

Mathematical notes

The idea has rule-of-thumb application in many places, but it is commonly misused. For example, it is a misuse to state that a solution to a problem "fits the 80-20 rule" just because it fits 80% of the cases; it must be implied that this solution requires only 20% of the resources needed to solve all cases. Additionally, it is a misuse of the 80-20 rule to interpret data with a small number of categories or observations.

Mathematically, where something is shared among a sufficiently large set of participants, there will always be a number k between 50 and 100 such that k% is taken by (100 − k)% of the participants; however, k may vary from 50 in the case of equal distribution (e.g. exactly 50% of the people take 50% of the resources) to nearly 100 in the case of a tiny number of participants taking almost all of the resources. There is nothing special about the number 80, but many systems will have k somewhere around this region of intermediate imbalance in distribution.

This is a special case of the wider phenomenon of Pareto distributions. If the parameters in the Pareto distribution are suitably chosen, then one would have not only 80% of effects coming from 20% of causes, but also 80% of that top 80% of effects coming from 20% of that top 20% of causes, and so on (80% of 80% is 64%; 20% of 20% is 4%, so this implies a "64-4 law").

80-20 is only a shorthand for the general principle at work. In individual cases, the distribution could just as well be, say, 80-10 or 80-30. (There is no need for the two numbers to add up to 100%, as they are measures of different things, e.g., 'number of customers' vs 'amount spent'). The classic 80-20 distribution occurs when the gradient of the line is −1 when plotted on log-log axes of equal scaling. Pareto rules are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the 0-0 and 100-100 rules always hold.

Adding up to 100 leads to a nice symmetry. For example, if 80% of effects come from the top 20% of sources, then the remaining 20% of effects come from the lower 80% of sources. This is called the "joint ratio", and can be used to measure the degree of imbalance: a joint ratio of 96:4 is very imbalanced, 80:20 is significantly imbalanced (Gini index: 60%), 70:30 is moderately imbalanced (Gini index: 40%), and 55:45 is just slightly imbalanced.

The Pareto Principle is an illustration of a "Power law" relationship, which also occurs in phenomena such as brush-fires and earthquakes. Because it is self-similar over a wide range of magnitudes, it produces outcomes completely different from Gaussian Distribution phenomena. This fact explains the frequent breakdowns of sophisticated financial instruments, which are modeled on the assumption that a Gaussian relationship is appropriate to—for example—stock movement sizes.

Inequality measures

Gini coefficient and Hoover index

Using the “A:B” notation, (example : 0.8:0.2) and with A + B = 1, inequality measures like the Gini index and the Hoover index can be computed. In this case both are the same.

Theil index
The Theil index is an entropy measure used to quantify inequities. The measure is 0 for 50:50 distributions and reaches 1 at a Pareto distribution of 82:18. Higher inequities yield Theil indices above 1.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

NOQ's Journal

Seize the Day

++ Autoimmunity ++

How to Become a Consultant

Nature of Psychology

Learn to Manage Emotions

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

Attraction and Body Language Signs You Must Know

EIGHT WAYS TO SPOT EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION

Physical Pain and Emotional Pain: More Similar Than You Think

The Pursuit of Happiness

Happiness Breeds Success…and Money!

"It's what you do now that makes a difference"

Religious Piety as a Mating Strategy

The Atheist Who Came to Christmas

Christmas and Consumption

Pack Mentality

Field Guide to The Self-Doubter: Extra Credit

Is Technology Making Us Dumber?

The Gender Surcharge

Reconciling Difference

Singles: Patterns of Pursuit

How to Never Forget Anything Again

Everybody Lies Differently

Body Language Myths

Unlocking the Mysteries of The Artistic Mind It might seem bizarre that science is using art to learn about the mind—looking for hard facts in the m

Carrots, Eggs, or Coffee

Thought

Solar eclipse of July 22, 2009

The Stop Gap Lover

The Boyfriend Deficit Problem

MISMATCHES

VARIETY; THE SPICE OF LIFE – LITERALLY

THE 80/20 RULE

A woman has needs

MR. SEX ME

MR. LOVE ME

MR. PROVIDE FOR ME

The Stop Gap Lover

FOR MEN

FOR WOMEN

The Solution

Conclusively;

The Anatomy of Belief

Lesson #1

“RELIGION DOESN’T CHANGE PEOPLE. RELIGION MERELY CHANGES THEIR PRIORITIES.”

Lesson #2

“YOU ARE EITHER NATURALLY RELIGIOUS OR NATURALLY SECULAR.”

Lesson #3

“PEOPLE BALANCE RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR ACTIVITIES TO SATISFY THEIR EMOTIONAL NEEDS”

Lesson #4

“RELIGIOUS PROPENSITY IS INVERSELY CO-RELATIONAL TO VIRTUOSITY”

Lesson #5

“PROXIMITY DICTATES WHAT YOU BELIEVE.”

Lesson #6

“THE POPULARITY OF A FAITH SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ITS TRUTH OR ACCURACY AS RELIGION IS SPREAD THROUGH (OFTEN VIOLENT) INDOCTRINATION.”

Lesson #7

“RELIGION PROPAGATES GRAVE INTOLERANCE FOR ANY OTHER VIEWS ON LIFE.”

Lesson #8

“RELIGIOUS PROOF IS MEANINGLESS SINCE BELIEF IS ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE.”

Lesson #9

“HOPE IS SIMULTANEOUSLY THE GREATEST HUMAN STRENGTH AND THE GREATEST HUMAN DELUSION.”

Lesson #10

“YESTERDAY’S RELIGIONS ARE TODAY’S MYTHOLOGIES. TODAY’S RELIGIONS ARE TOMORROW’S MYTHOLOGIES.”

Conclusion

Giant Cow

Introduction To Taguchi Method

Pareto principle

Theil indexThe Theil index is an entropy measure used to quantify inequities. The measure is 0 for 50:50 distributions and reaches 1 at a Pareto distribution of 82:18. Higher inequities yield Theil indices above 1.

Theil index
The Theil index is an entropy measure used to quantify inequities. The measure is 0 for 50:50 distributions and reaches 1 at a Pareto distribution of 82:18. Higher inequities yield Theil indices above 1.