what i'm reading lately...
i just finished world war z, and before that was "the girl who couldn't come" -- a selection of short stories by the author(s) of one of my fave webcomics: a softer world. loved world war z, slightly disappointed in the weird-sexy short stories. my favorite part of it was the blurb on the back "This is a book of dirty stories. they are weird and fun and often bewildering, like sex itself."
so the only book i've wrapped up this past week that's worth transcribing from is a mind of its own: how your brain distorts and deceives. it's sad to me that the only things i've earmarked lately are the nonfiction sciency variety. maybe that will sway my next book choice :)
Perhaps the best we can do in these circumstances is to remember that the problem is not that we can no longer control ourselves, but that we are simply less inclined to do so.
I then did something very foolish. I began research on this chapter -- the vain brain. The vain brain that excuses your faults and failures, or simply rewrites them out of history. The brain so very vain that it even considers the letters that appear in your name to be more attractive than those that don't. I didn't want to know any of this. But then it got worse. I went on to read just how essential these positive illusions are. Without a little deluded optimism, your immune system begins to wonder whether it's worth the effort of keeping you alive. And, most extraordinarily, it seems that sometimes your vain brain manages to transform its grandiose beliefs into reality. Buoyed by a brain that loves you like a mother, you struggle and persevere -- happily blind to your own inadequacies, arrogantly dismissive of likely obstacles -- and actually achieve your goals.
Failure is perhaps the greatest enemy of the ego, and that's why the vain brain does its best to barricade the door against this unwelcome guest. The self-serving bias we've already encountered provides a few extra services to this end. One approach is to tell yourself that yourself that, in retrospect, thee odds were stacked against you and failure was all but inevitable. Researchers have found that optimists in particular use this strategy, which has been dubbed retroactive pessimism, and it makes failure easier to digest. Self-handicappers, as they are called, exploit the self-serving bias in a different way. In self-handicapping, the brain makes sure that it has a nonthreatening excuse for failure,, should it occur. Self-handicapping also enhances the sweetness of success when it occurs, creating a win-win situation for your ego.
[Researchers gave kids a bunch of felt-tip pens, told some kids that they would be rewarded with a gold star and a ribbon, while other kids got no incentive. then they came back a few days later to see who played more with them on the second casual encounter.] Any parent who has sunk to the use of corrupting acts of enticement -- that is, any parent -- will assume that the proud owners of the stars and ribbons would choose to play longer with the pens. But in fact it was the unrewarded children who spent more time playing with the pens. The reason, according to self-perception theory, is this. When the children saw this optional pastime spread out on the tabletops for the second time, they had to decide whether they wanted to play with them. And so their brains asked themselves, "How do I like drawing with felt-tip pens?" The brains of the children in unrewarded groups answered along the lines of "Well, I spent all that time drawing with pens last week, so I guess I must enjoy it." But the brains of the kids in the rewarded group replied "Damni it, not stinkin' pens again. I know I played with them last week, but that was only to get the star and ribbon. Which way's the sandbox?" (kind of explains why reward-based weight loss programs never stick :D oops)
Making decisions, getting things going, developing plans, fixing your attention on the task at hand -- in short, anything that requires concentrated thought -- all deplete the same pool of mental resources. This might explain wy it's so hard to get anything done -- even something as seemingly simple as switching off the television--after a hard day at work. With your inner battery dangerously low after a series of intellectually challenging situations throughout the workday, the will may be reluctant to do anything except put its feet up once you get home. In a simulation of the daily grind, some volunteers were given a highly mentally demanding task to do -- the psychology lab equivalent of controlling air traffic. The other volunteers were used more like factory workers: their job was so repetitive and easy that it quickly became automatic. Then the volunteers watched a video, which they could stop at any time by pressing down on a button. The film challenged even the very worst of television broadcasting. It was an unchanging shot of a blank white wall with a table and computer equipment in the foreground. Drained by their Herculean task in the first part of the experiment, the air traffic controllers found themselves slumped inertly in front of the TV screen for longer than the factory workers, too sluggish to summon up the will to press a button to end the show. Keeping the more touchy-feely parts of ourselves restrained is also tiring and, again, leaves us with less mental energy for other sorts of self-regulation. Cognitively drained, the uglier side of our nature begins to show through the cracks in the facade we usually present to others.
Perhaps the best we can do in these circumstances is to remember that the problem is not that we can no longer control ourselves, but that we are simply less inclined to do so. Remember that low-spirited people who were told that giving in to temptation would not improve their mood restrained themselves from eating chocolate chip cookies just as well as did people in a more positive frame of mind. What seems to be they key here is resisting the natural tendency to avoid potentially bruising self-reflection.
By handing over control to the faithful unconscious. When we confidently and sincerely proclaim, "When I go to the caf at lunchtime I will buy an apple instead of a Twix," the mental butler alerts the unconscious part of our plans and it adjusts itself accordingly. With a single act of will (which, frankly, seems to be about as much as we can expect from this undependable part of ourselves), the conscious self can take a much-needed rest and leave the remainder of the job to the more reliable unconscious brain. Where there's a will, there's a way, it is said, but what if the will is unwilling? Cast it in too many performances and it will collapse onstage halfway through the act. Upset or insult it, and it will lock itself in the dressing room and refuse to come out. Distract it, worry it, or put it under pressure and it will hit bum notes. The prima donna of the brain, the will must be handled with the utmost care.
The message that men and women are "complementary but equal," and that we all benefit from fulfilling our natural role in society, lends an "equalitarian veneer" to an age-old prejudice. This is why, perhaps, in the most sexist countries of the world, women cling even more desperately to the second-rate compensations of benevolent sexism. Unfortunately, of course, women do not even have to personally endorse this old-fashioned "women are from Venus" ideology for it to affect them. Researchers asked men and women to rate how much certain qualities apply to men and to women, as a way of priming gender stereotypes. Some had the benevolent stereotype of women primed. They were asked about stereotypically female positive qualities -- being considerate, warm, and moral, for example. Others judged men as opposed to women on supposedly male qualities (being assertive, competitive, and ambitious, for instance). The researchers then looked to see what effect the stereotype priming had had in terms of stifling or fanning fires in bellies regarding gender inequalities. The volunteers were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as, "In general, relations between men and women are fair," and "The division of labor in families generally operates as it should." The findings exposed the dangerously co-opting effects of the wonderful women stereotype. Women who had not been exposed to this stereotype were quite adamant that women don't get a fair shot, that men don't pull their weight at home, and that a radical restructuring of society was called for. And this was despite the fact that the heroic stereotype of man as the go-get-em hunter of society had just been primed. But women who, beforehand, had been reminded that stereotypical womanhood brings its own sweet compensations, were just as complacently accepting of the status quo as were men. Charmed into unwitting submission, women became complicit in their own subordination.
yes, i typed all that up instead of packing for california :) so that will happen...tomorrow night, i suppose :p oops.
so the only book i've wrapped up this past week that's worth transcribing from is a mind of its own: how your brain distorts and deceives. it's sad to me that the only things i've earmarked lately are the nonfiction sciency variety. maybe that will sway my next book choice :)
Perhaps the best we can do in these circumstances is to remember that the problem is not that we can no longer control ourselves, but that we are simply less inclined to do so.
I then did something very foolish. I began research on this chapter -- the vain brain. The vain brain that excuses your faults and failures, or simply rewrites them out of history. The brain so very vain that it even considers the letters that appear in your name to be more attractive than those that don't. I didn't want to know any of this. But then it got worse. I went on to read just how essential these positive illusions are. Without a little deluded optimism, your immune system begins to wonder whether it's worth the effort of keeping you alive. And, most extraordinarily, it seems that sometimes your vain brain manages to transform its grandiose beliefs into reality. Buoyed by a brain that loves you like a mother, you struggle and persevere -- happily blind to your own inadequacies, arrogantly dismissive of likely obstacles -- and actually achieve your goals.
Failure is perhaps the greatest enemy of the ego, and that's why the vain brain does its best to barricade the door against this unwelcome guest. The self-serving bias we've already encountered provides a few extra services to this end. One approach is to tell yourself that yourself that, in retrospect, thee odds were stacked against you and failure was all but inevitable. Researchers have found that optimists in particular use this strategy, which has been dubbed retroactive pessimism, and it makes failure easier to digest. Self-handicappers, as they are called, exploit the self-serving bias in a different way. In self-handicapping, the brain makes sure that it has a nonthreatening excuse for failure,, should it occur. Self-handicapping also enhances the sweetness of success when it occurs, creating a win-win situation for your ego.
[Researchers gave kids a bunch of felt-tip pens, told some kids that they would be rewarded with a gold star and a ribbon, while other kids got no incentive. then they came back a few days later to see who played more with them on the second casual encounter.] Any parent who has sunk to the use of corrupting acts of enticement -- that is, any parent -- will assume that the proud owners of the stars and ribbons would choose to play longer with the pens. But in fact it was the unrewarded children who spent more time playing with the pens. The reason, according to self-perception theory, is this. When the children saw this optional pastime spread out on the tabletops for the second time, they had to decide whether they wanted to play with them. And so their brains asked themselves, "How do I like drawing with felt-tip pens?" The brains of the children in unrewarded groups answered along the lines of "Well, I spent all that time drawing with pens last week, so I guess I must enjoy it." But the brains of the kids in the rewarded group replied "Damni it, not stinkin' pens again. I know I played with them last week, but that was only to get the star and ribbon. Which way's the sandbox?" (kind of explains why reward-based weight loss programs never stick :D oops)
Making decisions, getting things going, developing plans, fixing your attention on the task at hand -- in short, anything that requires concentrated thought -- all deplete the same pool of mental resources. This might explain wy it's so hard to get anything done -- even something as seemingly simple as switching off the television--after a hard day at work. With your inner battery dangerously low after a series of intellectually challenging situations throughout the workday, the will may be reluctant to do anything except put its feet up once you get home. In a simulation of the daily grind, some volunteers were given a highly mentally demanding task to do -- the psychology lab equivalent of controlling air traffic. The other volunteers were used more like factory workers: their job was so repetitive and easy that it quickly became automatic. Then the volunteers watched a video, which they could stop at any time by pressing down on a button. The film challenged even the very worst of television broadcasting. It was an unchanging shot of a blank white wall with a table and computer equipment in the foreground. Drained by their Herculean task in the first part of the experiment, the air traffic controllers found themselves slumped inertly in front of the TV screen for longer than the factory workers, too sluggish to summon up the will to press a button to end the show. Keeping the more touchy-feely parts of ourselves restrained is also tiring and, again, leaves us with less mental energy for other sorts of self-regulation. Cognitively drained, the uglier side of our nature begins to show through the cracks in the facade we usually present to others.
Perhaps the best we can do in these circumstances is to remember that the problem is not that we can no longer control ourselves, but that we are simply less inclined to do so. Remember that low-spirited people who were told that giving in to temptation would not improve their mood restrained themselves from eating chocolate chip cookies just as well as did people in a more positive frame of mind. What seems to be they key here is resisting the natural tendency to avoid potentially bruising self-reflection.
By handing over control to the faithful unconscious. When we confidently and sincerely proclaim, "When I go to the caf at lunchtime I will buy an apple instead of a Twix," the mental butler alerts the unconscious part of our plans and it adjusts itself accordingly. With a single act of will (which, frankly, seems to be about as much as we can expect from this undependable part of ourselves), the conscious self can take a much-needed rest and leave the remainder of the job to the more reliable unconscious brain. Where there's a will, there's a way, it is said, but what if the will is unwilling? Cast it in too many performances and it will collapse onstage halfway through the act. Upset or insult it, and it will lock itself in the dressing room and refuse to come out. Distract it, worry it, or put it under pressure and it will hit bum notes. The prima donna of the brain, the will must be handled with the utmost care.
The message that men and women are "complementary but equal," and that we all benefit from fulfilling our natural role in society, lends an "equalitarian veneer" to an age-old prejudice. This is why, perhaps, in the most sexist countries of the world, women cling even more desperately to the second-rate compensations of benevolent sexism. Unfortunately, of course, women do not even have to personally endorse this old-fashioned "women are from Venus" ideology for it to affect them. Researchers asked men and women to rate how much certain qualities apply to men and to women, as a way of priming gender stereotypes. Some had the benevolent stereotype of women primed. They were asked about stereotypically female positive qualities -- being considerate, warm, and moral, for example. Others judged men as opposed to women on supposedly male qualities (being assertive, competitive, and ambitious, for instance). The researchers then looked to see what effect the stereotype priming had had in terms of stifling or fanning fires in bellies regarding gender inequalities. The volunteers were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as, "In general, relations between men and women are fair," and "The division of labor in families generally operates as it should." The findings exposed the dangerously co-opting effects of the wonderful women stereotype. Women who had not been exposed to this stereotype were quite adamant that women don't get a fair shot, that men don't pull their weight at home, and that a radical restructuring of society was called for. And this was despite the fact that the heroic stereotype of man as the go-get-em hunter of society had just been primed. But women who, beforehand, had been reminded that stereotypical womanhood brings its own sweet compensations, were just as complacently accepting of the status quo as were men. Charmed into unwitting submission, women became complicit in their own subordination.
yes, i typed all that up instead of packing for california :) so that will happen...tomorrow night, i suppose :p oops.