Great book opening!
"Straw Dogs - Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals"
by John Gray
Sunday, 5 May 2013
Sunday, 28 April 2013
On Loving What You Do
The author of the indelible "Fahrenheit 451" and his contagious love for books.
What an endearing man!
What an endearing man!
Wednesday, 24 April 2013
On Self-Deception
Living a Lie
On 02/02/2013 by Kat McGowan, on Psychology Today
Fooling yourself can have devastating consequences, especially in the domains of money, career, sexual identity and relationships.
Extracts:
“Yes, you are just a little bit smarter than most people. Funnier, too. And while we’re at it, more appealing. Your strengths are writ large, and your flaws are, well, minimal. Your successes are hard-earned. Failures? Most are the result of sheer bad luck.
Almost all of us engage in self-deception, little denials or rationalizations that remove unpleasant evidence of our warts. Episodes of self-enhancement are absolutely normal. In fact, slightly overrating ourselves seems to be psychologically healthy. Self-deception alleviates stress, benefits relationships, and makes us more resilient by sheltering the ego from the storms of reality. (…)
A little bit of self-deceit can be good for you. But when it comes to the core challenges of adult life—career, money, sexual identity and marriage—fooling yourself can have devastating consequences.
In each of these domains—think of them as the four horsemen of self-deception—we face situations that require us to make difficult decisions in the face of doubt and uncertainty. The result is anxiety and a strong temptation to hide from the truth. “People keep secrets from themselves because to acknowledge the information would be extremely anxiety-producing,” says New York City psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Gail Saltz. Self-deception and worry reinforce each other, making it harder and harder to face the facts.”
On 02/02/2013 by Kat McGowan, on Psychology Today
Fooling yourself can have devastating consequences, especially in the domains of money, career, sexual identity and relationships.
Extracts:
“Yes, you are just a little bit smarter than most people. Funnier, too. And while we’re at it, more appealing. Your strengths are writ large, and your flaws are, well, minimal. Your successes are hard-earned. Failures? Most are the result of sheer bad luck.
Almost all of us engage in self-deception, little denials or rationalizations that remove unpleasant evidence of our warts. Episodes of self-enhancement are absolutely normal. In fact, slightly overrating ourselves seems to be psychologically healthy. Self-deception alleviates stress, benefits relationships, and makes us more resilient by sheltering the ego from the storms of reality. (…)
A little bit of self-deceit can be good for you. But when it comes to the core challenges of adult life—career, money, sexual identity and marriage—fooling yourself can have devastating consequences.
In each of these domains—think of them as the four horsemen of self-deception—we face situations that require us to make difficult decisions in the face of doubt and uncertainty. The result is anxiety and a strong temptation to hide from the truth. “People keep secrets from themselves because to acknowledge the information would be extremely anxiety-producing,” says New York City psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Gail Saltz. Self-deception and worry reinforce each other, making it harder and harder to face the facts.”
Sunday, 21 April 2013
On Life-Choice Evangelists
This column will change your life: life-choice evangelists
On 09/03/2013, by Oliver Burkeman, the Guardian
'Their real motivation, you suspect, isn't their certainty that marriage, or parenthood, would be best for you. Rather, it's that they worry that it's not best for them'
Extracts:
“You almost certainly know at least one infuriating person who is what I'll call, for want of a better term, a life-choice evangelist. As the label suggests, LCEs are driven by the anxious insistence that whatever major decisions they've made – to get married, to have or not have kids, to sacrifice fulfilling work for a higher salary, or vice versa – are best for everyone. If he's married, an LCE will seem unable to comprehend why anyone wouldn't choose to be; if she's single and you're not, she'll drop hints that you should envy her freedom. Contradict an LCE, by suggesting an alternative life path, and you'll witness a face flicker of confusion, as if you might not be speaking English. (…)
The LCEs' real motivation, you suspect, isn't their certainty that marriage, or parenthood, or leaving the city for the country, would be best for you. Rather, it's that they worry, perhaps subconsciously, that it's not best for them: their efforts to persuade are an attempt to reassure themselves. A study soon to be published in Psychological Science strongly suggests that's so. The Stanford researcher Kristin Laurin and her colleagues found that people think more highly of those with the same relationship status as them – even when it shouldn't matter, as when hiring someone for a job, or deciding which politician to vote for. (…)
The truly telling detail, though, was that the effect was more marked the more permanent people believed their own status to be. It wasn't the most happily coupled-up people who thought coupledom was best; it was those who thought their position least likely to change who most strongly felt it was preferable for all. "Perceiving an unchangeable situation as undesirable can lead to feelings of being 'trapped'," the researchers write. One way to avoid that "is to represent one's current situation as an ideal – not just for oneself, but universally." If marriage is best for everyone, the logic goes, it must be best for me.”
On 09/03/2013, by Oliver Burkeman, the Guardian
'Their real motivation, you suspect, isn't their certainty that marriage, or parenthood, would be best for you. Rather, it's that they worry that it's not best for them'
Extracts:
“You almost certainly know at least one infuriating person who is what I'll call, for want of a better term, a life-choice evangelist. As the label suggests, LCEs are driven by the anxious insistence that whatever major decisions they've made – to get married, to have or not have kids, to sacrifice fulfilling work for a higher salary, or vice versa – are best for everyone. If he's married, an LCE will seem unable to comprehend why anyone wouldn't choose to be; if she's single and you're not, she'll drop hints that you should envy her freedom. Contradict an LCE, by suggesting an alternative life path, and you'll witness a face flicker of confusion, as if you might not be speaking English. (…)
The LCEs' real motivation, you suspect, isn't their certainty that marriage, or parenthood, or leaving the city for the country, would be best for you. Rather, it's that they worry, perhaps subconsciously, that it's not best for them: their efforts to persuade are an attempt to reassure themselves. A study soon to be published in Psychological Science strongly suggests that's so. The Stanford researcher Kristin Laurin and her colleagues found that people think more highly of those with the same relationship status as them – even when it shouldn't matter, as when hiring someone for a job, or deciding which politician to vote for. (…)
The truly telling detail, though, was that the effect was more marked the more permanent people believed their own status to be. It wasn't the most happily coupled-up people who thought coupledom was best; it was those who thought their position least likely to change who most strongly felt it was preferable for all. "Perceiving an unchangeable situation as undesirable can lead to feelings of being 'trapped'," the researchers write. One way to avoid that "is to represent one's current situation as an ideal – not just for oneself, but universally." If marriage is best for everyone, the logic goes, it must be best for me.”
Friday, 19 April 2013
On Social Constructs and Policy-Making
Why football is random but we think it isn't;
Why wine is rubbish yet we drink it;
Why native English speakers don't learn foreign languages
and other interesting heuristics.
The insightful Rory Sutherland:
Why wine is rubbish yet we drink it;
Why native English speakers don't learn foreign languages
and other interesting heuristics.
The insightful Rory Sutherland:
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
On Inconsistency
Why people act out of line with their beliefs
On 12/03/2013, by Tom Stafford on BBC Future
Ever been forced to defend a particular position and ended up believing it? You’ve succumbed to one of the most famous theories in social psychology.
Extracts:
“If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards. And if you find yourself acting out of line with your beliefs, change them. This sounds like motivational advice from one of the more cynical self-help books, or perhaps a Groucho Marx line (“Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others…”), but in fact it is a caricature of one of the most famous theories in social psychology.
Leon Festinger's Dissonance Theory is an account of how our beliefs rub up against each other, an attempt at a sort of ecology of mind. Dissonance Theory offers an explanation of topics as diverse as why oil company executives might not believe in climate change, why army units have brutal initiation ceremonies, and why famous books might actually be boring. (…)
Fans of cognitive dissonance will tell you that this is why people forced to defend a particular position – say because it is their job – are likely to end up believing it. It can also suggest a reason for why military services, high school sports teams and college societies have bizarre and punishing initiation rituals. If you've been through the ritual, dissonance theory predicts, you're much more likely to believe the group is a valuable one to be a part of (the initiation hurt, and you're not a fool, so it must have been worth it right?). (…)
Changing your beliefs to be in line with how you acted may not be the most principled approach. But it is certainly easier than changing how you acted.”
On 12/03/2013, by Tom Stafford on BBC Future
Ever been forced to defend a particular position and ended up believing it? You’ve succumbed to one of the most famous theories in social psychology.
Extracts:
“If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards. And if you find yourself acting out of line with your beliefs, change them. This sounds like motivational advice from one of the more cynical self-help books, or perhaps a Groucho Marx line (“Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others…”), but in fact it is a caricature of one of the most famous theories in social psychology.
Leon Festinger's Dissonance Theory is an account of how our beliefs rub up against each other, an attempt at a sort of ecology of mind. Dissonance Theory offers an explanation of topics as diverse as why oil company executives might not believe in climate change, why army units have brutal initiation ceremonies, and why famous books might actually be boring. (…)
Fans of cognitive dissonance will tell you that this is why people forced to defend a particular position – say because it is their job – are likely to end up believing it. It can also suggest a reason for why military services, high school sports teams and college societies have bizarre and punishing initiation rituals. If you've been through the ritual, dissonance theory predicts, you're much more likely to believe the group is a valuable one to be a part of (the initiation hurt, and you're not a fool, so it must have been worth it right?). (…)
Changing your beliefs to be in line with how you acted may not be the most principled approach. But it is certainly easier than changing how you acted.”
On Happiness
Happiness, Beyond the Data
On 10/04/13, by Gary Gutting, the Opinionator
Extracts:
"Happiness studies are booming in the social sciences, and governments are moving toward quantitative measures of a nation’s overall happiness, meant to supplement traditional measures of wealth and productivity. (…)
Happiness involves four things, and the first one is mostly a matter of luck. You have be sufficiently free of suffering — physical and mental — for happiness to be even possible. Suffering can be noble and edifying, but it can also reduce us to a state where there’s nothing beyond our distress that can make it meaningful. (…)
The second requirement for happiness: fulfilling work. Since humans are distinct persons but with essential ties to a community, my work must be fulfilling both individually and socially: I must do something that satisfies me as an individual and that I regard as producing significant good for others. Of course, unless I have the luck of being born rich, my work must also generate enough income to provide me the minimal goods without which happiness is not even possible. The challenge is to find satisfying work with an adequate income. (…)
A third feature of happiness is what the ancient Greeks called the proper “use of pleasure.” Here I am using “pleasure” to refer not to just any feeling of satisfaction but to the immediate gratification of the senses: not only the five physical senses but also the aesthetic sensibilities directed to art and nature. (…) The danger — particularly for a society as rich as ours — is making pleasure the central focus in the pursuit of a happy life. (…) Pleasures themselves often induce a desire for their repetition and intensification, and without moderation from a reflective mind, they can marginalize the work that lies at the core of true happiness. (…)
Finally, and often most important, there is the happiness of human love, where my happiness arises from and contributes to the happiness of my spouse, my children, my friends — even perhaps of all humankind. Such love can take us beyond the domain of mere happiness, into the world of moral and religious values. It can even lead to sacrificing my happiness for another’s. Love is both the culmination of happiness and a reminder that there is more to life than happiness."
On 10/04/13, by Gary Gutting, the Opinionator
Extracts:
"Happiness studies are booming in the social sciences, and governments are moving toward quantitative measures of a nation’s overall happiness, meant to supplement traditional measures of wealth and productivity. (…)
Happiness involves four things, and the first one is mostly a matter of luck. You have be sufficiently free of suffering — physical and mental — for happiness to be even possible. Suffering can be noble and edifying, but it can also reduce us to a state where there’s nothing beyond our distress that can make it meaningful. (…)
The second requirement for happiness: fulfilling work. Since humans are distinct persons but with essential ties to a community, my work must be fulfilling both individually and socially: I must do something that satisfies me as an individual and that I regard as producing significant good for others. Of course, unless I have the luck of being born rich, my work must also generate enough income to provide me the minimal goods without which happiness is not even possible. The challenge is to find satisfying work with an adequate income. (…)
A third feature of happiness is what the ancient Greeks called the proper “use of pleasure.” Here I am using “pleasure” to refer not to just any feeling of satisfaction but to the immediate gratification of the senses: not only the five physical senses but also the aesthetic sensibilities directed to art and nature. (…) The danger — particularly for a society as rich as ours — is making pleasure the central focus in the pursuit of a happy life. (…) Pleasures themselves often induce a desire for their repetition and intensification, and without moderation from a reflective mind, they can marginalize the work that lies at the core of true happiness. (…)
Finally, and often most important, there is the happiness of human love, where my happiness arises from and contributes to the happiness of my spouse, my children, my friends — even perhaps of all humankind. Such love can take us beyond the domain of mere happiness, into the world of moral and religious values. It can even lead to sacrificing my happiness for another’s. Love is both the culmination of happiness and a reminder that there is more to life than happiness."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)