How we change what others think, feel, believe and do

The ChangingMinds Blog!

Blog only:

Sexy screen locations

Did you know that where you look changes what you see? Well, maybe not physically, but it can change how you feel about it. Perception is reality in many ways and there are some strange effects that can be hard to explain.

One example is photos on screen. Say you are laying out a web page that includes your photograph -- where would you put the photo? Would it matter? Research by Brian Meier and Sarah Dionne found that women rate men's photos as more attractive when they are near the top of the screen, but men rate women's photos as more attractive when they are near the bottom of the screen.

So what is going on here? An explanation is that we are using the metaphor of 'height = power', with people closer to the top of the screen seeming taller. This then plays to the evolutionary drive that makes men prefer smaller women and makes women seek powerful men.

Subtle. Politically incorrect. But that's how it works and we need to take all knowledge into account.

Reference: B.P. Meier and S. Dionne (2010). Downright sexy: Verticality, implicit power and attractiveness. Social Cognition, 27, 883-892

Friday 20-January-10

The smell of fear

We talk about 'the smell of fear' but is it true? Can animals detect scared other animals and hence identify potential prey? If you are frightened of a vicious dog, are they more likely to attack? And what about people? Can we small fear?

Researchers Alexander Prehn-Kristensen and colleagues captured the smell of fear from cotton pads placed under the arms of students waiting to give a worrisome presentation. The researchers also collected fear-free sweat from the armpits of students doing cycling exercises. Then they administered the smells to other students whilst scanning their brains.

The result of the experiment was clear evidence that, even when we cannot consciously tell the difference, the emotional parts of the brain still light up when we are given the whiff of fear-tinged sweat, including the insula, the precuneus, the cingulate gyrus, the fusiform cortex and the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (just as we might expect :).

Interesting stuff! If people can smell fear it seems very likely that animals can too, so do stay calm around any nasty nippers. It may also have some effect on how we respond to one another, from bullying to tender empathy (depending, perhaps, on our nature).

Reference:
Prehn-Kristensen, A., Wiesner, C., Bergmann, T., Wolff, S., Jansen, O., Mehdorn, H., Ferstl, R., & Pause, B. (2009). Induction of Empathy by the. Smell of Anxiety. PLoS ONE, 4 (6)

Friday 13-January-12

Obviously, you must believe me

I saw a great sign posted up on a notice board outside a church, recently:

Obviously there is a God. Now stop worrying and enjoy life.

What a brilliant bit of persuasion! Let's look at how it works.

The first word, 'obviously' is a powerful bit of persuasion by itself. It says 'If you do not agree with me, then you must be stupid'. It is like saying 'of course', which has the same message. Most people do not want to appear stupid so they accept the linked statement without further question.

'...there is a God' is interesting in that it says 'a God'. 'A' is the indefinite article. It implies that there may be more than one god, which for a Christian church would be anathema. But perhaps they are not pushing the point. And there are probably too few pantheists to make it a worry. The main point of this part of the sentence is to get it over and done with quickly, after the tacit acceptance forced by the first word. We are hence impelled forward.

And then comes the turning of the key in the lock: a nice friendly admonition with which nobody could disagree. Who would not want to stop worrying and start enjoying life instead? We all have plenty to worry us and are often too busy just staying alive to pause and smell the roses. Such a nice statement invites us to dwell there and not on any question of deity.

So there you go. If the church is all about not worrying and enjoying life, then it seems like a nice place to go. And obviously the God thing is a given, so no need to argue there. See you on Sunday!

Your comments

I think you might be overreading this: perhaps you missed the Atheist Bus Campaign, whose slogan was "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." It's attracted many parodies and counter-advertisements, of which this is one.

For more info, see: http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/

I'll agree that the use of "Obviously" is very good, but the "a God" is probably just to make the sentence fit the structure imposed by the original advertisement (as opposed to, for example, "Obviously there is God" or "Obviously God exists").

-- Dan Q

Dave replies:
Good rider, Dan and indeed I did miss the Atheist Buses. I'm in the UK -- were they about here? I don't think we have as sharp a religious divide as in the USA (and maybe elsewhere). For example we don't get to hear much about the religious views of our political candidates, nor their position on Creationism.

I guess the effect the sign will have depends on whether you saw the buses or not. If you did, then maybe you will think less of the church for lack of originality. Maybe alternatively you'll be impressed at how they've done a reversal on the tactics of their 'enemies'. And the winner is? God knows.

Friday 06-January-12

The days are long but the years are short

As 2011 closes and 2012 swings into action it is a traditional time for reflection. In 2012 my wife and I will pass the sixty mark. Just like that. I don't feel old and, touch wood, we're reasonably healthy. It helps, I think, that my wife is vegetarian and we eat quite healthily. We also have a couple of energetic dogs who like nothing more than a run in the woods for an hour or two (except perhaps food).

I've also had a recent mooch with old college friends about the passing years. As you get older, your future gets shorter and your past longer, so there's more to talk about looking back than looking forward. You also get to feel the truth of the saying, 'the days are long but the years are short'. Whilst each day seems the same length, time seems to accelerate.

The perception of time is an interesting aspect of neuroscience and cognitive psychology. There are various theories about how we perceive time, including the that we have a 'ticking clock' chronometer and that we perceive time as a sequence of changes rather than a smooth flow. This makes sense for the experience of time flying when you are having fun and dragging by when you are bored. In a bored state you check the time frequently and effectively chop up your experience more, while when you are having fun you get into a state of 'flow' where time, for you and for a while, is a single, missable chunk.

Children perceive time as going more slowly. Remember those endless Summer holidays? A reason for this is that they are having more new experiences and so have to chop up time into smaller increments to process it. It has been said that in terms of perception of passing time, you have already lived half your life by the time you are twenty. After that it turns faster and faster into a muddy flow.

This idea of breaking time up and the child's experience of new things gives a clue on how to lead a slower, longer and more fulfilling life. If you can keep experiencing new things, even in the moments of a normal day, then you will effectively live 'more'. To do this requires a constant stream of attention to finer detail of the things around you, an insatiable curiosity and an openly creative mode of thinking that considers new possibilities and develops deeper understanding on an ongoing basis.

So there's my new year's resolution. Open attention and creative understanding. I think I'm looking forward to 2012.

Your comments

I agree with you. Time flies by that we barely notice it. Glad to know that you're both having a healthy living. Keep it up!

-- Maria E

Friday 30-December-11

National treasures

My wife and I were driving north this week on a 'visit the relatives' trip recently when there was a radio programme about 'National Treasures'. These are person who are perceived as such, being 'treasured' by the nation as a whole.

Who in the UK may be classified as being national treasures? People on the show talked about Judy Dench, David Attenborough, JK Rowling, Robert Winston, Allan Bennett, Joanna Lumley, Sister Wendy and Mary Beard.We also thought of Doctor Who, Stephen Fry, the two Ronnies, Morcambe and Wise, Tommy Cooper, Terry Pratchett, the Queen, Terry Wogan. There are probably many more. Notably on our own list, there were several comedians. Maybe we became anchored by the subject.

We talked about the subject and came up with three defining criteria. So, if you want to be a treasure, this is all you need to be and do.

Unique individuality

National treasures are unique. They are scarce. They are one-offs which make them irreplaceable and valued. They do not fit into neat categories and are never described as being like other people. In fact they are so unique others are seldom described as being like them, at least with some qualification.

Intelligence and ability help. Treasures are often uniquely talented, with abilities that we can only marvel at. They often specialize in one area, although they may be multi-talented polymaths. What kills likeability is unpleasantness. All it takes is one incident of nastiness and you can be struck off the treasure list. Vulnerabilities and weaknesses are acceptably human. Unkindness to others is not.

There's an ontology of treasurehood. This is about the state of being, of who they are as a person. They should have a credible integrity, not a projected image.. They should not be too self-conscious or seekers of accolades and admiration. This excludes many 'celebrities' and admits those who may be considered eccentrics, for whom social desirability is not a goal.

Universal likeability

To be a national treasure, they must be widely liked and treasured by many people. This excludes many who appeal to local or more specialist groups. In practice no national treasures will be liked by everyone, they do need a wide appeal across groups, geographies and demographies.

Likeability is related to a sunny disposition and a sense of fun. Treasures laugh at themselves and avoid imposing their troubles on others. Maybe this is one reason why comedians have a better shot at becoming national treasures. Maybe also treasurable people are more likely to end up in comedy.

Likeability is also related to modesty. We like people who do not push themselves forward. We like people who seem to like other people (and hence, perhaps, us).

One of the ways likeability is gained, at least in the UK, is in overcoming hardship. Treasures often have tragedy and misfortune in their past, which they have overcome with patience, persistence and good character. Hardship is good for exposing those who are self-focused and those with weaker character.

Ubiquitous exposure

To become national treasures, people need a steady visibility to a wide range of people that persists over a longer period that inveigles them into the national consciousness. A person may gain fame from brief, intense exposure. Treasurehood more likely takes a lifetime.

Public exposure does things to people. Some become vain. Others shun it. Treasures grenerally accept it and are unchanged by it. What you see is what you get. They are relaxed in front of the camera, content in their own individuality and all the more likeable for it.

An interesting comparison is Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie, who were once a comedy double act. Both have achived fame and fortune, but only Stephen Fry seems a national treasure. The problem is that while both are multi-talented and likeable, Hugh Laurie's exposure has been largely overseas, playing an American in the TV medical drama, 'House'. Stephen Fry has also overcome a period of deep personal depression.

National heroes are not the same as national treasures. Heroes are defined by individual acts. Treasures evolve and prove themselves, often over a lifetime. It is possible to be both (historically Lord Nelson is a classic example).

Friday 23-December-11

Christmas messages

Christmas is one of those times when we feel impelled to tell the world what we've been doing and maybe our hopes for the following year (although we may keep this for the new year). To compose such as message requires a period of reflection. We think 'What have I achieve over the past twelve months?' and may be surprised at what we have done.

The British Queen has been doing Christmas messages since 1952, continuing a tradition started in 1932, in the early days of radio. Not quite so regally, a bunch of former college friends exchange 'what I did' messages in various forms. Some compose a quick email. Some produce printed documents complete with photos. I published a web page with links to photos (if you're curious, it's here).

An interesting question is what you put in such messages, which probably reflects what you found significant. The things that stand out for us tend to be those with which there is an association with stronger emotions, whether these are positive or negative. Hence the Christmas messages are often about holidays, successes, issues and traumas. We talk about work, our children, our hobbies.

This connecting at key times is important for keeping up friendships. Maybe you do it at other times, from Thanksgiving to Diwali. Whether you write or meet, it provides a synchronization point, where your update on the stories of significant others and refresh friendships and commitments.

So whether you call, write or meet family or friends this Christmas, or whether you connect at other times, do enjoy the weaving of stories and playing out of lives.

Friday 16-December-11

Media, decency and success

Media Studies in UK high schools is an interesting and odd subject. It has a poor reputation as an academic subject and many think it is an easy option. But, perhaps as a reaction to that view, awarding bodies have made the syllabus academically very strong. It has elements of critical studies. It includes highly detailed analysis of media, a very relevant study today, and requires good skills in a range of technology.

Yet the perception continues. I've seen Michael Gove, the current government minister for education speak in derisory terms about it. And less able (and, if truth be told, less motivated) sixth form students (16-18 year olds) often end up taking the subject, even being encouraged to do so by the school which knows they won't succeed in more traditional subjects.

As a result, Media classes end up with a wide range of abilities and attitudes as the (relatively few) serious students are diluted by the lazy and the incapable. My wife is a teacher of both English and Media Studies. She's highly successful and I'm very proud of her. Great results and kids that all want to be in her class. And here's an interesting story she told me.

As well as more traditional essays, Media Studies includes project work, where students have to create movies and other productions. In doing so, they may work together in teams. Teams are often made up of friends and friends are often based on ability and attitude. So take two teams. One is run by Becky who is bright, friendly and motivated. She asks her friends (including those not doing Media
Studies) to join in and help out, which they do, willingly. The other is run by Nora, who also asks her friends to help out. But Nora's friends drop out, can't be bothered and generally let her down. So who's project gets the better mark? Becky's of course.

And this is true of much of life. If you are decent and hard-working, you will end up with friends who think likewise. And such friends help each other succeed. And one success leads to another and so to a successful life. And the general attitude that it is good to help others is proven to be true.

The spiral for those who are lazy and deceitful (or associate with those who are) goes the other way. When untrustworthy people gather together, they cannot trust one another. Betrayals, fights and feuds break out. Success of any size is so difficult, many give up. They learn that they cannot help and that when people do you might as well take advantage of them.

I was at a conference last week where a speaker from the respected and employee-owned chain John Lewis was talking about their people-oriented culture. He noted that a common saying there is 'Hire for attitude, fire for attitude'. We used to say something similar at HP: 'Hire for attitude, train for skill'. The best thing you can do for your business is to hire decent, hard-working people. And because birds of a feather flock together, decent, hard-working people will be looking for companies that employ the same. And so create a spiral of success.

The bottom line is simple: Be decent and honest, respecting and caring for others. Be prepared to work hard at whatever you do, taking pride in your work. And you will find others with the same attitude and together you will find success.

For more, see the ChangingMinds Blog! Archive or the Blogs by subject. To comment on any blog, click on the blog either in the archive or in the column to the right.

Best wishes,

Dave

Click below to view & comment on any blog