What some smart people are optimistic about

This morning I read the beginning of Arnold Kling’s column on TCSDaily, and where he had a link to Edge.org. the website of the Edge Foundation:The mandate of Edge Foundation is to promote inquiry into and discussion of intellectual, philosophical, artistic, and literary issues, as well as to work for the intellectual and social achievement of society.” Every year they ask a <a href="http://edge.org/questioncenter.html”>question to their members. Last year it was “What is your dangerous idea?,” and in 2005 it was “What do you believe is true though you cannot prove it?” (which I apparently noted at the time) & has since been become a book with an Introduction by Ian McEwan. This year’s question is “What are you optimistic about and why?” A fine question, and again some great reads. While browsing (John Gottman, Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins…) I came across a nice quote by Martin Seligman, a major figure in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and now Positive Psychology:

The third form of happiness, which is meaning, is again knowing what your highest strengths are and deploying those in the service of something you believe is larger than you are. There’s no shortcut to that. That’s what life is about.

Just something to keep in mind.

Marc Salem’s Mind Games: naturalistic “magic”

What I do isn’t psychic. What I do isn’t supernatural. It has absolutely no relation whatsoever toMarc Salem those other realms, whether or not they even exist. – Marc Salem

My friend Andrew told me about this show, and I highly recommend the May 2005 60 Minutes segment (transcript), where Salem repeatedly stuns Mike Wallace with his ability to guess words on a page of books people are holding, serial numbers on currency, the sum of numbers chosen my audience members, etc. I’ve seen tricks like this before, for example, from street performers on Pearl Street, but Salem (real name is Moshe Botwinick) takes it to another level, and is willing to explain, in a calm matter-of-fact manner, some of the skills he has which allows him to accomplish seemingly miraculous feats. In short, Salem is keenly perceptive of people’s body language, just as I’m sure many professed “psychics” are. He has assisted and trained law enforcement in detecting lies, directed research on Sesame Street, and according to his website, “has been on faculty of several major universities for close to two decades.” Since Salem recommends the book The Silent Language by anthropologist Edward T. Hall, I wonder if Salem is familiar with the work of Paul Eckman. Or maybe he’s just a natural. According to this profile in the Jewish Journal, his PhD research focused on nonverbal communication. (Yes, I searched Google Scholar and Web of Science for papers. No luck.) Anyway, just watch the video – fantastic!

Notes from my improvisational comedy class

Tonight I attended was the third of eight Level 1 Improvisational Comedy classes given my the Bovine Metropolis Theater. During the first two weeks most of the exercises involved work with imaginary objects. For example, we’d envision ourselves eating at our favorite restaurant, doing an everyday activity like flossing, or playing catch with objects of different weights. One challenging exercise was to lead or follow a partner in such an activity. We’d mirror the leading partner in his motions until the instructor clapped, which indicated a switch in the leader & follower. The challenge for me, which surely occurs in all levels of improv, is to be attentive to what my partner’s doing when leading, and not try to make it something according to what’s in my head. This is especially true in an exercise where we hand an imaginary object around a circle. Each time it changes hands it must also transform in a coherent manner.
They made me very conscious of what I was doing with my body. The day after my first class I was quite aware of how my feel and legs felt while I was walking. I was aware of sensations I’d never before attended to. After the second class I was very conscious of everyday activities. For example, while emptying the dishwasher, felt the cool metal of spoon against my fingers – I never pay attention to that!

The third class started off with a fun game: attacker-defender. With everyone on stage (about six), we each designated (in our mind) someone who’s trying to attack us, and someone who can defend us. Like the other participants, my job was to move around the stage so as to keep my “defender” between me and my “attacker.” A simple algorithm resulting in brilliant patterns. A fun party game, too.

While the first two weeks involved no speaking, this week’s class introduced gibberish. Well, not formal gibberish, which resembles Pig Latin, or Opish, which my mother is quite fluent, but merely sounds that can convey emotions. My gibberish was quite vowel-heavy, along the lines of what Charlie Brown’s teacher sounds like. I suppose had I chosen a language to emulate, such as Chinese or French, it would have sounded quite different. The diversity of gibberish was rather broad, for example, Jim’s was clearly Scandinavian. Mine probably sounded as it did because I was constructing real sentences behind it was English words, and introduced random noise. (Yes, I do work with a bunch of optical signal processing engineers.)

Anyway, a few fun exercises were:

1. A 30-second television advertisement. A student gets up and the class tells him the product. He first does it in gibberish, then in English. I had MaryLee try to sell anvils. And I’m still wondering what they are for – I only know them through the Road Runner cartoons. Ah, now I know.

2. Interpreter (2 person). In a talk-show like setting, one person is a famous expert on a subject, and the interpreter translates her gibberish and gestures. Quite funny, and it was difficult for us to not laugh. The way the gibberish speaker and English speaker worked from and interpreted each other’s contributions was great, and the heart of the comedy.

3. Interpreter (3 person): This is like the above, but the interpreter is between two gibberish speakers of different languages who know each other well. For example, coaches of the same Little League team, a divorced couple (I interpreted them), owners of a pet shop (I played one), and a father and his gay son (I played the father).

All of these exercises were fun, humorous, and challenging. The challenge comes in both interpreting and going with what your partner gives you, and giving them things to work with. As I mentioned above, trying to control the scene with a preconceived notion of how it’s going to play out is a recipe for killing it. It’s like trying to pull an outside pitch in baseball – you’ll just ground out to short.
More to come…

Life 102: What to do When Your Guru Sues You, by Peter McWilliams

This is a manual cross-post to my AllConsuming.net account, where I track my reading:
Peter McWilliams is certainly a hero of mine for his prolific writing and political activism for civil liberties. This book interested me as both a memoir and a profile of the psychology of cults and indoctrination. The first few chapters satisfied my curiosity on the latter, and subsequent chapters were too heavy on the sordid actions of a cult leader, which I am not too interested.

Interestingly, this organization, The Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness (MSIA), has roots in common with Landmark Education Corporation. McWilliams speaks well of Werner Erhard and Stewart Emery, who were both instrumental in Est, Landmarks previous incarnation in the 1970s. Apparently MSIA used the term “enrollment” in the same unconventional way LEC does today. Incidentally, Stewart Emery is co-author of a newly released book, Success Built to Last: Creating a Life that Matters, which consists of interviews with successful people from various walks of life. Life 102 is out of print and is the only one not on-line on McWilliams’s website. Life102.com is an interesting page. It begins:

The book Life 102: What to do When Your Guru Sues You by Peter McWilliams was declared out of print by Prelude Press in 1996. The copyright for the book is now owned by the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness (MSIA). In August 1999, Peter McWilliams offered to write a letter, on behalf of MSIA, to express Peter’s opinion of LIFE 102 to someone who had put LIFE 102 on their web site without permission from the copyright holder. The following letter represented Peter’s thoughts about LIFE 102 and MSIA at that time.

Hero: Eric Cornell

A couple weeks ago at I had the pleasure of playing against, and pitching to, Eric Cornell (Nobel Prize, Physics 2001) in the Staff Council Softball League at the University of Colorado. After once again experiencing his down-to-Earth enthusiasm, his volunteering to be the umpire for the first inning or so, I realized that I admire him enough to acknowledge him as a hero on my blog. Little did I know when I realized this was that he’d written a short article in an effort to save the softball league from bureaucratic insanity. The Colorado Daily published it on my birthday. Should that link expire, I’ve saved it on my page here.

He also sponsored a resolution proposed to the student government for them to do what they can – at this late stage of the field renovation plans – to keep the league going next year.

On Thursday of last week I joined a handful of other softball players and league volunteers (I volunteered in ’04 and ’05) to communicate to the student government how important the league was to the campus community. I was happy to incorporate the concept of social capital, made popular by the book Bowling Alone. A handful of the students had heard of or read the book, so that was a good sign.

I mentioned “bonding” among people in the same or related departments, and “bridging” that occurs between people from different department who would not ordinarily interact. Through this, I noted, we get a sense of community by, for example, seeing people we know as we walk through campus. Knowing more people also promotes smooth conflict resolution, or as I said “we’re less likely to be a jerk” when we either know the person or have a know are aware that we know people in common with someone we’re working with. Many students nodded in recognition. I could have acknowledged Guns Germs and Steel for that idea, but decided I’d been academic enough.

’70s and ’80s nostalgia & fashion

Today I saw a guy at the University of Colorado Engineering Center wearing the t-shirt shown to the left. Contra was a game for the original Nintendo Entertainment System of the late 1980s. Within seconds of seeing it, I started to play the games theme music, and I am still amazed at the detail with which I can recall it. I can even generate the sounds of some of the flame-thrower weapons. It turns out that the guy was giving a lecture at the meeting of game developers.

On a related note, I’ve been observing a couple of fashion trends. OK, since I’m noticing them they can’t be that new. (1) 70s style sneakers with very thin soles, no arch support, and a bowling shoe color scheme. These are probably useless for any sort of exercise or sport. Orange and brown are quite popular, but are probably on the way “out” if I’m noticing them. (2) Sunglasses. Someone pointed out to me that it’s now common for people to rest them on the top of their heads, as the Bitter Blogger has noted. I am not bitter about this, rather, just observing how something that would seems weird a few years ago is now acceptable, or even “cool.”

Another trend is the return of aviator sunglasses, also popular when my generation were children. Some of them have more metal than the traditional ones, and I have to admit, look sort of badass, and damn it, I don’t know why. All sunglasses can potentially be cool by their very nature: you can’t tell when the wearer is looking at you, which conveys status in that primate sort of way. Beyond that, perhaps it’s an early adopter phenomenon. If an extremely small minority is breaking the fashion trend, they are “weird,” but if that number grows just a bit, they’re “cool,” and when enough people adopt, it’s statistically normal.

That’s all for now. Surely there’s some real literature on fashion and evolution.

The Voting Trap: Cast a Vote, Build a Bias?

From Reason magazine

Harvard’s Sendhil Mullainathan and Yale’s Ebonya Washington, in a paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, examined surveys conducted from 1976 to 1996 that asked young adults about their attitudes toward a candidate two years after the candidate’s election. They discovered that those who were eligible to vote two years earlier were “twice as polarized as ineligible ones” in their opinion of the candidate. The ones who got to vote showed more approval for “their” candidate, and more disapproval for the one they didn’t vote for, than those who started with the same opinions but couldn’t vote to express them.

Yet another instance of how People Are Irrational about Politics.

Back in Boulder, & appropriately…

Today I participated in an experiment on the “Psychic Staring Effect,” by students in a CU Boulder class, The Edges of Science. Apparently the administrator’s beliefs about the phenomenon affect whether it occurs. The professor considered me to be a good skeptic on the issue, and an adequate substitute for well-known skeptic Victor Stenger, which is an honor in some ways.

“The Distance”

In an odd and yet meaningless coincidence, the DC-area “classic rock” station was playing the same song (“The Distance”, by Cake) in my car when I left it at 10 AM as when I got back into at more than 12 hours later – almost as if I were listening to the song on a CD and not the radio. Indeed, it’s a catchy tune.

In a subsequent post I should rave on and on about Martin Seligman’s Learned Optimism. He relates some amazing studies on how one’s explanatory style determines our resilience to adversity, achievement, and health. Here’s a paper on how it affects athletes.

One of my pages linked on a Wikipedia entry

Woohoo! I was reading about Robert Cialdini’s idea of commitments “growing their own legs”, and found that on his entry on Wikipedia had a link to an interview with him that I had posted on my page. It was originally at another site, but was taken down a few years ago. Since link was to my University of Colorado account, and that will be gone soon, I updated it.

The concept of a decision’s “growing its own legs” is powerful. This page has many excerpts from Cialdini’s Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion on the subject. Briefly, it’s the idea that if you initially make a decision D1 for reason R1, then your mind comes up with other reasons (“legs”, that hold up D1) to justify the decision so that even when R1 no longer applies, you still think D1 is a good choice because of all the other reasons “legs” you’ve come up with.

In the book he suggests (if I recall correctly) asking yourself “Knowing what I know now, would I make the same decision again?” The above page quotes him: “Accumulating psychological evidence indicates that we experience our feelings toward something a split second before we can intellectualize about it. My suspicion is that the message sent by the heart of hearts is a pure, basic feeling. Therefore, if we train ourselves to be attentive, we should register it ever so slightly before our own cognitive apparatus engages.” Sounds like what Malcolm Gladwell talks about in Blink.