Category Archives: Social Studies

Loyalty Matters A Lot; Facts, Not So Much

The Washington Post took two polls during periods of high gas prices, one in 2006 and one in 2012. The question was the same: is there anything the president reasonably can do to reduce gas prices? The key factor is that the presidents were different. In 2006 when Bush was in office, only 47% of Republicans said he could; when it came to Obama, 65% said he could (but doesn’t, because he’s evil). Lest you think that people simply have more faith in Obama’s skills, Democrats responded the opposite way: 73% said Bush could’ve lowered the gas prices in 2006 (but didn’t, because he’s evil), but only 33% think Obama could (or else he would’ve, because he’s nice). Meanwhile in the real world, neither the president nor anyone except OPEC can influence oil prices, since they are global.

Dartmouth professor Brendan Nyhan points out that Republicans are running in 2012 the same guy Democrats ran in 2004: "a flip-flopping, out-of-touch elitist from Massachusetts."

 

What it boils down to is that Democrat or Republican, when your guy’s in office and bad stuff happens, it’s not his fault; when the other team’s guy is in office, it’s all his fault — facts be damned. NPR has some commentary on this which explains the situation via cognitive dissonance, which is the feeling you get when you find out your good friend Mike got fired: since he’s your good friend, and since you don’t associate with incompetent people, clearly his boss made some mistake or was out to get him.

In order to get rid of the discomfort of knowing you’re friends with an unsavory character (or that you voted for the wrong guy), you have to either change your loyalties and drop the friend (or politician), or rationalize the facts away. It turns out the latter is a lot easier — probably because we see loyalty as a pillar of the morality on which society is built. With society comes friends and happiness, but the facts never hugged you. And so, loyalty is greater than truth, simply to avoid being forever alone.

See also:

From The Washington Post, via NPR

Interesting Divorce Statistics

Mental Floss dug up some data on what circumstances are correlated with either higher- or lower-than-normal divorce rates. Of course, correlation is not causation, so just because something is related to a higher divorce rate, doesn’t mean that it causes divorce. Still, they’re interesting to consider:

  • Smoking: couples where one person smokes are almost twice as likely to get divorced. It’s a little higher if the smoker is the wife. And even when both spouses are smokers, the divorce rate is still higher than non-smokers; however, this may have a common cause, since poorer people smoke more and are also more likely to get divorced.
  • Jobs: some professions have lower divorce rates than normal. Optometrists, shuttle car drivers, transit cops, farmers, nuclear engineers and clergy. Again, this is probably just due to the kind of people that choose those professions, and the spouses that marry them — the jobs themselves don’t really make them less divorce-prone. Massage therapists and mathematicians were among the most likely to get divorced.
  • Generosity: couples that split chores evenly tend to have a lower divorce rate. This was also corroborated by the National Marriage Project, which showed that generosity was the 3rd biggest predictor of a happy marriage.
  • Ideology: conservative states have a higher rate of divorce than progressive ones. This is probably due a few factors, including the average level of education and marriage age being lower in conservative states: people there get married younger, then probably grow apart as they age, and don’t have coping skills like good communication techniques to work problems out. It’s worth noting that while some liberal states do have the lowest rates of divorce, others have the highest likelihood of marriages ending in divorce.
  • Influence: people who know more divorced couples tend to get divorced more. The social effect is very powerful and its presence can be seen in a lot of other problems, such as smoking and obesity: people tend to be like their friends and family. When it comes to people, birds of a feather don’t necessarily flock together, but rather those who flock together start growing the same feathers.
  • Beginnings: couples who met during high school or college are more likely to stay together; those who met in bars are more likely to get divorced. This likely has to do with shared history, values and other things the spouses should have in common.
  • Kids: couples who have more daughters have a higher rate of divorce; couples who have more sons have a lower rate.
  • Wife: 73% of divorces are initiated by the wife.

 

See also:

 

From Mental Floss, via Neatorama

Negative Facebookers Have Low Self-Esteem

This makes a lot of sense in hindsight, but people whose status updates on Facebook often sound like this, probably have low self-esteem:

“Some people are just such liars!”

“The only heaven I’ll know is if my friends remember me when I die.”

“‘In a real dark night of the soul, it is always three o’clock in the morning, day after day.’ — F. Scott Fitzgerald”

“Finally getting over this cold. Maybe I’ll actually live through it.”

“People who criticize you behind your back are not your friends, they’re a waste of good air.”

It is known that people with low-self esteem are pessimists who complain more than normal, have negative views on life, are very cautious, and seek approval from others. Because of that last trait, researchers thought that maybe such people censored themselves on Facebook and tried to present a more likable image. Armed with a testable hypothesis and maybe some grant money, they obtained almost 1800 status updates from volunteers and also had them fill out a self-esteem questionnaire. Then they had another group of people rate the status messages based on how positive or negative they were. The status ratings were analyzed against their authors’ self-esteem and it turned out the lower the self-esteem, the more negative the statuses. So if they do censor themselves, they’re not doing a good job — which should come  as no surprise to people with poor self-image, since they aren’t good at anything, and are also ugly.

 

More interestingly, this creates a feedback loop: the people rating the negative statuses didn’t want to get to know the people writing them. Researchers even asked friends of the Debbie Downers if they liked the negative updates, to see if maybe they did just out of empathy for their friend: nope. Therefore, people with low self-esteem tend to think life sucks, which causes people to not want to hang out with them, which causes them to be lonely and think life sucks even more.

Moral of the story: if you want people’s approval, negativity should be very much the exception, not the rule. Also, no one likes you.

 

 

From Psychological Science, via NPR

The World’s ‘Shortest Man Ever’ Record Has Been Broken

In early January, an 18-year old Indian woman was crowned shortest living woman, measuring just over two feet: 24.72 inches. She was by no means the shortest woman ever, who was 22.8″, nor the shortest person ever, who at that point was an Indian man measuring 22.4″. She wasn’t even the shortest person alive then, due to a 23.6″ Philippino guy named Junrey. Poor Junrey’s reign didn’t last long though: you become eligible for the title at 18, which he turned on June 12th, 2011. He now lost the title, barely half a year later, to a 72-year old Nepalese guy who is not only the shortest living man, but, as far as humanity knows, the shortest man that ever lived: Chandra Dangi, 21.5″ short.

Chandra Dangi, the shortest man that ever lived

 

Poor guy hasn’t had an easy life, either. He really wanted to get married, but never found a wife. His parents died before he was a teenager and his evil relatives used to parade him around at freak shows — like in a Lemony Snicket novel. He makes a living weaving headbands in the middle of nowhere, Nepal. He was discovered by researchers studying the people in the region.

From The Guinness Book of World Records and Sky News, via Neatorama

How To Make And Break Habits

It turns out that the science behinds habits is very valuable knowledge: The New York Times Magazine has a long and very interesting article describing how companies use their vast amounts of customer data to try to make shopping at their stores, or buying their brands, habitual. At Target, — the article’s focus — each customer gets a unique “Guest ID” number that the company uses to track them. The data from their millions of customers then gets analyzed, and specific predictions for each customer are made. For example, they can tell when a woman is pregnant because she started buying unscented lotion and zinc, so they send her coupons for baby stuff. (They bury the ads for baby things among other, unrelated ads like lawn mowers and glassware so she thinks the baby ads are random, and not the specific result of a very creepy stalking algorithm.) Before she knows it, the pregnant woman is in the habit of buying all her baby things at Target. But how did that habit form?

 

Photo by Pawel Loj

 

The Anatomy Of A Habit

Habits have three parts:

  • cue – the trigger to engage in the habit: hunger is a cue for you to eat.
  • routine – the complex sequence of events that have been habitualized: eating involves many steps (finding food, preparing it, finding a place to eat it, etc) that are each pretty complicated
  • reward – every habit has a happy ending, which in fact conditions us to repeat the routine and make it even more habitual; eating makes you feel full and content, so next time you’re hungry, the ‘eating’ habit kicks in to fix that.

The meat of the matter is the routine. It’s very interesting how extremely complex actions can become second-nature to the point where we do them on autopilot. Take showering, for example: you probably have that routine so ingrained, that were something to interrupt your shower, you would have trouble figuring out how to wash yourself consciously, because most of the time you do it unconsciously — as part of a routine you developed probably at some point during youth. And one of the most important keys to understanding habits is knowing that developing routines is difficult: you have to consciously think about what you want want to accomplish (e.g., to get clean), what the best way to go about doing that would be, and optimize for efficiency, so that you can shower as fast as possible, but come out as clean as possible too.

This kind of complex thinking is the opposite of what you want to do every morning, so once you’ve figured out a showering sequence that works, your brain saves it. Then, some cue triggers it: you feel dirty, or it’s the morning or night or whenever your normal showering time comes to pass. The cue makes you think “I need to shower”, after which you go into your zombie-like state, perform the routine, and then like a trained monkey, you get the reward: you feel clean. All because you already had a routine ready that would scratch the itch which cued it. Cues themselves tend to come in one of five flavors:

  • time: it being 11pm might cue you to start your nightly routine: yawn, brush your teeth, get in bed
  • location: passing by an ice-cream store might cue you to want ice cream
  • mood: feeling sad might cue you to want ice cream
  • people: if you always have ice cream with Donna, seeing Donna might cue you to want ice cream
  • prior events: leaving work might cue you to call your wife

The way habits get created is that one of those kinds of cues will create a desire, and you’ll find an appropriate routine that will quench it, after which you’ll get rewarded by the desire being gone, and probably some additional happiness. Figuring out that mechanism took years of scientific research, which we can now put to work for us too — not just for Target.

 

Photo by Mark Mitchell

 

Making A Habit

The basic concept is pretty simple: if you want to, for example, make a habit out of exercising all you need to do is prepare a routine, find a cue and find a reward. The problem is that many people maybe don’t have an exercise routine, so they get up in the morning and the thought of having to figure out what to exercise and how is just too much, so they put it off for another day — people are fundamentally lazy, and figuring things out is very mentally taxing, so we don’t like to do it. Therefore, the first step is to figure out the exercise routine, then learn it to the point where you can do it without thinking. Maybe start with something simple, like running: get your running clothes, put them on, put your shoes on, strap on your iPod, head outside, turn the music on and run. Repeat that until it becomes second nature, and now you have a routine.

To turn routine into habit, you have to add a cue and a reward. For something like exercising, a “time” or “prior events” kind of cue would probably work best, since you want consistency regardless of where you are, what mood you’re in, or who’s available. So maybe every day at 8am or 6pm, or after you wake up or get home from work. The cue gets you started, but without a reward, the routine becomes a chore instead of a habit. Maybe exercising is enough of a reward, with the endorphins it produces, or maybe you need something more, like watching a really good TV show after, or eating some strawberries. Put all three parts together and it becomes a habit that you now have to ingrain: next time you get home from work, think about the strawberries, start into your exercise routine, then eat the strawberries. In the end, it all boils down to Pavlovian conditioning: eventually, just getting home from work will make you want to go running. But at least at first, you need the reward to make the habit stick.

 

Breaking A Habit

Doing the opposite actually takes some detective work to figure out the three parts of the specific habit. As an example, lets say you want to stop eating sweets. The ‘routine’ part is obvious because it’s the set of actions you’re trying to get rid of: sugar going in your mouth. To figure out the cue, every time you get a craving for sweets, ask yourself why you have that craving. Is it at a certain time of day like the mid-afternoon? Is it in a particular location, like the kitchen? Are you in a particular mood? Are people around you? What happened right before the craving? Sometimes the cue is not obvious, in which case it helps writing down your time, location, mood, people around you and what happened before; after the craving hits a few times, the common factor will reveal itself. The reward is not as straightforward to figure out, and can be tricky: it may be eating sweets gives you energy, relieves boredom, improves your mood, etc. To suss it out, take a trial-and-error approach: if you think you might eat sweets for energy, try caffeine instead; if it’s out of boredom, try nuts.

Once you’ve figured out the cue and reward of the bad habit, figure out an alternative routine. The key to breaking the habit is to realize that the itch must be scratched: the willpower required to keep yourself from craving the reward is extremely powerful. But, once you know what the cue and the real reward are, you can switch out the routine and still scratch the itch. For example, lets say your cue for sweets is a prior event: you’ve accomplished something, like cleaning the kitchen, and now you want sweets. What’s the real purpose (reward) of eating the sweets in that situation? Probably the ‘treat’ aspect of it — something nice to do at the end of an annoying chore. (Note that the dirty kitchen -> cleaning routine -> sweets sequence may be a habit of itself, so in this case our habits are nested, like Russian dolls.) If so, switching out the routine for a non-sugary treat should do the trick. Maybe eat some strawberries instead: they’re kind of expensive, they’re sweet and taste good, so it’s a good treat. Or maybe a treat that’s not related to food at all, like a cat nap. Find the cue, find the reward, keep them — but switch out the routine.

An interesting thing to note is addictions: the physical reward of doing heroin is not something you can really produce via another kind of routine, so this tactic of switching out routines doesn’t always work. Instead, counselors teach addicts to eliminate cues from their lives — to stay away from the people, places and things that can trigger their addiction. Generally this means a complete change of lifestyle, but even under the best of circumstances, all cues will never be eliminated and alternative routines (coping strategies) still have to be ready for the addict to use at a moment’s notice. For example, running into your old dealer should cue you to run in the opposite direction and eat a cupcake.

Photo by Lauren Mitchell

 

In both cases — making and breaking habits — you have to be aware of all three aspects of the habit. When trying to make a habit:

  1. Internalize a routine
  2. Find an appropriate cue and reward, that will motivate your brain to turn the routine into habit.

When trying to break a habit:

  1. Find the existing cue and reward
  2. Internalize an appropriate alternative routine, that will get you the same reward when the cue happens.

From The New York Times Magazine

Those Drunken Britons

Two interesting articles in the news recently might just explain why Britons — like Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde and Amy Winehouse — are so good at the arts. The first is a study which found out that drunk people are better at creative problem solving; the second is an article about how the British might have a drinking problem.

Oscar Wilde had a drinking problem

 

The study is relatively straightforward: they got college kids moderately drunk (0.075 BAC) and gave them Remote Association Tests, which are basically word puzzles with creative answers that you can’t really logic your way through. They obviously also did the same thing with sober students, and the drunk ones “solved more RAT items, in less time, and were more likely to perceive their solutions as the result of a sudden insight.” Their explanation is that alcohol impairs the frontal lobe of the brain, which is where our self-control is; the problem with self-control is that it stifles creativity: it tends to make you think ‘by the rules’ instead of considering solutions outside the box. Interestingly, being tired has a similar effect to being drunk.

But staying up all night is not what Amy Winehouse died of; no, she died because her blood alcohol concentration was 0.416%. And apparently she’s just one of many, many British binge drinkers: 80% of drinking in France, Italy and Spain takes place at dinner, but 80% of drinking in Britain is done elsewhere (i.e., bars). The amount of drinking generates all kinds of problems, not the least of which is billions of dollars of healthcare costs. The NPR article in question is about efforts by the British government to cut down on drinking by increasing the sin tax on alcohol — efforts which are being met with a loud “nooooo” by the shall we say “creative” population of Britain.

From Science Direct and NPR, via Wired

The 2012 Romance Survey

The romance book publisher Harlequin does a survey every year to get some insight into women’s views on romance. This year’s survey results just came out (PDF), so here are the highlights:

  • Turn-ons: good sense of humor and a killer smile (i.e., intelligence and kindness). For younger women, also an accent and being in a band (i.e., being cool).
  • Turn-offs: neediness (i.e., immaturity), smartphone addiction (being inattentive), being grammatically challenged (ignorance), having too many Facebook photos with exes (immaturity/promiscuity), and living with parents (poverty).
  • When talking about social relationships, 89% of single women believe their best days are ahead, while 40% of the rest say their best days are behind
  • But, 50% of single women say they’re “unsure and lonely”
  • 88% of women who are seriously dating say they experience romance; the majority of the rest, meaning those who are married or single, do not.
  • Most women describe their dating life as boring, a description that gets more frequent with age
  • Older women have pre-date communication almost exclusively on the phone, while younger ones tend to do so via text. But they all (85%) prefer phone calls.
  • Facebook: most women stalk guys on Facebook before a first date, looking for hobbies, interests and pictures. Younger women also have pre-date communication on Facebook.
  • Sexting: 43% of single women do it, and 57% of the rest; and 27% of single women have sent “explicit” pictures.
  • Online dating: 40% of single women have tried it, but that number is higher in older women
  • 58% of women said technology has made their romantic lives better

 

And here’s the common sense stuff:

  • Most women define romance as “thoughtfulness, appreciation and intimacy” — things that show personal investement
  • Remembering small details and being protective were the top most romantic gestures
  • Chivalry is still a thing: the majority of women believe men should ask them out, hold doors open, and pay for the first date.
  • 56% of single women feel pressured to be in a committed relationship, and that pressure generally comes from friends and family
  • Satisfaction with love life declines with age, but it’s never that high (36%) to begin with

 

The moral of the story seems to be that women are happiest if they’re always in a kind-of serious relationship with Jim Halpert, but never get married.

 

From Harlequin (Survey Results (PDF) and Infographic (PDF)), and xkcd

Spoken Language Correlates To Long-Term Choices

An associate professor of economics at Yale wrote a very interesting paper (PDF) in which he compares good future-driven behaviors with not speaking a future-aware language. He noted the distinction between languages that have a strong future-time reference (FTR) requirement and ones that have a weak one: for example, English ranks as a strong FTR language because the language changes significantly when talking about the future (“It will be cold tomorrow”) compared to talking about the present (“It is cold today”). Contrast that with Finnish, which barely changes to account for the future: “Tomorrow be cold” vs “Today be cold.”

Most languages have a strong FTR: all Romance ones, most Slavic, Turkic, Iranian, etc. The language families that tend to have weak FTRs are Germanic, Chinese, Japanese and Sundic. (English, while a Germanic language, has been so heavily influenced by Latin and French that it has a strong FTR — the only other Germanic language besides Afrikaans to do so.)

Charlize Theron's first language is Afrikaans

 

The paper then compares this language trait with data that indicates a concern for the future: savings accounts, heavy smoking, physical activity, obesity. The idea being that if you smoke a pack a day, have 47$ in your bank account, spend your weekends on the couch and ate a cheesecake for dinner last night, you probably aren’t too concerned about the future. It turned out that speakers of languages with weak FTRs (like the Germans and Japanese) are a lot better about future-oriented behaviors:

Weak-FTR speakers are 30% more likely to have saved in any given year, and have accumulated an additional 170 thousand Euros by retirement. I also examine non-monetary measures such as health behaviors and long-run health. I find that by retirement, weak-FTR speakers are in better health by numerous measures: they are 24% less likely to have smoked heavily, are 29% more likely to be physically active, and are 13% less likely to be medically obese.

So there is correlation between how much a language emphasizes the distinction between present and future and how much speakers of that language prepare for the future. This is evident in the current economic situation in Europe: Germany (weak FTR) has to bail out Greece, Spain and Italy (strong FTRs). The author’s hypothesis is that speakers of languages like Finnish, in which present and future are pretty much treated the same, are more aware of the future because to them the future is now — so they tend to smoke less and save more. Whereas the French see the future as this far-off thing, so they smoke more and save less.

 

But is there also a causation between language and behavior? That’s a much harder question to answer: it could be that the language influences behavior, and it’s pretty unlikely that behavior influences language — people would have to migrate on a scale that’s probably a lot larger than observed. But it could also be that a third factor, like culture, influenced the way the languages developed, as well as the behavior. If, thousands of years ago, the Germans as a people were concerned about the future, maybe they didn’t care to make the distinction between present and future, but cared to save their gold. The author himself notes that it appears that language and culture both independently influence future-driven behavior, and that language doesn’t directly cause that behavior, but that it may affect it through an intermediary.

In marginally-related news, having a name that’s easy to pronounce has been correlated to being more likely to be promoted. That explains why Mitt doesn’t go by Willard.

From Yale (PDF), via Motherboard and Slashdot

3 Learning Tricks From A Psychologist

UCLA has a Learning and Forgetting Lab and the guy who its named after gave Wired a few hints on how to learn and not forget:

  • Interleave: don’t just keep trying to learn one thing until you master it, but rather move on to something else for a while. The something else should be related though, so maybe break up a subject like the Cold War into decades.
  • Change venues periodically: if you study in only one location, you’ll only remember the stuff in that location.
  • Learn, wait a while, then recall: if you just learn a thing once, it’ll get more and more buried the longer you don’t recall it. But if you wait some time, until you can just barely remember it, then study it again, it will help you recall it easier the next time. In a sense, it’s like practicing retrieving that particular memory, because we have so many facts in our heads that we need that practice.

 

So come back and read this in three days from a different location.

From Wired

Unfortunately, Opposites Don’t Attract

Wired has an interesting article which concludes, from two different studies, that if given the choice, people tend to befriend others like them. This is bad, because people that are less alike tend to form closer friendships (see The Odd Couple), and entrepreneurs with more diverse friends tend to be better innovators. The studies:

  • At mixers, people don’t really mix, but rather talk to people just like them. In the study (PDF), conversations were eavesdropped upon at a business mixer and found that marketers talked to other marketers, bankers to other bankers, etc.
  • At large universities, people sift through the enormously diverse masses to find friends that are just like them. In the study (PDF), researchers approached pairs of people at the University of Kansas and asked them to take surveys designed to give a rough profile of the students, based on background, lifestyle and belief questions (ethnicity, religion, if they drink or smoke, etc). That university has about 25,000 students and is very diverse; they repeated the study at smaller schools in rural Kansas, which had about 500 students, on average. The friends on the large campus were significantly more alike than the ones in the small campuses.

Conformity: when people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other

This behavior can generally be explained by the principle of least effort: it’s hard dealing with people that aren’t you.

 

From Columbia University (PDF) and Wellesley College (PDF) via Wired