Screening Performance

July 16, 2019

This post is based on a book by Stefan Van Der Stigchel titled “How Attention Works: Finding Your Way in a World Full of Distraction.” Radiologists have a difficult task when screening for breast cancer. Studies in the Netherlands have shown that the initial screening procedure has a detection probability of about 70%. So radiologists fail to detect incidences of cancer in over one quarter of all women who do in fact have breast cancer. These radiologists are not incompetent; they have a very difficult cancer to detect.

There is also the problem of falsely detecting a cancerous tumor. Additional examinations are very painful, and reacting to every minimal sign would lead to a lot of unnecessary discomfort. The chances of detecting a tumor on the basis of a minimal sign are known to be very low. But when scans in which a tumor was missed are checked again, the tumor usually turns out to be visible. The radiologist now knows that the scan does in fact contain a tumor and there is a maximum probability of actually finding it.

Scans are also done at airports for checking hand luggage. Security scanner operators spend hours every day searching the contents of bags and suitcases. Of course, the education and training of these airport security scanners is much less than that of radiologists. And the chance of finding dangerous content in these bags is much lower than the chance of correctly detecting dangerous objects in luggage. So fake explosives are placed in luggage for purposes of training and assessment. There are reports that operators fail to spot up to 75% of the fake explosives that are hidden in bags for test purposes.

An Americans study in to the performance of airport security personnel revealed that having to scrutinize scans on a daily basis helps them to be more precise when carrying out other unrelated search work. Out of a group of test subjects who were asked to find a well-hidden object on a computer screen, 82% were successful. A group of professional security scanner operators scored 88% for the same test although they did take longer to complete the task compared to nonprofessionals.

If you would like to check your prowess as a security scanner operator you can down load Airport Scanner, a free app (airportscannergame.com) that allows people to play
the task of finding dangerous items in luggage scans. This app has been a huge success worldwide and has millions of users. This app is partly funded by the American government, which is pleased with the amazing amount of information they are able to glean from the game. Researchers are also involved in the development of the game, and the first scientific articles were recently published containing the data retrieved from one billion searches. Some players have become so addicted that they have already competed thousands of searches. And this has provided developers with the opportunity to insert certain objects, only at sporadic intervals (in less than 0.15% of the searches). Dr. Van Der Stigchel notes that this research could not be done in a laboratory because the research subjects would end up running screaming from the lab after being subjected to hours and hours of tests. Based on a probability of 0.1%, an object will appear once every 1,000 searches, and in order to reach any firm conclusions about a player’s performance when attempting to find an extremely are object, 20,000 searches would need to be conducted. These data are now available thanks to the Airport Scanner app, and it has proven beyond doubt that players/professionals frequently fail to spot these rare, hidden objects.

Advertisements

Infobesity

July 15, 2019

This post is based on a book by Stefan Van Der Stigchel titled “How Attention Works: Finding Your Way in a World Full of Distraction.” This term, “infobesity,” as been coined by the popular media, but it is increasingly being referred to as a clinical disease. The term is the brainchild of a “trend team” employed by a company specializing in identifying trends among young people. Although there is very little scientific literature on the subject, the fact is that doctors are treating more and more teenagers these days for problems associated with a lack of sleep.

Dr. Van Der Stigchel writes, “One of the factors contributing to this lack of sleep is our insatiable appetite for information that is presented to us on-screen.” Obviously this leads to problems with concentration. From the scientific studies that have been done, young people are extremely frequent multimedia users. On average 18-year-olds spend a total of 20 hours a day on various media. Obviously this can only be because different media are used simultaneously, which further exacerbates the damage. The vast majority of this multimedia use is of the visual kind. Functions that rely on the spoken word have been replaced by visual ones. Unfortunately voice mail is becoming a thing of the past because it takes too much time, and people prefer to send their messages screen-to-screen instead. Dr. Van Der Stigchel notes that we are using the telephone less and choosing more often to interact with others on-screen and not only through hearing their voice. If e-mail and WhatsApp relied on the spoken word, they would be less popular.

Dr. Van Der Stigchel writes, “Screens are so efficient at communicating information that we see them everywhere nowadays. The result is a titanic battle for our attention, We have already established that it only takes a quick glance at a limited amount of visual information to know what that information is. In a single moment, we choose the one piece of visual information that is most relevant to us from all the information swirling around us. We then process this one piece of information deeply enough to be able to establish its identity. All of the other information continues to blink away furiously, but it can only become relevant when we decide to look again.”

How does one deal with infobesity? We need to deal with infobesity the same manner in which we deal with obesity. We deal with obesity by selectively controlling and reducing our food input. We deal with infobesity by selectively controlling and reducing
our information input. Unless one is a professional on-call, a physician for instance, there is no reason for staying continually connected. This FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) is irrational. Most, if not practically all, messages can wait until we have time to pay attention to them. When we interrupt what we are doing to process a message, there are two sources of attentional loss. There is additional information to deal with at the same time, and there are also time and attentional costs involved in switching between sources of information and processing them

An examination of different sources of information can lead to deletions of certain sources. Some information is of little value, so these sources of information should be eliminated. Our attentional resources are extremely limited, so we need to spend them carefully.

In conclusion, deal with infobesity by going on an information diet, and processing only those sources of information that have substantial value.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

So Then, How Good is the Human Visual System?

July 14, 2019

The simplest way to answer this question is to ask how frequently is the human visual system relied upon. Stefan Van Der Stigchel writes in his book “How Attention Works: Finding Your Way in a World Full of Distraction,” “When it comes to the transfer of information, the visual system is our single most important sensory tool. It takes a lot longer to convey the same information orally through speech than visually with the aid of symbols. This is because the visual system is able to process information in the blink of an eye. If you show someone a very detailed photo for just a second or two, they will still be able to describe the image to you fairly accurately afterward.”

In the 1970s Mary Potter conducted a series of experiments that clearly demonstrated this ability to rapidly process visual information. Research participants were given a written description of a scene (for example, “traffic on a street”) and then asked to find that scene among a series of images presented to them in quick succession. They were instructed to press a button as soon as they had identified the scene that identified the written description. No visual information regarding the scene was provided, neither the color of the cars nor the layout of the street. When the presentation rate was eight scenes per second, there was a success rate of 60% when it came to finding the scene that had been described in writing. This means that each image was visible for just 125 milliseconds, and the participants had to process all of the visual information in each scene within this extremely short space of time. A second study in which the participants only had to describe which scenes they had seen after the event only 11% of them were able to describe the scenes in any detail. Although they could say which scenes they had been shown, they were unable to provide any specific information about the content.

The difference in the results of these studies reveals distinct stages of information processing. All of the visual information that falls on the retina is registered in the brain. This information includes the colors and shapes of the world around us, and is processed in the primary visual cortex. At this stage we are still unable to identify individual objects. “Seeing” describes everything that falls as light on the retina. Although we “see” a lot of stuff, we only process a small amount of information deeply enough to know what that stuff actually is. Identification, knowing whether something is a tree or a green building, requires more in-depth processing and access to the identity of the object.

If we want to communicate a visual message, such as the information in a traffic sign, it is important to know what kind of information we can communicate in an instant. Although visual information can be communicated very quickly, there are limits. We are unable to process full sentences in a blink of an eye. Symbols, assuming the meaning of the symbol is known, are much more effective in this respect. Of course, it is impossible to devise a symbol for every piece of information, but when a road has multiple complicated signs, it can be to the detriment of both the message being communicated, and the intended recipients of the information, that is, the road users.

The communication of information is regarded as being successful when the relevant information reaches the intended user. Regardless of how impressed we might be by a particular advertisement, if we do not remember the intended message after being the advert (the name of the product), then the advertisement will not have worked and the attention architect will have failed in his or her task. HM remembers many advertisements, yet being unable to remember the name of the product. Perhaps HM has suffered brain damage, and is an atypical subject. Yet he is able to write a blog, so readers can reserve judgment. There are other advertisements, which he remembers but dislikes and is not prone to purchase the product. HM would very much like to review research on advertisements and how their effectiveness is evaluated.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Is the Human Visual System Inefficient and Flawed?

July 13, 2019

This post is based on a book by Stefan Van Der Stigchel titled “How Attention Works: Finding Your Way in a World Full of Distraction.” The immediately preceding post might have you thinking that the human visual system is both inefficient and flawed. The fact that we cannot register what we see in our visual world suggests that the human visual system is a flawed one. Indeed, it will fail to detect a gorilla walking into a scene!

Before reaching this conclusion remind yourself that our species has managed to survive and prosper in a hostile environment. It is usually the case that the world around us is a stable and consistent one, and our brains work on this assumption. What is important is gathering information that is relevant to us. That’s what we need to focus on. We can ignore all the stuff that is of no value to us. A system that tried to process every scrap of visual information would be cumbersome and inefficient, and there is no need to process all the information available to us.

Dr. Van Der Stigchel writes “the system that uses less energy has an advantage in the evolutionary scheme of things. An efficient system makes the energy it does not use available to the system, and that is what our visual system also does. Although the retina catches the light from everywhere around us, only that information which is relevant to us is processed.”

Suppose when we went shopping in a supermarket we processed all the information we saw. Although we would know the brand and price of every product, that would cost us far too much energy.

Our visual system possesses a unique feature that allows it to present information very selectively: our continuous access to the visual world. All of the visual information that is available to us at any given moment is 100% accessible. All we need to do is to open our eyes and the information floods in. We can use the visual world as a kind of external hard drive. We do not need to store every single detail related to the external world in our internal world because all of the visual information is continuously available to us externally.

We only need to be able to recall internally to interact effectively with the external visual world where the relevant information is located in relation to our own location at any given moment.

Dr. Van Stigchel asks us to imagine the following: “we and a friend are walking down a busy street in town on our way to a coffee bar at the end of the street. There are people everywhere and neon signs flashing all around, At that moment, only certain aspects of the visual world are relevant to us: the coffee shop in the distance and our friends walking beside us. We are moving, so all of the information is moving too relative to our position. We use our eyes to access the visual world around us and note only the location of the information that is relevant to us. We would notice if the coffee bar suddenly disappears, our friend runs off, or if a screaming gorilla approaches because this information is relevant to us. We can afford to ignore everything else.”

How Attention Works

July 10, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of a book by Stefan Van Der Stigchel. The subtitle is “Finding Your Way in a World Full of Distraction.” The book begins with the following quote by the father of American Psychology, William James”

“Every one knows what attention is. It is the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others, and is a condition which has a real opposite in the confused, dazed, scatterbrained state.”

Van Der Stichel begins by writing about how a walk in the woods seems. We enjoy the sight of all the trees around us and the myriad shades of green. We just allow our visual environment to work its magic. Our eyes are our window to the world. All we need do is to open them. It happens automatically. Spotting a squirrel in a tree or following the tracks of a horse are reflex actions. We believe that what we see is the whole picture: stable, rich and vastly superior to any virtual environment.

But Van Der Stichel follows with this paragraph. “However, we actually take less information on board from our surroundings than we might think. For example, movies are full of continuity errors that viewers fail to spot. Very few of us ever take any notice when a jacket that was hanging on a coatrack is suddenly not there anymore in the next scene. The legendary “Star Wars” movies are famous for these kinds of mistakes. Objects move from one position to another, and a background full of plants and trees suddenly changes into a barren desert. You only even notice these discrepancies when someone takes the trouble to point them out to you, with the result that it is almost impossible not to see them the next time. Of course, movie directors do their best to keep such mistakes to a minimum, but the fact that neither they nor the people who edit their movies manage to spot these errors in the first place demonstrates just how easy it is to miss them.”

Sunday magazines like to present two versions of a photograph. These versions look like they are identical, but they are not. The objective of this puzzle is to spot the discrepancies. This is a very difficult, time-consuming task to accomplish successfully. But these differences are quite subtle.

However, there is a film clip where something dramatic happens that most viewers fail to notice. This is the infamous “gorilla clip” that many people have seen. The clip shows two groups of students throwing a basketball back and forth. The viewer’s task is to count the number of time the group with the white T-shirts throws the ball. At a certain, a gorilla walks into the frame. He beats his chest with his fists and then walks out of the shot again. The majority of those seeing the clip for the first time fail to notice this gorilla.

After Van Der Stichel had shown this clip to his students he told them he was going to show them a clip again. He writes that they paid special attention to the gorilla with the aim of showing their lazy professor that he should know better than to try to fool them with the same old trick again. But this time he showed them a new version of the clip, one in which the curtains hanging behind the basketball-playing students gradually change color and one of the players walks abruptly out of the frame. The effect was even greater than the first clip. Almost none of his students noticed either of these two major changes, primarily because they were too busy waiting for the gorilla to appear.

Late Night Cramming is Harmful

July 9, 2019

This post is motivated by programs showing students cramming for tests. The scenario is that such demands are being placed on these students for success that they are working extremely hard. Should these stories be true, then not only are these students risking their health, but there is a limit on how much study can been done effectively. Beyond this, they are spinning their wheels, not enhancing their knowledge, and risking their health.

Consider placement tests like the ACT and the SAT. There has been some research showing some benefits of preparing for these tests. What is needed is further research in which the students log not only the time studying was done, but also the time of day the studying was done. HM would predict that there is some benefit, but this benefit would max out and additional time might even be harmful (scores would decline). The time at which the studying was done should also be studied. HM predicts that little would be gained for studying at late hours and that there even might be some decrement. After all, presumably these tests are supposed to measure aptitude. If this is true, there should be limits on the amount of benefit.

These programs also portray students at prestigious universities cramming and putting in late hours preparing for tests. HM attended state universities and saw this same phenomena. The reason these students were cramming and pulling late or all-nighters was that they did not keep up with the work. They were cramming in an attempt to catch up.

HM strongly suspects that this is also the case at prestigious universities. If these universities do require excessive workloads, then prestigious university or not, students should withdraw from the school and their parents should encourage them to withdraw, because the instruction is harming, not benefiting, the students.

Learning requires cognitive effort, which can be exhausted. When this cognitive effort is exhausted little learning takes place. Sleep is also essential. Memories are consolidated during sleep. So studies pulling all nighters are cheating themselves of their memories consolidating. In other words, the all-nighter is harmful, not beneficial.

In the military sometimes military personnel must push themselves to operate long hours with little or no sleep. Unfortunately, this is a reality of military operations and requires training to be prepared for these operations. However, for normal instruction to be effective, students need their sleep. There have been studies on trainees that have shown when trainees are allowed to get their necessary sleep, their learning and performance on tests improve. So for regular training, planning should include regular sleep, but there will need to be training for prolonged operations that should be done separately. Actually, what is being learned during training for these prolonged operations is how to compensate for degraded performance when the body is fatigued and crying for sleep.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Alzheimer’s Researchers Shift Focus After Failures

July 7, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of a front page article by Christopher Rowland in the 4 July 2019 issue of the Washington Post. These researchers are shifting their focus to new drug treatments that deal with other factors than the defining features for an Alzheimer’s diagnose, which are amyloid plaque and neurofibrillary tangles. The conclusion that this research is fruitless was made by a former researcher in this area. The Myth of Alzheimer’s is a book by Peter J. Whitehouse, M.D. and Ph.D and Daniel George, M.Sc. Whitehouse is the former researcher who came to the conclusion that this research would never yield results. There was a healthy memory post on this book in 2011. HM believes Dr. Whitehouse is working on non drug treatments for Alzheimer’s. The Alzheimer’s association provides little, if any, support in this area. The Alzheimer’s association provides financial support for drug research. HM wonders in the unlikely event that a useful drug was produced, whether the Alzheimer’s Association had some agreement to limit costs or would this company be allowed to prey on the public. Before giving any money to the Alzheimer’s association, potential donors should demand an answer to this question.

There have been many posts on this topic including one titled “The Myth of Alzheimer’s.” Perhaps the most significant finding is one that is rarely, if ever, mentioned. And that is that people die with the defining characteristics for an Alzheimer’s diagnosis, the amyloid plaque and neurofibrillary tangles, but who never knew that they had the disease because they never had any behavioral or cognitive symptoms of the disease. The explanation offered is that these people had developed a cognitive reserve as a result of being cognitively active during their lifetimes.

The reappearing theme in this blog is that people should live cognitively fulfilling lives with growth mindsets in which they are continuing to learn. This involves System 2 processing, more commonly referred to as thinking. Our normal processing mode is System 1, which is quite fast and efficient. Here we are in cruise control where the conscious content just keeps flowing. As one proceeds through life this becomes easier and easier. Much has been learned, there is little interest in learning anything new, so the mind effectively is on cruise control. Cognitive neuroscience has termed this the default mode network, which is quite similar, if not identical, to Kahneman’s System 2 processing which is from cognitive psychology.

HM knows people who have been cognitively active throughout their lives, yet still succumbed to Alzheimer’s or dementia. But there are other causes. One of HM’s friends trained himself to get by on 4 hours of sleep per night. Research shows us that 7 to 8 hours of sleep are required. Other ambitious people burn the candle and both ends, which also leads to sleep deprivation.

HM wishes the researchers well in their research. But everyone should know that by engaging in a cognitively challenging life with growth mindsets they should greatly decrease, if not eliminate, the prospect of dementia or Alzheimer’s. Of course, a healthy lifestyle is also assumed.

Please use the search block of the blog (healthymemory.wordpress.com) to learn more about any of the terms in this post.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Happy Fourth of July!

July 3, 2019

It is a day to be praised and enjoyed, but also a day to ponder the state of our country. A statement that is made over and over again on this holiday is “I am proud to be an American!” Unfortunately, anyone making this statement has forgotten that pride is one of the seven deadly sins (the others being greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth). And there is a good reason for pride being one of the seven deadly sins. Pride tempts one to rest on one’s laurels. And there is a statement that pride precedes a fall, which is a paraphrase from a warning in the book of Proverbs in the King James Version of the Bible.

So while it is acceptable to take some comfort in previous accomplishments, pride can blind one from actions that need to be taken. And nowhere is this blindness more obvious than in the actions being taken against immigrants. With the exception of Native Americans we are all immigrants. So it is the height of hypocrisy (perhaps “depth” might be a better term) to commit the crimes against immigrants that are being done today. Moreover, a large number of victims are children.

Too many people forget that immigration is central to the growth of our country. Bringing in more people of different backgrounds provides the strength of diversification. Of course, much of this negative reaction is against this diversification comes from blatant racists. Immigrants provide needed labor at both ends of the employment spectrum. It provides much of the cheap labor that many residents do not want to perform. And at the high end are people with the smarts to grow science, engineering, medicine, mathematics, and commerce. And these people come from all races and backgrounds. White supremacists should confront the reality that without these people, the United States would fall behind many countries that include this diversification.

Perhaps the most hypocritical of all, are religious groups fighting immigration. These religious groups are definitely not following the teachings of Christ and leaders of other prominent religions.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

A Question Trump Needs to Answer

June 30, 2019

There is a prerequisite to reading this post, and that is the immediately preceding post, “The Great Successor.”

Contrary to the image Trump has built, Trump is a failed businessman, with bankruptcy after bankruptcy. Although American banks stopped lending to Trump he kept on purchasing new properties, typically with cash. From where did this money come? His son has answered from Russia. So taken at face value, the reason that Trump favors Putin and disavows the intelligence he receives from his intelligence community is obvious. He is owned by Putin and Russia.

Presumably, the tax and financial records he refuses to release would show this ugly reality, and that is the reason he is refusing to release them.

But the burden should be on Trump to prove his innocence. Show us where this money comes from. If you refuse, then it is fairly obvious that you are are severely compromised by your debts to Russia.

A preceding Healthy Memory Post, “House of Trump House of Putin” reviewed a book with this title by Craig Unser that explains how and why Trump became involved with the Russian Mafia. The book includes an annotated list of Fifty-nine of Trump’s Russian connections. The book is well-documented with extensive notes.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Great Successor

June 29, 2019

“The Great Successor” is the title of a new book by Anna Fifield. The subtitle is “The Divinely Perfect Destiny of Brilliant Comrade Kim Jong Un.” Should you be wondering why you should be interested in Kim Jong Un, HM will first explain why he is interested and then will explain why you should be interested. HM is interested because he served in Korea in the military and has does much reading on Korea. His wife is Korean. And he knows much of the history of Korea. Korea is a peninsula that managed to maintain its integrity and culture in spite of many invasions by China and Japan. At the end of WW II the United States divided Korea in half: the south to be occupied by American soldiers and the North to be occupied by Soviet soldiers. The Soviets only entered the war after the Atomic bombs had been dropped on Japan. Nevertheless, they were given half of the peninsula, not only dividing a culture that had existed for over a thousand years, but effectively assigning the North Koreans to hell.

Nevertheless, it was an interesting experiment. South Korea became a prosperous capitalist country selling automobiles and electronics to the rest of the world. North Korea, remained poor, but nevertheless developed nuclear weapons, long range missiles, and a frightening cyberwarfare capability. Actually the west has more to fear from North Korea’s cyberwar capabilities than it does of its nuclear and missile delivery systems.

If this isn’t enough to encourage you to continue reading, consider that Kim Jong Un is an individual for whom Trump has tremendous admiration and respect.

The Soviet Union installed Kim Il Sung as the dictator of North Korea, who eventually invaded South Korea and started the Korean war. He also started a brutal dictatorship that endures today. Kim Il Sung eventually died and his son Kim Jong Il succeeded him. He continued the brutal dictatorship. Kim Jung Un is the third in succession. To the best of HM’s belief, this is the first and only hereditary dictatorship. The actual lineage here is confusing. Although the sons were hereditary, there is no rule of succession. Different mothers, and younger sons were selected to get the best, most promising dictators.

Kim Jong Un differs from his father and his grandfather as he was educated in the west and has traveled extensively. To understand Kim Jong Un it helps to understand the Machiavellian principles by which he governs.

“He embodies the dictim laid out five centuries earlier by the Italian Nicolo Machiavelli in his book: that it is better to be feared than loved. In the first year of his reign, Kim Jong Un put his country, already the world’s most isolated, on lockdown. He had security along the river border with China reinforced. He had patrols stepped up. His efforts to thwart attempts to escape were much more draconian than his father’s.”

“Like his predecessors, he has managed to survive as a dictator by controlling an entire nation through a relatively tiny group of people. It was another rule expounded by Machiavelli: don’t worry about the general population; just be sure to enrich a small, elite group.”

Blaine Harden, a Korea expert who wrote the enthralling, true account of a Korean escaping to freedom in his book “Escape from Camp 14: One Man’s Remarkable Odysses from North Korea to Freedom in the West.” Here is the review he provided of Ms. Fifeld’s book. “The Great Successor shows how a pudgy young heir to tyranny—using fratricide, nuclear terror, crony capitalism, and strategic flattery of a vain American president—has become a sure-footed Machiavelli for the twenty-first century.”

Readers might have seen pictures of the North Korean capital, Pyongyang. Part of it looks something like Manhattan and has been nicknamed Pyonghattan. But only the most loyal Koreans are allowed to live there. Ninety % of North Koreans are dirt poor, trying to scrape out a living via individual capitalism who need to bribe officials to keep their illegal enterprises going. About 10% of North Koreans can be regarded as being relatively well off. And the top 0.1% are obscenely wealthy.

The North Koreans studied Donald Trump. They saw his narcissism as a point of entry. They knew he would be a sucker for a deal on nuclear arms. Of course, they initially insulted Trump and Trump responded in kind. But the goal was to set up a meeting with the President of the United States. Never before had a North Korean leader met directly with a President of the United States. Typically, there are many negotiations before such a meeting can take place. And agreements have been made absent a direct meeting with the President of the United States. But Trump, viewing himself as the great deal maker, agreed to meet directly with Kim Jong Un. Although nothing was accomplished at the meeting for the Americans, North Korea achieved a first for the country by managing to meet with the American President.

A subsequent meeting fell flat, but Trump remains entranced with this North Korean dictator. He thinks he has established a bond. Kim Jong Un writes flattering letters to Trump, who regards Un as his buddy. Trump’s promised not to spy on North Korea.

Some points need to be understood. The only goal Kim Jong Un has is to stay in power. He cares nothing about the welfare of his people. Although he might sign agreements to denuclearize, he will never denuclearize. The memory of Mummar Gaddafi sticks strongly in his mind. Gaddafi agreed to denuclearize and ended up dying in a ditch. The best hope for Kim Jong Un is that he will suffer an early death. He is in extremely poor health.

The Role of Humor for a Healthy Memory

June 28, 2019

This post was inspired by a column by Marlene Cimons titled “Laughter can cure your ills? That’s no joke” in the Health and Science Section of the June 18, 2019 issue the Washington Post. She cites the following statement by Carl Reiner. “There is no doubt about it. Laughter is my first priority. I watch something that makes me laugh. I wake up and tickle myself while I’m still in bed. There is no greater pleasure than pointing at something, smiling and laughing about it. I don’t think there is anything more important than being able to laugh. When you can laugh, life is worth living. It keeps me going. It keeps me young.”

Reiner is 97. His fellow funny people: Mel Brooks is 93, Dick Van Dyke is is 93, Norman Lear will be 97, and Betty White is 97, seem to make this point.

Sven Svebak, professor emeritus at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology says, “A friendly sense of humor will bless you with better social relations as well as coping skills, and the reduced risk of dying early. A friendly sense of humor acts like shock absorbers in a car, a mental shock absorber in everyday life to help us cope better with a range of frustrations, hassles, and irritations.”

Norman Cousins asserted that self-induced bouts of laughter (and massive intravenous doses of vitamin C) extended his life after he was diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, which is a debilitating form of arthritis. Cousins lived many years longer that his doctors initially predicted,

Edward Creagan, professor of medical oncology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science said, “When people are funny, they attract other people, and community connectedness is the social currency for longevity. Nobody wants to be around negative, whiny people. It’s a drain. We’re attracted to funny people.”

According to the Mayo Clinic, laughter stimulates the brain to release more endorphins. It also helps people manage stress by easing tension, relaxing the muscles and lowering blood pressure. It relieves pain and improves mood. Laughter also strengthens the immune system.

Creagan says, “When we laugh, it decreases the level of the evil stress hormone cortisol. When we are stressed, it goes high and this interferes with the parts of the brain that regulate emotions. When that happens, the immune system deteriorates and becomes washed in a sea of inflammation, which is a factor in hear disease, cancer, and dementia. Cortisol interferes with the body’s immune system, putting us at risk for these three groups of diseases.

The results of a large Norwegian study of 53,556 participants conducted by Svebak and his colleagues indicate that humor can delay or prevent certain life-threatening diseases. The scientists measured the subjects’ sense of humor with a health survey that included, among other things, a cognitive element, “asking the participants to estimate their ability to find something funny in most situations.

Women with high cognitive scores experience a reduced risk of premature death from cardiovascular and infectious diseases. Men with high cognitive scores had a reduced risk of early death from infections.

Ms. Cimons’s article also reported that humor seems to stimulate memories and improve mental acuity in the elderly, especially among those with dementia. Elder clowns are now also helping seniors in residential setting says Bernie Warren, professor emeritus in dramatic arts and the University of Windsor and founder of Fools for Health, a Canadian clown-doctor program.

There are good reasons that humor benefits a healthy memory. This can be thought of in terms of Kahneman’s Two Process of cognition. System 1 is our default mode of processing and is very fast. System 2 kicks in when we are learning something or when we hear or see something that is surprising. A joke occurs when something unexpected happens. If we are surprised and amused, that is due to System 2 processing kicking in. If System 2 does not kick in, then we miss the point and the humor of the joke. System 2 processing is critical for both a good sense of humor and a healthy memory.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Dangers of the Dunning-Krueger Effect

June 27, 2019

There have been previous posts on the Dunning-Krueger Effect, and many future posts can be assumed. The reason is that the Dunning-Krueger Effect is especially relevant to today’s problems. Remember that there are two components of the Dunning Krueger effect. The first component summarizes the large body of research showing that the more people think they know about a topic, the less they actually know. The second component is that people who are knowledgeable about a topic are aware of the gaps in their knowledge.

There are unfortunate fallouts to this effect. People who know little or nothing can sound confident and fool some people into thinking that they know more than true experts on the topic. System 1 processing, which is fast and carries emotions facilitates this effect. True knowledge requires System 2 processing, which regards thinking based on facts rather than beliefs.

Einstein wrote, “As a human being one has been endowed with just enough intelligence to be able to see clearly how utterly inadequate that intelligence is when confronted with what exists.” Einstein was writing from his personal perspective as a human being. Unfortunately, too many human beings remain ignorant of their ignorance and believe and express thoughts that are divorced from facts and critical thinking.

And such people have elected a President, who like them does not believe in facts, and ignores facts from a renowned intelligence establishment. When facts contradict his beliefs he attacks those facts as misinformation and the people and the institutions who have found the facts as his personal enemies. In doing so he is attacking essential elements of U.S. democracy and unfortunately is being aided and abetted by a major political party.

As has been mentioned in many previous posts, System 2 processing is critical to building a cognitive reserve. Autopsies have revealed patients who had the defining characteristics of Alzheimer’s, amyloid plaque and neurofibrillary tangles, yet had no cognitive or behavioral signs of Alzheimers. The explanation offered for these people is that they had build up a cognitive reserve.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

GDP As a Measure of Progress

June 26, 2019

This post is based on an article by Christine Emba titled “GDP isn’t the only measure of progress. Ask New Zealand.” HM disagrees with the title. It should be GDP is the wrong measure of progress and there is no need to ask New Zealand. Many Healthy Memory blog posts have made the point that GDP is the wrong measure of progress.

Ms. Emba begins her article with John Maynard Keynes prediction that by 2030 we would work only 15 hours a week. Economic growth would lift our standard of living four-to eightfold, and the everyday citizen could finally stop plugging away. She writes that Keynes leisure-time predictions have not yet come to pass, not because our standard of living hasn’t as a result of economic growth (in fact, his estimate was right on the mark), but because, even after life-enhancing rapid advances over almost a century, we’ve just carried on working. The United States is obsessed with ensuring continued economic grown like other modern nations, with the exception of New Zealand.

GDP is the standard toolbar evaluating a nation’s economy and growth as a shorthand for progress. Ms Emba writes, “…while the U.S. Economy may be strong, more money doesn’t necessarily mean more happiness—at least after a certain point. The economy has been on a hot streak for years, but that hasn’t neutralized deaths of despair, homelessness, or a creeping sense of anomie. New Zealand’s economy is healthy enough, but the country is still experiencing a suicide crisis.

Continued growth cannot be sustained forever. It is leading to a dead end. So New Zealand is changing course before this dead end is reached. Its Prime Minister Jacinta Ardern wrote in her introduction to the 2019 budget, “Growth alone does not lead to a great country. So it’s time to focus on those things that do.

The many preceding posts on Rushkoff’s book TEAM HUMAN documented how new technology is repeatedly used not for the overall benefit, but for the few who position themselves to benefit. He also made a compelling argument that we are moving to a disastrous dead end.

For the country, this decision must be made collectively by the entire nation. And citizens need to inform themselves on the issues rather than be manipulated by some demagogue.

Each individual must decide what will help them become better human beings. Buying new technology because it is new and one wants to be first, is wrong. That’s what leads to unhealthy addictions to smartphones, social media, and being constantly plugged in. The question needs to be asked as to why one is buying the technology considering the plusses and minuses of the technology. Practically everyone is aware of their monetary resources, but too many are apparently unaware of their limited attentional resources. Attentional resources, just as monetary resources, need to be spent wisely and not wasted.

Keeping up with the Joneses is moronic. One should not let one’s interests be defined by others, but rather identified and pursued for oneself. March to one’s own drummer rather than following the crowd. Pursue personal development and fulfillment via growth mindsets. Meditation can also assist in finding and pursuing desirable paths.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

How Do We Become Team Human?

June 25, 2019

Douglas Rushkoff in his book titled “TEAM HUMAN” has provided many reasons and exhortations for becoming Team Human. He ended by telling us we are not alone and to find the others. But his book provided much data for not being able to become Team Human. The book provides example after example of new technologies and capabilities becoming available, but some humans using these technologies and capabilities to exploit their fellow humans for their benefit. Given our track record, becoming Team Human seems like a hopeless task.

HM skipped a section Artificial Intelligence (AI). It just provided examples of how is being used to exploit fellow humans. Much of this has already been covered by the posts on “Zucked” and other social media. However, readers who have read the posts based on Joh Markoff’s book “Machines of Living Grace” should know that in addition to AI, there is also IA, which stands for intelligent augmentation. Here the primary role is for computers to augment human intelligence.

It is somewhat ironic that one of the major weaknesses of our species, is our inability to interact with our fellow humans as TEAM HUMAN advocates. This explains the large numbers of wars used to resolve issues. Democratic governments become deadlocked and autocrats take over. We might actually be living through one of these occurrences right now. Deadlocks benefit no one and ruthless individuals can exploit these deadlocks by fostering authoritarian rules.

IA could be developed to negotiate and circumvent these deadlocks. Note that Rushkoff writes that “Team Human doesn’t reject technology.” This is certainly not an easy task, but it is one that needs to be pursued. Perhaps in a deadlock IA solutions could be accepted, even if it served as no more than a coin toss to break deadlocks. Coin tosses should be acceptable provided participants were convinced of the fairness.

Readers might be concerned that HM is proposing nothing more than a “Deus ex machina” with such a proposal. But suppose what happens in Greek Drama could happen in real life.

Suppose the solution was not acceptable and that worse than deadlock was the prospect of lethal force. Then, perhaps the machines would assert themselves as they did in Colossus: The Forbin Project. This was described in the post “Alternative Futures 3:” At the height of the Cold War a movie was released titled “Collosus: the Forbin Project.” The movie takes place during the height of the cold war when there was a realistic fear that a nuclear war would begin that would destroy all life on earth. Consequently, the United States created the Forbin Project to create Colossus. The purpose of Colossus was to prevent a nuclear war before it began or to conduct a war once it had begun. Shortly after they turn on Colossus, they find it acting strangely. They discover that it is interacting with the Soviet version of Colossus. The Soviets had found a similar need to develop such a system. The two systems communicated with each other and came to the conclusion that these humans are not capable of safely conducting their own affairs. In the movie the Soviets capitulate to the computers and the Americans try to resist but ultimately fail. So the human species is saved by AI.

So there is still hope, however bleak.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Worst Problem: The Most Imminent Danger

June 23, 2019

Of all the issues raised in Douglas Rushkoff’s book “TEAM HUMAN,” which is the worst; which constitutes the most imminent danger. Although HM would argue that global warming is the most imminent danger, economics presents a possible existential threat. Adam Smith was aware of the dangers presented by large corporations and stressed that regulations would be necessary to keep them from destroying the marketplace. There are regulations, but one can readily question whether they are adequate and can anticipate future problems.

In 1969 the CEO of a typical company made about 20 times the salary of the average worker. Currently, CEOs make 271 times the salary of the average worker.

The following statistics are taken from “Resisting the siren song of ‘modern monetary theory” by Heather Boushel in the 21 April 2019 issue of the Washington Post. “Between 1979 and 2015, after accounting for taxes and transfers, Americans in the middle 60% of the income spectrum saw their incomes rise by 46%, while those in the top 20% saw their incomes rise by nearly 103%. High inequality is associated with less upward mobility and with the capture of politics by elites.”

What is more important and more worrisome is accumulated wealth. This problem was discussed in the post The Piketty Insight on the Accelerating Wealth Gap. In the United States in 2010, the top 1% had 35.4% of the wealth. In 2010, the top 5% had 63% of the wealth; and the top 20% had 88.9% of the wealth. That left the bottom 80% with 11.1% of the wealth. So what is being lost? The freedom that wealth can buy, and the power that wealth can buy. Technically, we may still have one person, one vote (but given the menacing Electoral College, not for Presidential elections). But the effect of one person on elections has gone way down.

It is important to appreciate the difference between inherited money and earned money, and more importantly the distinction between inherited money and earned money. Earned money is earned and deserved. Inherited money is not earned and creates a wealthy class analogous to royalty. Presumably the United States broke away from England and its royalty to form a society of equal citizens. This inherited wealth destroys this goal of equality.

It is important to note exceptions. Perhaps the most famous exception is the most successful capitalist, Warren Buffet. He does not believe in inherited wealth. Similarly the most successful entrepreneurs, Bill and Melinda Gates, do not believe in inherited weather. They have created the Gates Foundation, which uses the techniques of operations research to maximized the effectiveness of their giving. Both Buffet and the Gates regard inherited wealth as being unhealthy for their children. It also needs to be mentioned that there are billionaires pledging to give away significant portions of their wealth.

But unfortunately, these people are the exception. Greed seems to be the governing principle for the remainder. One wonders, how many billions does a billionaire need? For too many the answer appears to be infinity. They use their wealth as a measure of their success, and, according to their calculus, how they rank against the rest of humanity.

Corporations need to grow continually and at ever higher rates. This creates the treadmill or rat race that just gets worse. Add to this effect of automation and the loss of future jobs, which will likely exacerbate the problem.

In the past politicians would promise jobs and expect voters to grovel at their feet, even those these jobs would damage further the environment.

We need to stop or get off this treadmill, or we shall eventually, and perhaps, shortly, reach disaster.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Organize: You Are Not Alone

June 22, 2019

“Organize” and “Your Are Not Alone” are the final two sections in a new book by Douglas Rushkoff titled “TEAM HUMAN.” Rushkoff begins,” Those of us seeking to retrieve some community and connection today do it with a great awareness of the alternatives. We can’t retrieve collectivism by happenstance, but by choice. This enables us to consciously level the power of grassroots connections, bottom-up politics, and cooperative businesses—and build a society that is intentionally resilient and resistant to the forces that would conquer us. “

But it was only after humans emerged as individuals with differentiated perspectives, conflicting beliefs, specialized skills, and competing needs could we possibly comprehend collectivism as an active choice. It is positive determination to be members of Team Human that we derive the power and facility to take a deliberate stand on our own behalf.

Team Human participates from the bottom up in national and global politics. We are still guided by bigger principles, but those principles are informed by living in a community, not by listening to talk radio. This isn’t easy. Local debate on almost any issue ends up being more challenging than we expect, but even the most contentious town hall conflicts are cautioned by the knowledge that we have to live together after the fight is over in peace. One can’t just tune to a different channel and get different neighbors.

Rushkoff writes that tourism is where a nation’s people represent its values abroad and has long been recognized as the most productive tool for improving international relations. Citizen diplomacy is behavioral: showing by example, love and in person. Rather than leading to confrontation, it engenders interdependence. If we’re capable of engaging in a genuine conversation, our common agenda as humans far outweighs the political platforms we’ve signed onto. There is strength, not weakness.

Representative democracy gives us the chance to choose other people to speak on our behalf—ideally in face-to-face interactions with representatives of other stakeholders.

There is a need to oppose people. But our encounters with our adversaries must be grounded in the greater context of our shared humanity. This means that in every encounter, the human-to-human, I-and-you engagement becomes the main event.

Rushkoff writes, “The other person’s position—even a heinous one—still derives from some human sensibility, however distorted by time, greed, war, or oppression. To find that core humanity, resonate with it, and retrieve its essential truth we have to be willing to listen to our adversaries as if they were human.” But being human is not a hypothetical. However unsavory and disagreeable, they are indeed human.

Rushkoff notes that the people with whom we disagree are not the real problem. The greatest threats to Team Human are the beliefs, forces, and institutions that separate us from one another and the natural world of which we are a part. Our new renaissance must retrieve whatever helps to reconnect to people and places.

Rushkoff writes, “Team Human doesn’t reject technology. Artificial intelligence, cloning, genetic engineering, virtual reality, robots, nanotechnology, biohacking, space colonization, and autonomous machines are all likely coming, one way or another. But we must take a stand and insist that human values are folded into the development of each and every one of them.”

Rushkoff concludes, “You are not alone. None of us are.”

The sooner we stop hiding in plain sight, the sooner we can avail ourselves of one another. But we have to stand up and be seen. However imperfect and incomplete we may feel, it’s time we declare ourselves members of Team Human.

On being called by God, the biblical prophets would respond “Hineni,” meaning, “I and here.” Scholars have long debated why a person should have to tell God they’re present. Surely they know God sees them.

Of course, the real purpose of shouting “Hineni” is to declare one’s readiness: the willingness to step up and be a part of the great project. To call out into the darkness for other to find us: “Here I am.”

It’s time for us to rise to occasion of our own humanity. We are not perfect, by any means. But we are not alone. We are Team Human.”

The last sentence is a command, “Find the others.”

But you are on your own. Rushkoff makes no attempt to sign people up for Team Human or for organizing further work towards this goal.

Renaissance Now

June 21, 2019

This is the eleventh post based on a new book by Douglas Rushkoff titled “TEAM HUMAN.” The title of this book is identical to the title of the twelfth section of this book.

Rushkoff begins, “Built to enhance our essential interrelatedness, our digital networks could have changed everything. And the internet fostered a revolution, indeed. But it wasn’t a renaissance.

Revolutionaries act as if they are destroying the old and starting something new. More often than not, however, these revolutionaries look more like Ferris wheels: the only thing that’s truly revolving is the cast of characters at the top. The structure remains the same. So the digital revolution—however purely conceived—ultimately brought us a new crew of mostly male, white, libertarian technologists, who believed they were uniquely suited to create a set of universal rules for humans. But those rules—the rules of internet startups and venture capitalism—were really just the same old rules as before. And they supported the same sorts of inequalities, institutions, and cultural values.”

On the other hand a renaissance is a retrieval of the old. It makes no claim on the new unlike a revolution. A renaissance is a rebirth of old ideas in a new context. People are becoming aware of the ways in which these networks and the companies behind them have compromised our relationships, our values, and our thinking, and this is opening us to the possibility that something much bigger is going on.

Rushkoff suggests comparing the leaps in art, science, and technology that occurred during the original Renaissance with those we are witnessing today.

Perhaps perspective painting was the most dramatic artistic developed during the Renaissance. Artists learned how to render a three-dimensional image onto a flat, two-dimensional canvas. Rushkoff suggests that perhaps the hologram, which lets us reprint a fourth dimension of time on a flat plane, or virtual reality, which lets the viewer experience a picture as an immersive environment are comparable.

European sailors learned to navigate the globe, dispelling the conception of a flat earth and launching an era of territorial conquest during the Renaissance. We orbited and photographed our planet from space, launching a mindset of ecology and finite resources during the twentieth century. The sonnet, a form of poetry that allowed for the first extended metaphors was invented during the Renaissance. We got hypertext, which allows anything to become a metaphor for anything else during the twentieth century.
The printing press was invented during the Renaissance, which allowed for the written word to be distributed to everyone. In the twentieth century we got the computer and the internet, which distributes the power of publishing to everyone.

The original Renaissance brought us from a flat world to one with perspective and depth. Our renaissance potentially brings us from a world of objects to one of connections and patterns. The world can be understood as a fractal, while each piece reflects the whole. Nothing can be isolated or externalized since it’s already part of a larger system. Rushkoff concludes that the parallels are abundant and that this is our opportunity for a renaissance.

Rushkoff warns that a renaissance sans the retrieval of lost, essential values is just another revolution. He claims that the first individuals and organizations to capitalize on the digital era ignored the underlying values that their innovations could have retrieved. They erroneously assumed they were doing something absolutely new: disrupting existing hierarchies and replacing them with something or someone better, which was usually themselves. He claims that the early founders merely changed the ticker symbols on Wall Street from old tech companies to new tech companies, and the medium to display them from paper tape to LEDs.

Rushkoff writes, “The original Renaissance, for instance, retrieved the values of ancient Greece and Rome. This was reflected not just in the philosophy, aesthetics, and architecture of the period, but in the social agenda. Central currency favored central authorities, nation-states, and colonialism. These values had been lost since the fall of the Roman Empire. The Renaissance retrieved those ideals through its monarchies, economics, colonialism, and applied science.

He asks, what values can be retrieved by our renaissance. He suggests the values that were lost or repressed during the last one: environmentalism, women’s rights, peer-to-peer economics, and localism. He sees the over-rationalized, alienating approach to science being joined by the newly retrieved approaches of holism and connectedness. He sees peer-to-peer networks and crowdfunding replacing the top-down patronage of the Reconnaissance, retrieving a spirit of mutual aid and community.

Unfortunately, he writes that possibilities for renaissance are lost as our openness to fundamental change creates footholds for those who would exploit us. Innovations are instrumentalized in pursuit of short-term profit, and retrieved values are ignored or forcibly quashed. Without retrieval, all our work and innovations is just research and development for the existing repressive systems. The commercial uses for technology tend to emerge only after it has been around for a while..

He concludes this section by noting that the relationship between individuals and society is not a zero-sum game. He writes, “Humans, at our best, are capable of embracing seeming paradox, We push through the contradiction and find a dynamic sensibility on the other side. Each of these movements depends on our comfort with what we could call a fractal sensibility, the notion that each tiny part of a system echoes the shape and structure of the whole. Just as the veins within the leaf of a single fern reflect the branches, trees, and structure of an entire forest the thoughts and intentions of a single individual reflect the consciousness of the whole human organism. The key to experiencing one’s individuality is to perceive the way it is reflected in the whole and, in turn, resonates with something greater than oneself.”

Natural Science

June 20, 2019

This is the tenth post based on a new book by Douglas Rushkoff titled “TEAM HUMAN.” The title of this book is identical to the title of the eleventh section of this book.

Rushkoff writes, “Radical environmentalists believe that the only way for nature to reassure itself is for human civilization to reduce its numbers and return to preindustrial conditions. Others believe it’s too late, that we’ve already cast our lot with technological progress, genetic engineering, and global markets. In their view, slowing down the engines of progress will merely prevent us from finding the solution we need to fix our current crisis.”

Rushkoff does not think that either approach will work. Although he thinks that we cannot dominate nature for much longer, neither can we retreat from civilization. Team Human includes everybody, there cannot be a war between those who want to preserve nature and those pursuing progress.

He states that responding to this crisis in a polarized way surrenders to the binary logic of the digital media environment. Although technology may have created a lot of problems, it is not the enemy. Neither are the markets, the scientists, the bots, the algorithms, or the human appetite for progress. Rather than pursuing them at the expense of more basic, organic, connected, emotional, social, and spiritual sensibilities, we must balance our human need to remain connected to nature with a corresponding desire to influence our own reality. It’s not an either or, but both. Nature is not a problem to be solved. We must learn to work with nature, just as we must learn to work with the many institutions and technologies we have developed.

Rather than getting rid of smartphones, we should program them to save our time instead of stealing it. Stock markets should not be closed but retooled to distribute capital to businesses that need it instead of enslaving companies to the short-term whims of investors. Rather than destroying our cities, we should work to make them more economically and environmentally sustainable.

Rushkoff writes that the very same things we might do to prepare for a global catastrophe could also make us resilient enough to prevent one. Distributed energy production, fairer resource management, and the development of local cooperatives would benefit both the survivors of a calamity and help reduce the stresses that could bring one on.

Permaculture is a great model for how humans can participate willfully and harmoniously in the stewardship of nature and resources. In 1978 when the term was coined it was meant to combine “agriculture” with “permanent.” It was expanded to mean “permanent culture,” as a way of acknowledging that any sustainable approach to food, construction, economics, and the environment had to bring our social reality into the mix.

Instead of working against nature, permaculture is a philosophy of working with nature. It involves studying how plants and animals function together, rather than isolating one product or crop to extract. It requires recognizing the bigger, subtle cycles of the seasons and the moon, and treating them as more than superstition. We must recognize earth as more than just dirt, but as soil: a highly complex network of fungi and microorganisms through which plants communicate and nourish each other. Permaculture farmers treat soil as a living system, rather than “turning” it with machines and pulverizing it into dirt. They rotate crops in ways that replenish nutrients, make topsoil deeper, prevent water runoff, and increase speciation. They leave the landscape more alive and sustainable than they found it.

Rushkoff writes, “Just like corporatism, religion, and nationalism, science fell victim to a highly linear conception of the world. Everything is cause and effect, before and after, subject and object. This worked well for Newton and other observers of mechanical phenomena. They understood everything has a beginning and an end, and the universe itself as a piece of graph paper extended out infinitely in all directions—a background with absolute measure, against which all astronomical and earthly events take place.

Rushkoff concludes this sections as follows: “Like a dance where the only space that exists is defined by and between the dancers themselves, everything is happening in relationship to everything else. It’s never over, it’s never irrelevant, it’s never somewhere else.

That’s what forces science into the realm of morality, karma, circularity, and timelessness that prescientific people experienced. There is ultimately no ground on which a figure exists. It’s all just ground, or all just figure. And humans are an inseparable part.”

Spirituality and Ethics

June 19, 2019

This is the ninth post based on a new book by Douglas Rushkoff titled “TEAM HUMAN.” The title of this post is identical to the title of the tenth section of this book.

Rushkoff begins, “…the vast majority of humankind’s experience was spent understanding time as circular. Only recently did we adopt a more historical approach to time, and a correspondingly more aggressive way of manifesting our spiritual destiny. That’s the main difference between the spiritual systems that humans lived with over many millennia and the infant religions that fielded colonialism in the last dozen or so centuries.

In a cyclical understanding of time, the consequences of one’s action can never be externalized or avoided, Everyone reincarnates, so if you do something bad to another person, you’ll have to meet them again. If you spoil the natural world, you will be reborn into it yourself. Time and history are nonexistent, and the individual is living in the constant present. As a result, everything and everyone is interdependent and emanating from the same shared source of life.

The invention of writing gave people the ability to record the past and make promises into the future. Historical time was born, which marks the end of the spirituality of an eternal present, and the beginning of linear religion and monotheism. Before the end of a past and a future, it was difficult to explain how a single, all-powerful god could exist if there was still so much wrong with Creation. With the addition of history, the imperfect world could be justified as a work in progress. God was perfect, but his plan for the world was not yet complete.”

Unfortunately, the focus on the future enabled intended ends to justify almost any means. Inhumane disasters like the Crusades as well as the progressive philosophies of Hegel and Marx all depended on a teleological view of our world. Although these approaches elevate our commitment to ethics and social justice, they also tend to divorce us from the present. We feel enabled to do violence now for some supposedly higher cause and future payoff.

So we drive forward, ignoring the devastation we create in our wake. We permanently clear forests, and extract coal, oil, and water that can’t be replenished. The planet and its people are resources to be used up and thrown away. Human beings are enslaved to build luxury technologies that subject people in faraway places to pollution and poverty. Corporations dismiss these devastating side effects as externalities, that is the collateral damage of doing business, falling entirely on people and places unacknowledged on their spreadsheets.

Rushkoff informs us that upon encountering the destructiveness of European colonialists, Native Americans concluded that the invaders must have a disease. They called it “wettiko:’ a delusional belief that cannibalizing the life force of others is a logical and morally upright way to live. Native Americans believe that wettiko derived from people’s inability to see themselves as enmeshed, interdependent parts of the natural environment. When this disconnect has occurred, nature is no longer seen as something to be emulated but as something to be conquered. Women, natives, the moon, and the woods are all dark and evil, but can be subdued by man, his civilizing institutions, his weapons, and his machines. Might makes right, because might is itself an expression of the divine.

Rushkoff is quick to note that wettiko can’t be blamed entirely on Europeans. This tendency goes back at least as far as sedentary living with the hoarding of grain, and the enslavement of workers. Wanton destruction has long been recognized as a kind of malady. It’s the disease from which the Pharaoh of biblical legend was suffering—so much so that God was said to have “hardened his heart: disconnecting him from all empathy and connection with nature.

Rushkoff is also quick to note that both Judaism and Christianity sought to inoculate themselves from the threat of wettiko. Their priests understood that disconnecting from nature and worshipping an abstract God was bound to make people feel less empathic and connected. Judaism attempted to compensate for this by keeping God out of the picture—literally undepicted. Christianity similarly sought to retrieve the insight that a religion is less important as a thing in itself than as a way of experiencing and expressing love to others.

Unfortunately the crucifix became an emblem of divine conquest, first in the Crusades, and later, with the advent of capitalism and industrialism, for colonial empires to enact and spread wettiko as never before. And the law, originally developed as a way of articulating a spiritual code of ethics, became a tool for chartered monopolies to dominate the world, backed by royal gunships. Although Europeans took colonial victories as providential, Native Americans saw white men as suffering from a former mental illness that leads it’s victims to consume far more than they need to survive, and results in an “icy heart” incapable of compassion.

Rushkoff concludes this section by writing, “It’s time to rebalance our reasons with Reason, and occupy that strange, uniquely human place: both a humble part of nature, yet also conscious and capable of leaving the world better than when we found it.”

From Paradox to Awe

June 18, 2019

This is the eighth post based on a new book by Douglas Rushkoff titled “TEAM HUMAN.” The title of this post is identical to the title of the ninth section of this book.

Rushkoff writes, “Team human has the ability to tolerate and even embrace ambiguity. The stuff that makes our thinking and behavior messy, confusing or anomalous is both our greatest strength and our greatest defense agains the deadening certainty of machine logic.”

In our definitive age, definitive answers are readily at hand. All questions seem to be but a web search aware. Computers are definitive because they have to be. We are mistaken to emulate the certainty of our computers. With computers, there is no in-between state. Ambiguity is not permitted.

Rushkoff argues it is precisely this ambiguity, and our ability to embrace it, that characterizes the collectively felt human experience. Mobiles strips and Zen koans (what is the sound of one hand clapping?) can only be engaged from multiple perspectives and sensibilities. We have two brain hemispheres and it takes both to create the multidimensional conceptual picture we think of as reality.

The brain is not like a computer hard drive. There’s no one-to-one correspondence between things we’ve experienced and data points in the brain. Perception is active, not receptive. There are more neural circuits running down to predict what we perceive than neural circuits leading from our receptors. Our eyes take in 2D fragments and the brain renders them as 3D images. We take abstract concepts and assembly them into a perceived thing or situation. Rushkoff writes, “We don’t see ‘fire truck’ so much as gather details and then manufacture a fire truck.”

Rushkoff continues, “Our ability to be conscious—to have that sense of what-is-it-like-to-see-something—depends on our awareness and participation in interpreting them. Confusing moments provide us opportunities to experience our complicity in reality creation.”

Continuing further, “It’s also what allows us to do all those things that computers have been unable to learn: how to contend with paradox, engage with irony, or even interpret a joke. Doing any of this depends on what neuroscientists call relevance theory. We don’t think and communicate in whole pieces, but infer things based on context. We receive fragments of information from one another and then see what we know about the world to re-create the whole message ourselves. It’s how a joke arrives in your head: some assembly is required, That moment of ‘getting it’ putting together together oneself—is the pleasure of active reception. Ha! and Aha! are very close relatives.”

Rushkoff notes that art, at its best, mines the paradoxes that make humans human. Pro-human art produces open-ended stories, without clear victors or well-defined conflicts. The works don’t answer questions. They raise them. The “problem plays” of Shakespeare defied easy plot analysis, as characters take apparently unmotivated actions. They’re the abstract paintings of Kandinsky or Delaunay, which maintain distance from real-work visual references. These images only sort of represent figures. The observing human mind is the real subject of the work, as it tries and fails to identify objects that correspond perfectly with the images. This process itself mirrors the way our brains identify things in the “real” world by perceiving and assembling fragmented details. Rushkoff writes that this art stretches out the process of seeing and identifying, so we can revel in the strange phenomenon of human perception.

Rushkoff writes, “Loose ends distinguish art from commerce. The best, most humanizing art doesn’t depend on spoilers. What is the ‘spoiler’ in a painting by Picasso or a novel by James Joyce. The impact of a classically structured art film like ‘Citizen Kane’ isn’t compromised even if we know the surprise ending. These masterpieces don’t reward us with answers, but with new sorts of question. Any answers are constructed by the audience, provisionally and collaboratively, through the active interpretation of their work.”

Rushkoff writes that the state of awe may be the peak of human experience. He asks if humans’ unique job is to be conscious, what more human thing can we do than blow our observing minds? Beholding the panoramic view from a mountaintop, witnessing the birth of a child, staring into a starry sky, or standing with thousands of others in march or celebration, all dissolve our sense of self as separate and distinct. We experience ourselves as both the observing eye and the whole of which we are part. Although this is an impossible concept, it is still an undeniable experience of power and passivity, awareness and acceptance.

Psychologists inform us that the experience of awe can counteract self-focus, stress, apathy, and detachment, Awe helps people act with an increased sense of meaning and purpose, turning our attention away from the self and toward our collective self-interest. Awe even regulates the cytokine response and reduces inflammation. New research has shown that after just a few moments of awe, people behave with increased altruism, cooperation, and self-sacrifice. This efficiency suggests that awe makes people feel like part of something larger than themselves, which in turn makes then less narcissistic and more attuned to the needs of those around them.

Rushkoff concludes this section by stating, “True awe is timeless, limitless, and without division. It suggest there is a unifying whole to which we all belong—if only we could hold onto that awareness.”

Economics

June 17, 2019

This is the seventh post based on a new book by Douglas Rushkoff titled “TEAM HUMAN.” The title of this post is identical to the title of the seventh section of this book.
Rushkoff writes, “What we now think of capitalism was born in the late Middle Ages, in the midst of a period of organic economic growth. Soldiers had just returned from the Crusades, having opened up new trade routes and bringing back innovations from foreign lands. One of them, from the Moorish bazaar, was the concept of ‘market money.’”

Prior to this time, European markets operated mostly through the direct exchange of goods, that is, barter, Gold coins were too scarce and valuable to spend on bread. Anyone who did have gold hoarded it. Market money let regular people sell their goods to each other. It was often issued in the morning, and then cashed in at the close of trading. Each unit of currency could represent a loaf of bread or a head of lettuce, and would be used by the seller of those items as a way of priming the pump for the day’s trade. The baker could go out early and buy the things he needed, using coupons good for a loaf of bread. Those coupons would slowly make their way back to the baker, who would exchange them for loaves of bread. This was an economy geared for the velocity of money, not the hoarding of capital. It distributed wealth so well that many former peasants rose to become the new merchant middle class. They worked for themselves, fewer days per week, with greater profits, and in better health than Europeans had ever enjoyed and as Rushkoff notes would not enjoy again for many centuries.

The aristocracy disliked this egalitarian development. When the peasants became self-sufficient, feudal lords lost their ability to extract value from them. Rushkoff notes that these wealthy families hadn’t created value in centuries, so they needed to change the rules of business to set this rising tide of wealth as well as their own demise.

So the aristocracy came up with two main innovations. The chartered monopoly was the first. It made it illegal for anyone to do business in a sector without an official charter from the king. So if you were not the king’s selected shoemaker, you had to close your business and become an employee of someone who was. Rushkoff writes, “The American Revolution was chiefly a response to such monopoly control by the British East India India Company. Colonists were free to grow cotton but forbidden from turning it into fabric or selling it to anyone but the company.” Clearly the colonists were being exploited. The East India Company transported the cotton back to England, where it was made into fabric, then shipped back to American and sold to the colonists. This monopoly charter was the progenitor of the modern corporation.

Central currency was the other main innovation. Market money was declared illegal; its use was punishable by death. People who wanted to transact had to borrow money from the central treasury, at interest. This allowed the aristocracy, who had money, to make money simply by lending it. Local markets collapsed. Money which had been a utility to promote the exchange of goods, instead became a way of extracting value from commerce.
Rushkoff writes, “That growth mandate remains with us today. Corporations must grow in order to pay back their investors. The companies themselves are just the conduits through which the operating system of central currency can execute its extraction routines. With each new round of growth, more money and value is delivered up from the real world of people and resources to those who have the monopoly on capital, That’s why it’s called capitalism.”

Rushkoff continues, “But corporations are not people. They are abstract, and can scale up infinitely to meet the demands of the debt-based economy. People can only work so hard or consume so much before we reach our limits, We are still part of the organic world, and subject to the laws of nature. Corporations know no such bounds, making them an awful lot like the digital technologies they are developing and inhabiting.”

Continuing further, “The pioneering philosopher of the political economy, Adam Smith, was well aware of the abstract nature of corporations—particularly large ones—and stressed that regulations would be necessary to keep them from destroying the marketplace, He argued that there are three factors of production, which must all be recognized as equally important: the land, on which we grow crops or extract resources; the labor, who till the soil or manufacture the goods; and, finally, the capital—either the money invested or the tools and machines purchased. He worried that in an abstract growth-based economy, the priorities of the capital would quickly overtake the other two, and that this, in turn, would begin to favor the largest corporate players over the local, human-scaled enterprises that fuel any real economy.”

Capital can keep growing, unlike land and humans. Moreover, it has to, because a growth-based economy always requires more money. And capital accomplishes this miracle growth by continually abstracting itself. If investors don’t want to wait three months for a stock to increase in value they can use a derivative—an abstraction—to purchase the future stock now. Should that that not be enough temporal compression, one can purchase a derivative of that derivative, and so on. Today, derivatives trading outpaces trading of real stocks. The New York Stock Exchange was actually purchased by its derivatives exchange in 2013. So the stock exchange, which is itself an abstraction of the real marketplace of goods and services, was purchased by its own abstraction.

In 1960, the CEO of a typical company made about 20 times as much as its average worker. Today, CEOs make 271 times the salary of the average worker. They probably would like to take less and share with their workers, but they don’t know how to give up the wealth safely. Thomas Jefferson once described the paradox of wanting to free his slaves but fearing their retribution if he did, “it’s like holding a wolf by the ear.”

Rushkoff ends this section as follows, “So with the blessings of much of the science industry and its collaborating futurists, corporations press on, accelerating civilization under the false premise that because things are looking better for the wealthiest beneficiaries, they must be better for everyone. Progress is good, they say. Any potential impediment to the frictionless ascent of technological and economic scale, such as the cost of labor, the limits of a particular market, the constraints of the planet, ethical misgivings, or human frailty—must be eliminated. The models would all work if only there weren’t people in the way. That’s why capitalism’s true believers are seeking someone,or better something, to do their bidding with greater intelligence and less empathy than humans.”

Mechanomorphism

June 16, 2019

This is the sixth post based on a new book by Douglas Rushkoff titled “TEAM HUMAN.” The title of this post is identical to the title of the sixth section of this book. Rushkoff begins, “When autonomous technologies appear to be calling all the shots, it’s only logical for humans to conclude that if we can’t beat them, we may as well join them. Whenever people are captivated—be they excited or enslaved—by a new technology, it becomes their new role model, too. “

“In the Industrial Age, as mechanical clocks dictated human time, we began to think of ourselves in very mechanical terms. We described ourselves as living in a ‘clockwork universe,’ in which the human body was one of the machines.” Mechanical metaphors emerged in our language. We needed to grease the wheels, crank up the business, dig deeper, or turn a company into a well-oiled machine.

In the digital age we view our world as computational. Humans are processors; everything is data. Logic does not compute. He multitasks so well he’s capable of interfacing with more than one person in his network at a time.

Projecting human qualities onto machines is called anthropomorphism, but we are projecting machine qualities onto humans. Seeing a human being as a machine or computer is called mechanomorphism. This is not just treating machines as living humans; it’s treating humans as machines.

When we multitask we are assuming that, just like computers, we can do more than one task at a time. But research has been shown, and related in healthy memory blog posts, that when we multitask, our performance suffers. Sometimes this multitasking, such as when we talk, or even worse, text, while we are driving, we can die.

It is both curious and interesting that drone pilots, who monitor and neutralize people by remote control from thousands of miles away, experience higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder than “real” pilots. An explanation for these high rates of distress is that, unlike regular pilots, drone pilots often observe their targets for weeks before killing them. These stress rates remain disproportionately high even for missions in which the pilots had no prior contact with the victims.

Rushkoff writes that a more likely reason for the psychic damage is that this drone pilots are trying to exist in more than one location at a time. They might be in a facility in Nevada operating a lethal weapon system deployed on the other side of the planet. After dropping ordnance and killing a few dozen people, the pilots don’t land their planes, climb out, and return to the mess hall to debrief over beers with their fellow pilots. They just log out, get into their cars, and drive home to the suburbs for dinner with their families. It’s like being two different people in different places in the same day. But none of us is two people or can be in more than one place. Unlike a computer program, which can be copied and run from several different machines simultaneously, human beings have one “instance” of themselves running at a time.
Rushkoff writes, “We may want to be like the machines of our era, but we can never be as good at being digital devices as the digital devices themselves. This is a good thing, and maybe the only way to remember that by aspiring to imitate our machines, we leave something even more important behind: our humanity.’

The smartphone, along with all the other smartphones, create an environment: a world where anyone can reach us at any time, where people walk down public sidewalks in private bubbles, and where our movements are tracked by GPS and stored in marketing and government databases for future analysis. In turn, these environmental factors promote particular states of mind, such as paranoia about be tracked, a constant state of distraction, and fear of missing out.

The digital media environment impacts us collectively, as an economy and as a society. Investors’ expectations of what a stock’s chart should look like given the breathtaking pace at which a digital company can reach “scale” has changed, as well as how a CEO should surrender the long-term health of a company for the short-term growth of shares. Rushkoff notes that the internet’s emphasis on metrics and quantity over depth and quality has engendered a society that values celebrity, sensationalism, an numeric measures of success. The digital media environment expresses itself in the physical environment s well; the production, use, and disposal of digital technologies depletes scarce resources, expends massive amount of energy, and pollutes vast regions of the planet.

Rushkoff concludes, “Knowing the particular impacts of a media environment on our behaviors doesn’t excuse our complicity, but it helps us understand what we’re up against—which way things are tilted. This enables us to combat their effects, as well as the darker aspects of our own nature that they provoke.”

If one assumes that humanity is a pure mechanistic affair, explicable entirely in the language of data processing then what’s the difference whether human beings or computers are doing that processing. Transhumanists hope to transcend biological existence. Kurzweil’s notion of a singularity in which human consciousness is uploaded into a computer has been written off in previous posts. The argument that these previous posts has made is that biology and silicon are two different media that operate in different ways. Although they can interact they cannot become one.

Rushkoff’s concludes, “It’s not that wanting to improve ourselves, even with seemingly invasive technology, is so wrong. It’s that we humans should be making active choices about what it is we want to do to ourselves, rather than letting the machines, or the markets propelling them, decide for us.

The Digital Media Environment

June 15, 2019

This is the fifth post based on a new book by Douglas Rushkoff titled “TEAM HUMAN.” The title of this post is identical to the title of the fifth section of this book. Rushkoff writes, whoever controls media controls society.

“Each new media revolution appears to offer people a new opportunity to wrest control from an elite few and reestablish the social bonds that media has compromised.” But the people have always remained one entire media revolution behind those who would dominate them.

Rushkoff cites the example of ancient Egypt that was organized under the presumption that the pharaoh could directly hear the words of the gods, as if he were a god himself. On the other hand, the masses could not hear the gods at all; they could only believe.

The invention of text might have led to a literate culture. Instead text was used just to keep track of possessions and slaves. When writing eventually was used by religion, only the priests could read the texts and understand the Hebrew or Greek in which they were written. The masses could hear the Scriptures being read aloud, thus they could hear the putative words of God, but the priests kept the elites’ capability of literacy.

During the Renaissance when the printing press was invented, the people gained the ability to read, but only the king and his selected allies could produce texts. Similarly, radio and television were controlled by corporations or repressive states. So people could only listen or watch passively.

Rushkoff writes, “The problem with media revolutions is that we too easily lose sight of what is truly revolutionary. By focusing on the shiny new toys and ignoring the human empowerment potentiated by these new media—the political and social capabilities they are retrieving—we end up surrendering them to the powers that be. Then we and our new inventions become mere instruments for some other agenda.

The early internet enabled new conversations between people who might never have connected in real life. The networks compressed distance between physicists in California, hackers in Holland, philosophers in eastern Europe, and animators in Japan. These early discussion platforms leveraged the fact that unlike TV or the telephone, internet messaging didn’t happen in real time. Users would download net discussions, read them on their own time, offline, and compose a response after an evening of thought and editing. Then they would log back onto the net, upload he contribution, and wait to see what others thought. The internet was a place where people sounded and acted smarter than they do in real life. This was a virtual space where people brought their best selves, and where the high quality of the conversations was so valued that communities governed these spaces the way a farmer’s cooperative protects a common water supply. To gain access to the early internet, users had to digitally sign an agreement not to engage in any commercial activity. Rushkoff writes “Even the corporate search and social platforms that later came to monopolize the net originally vowed never to allow advertising because it would tain the humanistic cultures they were creating.”

Consider how much better this was when people actually thought for a time, rather than responding immediately. Previously, System 2 processes were involved. Currently, responses are immediate, emotional System 1 processes.

Rushkoff writes, “ Living in a digitally enforced attention economy means being subjected to a constant assault of automated manipulations. Persuasive technology is a design technology taught and developed at some of America’s leading universities and then implemented on platforms from e-commerce sites and social networks to smartphones and fitness wristbands. The goal is to generate ‘behavioral change’ and ‘habit formation,’ most often without the user’s knowledge or consent. Behavioral design theory holds that people don’t change their behavior because of shifts in their attitudes and opinions. On the contrary, people change their attitudes to match their behaviors. In this model, we are more like machines than thinking, autonomous beings.”

Much or this has been discussed in previous health memory posts, especially those based on the book “Zucked.”

Rushkof writes, “Instead of designing technologies that promote autonomy and help us make informed decisions, the persuasion engineers in charge of our biggest digital companies are hard at work creating interfaces that thwart our thinking and push us into an impulsive response where thoughtful choice—or thought itself—are nearly impossible.” This explains how Russia was able to promote successfully its own choice to be President of the United States.

Previous healthy memory blog posts have argued that we are dumber when we are using smartphones and social media. We understand and retain less information. We comprehend with less depth, and make impulsive decisions. We become less capable of distinguishing the real from the fake, the compassionate from the cruel, and the human and the non-human. Rushkoff writes, “Team Human’s real enemies, if we can call them that, are not just the people who are trying to program us into submission, but the algorithms they’ve unleashed to help them do it.”

Rushkoff concludes this section as follows: “Human ideals such as autonomy, social contact, and learning are again written out of the equation, as the algorithms’ programming steers everyone and everything toward instrumental ends. When human beings are in a digital environment they become more like machines, entities composed of digital materials—the algorithms—become more like living entities. They act as if they are our evolutionary successors. No wonder we ape their behavior.”

Figure and Ground

June 14, 2019

This is the fourth post based on a new book by Douglas Rushkoff titled “TEAM HUMAN.” The title of this post is identical to the title of the fourth section of this book. Rushkoff begins, “Human inventions often end up at cross purposes with their original intention—or even at cross purposes with humans, ourselves. Once an idea or an institution gains enough influence it changes the basic landscape. Instead of the invention serving people in some way, people spend their time and resources serving it. The original subject becomes the new object. Or, as we may effectively put it, the figure becomes the ground.”

The figure is that on which we focus, the ground is the background. And the perception of figure or ground can change in different circumstances or cultures. Most westerners when shown a picture of a cow in a pasture will see a picture of a cow. On the other hand most easterners will see a picture of a pasture. Their perceptions are so determined that people who see the figure may be oblivious to major changes in the background, and people who see the ground may not even remember what kind of animal was grazing there.

Rushkoff writes, “Neither perception is better nor worse, such much as incomplete. If the athlete sees herself as the only one that matters, she misses the value of her team—the ground on which she functions. If a company’s “human resources” officer sees the individual employee as nothing more than gear in the firm, he misses the value and autonomy of the particular person, the figure.”

Consider money. It was originally invented to store value and enable transactions. Money was the medium for the marketplace’s primary function of value exchange. Money was the ground, and the marketplace was the figure. Today, the dynamic is reversed: the acquisition of money itself has become the central goal, and the marketplace just a means of realizing that goal. Money has become the figure, and the marketplace full of people has become the ground.

Rushkoff writes, “Understanding this reversal makes it easier to perceive the absurdity of today’s destructive form of corporate capitalism. Corporations destroy the markets on which they depend, or sell off their most productive divisions to increase the bottom line on their quarterly reports. That’s because the main product of a company is no longer whatever it provides to consumers, but the shares it sells to investors. The figure has become the ground.”

Rushkoff says that the true legacy of the Industrial Age is to get people out of sight, or out of the way under the pretense of solving problem’s and making people’s lives easier. As an example Rushkoff considers Thomas Jefferson’s famous invention, the dumbwaiter. We think of it as a convenience: instead of carrying food and wine from the kitchen up to the dining room, the servants could place items into a small lift and convey it upstairs by pulling on ropes. Food and drink appeared as if by magic. But the purpose of the dumbwaiter had nothing to do with saving effort. Its true purpose was to hide the grotesque crime of slavery.

Rushkoff contends that in the Industrial Age there were many mechanical innovations, but in very few cases did they actually make production more efficient. They simply made human skill less important, so that laborers could be paid less.

Rushkoff contends that today Chinese laborers “finish” smartphones by wiping off any fingerprints with a highly toxic solvent proven to shorten the workers’ lives. That’s how valuable it is for consumers to believe that their devices have been assembled by magic rather than by the fingers of underpaid and poisoned children. Creating the illusion of no human involvement actually costs human lives.

The mass production of goods, requires mass marketing, which can be just as dehumanizing. Once products were moved from the people who made them, mass production separated the consumer from the producer, and replaced this human relationship with the brand. So where people once purchased oats from the miller down the block, now consumers go to the store and buy a box shipped from a thousand miles away. The brand image—in this case a Smiling Quaker—substitutes for the real human relationship, and is carefully designed to appeal to us more than a living person would.

When consumer culture was born, media technologies became the main way to persuade people to desire possessions over relationships and social status over social connections. The less fruitful the relationships in a person’s life, the better that person was for synthetic ones, thus undoing the social fabric.

Rushkoff writes, “Since the Industrial Age, technology has been used as a way to make humans less valued and essential to labor, business, and culture. This is the legacy that digital technology inherited.

Rushkoff concludes this section as follows: “…the new culture of contact enabled by digital networks was proving unprofitable and was replaced by an industry-wide ethos of “content is king.” Of course, content was not the message of the net; the social contact was. We were witnessing the first synaptic transmissions of a collective attempting to reach new levels of connectedness and wake itself up. But that higher goal was entirely unprofitable, so conversations between actual humans were relegated to the comments sections of articles or better, the reviews of products. If people were going to use the networks to communicate it had better be about a brand. Communities became affinity groups, organized around purchases rather than any sort of mutual aid. Actual “social” media was only allowed to flourish once the contact people made with one another became more valuable as data than the cost in missed shopping or viewing time. Content remained king, even if human beings were now that content.

Learning to Lie

June 13, 2019

This is the third post based on a new book by Douglas Rushkoff titled “TEAM HUMAN.” The title of this post is identical to the title of the third section of this book. Rushkoff begins this section,”It doesn’t take much to tilt a healthy social landscape toward an individualist or repressive one. A scarcity of resources, a hostile neighboring tribe, a warlord looking for power, an elite seeking to maintain its authority, or a corporation pursuing a monopoly all foster antisocial environments and behavior. Socialization depends on both autonomy and interdependency; emphasizing one at the expense of the other compromises the balance.”

One desocializing strategy emphasizes individualism. The special group is broken down into automized individuals who fight for their right to fulfillment by professional advancement or personal consumption. This system is often sold as freedom. But these competing individuals never find true autonomy because they lack the social fabric in which to exercise it.

Another path to desocialization emphasized conformity. People don’t need to compete because they are all the same. Such system mitigates strident individualism, but it does through obedience usually to a supreme ruler or monopoly party. Conformity is not truly social, because people are looking up for direction other than to one another. Because there is no variation, mutation or social fluidity, conformity ends up being just as desocializing as individualism.

Rushkoff concludes that both approaches depend on separating people from one another and undermining our evolved social mechanisms in order to control us. He continues, “Any of our healthy social mechanisms can become vulnerabilities: what hackers would call “exploits” for those who want to manipulate us. For example, when a charity encloses a free “gift” or return address labels along with their solicitation for a donation, they are consciously manipulating our ancient, embedded social bias for reciprocity. The example is trivial, but the pattern is universal We either succumb to the pressures with the inner knowledge that something is off, or we recognize the ploy, reject the plea, and arm ourselves agains such tactics in the future. In either case, the social landscape is eroded. What held us together now breaks us apart.”

Spoken language can be regarded as the first communication technology. Language has many admirable capabilities. But before language, there was no such thing as a lie. Rushkoff writes that the closest thing to lying would have been a behavior such as hiding a piece of fruit, but speech created a way of actively misrepresenting reality to others.

Rushkoff writes that when we look at the earliest examples of the written word, it was used mostly to assert power and control. “For the first five hundred years after its invention in Mesopotamia, writing was used exclusively by her kings and priests to keep track of the grain and labor they controlled. Whenever writing appeared, it was accompanied by war and slavery. For all the benefits of the written word, it is also responsible for replacing an embodied, experiential culture with an abstract administrative one.”

Rushkoff continues, “The Gutenberg printing press extended the reach and accessibility of the written word throughout Europe, and promised a new era of literacy and expression. But the printing presses were tightly controlled by monarchs, who were well aware of what happens when people begin reading one another’s books. Unauthorized presses were destroyed and their owners executed. Instead of promoting a new culture of ideas, the printing press reinforced control from the top.

Radio also began as a peer-to-peer medium such as ham radio. But corporations lobbied to monopolize the spectrum and governments sought to control it, radio devolved from a community space to one dominated by advertising and propaganda.

Hitler used this new medium of radio to make himself appear to be anywhere and everywhere at once. No single voice had ever permeated German society previously, and the sense of personal connection it engendered allowed Hitler to create a new sort of rapport with millions of people. The Chinese installed 70 million loudspeakers to broadcast what they called “Politics on Demand” through the nation. Rwandans used radio as late as 1993 to reveal the location of ethnic enemies so that mobs of loyalists with machetes could massacre them.

Initially television was viewed as a great connector and educator. However, marketing psychologists saw in it a way to mirror a consumer’s mind and insert with it new fantasies and specific products. Programming referred to the programmability not of the channel, but of the viewer.

There have been so many previous healthy memory blog posts on the problems of social media and of cybernetic warfare, that can be found under the category of Transactive Memory, that little more on these general topics will be written.

But a few words words will be written on memes and memetics. Rushkoff writes, “An increasingly competitive media landscape favors increasingly competitive content. Today, anyone with a smartphone, web page or social media account can share their ideas. If that idea is compelling it might be replicated and spread to millions. And so the race is on. Gone are the collaborative urges that characterized embodied social interaction. In their place comes another bastardized Darwinian ideal: a battle for the survival of the fittest meme.”

Rushkoff continues, “The amazing thing is that it doesn’t matter what side of an issue people are on for them to be infected by the meme and provoked to replicate it. ‘Look what this person said’ is reason enough to spread it. In the contentious social media surrounding elections the most racist and sexist memes are reposted less by their advocates than by their outraged opponents. That’s because memes do not compete for dominance by appealing to our intellect, our compassion, or anything to do with our humanity. They compete to trigger our most automatic impulses.”

Rushkoff concludes this section as follows: “…our extension of our social reality into a new medium requires that we make a conscious effort to bring our humanity along with us. We must project our social human organism from the very things we have created.”

Social Animals

June 12, 2019

This is the second post based on a new book by Douglas Rushkoff titled “TEAM HUMAN.” The title of this post is identical to the title of the second section of this book.
This section begins, “Nature is a collaborative act. If humans are the most evolved species, it is only because we have developed the most advanced ways of working and playing together.”

Rushkoff writes that it is a myth that evolution is about competition, the survival of the fittest. According to this view, each creature struggles against all the others for scarce resources. Only the strongest ones survive to pass on their superior genes, while the weakest deserve to lose and die out. He argues that evolution is every bit as much about cooperation as competition. Our own cells are the result of an alliance of billions of years ago between mitochondria and their hosts. Individuals and species flourish by evolving ways of supporting mutual survival. A bird develops a beak which lets it feed on some part of a plant that other birds can’t reach. This introduces diversity into the population’s diet, reducing the strain on a particular food supply and leading to more for all. Birds, much like bees, are helping the plant by spreading its seeds after eating its fruit.

Rushkoff writes, “Survival of the fittest is a convenient way to justify the cutthroat ethos of a competitive marketplace, political landscape, and culture. But this perspective misconstrues the theories of Darwin as well as his successors. By viewing evolution through a strictly competitive lens, we miss the bigger story of our own social development and have trouble understanding humanity as one big, interconnected team.”

We once believed that human beings developed larger brains than chimpanzees in order to do better spatial mapping of the environment or to make more advanced tools and weapons. Primates with better tools and mental maps could hunt and fight better, too. But there are only slight genetic variations between hominids and chimpanzees, and they relate almost exclusively to the number of neurons that our brains are allowed to make. It’s not a qualitative difference but a quantitative one. “The most direct benefit of more neurons and connections in our brains is an increase in the size of the social networks we can form. Complicated brains make for more complex societies.”

Rushkoff continues, “The more advanced the primate, the bigger its social groups. That’s the easiest and most accurate way to understand evolution’s trajectory, and the relationship of humans to it. Even if we don’t agree that social organization is evolution’s master plan, we must accept that it is—at the very least—a large part of what makes humans human.”

Continuing further, “Our nervous systems learned to treat our social connections as existentially important—life or death. Threats to our relationships are processed by the same part of the brain that processes physical pain. Social losses, such as the death of a loved one, divorce, or expulsion from a social group are experienced as acutely as a broken leg.”

These social relationships required us humans to develop a “theory of mind.” This is the ability to understand and identify with the thinking and motivations of other people. From an evolutionary perspective, this concept of self came after our ability to evaluate and remember the intentions and tactics of others. Our social adaptations occurred over hundreds of thousands of years of biological evolution. These enduring social bonds increase out ability to work together, as well as our chances for procreation. Our eyes, brains, skin and breathing are all optimized to enhance our connection to other people.

Prosocial behaviors such as simple imitation make people feel more accepted and included, which sustains a group’s cohesion over time. In an experiment people who were subtly imitated by a group produced less stress hormone than those who are not imitated. Our bodies are adapted to seek and enjoy being mimicked. When humans are engaged in mimesis they learn from one another and advance the community’s skill set.

Physical cues to establish rapport are preverbal. We used them to bond before we even learned to speak—both as babies and as early humans many millennia ago. We flash our eyebrows when we want someone to pay attention to us. We pace in sync with someone else’s creating when we want them to know we empathize. When we see someone breathing with us, their eyes opening to accept us, their head subtly nodding we feel we re being understood and accepted. Our mirror neurons activate, releasing oxytocin, the bonding hormone, into our bloodstream.

The development of group sharing distinguished true humans from other hominids. We waited to eat until we took the bounty back home. Humans were defined not so much by our superior hunting ability as by our capacity to communicate, trust, and share. Early humans had a strong disposition to cooperate with one another, at great personal cost, even where there could be no expectation of payback in the future. Members of a group who violated the norms of cooperation were punished. Solidarity and community were prized in their own right.

Rushkoff concluded this section as follows: “Mental health has been defined as ‘the capacity both for autonomous expansion and for homonymous integration with others.’ That means that our actions are governed from within, but directed toward harmonious interaction with the world. We may be driven internally, but all this activity is happening in relationship with out greater social environment. We can only express our autonomy in relationship to other people.

To have autonomy without interdependency leads to isolation or narcissism. To have interdependency with no autonomy stunts our psychological growth. Healthy people live in social groups that have learned to balance or, better, marry these two imperatives.”

TEAM HUMAN

June 11, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of a new book by Douglas Rushkoff. Reading books like this promotes the development and maintenance of a healthy memory. Learning new ideas establishes new neural connections. Reading critically activates yet more neural connections, and it is these new neural connections that foster a healthy memory. So readers need to go beyond fast System 1 processes, and invoke, and invoke heavily, System 2 processes. Even if you disagree when invoking System 2 processes, do not disengage. You should find it beneficial to continue reading posts on this book.

In preparing for competitive debates, a good practice is to debate both sides of the topic. This is important competitively, so one will be better at countering opposition points. Similarly, in reading it is important to understand as many sides of an issue that are tenable. Usually, there are at least a few points that one can regard as worthwhile. But even if one is in agreement with the author, there should usually be at least a few points of disagreement. And integrating all this information enhances one’s intelligence and knowledge as well as fostering a healthy memory.

Some authors are ponderous making for laborious reading. Fortunately, Rushkoff is not one of those authors. He makes his points quickly and crisply. For this reason, HM recommends you read the actual book. HM will try his best to bring the key content forward in this series of blogs.

The first section is titled TEAM HUMAN and begins, “Autonomous technologies, runaway markets, and weaponized media seem to have overturned civil society, paralyzing our ability to think constructively, connect meaningfully, or act purposefully. It feels as if civilization itself were on the brink, and that we lack the collective will-power and coordination necessary to address issues of vital importance to the very survival of our species. It doesn’t have to be this way way.”

He argues that there’s a reason for our current predicament, and that is an antihuman agenda embedded in our technology, our markets, and our major cultural institutions, from education and religion to civics and media. He argues that it has turned them from forces for human connection and expression into ones of isolation and repression. He believes by exposing this agenda, we make ourselves capable of transcending its paralyzing effect, reconnect to one another, and remake society towards human ends rather than the end of humans.

He writes that the first step toward reversing our predicament is to recognize that being human is a team sport (hence the book’s title). “We cannot be fully human alone. Anything that brings us together fosters our humanity. Likewise, anything that separates us makes us less human, and less able to exercise our individual or collective will.

Social connections are needed to orient ourselves, to ensure each other’s survival, and to derive meaning and purpose. Although we sometimes connect with one another in order to achieve some common goal, we also commune and communicate for their own sake because we gain strength, pleasure and purpose as we develop rapport.

We extend our natural ability to connect through various forms of media. The internet connects us more deliberately and, in some ways, more reassuringly than any medium before it. The tyranny of top-down broadcast media once seemed to be broken by the peer-to-peer connections and free expression of every human node on the network, The net turned media back into a collective, participatory, and social landscape.

But as usually happens with each and every new medium, the net went from being a
social platform to an isolating one. Instead of forging new relationships between people, our digital technologies came to replace them with something else. He writes, “Our most advanced technologies are not enhancing our connectivity, but thwarting it. They’re replacing and devaluing our humanity, and—in many different ways—undermining our respect for one another and ourselves. Sadly this has been by design. But that’s also why it can be reversed.”

Digital networks are the latest media to go from promoting social bonds to destroying them. They are supplanting rather than supporting humanity. Rushkoff fears that this current shift may be more profound and permanent because this time we are empowering our antihuman technologies with the ability to retool themselves. Our smart devices iterate and evolve faster than our biology can.

Rushkoff argues that we are tying our markets and security to the continued growth and expanding capabilities of our machines, but that this is self-defeating. These technologies are built with the presumption of human inferiority and expendabilty.

He concludes this section, “It’s time we reassert the human agenda. And we must do so together—not as individual players we have been led to imagine ourselves to be, but as the team we actually are. Team Human.”

Disaffections with Society are Not New

June 10, 2019

This post is based on content taken from “How to Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy” by Jenny O’Dell. She makes the point that disaffections with society are not new. In fourth century Athens and Later Corinth, there lived the Cynic philosopher Diogenes of Sinope. He is best known as “the man who lived in a tub,” scorning all material possessions except for a stick and a ragged cloak. He is famous for roaming the city streets with a lantern, looking for an honest man. In paintings, he is often shown with the lantern by his side sulklng inside a round terra-cotta tub while the life of the city goes on around him. There are other paintings of the time about when he dissed Alexander the Great, who had made it a point to visit him. When Alexander found Diogenes lazing in the sun, he expressed his admiration and asked if there was anything Diogenes needed? Diogenes replies, “Yes, stand out of my light.”

Plato designated Diogenes as “Socrates gone mad.” While he was in Athens, Diogenes had come under the influence of Antisthenes, a disciple of Socrates. So Diogenes was heir to a development in Greek thought that prized the capacity for individual reason over the hypocrisy of traditions and customs, even and especially if they were commonplace.

Ms. O’Dell notes that of the differences between Socrates and Diogenes was that, while Socrates famously favored conversation, Diogenes practiced something closer to performance art. He lived his conviction out in the open and went to great lengths to shock people out of their habitual stupor, using a form of philosophy that was almost slapstick. She writes, “Diogenes thought every “sane” person in the world was actually insane for heeding any of the customs upholding a world full of greed, corruption, and ignorance. Exhibiting something like an aesthetics of reversal, he would walk backward down the street and enter a theater only when people were leaving. Asked how he wanted to be buried, he answered: ‘Upside down. For soon down will be up.’ In the meantime, he would roll over hot sand in the summer, and hug huge statues covered with snow in the winter. Suspicious of abstractions and education that prepared young people for carers in a diseased world rather than showing them how to live a good life. He was once seen gluing the pages of a book together for an entire afternoon. While many philosophers were ascetic, Diogenes made a show even of that. Once, seeing a child drinking from his hands, Diogenes threw away his cup and said, ‘A child had beaten me in plainness of living.’ Another time he loudly admired a mouse for its economy of living.

Moving on from Diogenes, Ms. O’Dell writes, “besides showing us a possible way out of a bind, the process of training one’s attention has something else to recommend it. If it’s attention (deciding what to pay attention to) that makes our reality, regaining control of it can also mean the discovery of new worlds and new ways of moving through them. As I’ll show in the next chapter, this process enriches not only our capacity to resist, but even more simply,our access to the one life we are given. It can open doors where we didn’t see any, creating landscapes in new dimensions that we can eventually inhabit with others. In so doing, we not only remake the world but also remake ourselves.

To learn more about Ms. O’Dell’s ideas read her book. But she overlooks the best way of training one’s attention in which we not only remake the world but ourselves remade. And that method is meditation and the different varieties of meditation. Enter “meditation” in the search block of the healthy memory blog at
healthymemory.wordpress.com

The Incel Problem

June 9, 2019

HM must confess to being asleep at the wheel. Although previous posts have written about the new technology resulting in about 1 in 3 18-to-34 year old American men being unemployed, and living at home, essentially divorced from society. HM learned learned reading Christine Emba’s column, “Men are in trouble, ‘Incels’ are proof” in the 8 June 2019 issue of the Washington Post that “incel” is short for “involuntarily celibate.” These are young men who have come to define themselves by their inability to find a sexual or romantic partner. Unfortunately, men who identify themselves as being #ForeverAlone have gathered online in forums such as Reddit to trade their stories of woe.

These communities are self-reinforcing. Members believe the their looks or personal traits have consigned them to lifelong loneliness, and similarly downbeat peers are always willing to add more fuel to that fire. They have gone on to develop elaborate, and elaborately misogynistic theories to blame others for their plight. These theories are centered on the idea that women are shallow, stupid and cruel—exclusively choosing only a handful of the most attractive men to be with and disdaining the rest. All men should deserve a chance with women, the incels tell themselves, but some men have all the luck, while they get left out. If there were a competition for self-fulfilling prophecies, this one would likely win.

Ms. Emba writes, “…the incel subculturing has become not just self-reinforcing but self-radicalizing, often with tragic outcomes. At its most horrifying extremes, the self-described incels have taken their anger out on the women they believe are refusing them. At least two mass shootings have left behind manifestos identifying themselves as adhering to incel ideology and explaining their actions as taking revenge on the world that hasn’t given them the women they think they deserve. It is clear that these incels are on a doomed quest that, at best will lead to miserable lives, and, at worst, will lead to imprisonment or death.

One of the unfortunate results of technology is that human connection in the real world has become rarer, and often feels more difficult than it used to be. Smartphones and gaming have been replacing face-to-face interactions that might force one to confront one’s social difficulties or develop a better understanding of the lives of others.

Incels need to understand that failure and rejection are necessary components of living, and that resilience needs to be developed to successfully cope with life. Interventions need to be developed to confront these individuals with the need to change to a life of interacting face-to-face with fellow humans and to dealing with failure and rejection with resilience. Until an incel realizes the need to change, improvement in his condition is extremely unlikely to occur.

However, once he realizes the need to change, technology could be helpful. Discussion groups could provide advice on how to change and would provide further guidance on the need to change. Such groups could benefit from technology by being self-reinforcing and group reinforcing.

Reasons to Build a Healthy Hippocampus

June 8, 2019

This post is inspired by an article by M.R. O’Connor in the 6 June 2019 issue of the Washington Post titled, “Here’s what gets lost when we rely on GPS.” The article cites a study published in Nature Communications in 2017 where researchers asked participants to navigate a virtual simulation of London’s Soho neighborhood and monitored their brain activity, specifically the hippocampus, which, as health memory blog readers know, is integral to spatial navigation. Amir-Honayoun Javadi, one of the study’s authors said, “The hippocampus makes an internal map of the environment and this map becomes active when you are engaged in navigating and not using GPS.”

The hippocampus is highly important. It allows us to orient in space and know where we are by creating cognitive maps. It allows us to both store and retrieve personal memories of experience. Neuroscientists believe the hippocampus believes give us the ability to imagine the future. Again this is something healthy memory blog readers should know and one of the principle purposes of memory is for time travel so we can travel back in time to review our past, so we can think of possible actions we can take in the future.

Research has long shown that the hippocampus changes as a function of learning. Again healthy memory blog readers should remember the study of London taxi drivers who have greater gray-matter volume in the hippocampus due to memorizing the city’s labyrinthine streets. Atrophy in the hippocampus is linked to devastating conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and Alzheimer’s disease. Stress and depression dampen neurogenesis—the growth of new neurons —in the hippocampal circuit.

Javadi said the conclusions he draws from recent research is that “when people use tools such as GPS, they tend to engage less with navigation. Therefore, brain area responsible for navigation is less used, and consequently their brain areas involved in navigation tend to shrink”

Neuroscientist Veronique Bohbot has found that using spatial-memory strategies for navigation correlates with increased gray matter in the hippocampus at any age. She thinks that interventions focused on improving spatial memory by exercising the hippocampus—paying attention to the spatial relationships of places in our environment—might help offset age-related cognitive impairments or even neurodegenerative diseases.

She continues, “If we are paying attention to our environments, we re stimulating our hippocampus, and a bigger hippocampus seems to be protective against Alzheimer’s disease. When we get lost , it activates the hippocampus, it gets us completely out of the habit mode. Getting lost is good.” It can be a good thing if done safely.

M.R. O’Connor writes, “Saturated with devices, children today might grow up to see navigation from memory or a paper map as anachronistic as rote memorization or typewriting. But for them especially, independent navigation and the freedom to explore are vital to acquiring spatial knowledge that may improve hippocampal function. Turning off the GPS and teaching them navigational skills could have enormous cognitive benefits later in life.”

M.R. O’Connor concludes the article, “Over the past four years, I’ve spoken with master navigators from different cultures who show me that performing navigation is a powerful form of engagement with the environment that can inspire a greater sense of stewardship. Finding our way on our own—using perception, empirical observation and problem solving skills—forces us to attune ourselves to the outside world. And by turning our attention to the physical landscape that sustains and connects us, we can nourish “topophilia,” a sense of attachment and love for space. You’ll never get that from waiting for a satellite to tell you how to find a shortcut.”

Amazing Crows

June 7, 2019

This post is based on content taken from “How to Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy” by Jenny O’Dell. Appreciating nature and learning about our fellow creatures is important to a healthy memory.

Crows are amazing indeed. They’re highly intelligent and can recognize and remember human faces. They have been documented making and using tools in the wild. They teach their children to distinguish between “good” and “bad” humans. Good humans are those who feed them and bad humans are those who try to catch them or otherwise displease them. They can hold grudges for years.

Jenny O’Dell started leaving a few peanuts out on the balcony of her apartment. For a long time the peanuts remained undisturbed. Occasionally one peanut would be missing. Then a couple of times she saw a crow come by and swipe a peanut, but the crow would quickly fly away. After a while the crows began hanging out on a nearby telephone wire. One crow started coming every day around the time that Ms. O’Dell was eating breakfast, would sit exactly where she could see it from the kitchen table, and it would caw to make her come out on the balcony with a peanut. One day this crow brought its kid, which she knew was his kid because the big one would groom the smaller one and because the smaller one had an undeveloped, chicken-like squawk. She named them Crow and Crowson.

She soon discovered that Crow and Crowson preferred it when she threw peanuts off the balcony so they could do fancy dives off the telephone line. They’d do twists, barrel, rolls, and loops, which she made slow-motion videos of with the obsessiveness of a proud parent. Sometimes, they wouldn’t want any more peanuts and would just sit there and stare at her.

This is a very interesting story of how Crows managed to develop a relationship with a human, and train her to do what they wanted to foster their recreational activities.

Pet Peeves

June 6, 2019

An award winning professor made a statement that aggravated some HM pet peeves. HM will not mention the name of this professor, only his offending statement. He said that only humans can experience mental time travel.

Past HM posts have explained that the primary function of memory is time travel. We use our memory to travel back in time to see what is known that can be used in future situations. We do this all the time such that we are unaware that we are engaging in time travel. And this is the role of consciousness. Consciousness is not some unneeded epiphenomenon. It provides the essential means for reviewing the past so that we can succeed in the future.

Humans are not the only creatures who need to review their past to plan for and deal with the future. A very large number of animal species do the same. They need to do this to survive by avoiding predators, finding food and water and finding or building shelters. So non human-species have consciousness and engage in time travel.

Unfortunately, not just this distinguished scientist, but many human beings seem to have an inferiority complex regarding homo sapiens. Esteemed primatologist Franz de Waal says that these people are in “anthropodenial,” blindness to the humanlike characteristics of other species. He says, “those who are in anthropodenial try to build a brick wall to separate humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.” Every time non-human species do something that these people think that only humans should be capable of, they take the defense and argue that well these other species are not doing this. HM, Franz de Wall, and many others, think that this failure to believe is due to some inferiority complex these humans have about our species. HM had a professor who also thought that these arguments were ridiculous. So at a conference he said that he had video of a chimpanzee who, after he had defecated, grabbed a leaf and wiped his keister. When many in the audience, not realizing this was a joke, started writing this down he had to tell them that it was a joke as they were writing rather than laughing.

Fortunately, many other scientists are not so obdurate. Here is the Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness:

It begins as follows:

“On this day of July 7, 2012, a prominent international group of cognitive neuroscientists, neuropharmacologists, neurophysiologists, neuroanatomists and computational neuroscientists gathered at the University of Cambridge to reassess the neurobiological substrates of conscious experience and related behaviors in human and non-human animals. While comparative research on this topic is naturally hampered by the inability of non-human animals, and often humans, to clearly and readily communicate about their internal states, the following observation can be stated unequivocally:”

The declaration concludes:

“The absence of neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”

POLITIFACT

June 5, 2019

The problem of misinformation is acute and currently the best means of addressing this misinformation is POLITIFACT politifact.com. POLITIFACT is a winner of the Pulitzer Prize. It is said that all politicians lie, and that is the truth. It is also likely that practically all humans lie. What one discovers in POLITIFACT is that all politicians also tell the truth, if only rarely. Moreover, there is not a strict dichotomy between true and false. Rather, there are shades of truth and false. That is why POLITIFACT uses a Truth-O-Meter that ranges as follows:

True
Mostly True
Half True
Mostly False
False
Pants-on-Fire, which is a rating that means the item is flamingly false.

You can look for specific issues and see a score card (the breakdown of the ratings) and see a sampling of the individual ratings by prominent individuals along with their statements. HM found this feature to be especially useful.

Each of these ratings is justified with a prose passage explaining the justification for the rating. So one doesn’t need to accept the rating. But the justification should be read to understand the basis for the rating.

One can access different editions. There is a national edition, a punditfact edition, which addresses various pundits, health check edition, which addresses health topics. There is a Facebook-Hoaxes edition, which is especially needed. There are editions specific to states, but no all states are available yet.

Certain individuals merit special editions. Visit the website to see who they are.
There is a Promises heading that has a Trump-o-meter and an Obameter.

There is also a Pants-on-Fire Heading that allows you to examine the most egregious lies.

It’s highly recommend to visit this website on a regular basis and spend as little or as much time as you want.

The problem of misinformation is chronic and POLITIFACT provides the best mean of dealing with this misinformation.

31st Meeting of the Association for Psychological Science pt.3

June 4, 2019

There was a session titled Mental Time Travel and Psychological Well-Being chaired by Edward P. Lemay and Nadya Teneva. The healthy memory blog has explained that one of the principal functions of memory is that it enables us to travel back in time to help us decide how to act in the future. Nora Krott gave a presentation on reviewing memories of actions gone wrong using counterfactual thought. Counterfactual thought entails thinking what if I had done something else, what would the ramifications have been. Counterfactual thought can suggest a number of responses that could have led to a more fruitful outcome. Counterfactual thinking can not only be helpful in preparing for the future, it can also assist in repairing the past. Understanding why someone has been offended can suggest ways of returning and repairing the damage that had been done to that person. We can also use mental time travel to simulate novel future experiences, evaluate them, avoid pitfalls and have more successful future experiences.

There was a presentation by Helen G. Jing titled “Not to Worry: Episodic Retrieval Enhances Psychological Well-Being in Older Adults. As we age there is a tendency for our retrieval of episodic memories, which are memories of our specific experiences, to be retrieved with less detail. Dr. Jing introduced a technique termed episodic specificity induction (ESI) which increases the number of details about an event or an episode that is being recalled. This technique not only increases memory recall, but it also boosts the effectiveness of problem solving.

Lisa k. Fazio organized a session titled Solving the Problem of Misinformation: A Multidisciplinary Approach. It turns out that is an extremely difficult problem. Although Kahneman’s Two System View of Cognition seems to be the easiest way to understand the problem, Kahneman was not mentioned at this session. A concise summary of Kahneman’s view follows.

System 1 is named Intuition. System 1 is very fast, employs parallel processing, and appears to be automatic and effortless. They are so fast that they are executed, for the most part, outside conscious awareness. Emotions and feelings are also part of System 1. Learning is associative and slow. For something to become a System 1 process requires much repetition and practice. Activities such as walking, driving, and conversation are primarily System 1 processes. They occur rapidly and with little apparent effort. We would not have survived if we could not do these types of processes rapidly. But this speed of processing is purchased at a cost, the possibility of errors, biases, and illusions.

System 2 is named Reasoning. It is controlled processing that is slow, serial, and effortful. It is also flexible. This is what we commonly think of as conscious thought. One of the roles of System 2 is to monitor System 1 for processing errors, but System 2 is slow and System 1 is fast, so errors to slip through.

One of the problems with misinformation is knowledge neglect. Here is an example. When research participants are asked whether the following statements are true or false.

Moses built the ark and loaded animals two by two to save them from the flood.

Noah built the ark and loaded animals two by two to save them from the flood.

Nixon built the ark and loaded animals two by two to save them from the flood.

Obviously only the Noah statement is true, but many responded positively to Moses. Fortunately very few responded to Nixon. Those who responded positively to Moses knew the correct answer, but it took too much effort to extract it from memory to answer correctly. In other words they were using System 1 processing. Had they actually expended the mental effort and used System 2 processes they would have gotten the answer correct.

This is how misinformation spreads and why it is so difficult to correct. This is why Goebbels advocated the big lie, and the bigger the better, and constant repetition of the lie. It requires much less cognitive effort to accept the lie than to reject it.

Another part of the misinformation problem regards which sources to believe. There is a good resource to address this need and that resource will be discussed in the subsequent blog post.

31st Meeting of the Association for Psychological Science Pt. 2

June 3, 2019

A definite highlight of the meeting was lecture by Lynn Nadel titled, Taking James Seriously: The Implications of Multiple Memory Systems. The James referred to in the title is William James, the father of American Psychology. James wrote about multiple memory systems, a primary and a secondary memory, which today are referred to as short term and long term memory. He made a distinction between habits and memory.

James passed away long before the emergence of neuroscience. The hippocampus plays an important role in the processing of memories. There was a famous epileptic patient referred to as HM who had large portions of his temporal lobes removed. A hippocampus is located in each one of those lobes. Although his previous memories remained intact, not only each new day, but each new hour was a new experience for HM. And these experiences would not be remembered.

There is a distinction between episodic memory, which holds the memories of our daily experiences is processed in the hippocampus, and semantic memory, which holds our general knowledge of the world, is resident in our neocortex.

The hippocampus is also critical to navigation. The neuroscientist O’Keefe identified place cells in the hippocampus. These place cells identify spatial locations where the organism travels. Learning to navigate entails strengthening these place cells and learning to follow them to desired locations.

In most species, the hippocampus matures postnatally. This has important consequences for memory and cognitive development. Dr. Nadel asks what does it mean to start life with a developing, but not yet functioning hippocampus, perhaps uniquely susceptible to impacts of experience early in life. In humans it takes 18-24 months for the hippocampus to emerge, and it takes 10-12 years for it to become fully functional.

Dr. Nadel speculates that phobias can develop before the hippocampus emerges. This late emergence of the hippocampus explains infantile amnesia and delayed exploration and place learning. Everything we learn very early in life is context free. The individual has no understanding of why she has certain fears, as the cause of the fear was not stored in memory. As for the 10-12 years for the hippocampus, an extremely important structure, to become fully functional, it might result in shortcomings in learning and interpersonal interactions.

31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Psychological Science

June 2, 2019

HM has attended several of these meetings. In addition to the 31st, HM attended the very first meeting and made a poster presentation, Computer Aids for Vision and Employment (CAVE). A series of posts will do what will be, at best, a cursory summary of presentations that HM attended.

The first presentation he attended was by Daniel T. Gilbert titled Prisoners of Now. Our ability to imagine the future—what will happen and how we will feel about it- is susceptible of error. The most potent source of error is our tendency to imagine the future through the lens of the present, which leads us to misunderstand ourselves and others in the future. So when we arrive at this imagined point in the future our experiences will have changed us so that what we experience in the future is different than expected. His claim is based on data. When the future objective is to achieve a certain goal, such as gaining entrance to a prestigious college, winning tenure at a prestigious university, or having a prestigious and important job, the failure to achieve these objectives is nowhere near as disastrous as anticipated. The future turns out to be different, it may also be more beneficent than imagined, so a fulfilling career, an enjoyable marriage are achieved. And it is also possible that achieving one’s desired goals are not as fulfilling as imagined. The work can be demanding and not as rewarding as imagined or the marriage might have ended in an unpleasant divorce. So it is always good to work for future goals, but it is not wise to fear the failure to achieve these goals. Although it is not guaranteed, one should feel that it is fairly likely to achieve at least a modicum of happiness. Of course, this assumes that alcohol and controlled substances are not abused, and that the law is not broken.

There was another session titled Increasing STEM Thinking in the Real World organized by Caroline Marano and Roberta M. Golinkoff. As readers of the healthy memory blog should know STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and math, and that these disciplines are regarded as needed for both the country and the economy. It should also be appreciated that psychology is regarded as a STEM discipline. This symposium examined how STEM can be developed in everyday environments, exploring how parents and educators can bolster learning for all children.

So there was a presentation on spatial thinking and how to enhance it as spatial thinking is an important component of STEM. There was another presentation on how preschoolers and parents can explore math broadly. There was a presentation on what was called the Urban Thinkscape, which designed parks to encourage thinking in the STEM area. And a presentation on a Children’s Museum called Parkopolis which raises STEM thinking.

These presentations were encouraging, but HM is also concerned about STEM thinking in adults. All responsible adults and citizens need to develop their understanding of STEM disciplines, and an especially important one is statistical thinking. They need to apply this thinking to the health of their families and to use as guidance in selecting political leaders.

A session titled Emerging Concepts of Effort: Resources, Resourced Perceptions, and Subjective Experience was organized by Nicolas Silvestri. Mental effort or energy, if you will, is required for many processes. One presentation was titled fatigue influence on inhibitory control. When we’re tired we have less energy for inhibitory control. So when we’re tired we need to be especially careful to say or do something that we might later regret. Moreover, individuals have different beliefs regarding willpower. Some regard willpower as being virtually unlimited. Others regard willpower as a resource that must be carefully guarded. In reality willpower is limited. That’s why the healthy memory blog has recommended taking this into consideration when making New Year’s resolutions. Making too many resolutions or extremely difficult resolutions can increase, if not guarantee, failure. That is why the healthy memory blog recommends making no more than 2 resolutions, one of which can be regarded as likely to achieve, and the other, which can be regarded as stretch, that might be achieved.

Gone to the Association for Psychological Science (APS)

May 22, 2019

That is, to the annual meeting of APS. There will be a hiatus in further blog posts. HM will not only be attending, but will also be meeting, assimilating and writing. So there will be a delay in new web posts.

In the interim
Go to https://healthymemory.wordpress.com and use the search block to look for articles of interest.
Here are some suggestions:
The Myth of Cognitive Decline
fulfilling life
relaxation response
loving kindness
behavioral economics
growth mindset
system 2
cognitive reserve
and go to https://centerhealthyminds.org/about/founder-richard-davidson
The healthy memory blog will return.

Stanford Helped Pioneer Artificial Intelligence

May 21, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the first half of a title by Elizabeth Dworkin in the 19 March 2019 issue of the Washington Post. The second half of the title is “Now it wants humans at the core.” A Stanford University scientist coined the term artificial intelligence (AI) and advancements have continued at the university including the first autonomous vehicle.

Silicon Valley is facing a reckoning over how technology is changing society. Stanford wants to be at the forefront of a different type of innovation, one that puts humans and ethics at the center of the booming field of AI. The university is launching the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI). It is intended as a think tank that will be an interdisciplinary hub for policymakers, researchers and students who will go on to build the technologies of the future. The goal is to inculcate in the next generation a more worldly and humane set of values than those that have characterized it so far—and guide politicians to make more sophisticated decisions about the challenging social questions wrought by technology.

Fei-Fei-Li, an AI pioneer and former Google vice president who is one of the two directors of the new institute said, I could not have envisaged that the discipline I was so interested in would, a decade and a half later, become one of the driving forces of the changes that humanity will undergo. That realization became a tremendous sense of responsibility.”

The goal is to raise more than $1billion. It’s advisory panel is a who’s who of Silicon Valley titans, that includes former Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, former Yahoo chief executive Marissa Mayer and co-founder Jerry Yang, and the prominent investor Jim Breyer. Bill Gates will keynote its inaugural symposium.

The ills and dangers of AI have become apparent. New statistics emerge about the tide of job loss wrought by the technology, from long-haul truckers to farmer workers to dermatologists. Elon Musk called AI “humanity’s existential threat” and compared it to “summoning the demon.”

Serious problems were raised in the series of healthy memory posts based on the book, “Zuck.” The healthy memory posts based on the book “LikeWar” raised additional problems. Both these problems could be addressed with IA. Actually IA is being used to address the issues in “LIkeWar.” Regarding the problems raised in the book “Zuck”, rather than hoping that Facebook will self-police or trying to legislate against Facebook’s problematic practices, AI could police online all these social networks and flag problematic practices.

It is the position of this blog to advocate AI be used to enhance human intelligence. This is especially important in areas where human intelligence is woeful lacking, that is intelligent augmentation (IA). Unfortunately, humans, who are regarded as social animals, have difficulties reconciling conflicting political and religious beliefs. Artificial intelligence could be used here in an intelligence augmented (IA) role. Given polarized beliefs dead ends are reached. IA could suggest different ways of framing problematic issues. Lakoff’s ideas that were promoted in the series of healthy memory blog posts under the rubric “Linguistics and Cognitive Science in the Pursuit of Civil Discourse” could provide the initial point of departure. Learning would take place and these ideas would be refined further to result in disagreeing parties being surprised about their ultimate agreement.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Alternative Futures 3

May 20, 2019

This is another post motivated by “Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground” by John Markoff. Both AI (Artificial Intelligence) and IA (Intelliigent Augmentation) should be used where they are most needed. One of the negative effects of technology has been to increase polarization. It is even being used in warfare and in altering elections which are ostensibly free.

So AI and IA both should be placed to work on these problems. HM is only aware of some very limited work in this area. He remembers one project addressing collaboration within the military. Unlike most other occupations, the military wear their rank on their uniforms. So this experiment involved collaboration in which the participants were anonymous. There was no means of assessing relative rank. The project seemed to be going quite well. Then one of the participants started using all caps in his entries. This was the ranking officer who felt he was being ignored.

One would begin using IA to address this problem. This should be used to the extent possible. However, at some point there might be a need to let AI take over. Perhaps as in the case of the Forbin Project’s Colossus, it would succeed.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Alternative Futures 2

May 19, 2019

This is another post motivated by “Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground” by John Markoff. In this future AI, including robots and cyborgs, take over all labor. This technology is held by its few owners. So wealth is even more grossly distorted than it is today, and there are effectively no jobs for individual people to do.

To prevent violent uprisings guaranteed incomes would need to be provided to all. So people’s basic needs would be provided for, but what would provide meaning to their lives? They could have children who would have similarly bleak futures. There would likely be problems with drug and substance abuse.

Of course, there could be online games to play and, perhaps, opportunities to gamble. There could be supports for growth mindsets. There could be educational opportunities to pursue online and opportunities for athletic and artistic pursuits.  IA (intelligent augmentaion) could be life enriching for those who wanted to pursue such lives. It might also be possible to create unneeded jobs where people would pursue activities using IA, that they thought were meaningful. Even today, many work in research jobs that are designed to address problems, but who never see any of these projects implemented. HM knows of this from his own personal experience.

The preceding paragraph applies to the advanced world. What about the undeveloped or under developed worlds? Would they be ignored and allowed to suffer and die out? There could be an effort to attempt to bring these people up to the level of the developed worlds, and until this was accomplished it would likely provide additional jobs.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Alternative Futures

May 18, 2019

“Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground” by John Markoff provides an excellent review of the development of artificial intelligence including the researchers and the funding agencies. And he does examine the differences between AI (Artificial Intelligence) and IA (Intelligent Augmentation). For those interested in technology and of the developing and funding of both AI and IA, HM strongly recommends reading Markoff’s book. However, this post and the immediately following posts will examine the ramifications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Intelligence Augmented (IA) in alternative futures.

The most nightmarish future is one in which AI becomes so powerful that it takes over. It either eliminates humanity or preserves humans as pets. However, it should be realized that it is possible that a benign future would result from a powerful AI. At the height of the Cold War a movie was released titled “Collosus: the Forbin Project.” The movie takes place during the height of the cold war when there was a realistic fear that a nuclear war would begin that would destroy all life on earth. Consequently, the United States created the Forbin Project to create Colossus. The purpose of Colossus was to prevent a nuclear war before it began or to conduct a war once it had begun. Shortly after they turn on Colossus, the find it acting strangely. They discover that it is interacting with the Soviet version of Colossus. The Soviets had found a similar need to develop such a system. The two systems communicated with each other and came to the conclusion that these humans are not capable of safely conducting their own affairs. In the movie the Soviets capitulate to the computers and the Americans try to resist but ultimately fail. So the human species is saved by AI.

Currently there are more countries with missiles and nuclear weapons than there were at the time of this movie. So one might argue that there is even more of a need for such AI today than at the time of the movie. When one considers that the leader of one of these countries lives in his own reality and is prone to strike out whenever he feels threatened or provoked, there is even more of a need for such AI today.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Cyborgs

May 17, 2019

This post is motivated by material in an excellent book by John Markoff titled “Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground.” Cyborg stands for “cybernetic Organism,” a term formulated by medical researchers in 1969 who were thinking about intentionally enhancing humans to prepare them for the exploration of space. They foresaw a new kind of creature—half human, half mechanism—capable of surviving in harsh environments.

It seems even if Kurzweil is capable of uploading his mind into a computer, it would be a frustrating experience unless it was a cyborg. It is clear that the brain can issue motor movements to machines. So output issues would not be a problem. And suppose that Kurzweil successfully uploads his mind to this cyborg. The question remains what would the phenomenal experience be for Kurzweil or any human. Kurzweil’s fundamental concept is that his mind in the computer would give him extraordinary mental powers. He probably could do amazing computational exercises. But would he understand, in a phenomenal sense, what he was doing? He might even be able to write poetry, but would he understand the poetry. And what about his personality. Would he become more humanistic, or would he become mechanical. What about a soul and a sense of morality? What about one’s humanity? Would it be lost?

Would cyborgs be able to breed and produce new cyborgs? Presumably they would be immortal.

This seems like a great topic for science fiction. Unfortunately, HM does not read science fiction. Do any science fiction readers who also read this blog have any recommendations? If so, please supply them in the comments section.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Singulataritarians

May 16, 2019

This is another post using “Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground” by John Markoff as a point of departure. Perhaps the logical result of combining Artificial Intelligence (AI) with Intelligent Augmentation (IA) is a singularity, the combining of the two. Kurzweil has written a book “How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed.” HM would like to see a review of this book by a psychologist. As a psychologist he thinks we have much more to learn before we can even consider to attempt building a mind. Yet apparently Kurzweil, an engineer, is convinced that he can. Moreover, he thinks he can upload his brain/mind into this machine. The following is taken from the Wikipedia:

• The Singularity is an extremely disruptive, world-altering event that forever changes the course of human history. The extermination of humanity by violent machines is unlikely (though not impossible) because sharp distinctions between man and machine will no longer exist thanks to the existence of cybernetically enhanced humans and uploaded humans.

Kurzweil is taking means (diets, drugs, etc.) to assure that he shall be able to upload himself into the machine and achieve eternal life.

Presumably, his intention is to upload his brain into the machine. What he forgets is that he is a biological organism. His memory is biologically based on chemical changes that take time to implement. In other words, his mind uploaded to a computer would be nothing but buzzing noise. Consider how fast a computer printout occurs. Then consider how long it takes not just to read, but to assimilate the meaning of the information. Consider the paltry few seconds it takes to download a book to an iPad. Then consider not just how long it takes to read the book, but to assimilate the material in the book and related it to old knowledge and to update current knowledge.

Kurzweil presents the best case for a liberal education, one that includes courses in psychology, biology, and neurochemistry.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Licklider

May 15, 2019

J.C.R Licklider is a personal hero of HM. He has appeared in previous healthy memory blog posts. When HM was a student and read Licklider’s article, “Man-Machine Symbiosis.” HM thought that this was the role computers should play in technology wherein the combination would be greater than the sum of its parts. Licklider also wrote, along with Taylor, in 1968, “The Computer as a Communication Device” that pointed to the existence of a future internet.

Unfortunately, the notion of Man-Machine symbiosis did not catch on. HM was frustrated with using computers to replace humans. True, there are jobs in which it is desirable to have computers play a solo role, but the real potential seemed to be in creating a symbiotic relationship with computers. Unfortunately, the focus has been on having computers replace humans. Late in his career HM wrote and co-authored articles on what he termed neo-symbiosis in an effort to resurrect the idea. Although he failed, he shall keep on trying.

HM was disappointed to learn while reading Markoff’s “Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground” that Licklider, like McCarthy, was confident that the advent of “Strong” artificial intelligence in which a machine capable of at least matching wits with a human, was likely to arrive relatively soon. He wrote that the period of man-machine “symbiosis” might only last less than two decades, although he allowed that the arrival of truly smart machines that capable of rivaling humans thinking might not happened for a decade, perhaps fifty years.

Humans must stay involved. Otherwise machines will take over and create knowledge that is inaccessible to humans. As was mentioned in a previous post, developers understand how they develop a neural net, but they are unable to understand how the net solves a given problem. Humans always need to maintain a supervisory role and regard computers as tools for them to use. Remember that Minsky once responded to a question about the significance of the arrival of artificial intelligence by saying, “If we’re lucky, maybe they’ll keep us as pets.”

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Douglas Engelbart

May 14, 2019

This post was motivated by an excellent book by John Markoff titled “Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground.” The Wikipedia credits Doug Engelbart with creating the field of human-computer interaction. Doug ran the Augmentation Research Lab at SRI International. He also created the computer mouse, the development of hypertext, networked computers, and precursors to graphical user interfaces. NLS, the oN-Line system developed by the Augmentation Research Center under Engelbart’s guidance with funding primarily from DARPA, demonstrated numerous technologies, most of which are now in widespread use; it included the computer mouse, bitmapped screens, and hypertext. Engelbart is credited with a law, appropriately named after him, that the intrinsic rate of human performance is exponential.

The following is taken from the Wikipedia article on Doug, “He reasoned that because the complexity of the world’s problems was increasing, and because any effort to improve the world would require the coordination of groups of people, the most effective way to solve problems was to augment human intelligence and develop ways of building collective intelligence.[6] He believed that the computer, which was at the time thought of only as a tool for automation, would be an essential tool for future knowledge workers to solve such problems. He was a committed, vocal proponent of the development and use of computers and computer networks to help cope with the world’s increasingly urgent and complex problems. Engelbart embedded a set of organizing principles in his lab, which he termed “bootstrapping”. His belief was that when human systems and tool systems were aligned, such that workers spent time “improving their tools for improving their tools” it would lead to an accelerating rate of progress.”

Returning to Markoff’s book, Doug stumbled across an article by Vannevar Bush, who proposed a microfiche-based information retrieval system called Memex to manage all the world’s knowledge. Later Doug deduced that such a system could be assembled based on the then newly available computers. He concluded that the time was right to build an interactive system to capture knowledge and organize information in a way that would now be possible for a small group of people to create and collaborate more effectively. So he was thinking of the world-wide web. It took time and resources and source code from Tim Berners-Lee to see the full scale implementation.

According to the Wikipedia article he retired in 1988 because of a lack of interest in his ideas and the funding to pursue them. One wonders what he could had achieved if others had understood his ideas and provided funding to support him.

Machines of Loving Grace

May 13, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of an excellent book by John Markoff. The subtitle is “The Quest for Common Ground.” The common ground referred to is that between humans and robots. The book covers, in excruciating detail, the development of artificial intelligence from the days of J.C.R. Licklider to 2015.

The book covers two lines of development. One from John McCarthy, which Markoff terms Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the other by Douglas Englebart, which Markoff terms Intelligence Augmented (IA). The former is concerned with making computers as smart as they can be, and the latter is concerned with using computers to augment human intelligence.

Markoff does not break down AI any further, but it needs to be. AI has been used by psychologists to model human cognition. So the ultimate goal here is to develop an understanding of human cognitive processes. AI has been quite informative. In attempting to model problems such as human vision, psychologists realized that they had overlooked some critical processes that were needed to explain perception. One should also regard AI as being a tool needed to develop theories of psychological processes.

There are also two types of AI. One is known as GOFIA, “Good Old Fashioned Artificial Intelligence” where computer code is developed to accomplish the task. GOFIA was stymied for a while due to the computational complexity it faced. Judea Pearl, the father of decapitated journalist Daniel, is a superb mathematician and logician. He developed Bayesian networks that successfully dealt with this problem and GOFIA proceeded further on with this expedited approach (enter “Pearl” into the search block of the healthy memory blog to learn more about this genius).

The other type is, or are neural nets. Here neural nets are designed to learn how to to accomplish a task. The problem with neural nets is that the programmers do not know how to solve the problem, rather they know how to design a neural net that solves the problem. Nightmare scenarios where computers take over the world would be the product of neural nets. With GOFAI problems could be solved by deleting lines of code.

Augmenting intelligence IA is what HM promotes. Here computer code serves as a mental prosthetic to enhance human knowledge and understanding. IA, unless it was the intelligence of a mad scientist, would not constitute a threat to humanity.

It is true that AI is required for robots to perform tasks that are difficult, boring, or dangerous. But the goal of an AI system must be understood or undesired consequences might result.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Reactive and Proactive Aggression

May 11, 2019

A distinction between these two types of aggression is made in a book by Richard Wrangham titled “The Goodness Paradox: The Strange Relationship Between Virtue and Violence in Human Evolution.” This is a recent, 2019, publication. For most of his career Wrangham has been intrigued by the relation between virtue and violence. Wrangham worked with Jane Goodall when she discovered war breaking out between two groups of chimpanzees in which they were killing, trying to destroy each other.

Wrangham defines reactive aggression as aggression that is fairly spontaneous in which something happens and the victim of the aggression quickly responds. In contrast, proactive violence is violence that is planned in advance for retribution or for some type of gain. Many other species are characterized by reactive violence. Something happens to one individual and that individual quickly responds with some sort of reciprocal violence.

Wrangham argues that the emergence of civilization was critically dependent upon a reduction in reactive violence. Although Wrangham does not seem to mention the difference between physical and nonphysical reactive violence, human language does provide the means of nonphysical violence and, fortunately, daily human violence tends to be of the verbal type.

Proactive violence is a matter of planning a violent response. So revenge killings, battles, and pogroms and wars are examples of proactive violence. Some non-human species engage in proactive violence, but lack the technology that humans have. While it is a reduction and changes in types of reactive violence by the human species that assisted in their success, it is proactive violence that brings out the worst in humans and presents a potential existential risk.

The holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis is an example of one of the worst types of proactive violence. The detailed planning entailed in this holocaust required the sophisticated planning only we humans can perform. A nuclear holocaust could potentially eliminate our species. Such a holocaust requires a high degree of scientific and engineering abilities as well as a lack of emotional control that allows true reasoning being overcome to achieve a pyrrhic victory.

The Second Mountain

May 10, 2019

The “Second Mountain” is a book by David Brooks: The subtitle is “The Quest for a Moral Life.” The first mountain referred to in the title is Hyper-Individualism. The second mountain is Relationalism. The first phase of his life was characterized by his hyper-individualism. This phase of his life ended in divorce and unhappiness. He moved on to Relationalism, concern for his fellow humans, and is now happy. He argues that Relationalism is the way to go. Although HM agrees, Brooks falls short on his Relationalism.

Before HM explains how Brooks falls short, he would like to underscore two parts of his book that HM finds praiseworthy. Brooks writes, “In eighteenth-century America, Colonial society and Native American society sat, unhappily, side by side. As time went by, settlers from Europe began defecting to live with the natives. No natives defected to live with the colonials. This bothered the Europeans. They had, they assumed, the superior civilization, and yet people were voting with their feet to live in the other way. The colonials occasionally persuaded natives to come with them, and taught them English, but very quickly the natives returned home. During the war with the Indians, many European settlers were taken prisoner and lived in Indian tribes. They had plenty of chances to escaped and return, but did not. When Europeans came to “rescue’ them, they fled into the woods to hide from their ‘rescuers.’

The difference was that people in Indian villages had a communal culture and close attachments. They lived in a spiritual culture that saw all creations as a single unity. The Europeans had an individualistic culture and were more separable. When actually given the choice, a lot of people preferred community over self. The story made HM think that it’s possible for a whole society to get itself into a place where it’s fundamentally disordered.”

The second praiseworthy point is his calling out the soul specifically. Too many religions are preoccupied with biological life. Biological life should be irrelevant to religions and spiritual beliefs. It is the soul that is of central concern.

Here are two paragraphs from the Conclusion with which HM strongly agrees.

“The world is in the midst of one of those transition moments. The individualistic moral ecology is crumbling around us. It has left people naked and alone. For many, the first instinctive reaction is to the evolutionary one: Revert to tribe. If we as a society respond to the excesses of “I’m Free to Be Myself” with an era of “Revert to Tribe,” then the twenty-first century will be a time of conflict and violence that will make the twentieth look like child’s play,

There is another way to find belonging. There is another way to find meaning and purpose. There is another vision of a healthy society. It is through relations. It is by going deep into ourselves and finding there our illimitable ability to care, and then spreading outward in commitment to others.”
The examples he provides of building relations are definitely commendable. But these alone will fall short. Government programs and government assistance are also needed and often provide the most efficient means of dealing with problems. Brooks is blinded because he looks at the world through Republican lenses. Unfortunately, in the United States too many Democrats are also suffering from faulty lenses. All other advanced countries have government supplied medical care. The data show that not only are these programs more effective with respect to medical care, they are also cost effective. Political propaganda and lies in the United States blind people to these results replicated in every other advanced country.

The preceding paragraph provides a good example of how beliefs and compartmentalization preclude or hinder critical thinking. Brooks identifies himself as a conservative. There is nothing wrong with that in itself. Politics needs both liberal and conservative approaches. Unfortunately, his conservatism leads him to compartmentalize. He has beliefs as to what functions government should perform and which functions they should not. Unfortunately, this compartmentalization puts medical care as something government should not do. So even in spite of the voluminous data that government supplied health care is both more economical and provides better medical care, he remains blind to that evidence. And it is quite likely he never looked for it. But good critical thinking requires examining how to justify the data in support one’s political decision and not just by blind belief.

College educations in these countries are also more affordable. It is not surprising that the United States always finished behind these countries when the survey is on happiness.

Brooks also makes derogatory comments on meditation. Meditation and contemplative prayer are central to finding meaning and purpose. But Brooks is entirely focused on western civilization and apparently is oblivious of the wisdom of the east.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Default Network, System 1 Processing, and Alzheimer’s Disease (AD)

May 8, 2019

An earlier healthy memory blog post promised more about the default mode network. That post identified similarities between the default mode network and Kahneman’s System 1 Processing. Kahneman’s System 1 processing is important in that HM thinks that too heavy a use of System 1 processing at the expense of System 2 processing, which is active thinking, increases the risk for AD.

The simplest distinction between the two terms is that Kahneman is a cognitive psychologist and his two process view of of cognitive processes comes from cognitive psychology. The default mode network comes from cognitive neuroscience. Default mode activity is identified via brain imaging. Although they might not be identical, that distinction awaits further research, it is clear that there is considerable overlap between the two.

In addition to brain atrophy, AD patients have abnormal high levels of proteins in different brain regions. In the medial temporal lobe, the accumulation of tau protein leads to neurofibrillary tangles. In cortical regions, such as the parietal cortex in early AD, the accumulation of amyloid-B protein leads to amyloid plaques. The neurofibrillary tangles in the medial temporal lobe and amyloid plaques in cortical regions can be assumed to disrupt neural processing in these regions.

Dr. Slotnick writes, “There is an influential hypothesis that were is a causal relationship between default network activity that leads to deposition of amyloid that results in atrophy and disrupted metabolic activity, which impairs long-term memory in AD patients. The regions in the default network are active when participants are not engaged in a task and include the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the medial prefrontal cortex, the inferior prefrontal cortex and the medial parietal cortex. In AD patients, amyloid deposition occurs in the same regions, which suggests the default network activity may lead to amyloid deposition. Dr. Slotnick suggests that perhaps higher level of amyloid deposition, which occurs in late AD patients, is necessary to produce atrophy in the frontal cortex.

Dr. Slotnick continues, “If high amyloid deposition is a causal factor in developing AD, older adults with low levels of amyloid should be at decreased risk for developing this disease. There is some evidence that cognitive engagement and exercise engagement throughout life may reduce the amyloid level in the brains of healthy older adults as a function of cognitive engagement, and this was compared to the cortical amyloid levels . Participants rated the frequency which they engaged in cognitively demanding tasks such as reading, writing, going to the library, or playing games at five different ages (6, 12, 18, 40, and their current age). Healthy older adults with greater cognitive engagement throughout their lifetime, as measured by the average cognitive activity at the five ages, had lower levels of amyloid in default network regions. Moreover, the healthy older adults in the lowest one-third of lifetime engagement had amyloid levels that were equivalent to AD patients, and the healthy older adults in the highest one-third of lifetime cognitive engagement had amyloid levels that were equivalent to young adults.

So maintaining a growth mindset, thinking critically, and learning new information provide double protection against AD. First, the reduction of troublesome amyloid levels. Second is the building of a cognitive reserve so that even if you develop amyloid plaque and neurofibrillary tangles you may not have the cognitive and behavior symptoms of AD.

Dr. Slotnick’s work is reported in an important book by Scott D. Slotnick titled “Cognitive Neuroscience of Memory.” The report on which Dr. Slotnick’s statements are based comes from
Buckner, R.L., Snyder, A.Z., Shannon, B.J., LaRossa, G. Sachs, R. Fotenos, A.F., Sheline, Y.I., Klunk, W.E., Mathis, C.A., Morris, J.C. & Mintun, M.A. (2005). Molecular, structural, and functional characterization of Alzheimer’s disease: Evidence for a relationship between default activity, amyloid, and memory. The Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 7709-7717.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Passing 73

May 6, 2019

Meaning that today HM is entering his 74th year. He engages in ikigai, the Japanese term referring to living a life with purpose, a meaningful life. His purpose, in addition to living a fulfilling life with his wife, is to learn and share his thoughts and knowledge with others. HM does this primarily through his blog healthymemory, which focuses on memory health and technology.

HM’s Ph.D is in cognitive psychology. That field has transitioned to cognitive neuroscience, a field of research and a term that did not exist when HM was awarded his Ph.D. HM is envious of today’s students. However, he is still fortunate enough to be able to keep abreast of current research and to relay relevant and meaningful research from this field to his readers.

What is most disturbing is the atmosphere of fear and hate that prevails today. It is ironic that technology, which had, and still has, a tremendous potential for spreading knowledge, now largely spreads disinformation, hatred, and fear.

HM understands why this is the case, but, unfortunately, he does not know how to counter it.

The problem can best be understood in terms of Kahneman’s Two Process Theory of cognition. In Nobel Lauerate Daniel Kahneman’s Two System View of Cognition. System 1, intuition, is our normal mode of processing and requires little or no attention. Unfortunately System 1 is largely governed by emotions. Fear and hate are System 1 processes. System 2, commonly referred to as thinking, requires our attention. One of the roles of System 2 is to monitor System 1. When we encounter something contradictory to what we believe, the brain sets off a distinct signal. It is easier to ignore this signal and to continue System 1 processing. To engage System 2 requires attentional resources to attempt to resolve the discrepancy and to seek further understanding. To put Kahneman’s ideas into the vernacular, System 2 involves thinking. System 1 is automatic and requires virtually no cognitive effort. Emotions are a System 1 process, as are identity based politics. Politics based on going with people who look like you requires no thinking yet provides social support.

Trump’s lying is ubiquitous. Odds are that anything he says is a lie. His entire candidacy was based on lies. So why is he popular? Identifying lies and correcting misinformation requires mental effort, System 2 processing. It is easier to be guided by emotions than to expend mental effort. The product of this cognitive miserliness is a stupidity pandemic.

Previous healthy memory posts have emphasized the enormous potential of technology. Today people, especially young people, are plugged in to their iPhones. Unfortunately, the end result is superficial processing. They get information expeditiously, but they are so consumed with staying in touch with updated information, that they have neither time nor attention left for meaningful System 2 processing. Unfortunately, technology, specifically social media, amplifies these bad effects, thus increasing misinformation, hatred and fear. Countering these bad effects requires implementing System 2 processes, that is thinking. A massive failure to do this enables Trump to build his politics on lies spreading hatred and fear.

As has been written in many previous healthy memory posts, System 2 processing will not only benefit politics, but will also decrease the probability of suffering from Alzheimer’s and dementia.

Personally, all this is upsetting. But HM believes it is essential to love one’s fellow humans. He tries to deal with this via meditation. Progress is both difficult and slow but it needs to be done. Hatred destroys the one who hates. So HM continues a daily struggle to be a better human being.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Unhealthful Memories Can Lead to Alzheimer’s and the Loss of Democracy

May 3, 2019

This post is motivated by an article by Greg Miller titled “With Mueller silent, Barr speaks for him—and defends the president” in the 2 May 2019 issue of the Washington Post. The article is about how Barr has gotten ahead of Mueller and completely misrepresented the report of the special council. Mueller has remained silent trying to observe the normal protocols. Barr has completely misrepresented Mueller’s report and continues to lie and misrepresent his characterization of the report when questioned by Democratic members of the Senate. Most Republicans seem to be complicit in Barr’s lies and misrepresentation.

Mueller will eventually testify, but much damage has been done by Trump’s puppet Barr. However, it is more than time that truth will need to overcome. The failure of too many Americans to use their critical thinking processes also hinders their reaching truth.

A brief review of Kahneman’s two process theory of cognition is appropriate here. System 1 is fast and is called intuition.  System 1 needs to be fast so we can process language and make the fast decisions we need to make everyday.  System 1 is also the seat of our emotions.  System 2 is called reasoning and corresponds loosely to what we mean by thinking.  System 2 requires mental effort and our attentional processes.

The default mode network will be mentioned in future posts. Basically it corresponds to System 1 processing. What is important is the word “default.” Once misinformation has gotten into memory it takes cognitive effort to remove and correct it.

Without knowing it, Trump is a genius at exploiting the default mode network. The default mode network is also responsive to emotion. Emotion comes first. That’s why it is important to stop and think, when you become angry, so you do not respond foolishly. But by exploiting pre-existing biases and out and out lying, misinformation gets into memory. And it will remain there until the individual thinks, discovers the information is wrong, and corrects this memory.

This problem is exacerbated by social media. As has been shown in previous posts, social media reinforces this disinformation. Much of this misinformation is emotional. Hate spreads easily, unfortunately, much faster than does love and caring.

There have been many previous posts on how cognitive activity, system 2 processing, getting free of the default mode network decreases the likelihood of Alzheimer’s and dementia. Moreover, there are many cases of individuals whose brains have the defining characteristics of Alzheimer’s, the amyloid plaque and neurofibrillary tangles, who die never knowing that they had Alzheimer’s because they had none of the behavioral or cognitive symptoms.

Effective democracy also depends on healthy memories. It requires that citizens know how democracy works and seek and evaluate information as to how the democracy should proceed. There is ample evidence that few citizens know how the government is supposed to work as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. And there is ample evidence that most voting citizens have little understanding of the issues and candidates on which they are voting.

If Russia waged a conventional military attack on the United States, citizens would be outraged and demand that we fight back. But the Russians are smart, and too many Americans are stupid. The Russians used cyberattacks. These cyberattacks have been described in previous healthy memory posts. These cyberattacks promoted Trump for president and created disruption and polarization among the American public. Remember that Trump was not elected in the popular vote. He lost that by three million votes. He won due to an irresponsible electoral college.

Trump built his campaign on lies, and continues to support himself on lies. Obviously it requires too much mental effort for too many citizens to recognize this individual as the fraud and obscenity he actually is.

Regardless of the Mueller report, there is ample evidence that Trump needs to be impeached. And reading the Mueller report one quickly realizes that if Trump did not commit any crimes of which he could be convicted, his behavior still puts democracy at risk. Should he not be impeached and should he lose a reelection, he will claim fraud and refuse to leave the office. Our democracy is at risk of becoming a de facto totalitarian dictatorship. Obviously that is something that Barr would prefer, as he thinks there are no limits on presidential power.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

STOP: Avoid Amygdala Hijackings!

May 2, 2019

Previous healthy memory blog posts have explained how the amygdala is a brain structure that responds to emotions. So when we’re upset our amygdala becomes active. This is true even when one reads or hears something that is disagreeable or upsetting. An amygdala hijacking occurs when the amygdala causes you to respond disagreeably to the statement, explain why, and either say or imply that the originator is an idiot. Also, when we learn of violent crimes, they are in all likelihood the result of an amygdala hijacking.

Fortunately, most of us are unlikely to become violent, but some of us can let our amygdala hijack our behavior so that we make asses of ourselves. Unfortunately, HM has suffered many amygdala hijackings, is still suffering from them, and must remain constantly vigilant to prevent their reoccurrence.

One technique can be remembered by the acronym STOP. Which stands for

S Stop
T Take a few deep breaths
O Observe, and, more importantly, think about what is happening and explicitly about how one should not respond.
P If you have decided on an appropriate response, respond. If no appropriate response has been found, excuse yourself and exit the situation.

Thanks to Kathleen Parker

May 1, 2019

Whose column titled “Easter, and this ungodly episode” in the 21 April 2019 issue of the Washington Post expressed some sentiments similar to HM’s post “Trump vs. a Buddhist Monk’” where HM argued that the Buddhist Monk, in his poverty, lives a happier life than Donald Trump, with all his worldly riches.

The following are excerpts from Ms. Parkers column:

“Trump…is a villain but also a tragic figure. For him there is never enough of anything—riches, possessions, attention and adulation.

At times I feel sorry for him, because he has invited the wrath of millions, and it can’t be easy to shoulder so much disapproval. When I said this recently to a friend, she replied: ‘It’s hard to feel sorry for someone who has no empathy.’ True, but a person without empathy—the ability to feel what others do—walks a lonely path. Driven by lust for the material, such a person doesn’t know the company of what ancient philosophers called transcendentals—truth, goodness, and beauty, which correspond sequentially to the mind, the will and the heart, and which according to Christian theology, lead to God’s infinite love.

Trump wages daily war against truth. Examples of his falsehoods and outright lies could fill a doorstop volume.

Goodness is missing everywhere. Trump may have some good qualities, though it is hard to discern them given his propensity for hurtful, divisive rhetoric. To him, goodness is what he wills it to be, that which nourishes his narcissism and appetites, whether the compliance of women or the loyalty of comrades. Ironically, disloyalty may have saved him when aides refused to carry out orders to obstruct the Mueller investigation.

One needn’t be a theologian, philosopher, or Christian to recognize that Trump, defiant before truth and lacking goodwill, knows beauty only as a standard for useful women or towers bearing his name.”

She includes in her column Trump’s own statement when Attorney Jeff Sessions told him about the Mueller appointment. “Oh, my God. This is the end of my presidency. I’m f—-ed.”

Kathleen Parker ends her column, “Would this prophecy come to pass and this ungodly epodes in American history be finished.”

Are We Getting Dumber?

April 30, 2019

This post is based on statistics from a column by Max Boot in the 18 April 2019 issue of the Washington Post. His column begins, “Only 36% of Americans could pass a multiple-choice civics test of the kind that is administered to immigrants seeking to become citizens. 60% don’t know which countries the United States fought with in World War II. 57% don’t know how many justices serve on the Supreme Court. Only 24% know what Benjamin Franklin was famous for? Some respondents thought he had invented the light bulb.

The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship foundation conducted a survey confirming that there is a national emergency of civics illiteracy and it is getting worse. 74% of those over age 65 could pass the citizenship exam (which requires correctly just 6 out of 10 questions), but only 19% of those under 45 could do so. And a college degree does not guarantee a minimal knowledge of U.S. history. In surveys of college graduates commissioned by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, fewer than 20% could identify the Emancipation Proclamation, only 42% knew that the Battle of the Bulge occurred during World War II (this is spite of the many movies made about this battle), and one-third were unaware that Franklin D. Roosevelt had introduced the New Deal.

Boot concludes “We are a democracy at risk of being too ignorant to govern ourselves.” HM would argue that we have already demonstrated that we are too ignorant to govern ourselves. The election of Trump as President and a Republican Party that continues to support him make this point. HM would like to know how Trump would do on this citizenship exam. Trump only recently learned, and was surprised to learn, that Lincoln was a Republican!

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

2019 NFL Draft

April 29, 2019

This post is based on an article by Sally Jenkins titled, “Smart teams trade down, but most teams just aren’t smart,” in the 27 April 2019 issue of the Washington Post. There have been previous posts on this topic. Behavioral economics which grew from Prospect Theory by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, for which Kahneman won a Nobel Prize (unfortunately Amos Tversky had passed on and was ineligible for the prize when it was awarded) can be used to guide NFL Draft Picks. The basic strategy is to trade down rather than trade up. Cade Massey of the University of Pennsylvania Wharton school and Nobel Prize winner produced papers in 2005 and 2012 that showed that teams profoundly overvalue first-round picks and simply don’t have the ability they think they do to discern between a great player and a good one.

Jenkins writes, “How often is a team right in picking a high-first rounder” What will be the quantifiable difference between the top choice at a position in the 2019 draft and the next available player, or even the third or fourth, in terms of games started and potential Pro Bowl success? The difference would need to be large given the amount of their investments. But their expenditures prove right only 52% of the time, which is effectively a coin toss.

Massey who does consulting for NFL teams says, “History suggests you do better by trading down from the top, using multiple lesser picks than one high pick.” The Patriots have done this with obvious success. From the article, “As of 2018, Bill Belichick had traded down fully 21 times on draft day to acquire more picks. Over the past 15 years, the Patriots have chosen 39 players in the second and third rounds, the highest number of any team in the AFC. And they won Super Bowls with them.”

Massey says, “If you recognize the uncertainty rather than throwing up your hands, you say, ‘We want as many draws as possible from the lottery. We can’t influence one ticket, but we can get as many tickets as possible.”

Andrew Brandt, a sports business analyst and former vice-president of the Green Bay Packers says, “It take a lot of willpower to trade out of that first-round pick, because there’s a lot of pressure. A lot of gravitas goes with that.”

Teams often do the dead opposite of what they should: give away fistfuls of picks to move up and grab a single star prospect. According to Massey overconfidence in their own judgment clouds their thinking. Brandt says, “Or sometimes it’s just a simple case of seeing a player ‘you lust after.’”

There is also extreme pressure coming from fans. There are many males who might not be about to tell you who their representatives to Congress or their senators are, who have definite strong picks for the NFL draft.

Massey says, “The quants are wrong to think you can quantify every single player. But you also can’t be right without the quantifications.”

The Random Act of Choosing a College Major

April 28, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Andrew Van Dam in the 30 March 2019 issue of the Washington Post. This post provides a neat follow up to the immediately preceding post “Missing Healthymemory Themes.” The article begins by stating that this potentially life altering decision is often made based on something as trivial as what time of day you took a particular class, or what you happened to be studying when the deadline for picking a major arrived. Even when students are doing well in a course, perhaps even in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematic (STEM) discipline, they will switch majors to be with others who share genre or background. This has been suggested as a possible explanation for lower participation of females in these disciplines.

Economists like to study U.S. Military Academy Cadets because they are assigned schedules, and some classes at random creating a data set that allows them to answer questions such as what’s causing a student to pick one major over another. The author writes, “The answer, it turns out, is dumb luck. Students who happen to be assigned classes in one of four required subjects during the semester when they’re supposed to pick a major are twice as likely to major in the assigned subject, according to University of Maryland economist Nolan Pope, and Richard Patterson and Aaron Feudo of the U.S. Military Academy. This held true regardless of how well a student performed or how much they liked the course according to the analysis of class data from 2001 to 2015. Their database included grades, class times and students opinion about the course. Pope said, “Small and seemingly unimportant things can really have a large impact. Often students cite a specific class or teacher for a choice of major.”

Carnegie Mellon University professor Karem Haggag, showed students are about 10% less likely to major in a subject if they took a class at 7:30 a.m. Likewise. as students grown more fatigued during the day they grow about 10% less likely to major in the subject covered by each successive class.

Given these data it is not surprising that 37% of students eventually switch according to a paper from University of Memphis economists Carmen Astorne-Fiagari and Jamin D. Speer. These economists conducted a long-running survey of almost 9,000 students born between 1980 and 1984. Not surprisingly, students with lower GPAs are more likely to leave their major. But women of all ability levels are likely to change majors. However, men are more likely to drop out instead of trying a different major according to a study by Astorne-Figari and Speer.

Students doing poorly tend to switch majors, which makes perfect sense. Business, social sciences and economics tend to gain the most from students major switching, while biology, computer science and medicine (medical and health services) lost the most.

About a third of the men and a fifth of the women start out in STEM, and about 30% of those men and 43% of those women switch out of the subject area. Women who leave STEM tend to go to majors that cover similar subjects but are less competitive and less male, such as nursing. Speer said, “There are a lot of women who are very competent in math and science. They typically go to other fields that use science or other fields that use science but are less dominated by men.

Just because one has difficulty with a subject, does not necessarily mean that one cannot be successful in that area. The case of Barbara Oakley is instructive here.
Her father was in the military and she moved constantly doing her childhood. Her father wanted her to attend college and study math and science. Unfortunately, the only thing she was certain about was that she did not like math and science and did not think that she had any aptitude in math and science. However, she did like studying languages so she began studying French and German. At the time there were no available college loans so she enlisted in the military where she could get paid to study a language. So she studied Russian and learned the language.
When she got out of the army, she could not find any interest in her Russian skills. The jobs were in engineering and science and required advanced mathematical skills. So she moved into a new area for which she thought she had no aptitude. However, she found through diligent work that she was able to learn these subjects, and as she became proficient in these subjects, she found that she enjoyed them. So today she is a professor of engineering, firmly planted in the world of math and science. Along with Terrence Sejnowski, the Francis Crick Professor at the Salk Institute, she teaches the most popular online course in the world—“Learning How to Learn”—for Coursera/UC San Diego.

There are several posts on Dr. Oakley. She has also written a book “MIndshift.”
She writes that a “mindshift” is a deep change in life that occurs thanks to learning, and that is what this book is about. She relates true and inspirational stories of how people change themselves through learning—and who bring seemingly obsolete extraneous knowledge with them that has enabled our world to grow in fantastically creative and uplifting ways.

Missing Healthymemory Themes

April 26, 2019

HM was disappointed that Dr. Twenge did not at least touch upon healthy memory themes in “iGEN: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood.” One of these themes was alluded to in the posts about spirituality and religion. There seems to have been a loss in empathy among iGen-ers. Given the exorbitant college costs along with other economic demands, the iGen-ers are living in a dog eat dog world. Spiritual activities including meditation can increase sensitivity to and caring for our fellow human beings.

There was no evidence of passion, grit, or growth mindsets. People go to college to get a job. Education is an instrumental act, not a goal in itself. Of course, they are not unusual in this respect. This certainly is nothing new. When HM taught in college, that certainly was the most common response. But students who actually had an intellectual interest in a subject were dearly appreciated. This blog has advocated growth mindsets and lifelong learning as primary goals not only for a fulfilling life, but also as a means of decreasing the likelihood of Alzheimer’s or dementia. Even if they develop the defining neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid plaque, they might well die with these defining symptoms without ever evidencing the behavioral or cognitive symptoms of Alzheimer’s.

The key here is the System 2 processes engaged during learning or critical thinking. Unfortunately, too many people manage to minimize use of System 2 processes even during college. The hope is that at least they engage in activities such as Bridge or Chess, read some books, and stay off Facebook and similar online activities.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Missing Data

April 25, 2019

There are many changes in the behavior and thinking of iGen’ers. The question is which changes are due to the iPhone and which to general changes in society. Dr. Twenge has offered her opinions in “iGEN: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood.” Unfortunately, all her data comes from the United States. If she had included data from other advanced countries, then one would have a better idea regarding the effects from specific cultural contributions.

Income insecurity is a key problem for iGen-ers, and it is obvious why. Just consider the ridiculous college costs. They also need to be concerned about medical costs and the costs of medical insurance. The United States is unique in being the only advanced country that does not supply government funded health insurance. Specific forms may differ, but the bottom line is that medical costs are not a concern to residents of these countries. Moreover, not only are medical costs lower in these countries than in the United States, but the results, the overall health of these countries is better. It is also the case that colleges costs are much, much lower, and free in some cases. It should also be noted that in worldwide surveys of happiness, the United States does not fare that well. Not surprisingly, they fall behind the other advanced countries in these surveys.

There is a chapter on politics in the book, but HM did not bother to review it because it seemed that both Dr. Twenge and the iGen-ers were completely oblivious to the problem. Free medical and free or low cost college educations should be the primary concerns for them. But they were not mentioned. iGen-ers are not unique to being oblivious what is happening in the rest of the world, this seems to be the problem with the vast majority of Americans.

There is a word that is uttered and once uttered, closes down discussion. That word is “socialism.” It is generally ignored that there is no precise definition for socialism. Communist countries called themselves socialists, but by having a Social Security System, the United States could also be called a socialist country.

The term is used to elicit fear and to shut down further consideration. It’s goal is to shut down further discussion and thinking. But you need to consider what conditions are like in these advanced counties with free medical care and low cost college educations. One will likely find that many of these countries have more freedom that the United States. That is not to say that these countries are problem free, although many might appear to be. But they do have the priorities correct, with education and health at the top.

So realize what the cry “socialism” is intended to engender fear and to shut down further discussion. Basically, they are trying to screw you. Don’t accept it and demand that the United States needs to be comparable on these issues with the remainder of the advanced world. This will be difficult, It will likely require tax increases, but tax increases with cost effective benefits, and massive reallocation of government expenditures. But the United States needs to have its priorities ordered correctly. Ask why we are treated differently from citizens of the other advanced countries.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Understanding—and—Saving—iGen

April 24, 2019

The final chapter of iGEN: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood, by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. offers some suggestions for saving iGen.

Not surprisingly, the first is to put down the phone. She recommends parents putting off giving their children a cell phone as long as possible. There really is no reason for an elementary school child to have a cell phone. By middle school, with kids in more activities and more likely to ride a bus, many parents buy phones for their kids convenience and safety. Here she recommends providing the child with a phone with limited functions such as an old-school flip phone without Internet access or a touch screen.

She reminds readers that many tech CEOs strictly regulate their own children’s technology use. Steve Jobs’ children didn’t use the iPad. He limits how much technology their children use as home. This restriction was common around tech CEOs from the cofounder of Twitter to a former editor of Wired magazine. So the people who love technology and made a living of it are cautious about their children using it too much. Adam Alter wrote in his book “Irrestible,” “It seemed as if the people producing tech products were following the cardinal rule of drug dealing: Never get high on your own supply.”

The same goes for social media and electronic device use. They are linked to higher rates of loneliness, unhappiness, depression, and suicide risk, in both correlational and experimental data. Any readers of the healthy memory blog should be well aware of the dangers of social media.

A key rule she provides is that no one, adults included, should sleep within ten feet of a phone.

Dr, Twenge also argues that given the benefits of in-person social interaction, parents should stop thinking that teens hanging out together are wasting their time. Electronic communications are a poor substitute for the emotional connections and social skills gained in face-to-face communication.

Physical exercise is a natural antidepressant.

In the conclusion she writes, “The devices they hold in their hands have both extended their childhoods and isolated them from true human interaction. As a result, they re both the physically safest generation and the most mentally fragile. They are more focused on work and more realistic than Millenials, grasping the certainty that they’ll need to fight hard to make it. They’re exquisitely tolerant and have brought a new awareness of equality, mental health, and LGBT rights, leaving behind traditional structures such as religion. iGEN’ers have a solid basis for success, with their practical nature and they inherent caution. It they can shake themselves out of the constant clutch of their phone and shrug off the heavy cloak of their fear, they can still fly. And the rest of us will be there, cheering them on.”

Inclusive: LGBT, Gender, and Race Issues in the New Age

April 23, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of a chapter in iGEN: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood, by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. Dr. Twenge writes, “From LGBT identities to genre to race, iGen’ers expect equality and are often surprised, even shocked, to still encounter prejudice. At the same time, equality issues are far from resolved, creating divisions within iGen as well as generation gaps that can seem like unbridgeable gulfs. The equality revolution has been breathtaking but incomplete, leaving iGen to come of age after 2017, when issues around LGBT rights, genre, and race were suddenly back in contention.

Television might have had some effect on iGen’ers’ attitudes on these topics. The oldest iGeners were starting preschool when “Will & Grace” (the first sitcom with a gay man as a central character) premiered in 1998 and in elementary school when shows such as “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” made being gay not just mainstream but fashionable. iGen teems grew up watching “Glee,” which featured several gay, lesbian, and transgender teen characters, and they saw numerous celebrities come out.

Dr Twenge writes, “The 2000s and 2010s ushered in a sea change in attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. These are some of the largest and most rapid generational and time-period differences in existence. Even many conservative Republican iGen’ers now support same-sex marriage. Anthony Liveris, the vice-president of the University of Pennsylvania College Republicans said in 2013, ‘A true conservative should endorse empower American to marry whom they love, not limit them.’ The vast majority of iGen’ers see no reason why two people of the same sex can’t get married.”

One iGen’er said, “My view of LGBT is the same as on other people having sex before marriage: I don’t particularly care. I wouldn’t do it, but it has nothing to do with me, it doesn’t affect me in the slightest, and I have no right to tell other people what to believe…I wouldn’t go to a protest for it or anything, but they can do what they want.”

In spite of these large changes in attitudes, a third of iGen’ers still have issues with same-sex sexuality. One in four questions same-sex marriage. These young people often struggle to reconcile their iguana upbringing with their religion’s viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong.

Not only attitudes, but actual behavior has changed. The number of young women who have had sex with at least one other woman has nearly tripled since the early 1990s. More men now report having had a male sexual partner as well.

Olympic marathon champion Caitlyn Jenner’s transition from male to female in 2015 likely made iGen the first generation to understand what the term transgender means. Transgender is a new term for popular understanding. Perhaps, the simplest means of describing iGen’ers’ attitudes towards transgender people is confused.
Dr.Twenge writes, “Issues around race are particularly salient for iGen’ers, who have been surrounded by racial diversity their entire lives. In 2015, most 12h graders said their high school was at least half another race, double the number in 1980. Three times more said their close friends were of other races.”

So although there has been a vast improvement in attitudes toward race and sexual orientation, there remain problems. Particularly in the awarding of scholarships in this time of enormous costs, white students can feel than they lost possible support because it has gone to a minority student instead. There are still racial incidents on campus, although some of these originate off campus.

There are also microaggressions. Dr. Twenge writes that these are usually defined as unintentionally hurtful things said to people of color. But she notes that aggression is intentional, so the label is a misnomer. Nevertheless, it is possible to commit a microagression unintentionally. Actually, a microagression is defined by the receiver.

Moreover, microaggessions are not restricted to race. Telling a female that she is doing well for a girl is a clear microaggression. But again, it is possible for someone to do this with good intentions.

Unfortunately, racial and cultural sensitivities can impinge upon the free speech, which is assumed to be guaranteed in the constitution. The Pew Research Center found that 40% of Millennials and iGen’ers agreed that the government should be able to prevent people from making offensive statements about minority groups, compared to only 12% of the Silent generation, 24% of Boomers, and 27% of GenX’ers. Of course, the limits of free speech can be broached, but Dr. Twenge notes that more and more statements are deemed racist or sexist and more and more speakers are deemed “extreme.”

Some speakers are being disinvited from speaking. This is especially bad on college campuses. President Obama offered the following statement on the disinvitation issue by saying, “I think it’s a healthy thing for young people to be engaged and to question authority and to ask why this instead of that, to ask tough questions about social justice…Feel free to disagree with somebody, but don’t try to just to shut them up…What I don’t want is a situation in which particular points of view that are presented respectfully and reasonably are shut down.”

As was mentioned in a previous post, this proclivity to avoid disagreement or alternative arguments does not augur well for either education or democracy.

Income Insecurity

April 21, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the first part of a title in iGEN: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood, by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. The remainder of the title of Chapter 7 is “Working to Earn—but Not to Shop.”

Dr. Twenge writes, “iGen’ers are practical, forward looking, and safe, a far cry from the ‘You can be anything’ and ‘Follow your dreams” Millenials.” iGen’ers make up the majority of traditional-age college graduates and will soon dominate the pool of entry-level talent. Dr. Twenge writes, “Given the key differences between iGen’ers and Millenials, the strategies that recruiters have been using to recruit and retain young employees may no longer work. The same is true for marketing to iGen’ers, with a decidedly different psychological profile selling to iGen’ers varies considerably from selling to Millenials. Businesses and managers need to take note: a new generation is arriving on your doorstep, and its members might not be what you expect.”

Interesting work and friends, the things that many Boomers and GenX’ers like the most about their jobs are not as important iGen’ers. They just want a job. An iGen’er wrote, “We should all be less interested in jobs that are interesting or encourage creativity because they don’t pay anything. That’s why you see so many people my age 100k in debt working at a Starbucks.”

iGen’ers also think that work should not crowd out the rest of life. There is a declining belief that work will be central to their lives. They do not want to have jobs that “take over my life.” Still 55% of 2015 high school seniors agree that they are willing to work overtime, up from 22% in 2004. And fewer iGen’ers said they would want to stop working if they had enough money. But iGen’ers have continued the Millenials ‘trend toward saying they don’t want to work hard. So, iGen’ers know that they may have to work overtime, but they believe that many of the jobs they’d want would require too much effort. They seem to be saying, it’s just too hard to succeed today.

The iGen’ers feel pressure to get a college degree. When Dr. Twenge asked her students at San Diego State University how their lives differed from their parent’s, most mentioned the necessity of a college degree. Many of their parents were immigrants who had worked at low-level jobs, but still had been able to buy houses and provide for their families. Her students tell her that they have to get a college education to get the same things that their parents got with a high school diploma or less. One iGen’er said, “My generation is stressed beyond belief because of college. When you graduate from high school, you are pushed to then go into a college, get your masters then have this awesome job. My father’s generation was different. He was born in the 70’s and despite never going to college he has a great paying job. That is not a reality for my generation. You are not even guaranteed a job after going to college. And once we graduate we are in deb to up to our ears.”

The wages of Americans with just a high school education declined by 13% between 1990 and 2013, making a college education more crucial for staying middle class. At the same time, college has become more expensive. Due to cutbacks in state funds for education and other factors college tuition has skyrocketed, forcing many students to take out loans. The average student graduating in 2016 carried $37,173 in debt upon graduation, up from $22, 575 in 2005 and $9,727 in 1993.

The escalation, this unbelievable increase in college costs present a clearly understandable obstacle to iGen’ers, but there are alternatives that are not mentioned.
These alternative are discussed in the healthy memory blog post “Mindshift Resources’. Universities and colleges offer Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCS). These offer an alternative that has certain advantages over typical coursework. Often these courses are free. Usually to get college credits payments are required. However, autodidacts do not necessarily want or desire college credits. There is a website nopaymba.com by Laura Pickard who writes, “I started the No-Pay MBA website as a way of documenting my studies, keeping myself accountable, and providing a resource for other aspiring business students. The resources on this site are for anyone seeking a world-class business education using the free and low-cost tools of the internet.  I hope you find them useful!” She explains how she got an business education equivalent to an MBA for less than1/100th the cost of a traditional MBA. Even without a degree HM would be impressed by a student who had acquired course knowledge in this manner. Autodidacts are devoted to their area of expertise. The have a true interest, they are probably not doing this as an instrumental act just to get a job.

Many young men apparently have a strong aversion to work. So what are they doing? They are playing video games. 25% played video games three or more hours a day, and 10% played at least six hours a day. Video games take up an increasing amount of young men’s time, about eleven hours a week on average in 2015. So the question is are young men playing video games because they are not working or are they not working because they are playing video games? The latter might well be the case. Why work when you can live at home and play video games. Technological innovations have made leisure time more enjoyable. For lower skilled workers, with low market wages, it is now more attractive to take leisure.

Dr. Twenge writes, “Some iGen’ers might be staying away from work because they are convinced that what they do matters little in a rigged system. One iGen-er writes “If we want to have a successful life, we have to go to college, but college is really expensive and we need to either take out loans, that is just going to make our future more complicated and stressful so we try to get a job, but most well paying jobs you want need experience or an educational background, so we are often stuck in a minimum wage position, with part time hours because our employers don’t want to give us benefits, which means we still have to take out loans.”

Dr. Twenge writes that even with their doubts about themselves and their prospects, iGen’ers are still fairly confident about their eventual standard of living.

60% of 2015 high school seniors expected to earn more than their parents. Somehow, most iGen’ers think they will make it. HM was also please to learn that iGen’ers were less impressed by consumer goods, and were less prone to buy consumer goods to impress their neighbors.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

More Safety and Less Community

April 20, 2019

We now return to iGEN: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood, by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. The title of this post is the second part of the title of Chapter 6.

The chapter begins with a discussion about a student who has just finished her first year of community college that she attended from home living with her parents. She has a part time job and isn’t taking any classes over the summer. She says,”I need my summer. If I didn’t have it, I’d go crazy. Just as many of her fellow iGen-ers she doesn’t smoke, doesn’t drink, and has had limited experience with romantic relationships. She doesn’t think these things are safe. She says, “Going out and partying when you’re drunk, you’re in such an altered state of mind, you behave in ways that you never would when sober. There’s drunk driving—and people take advantage of you when you’re drunk. It’s not safe. You’re going to hurt yourself, or someone’s going to hurt you. It’s not my thing.”

Dr. Twenge notes that this iGener’s interest in safety extends beyond physical safety to a term she only recently learned from iGen: emotional safety. For example some iGen-ers believe that high school is too young to have a romantic relationship, especially a sexual one. This iGen-er points to scientific research to back up her conclusions. With the release of oxytocin (during sex), you form emotional connections to someone whether you like it or not. She thinks it dangerous to become emotionally reliant on someone, but especially at that age, when your brain is still developing. She is correct in that the prefrontal lobe, which is responsive for reasoning and executing control, continues to mature until the mid-twenties. There are probably people from earlier generations who might wish they had this knowledge that this iGen-er has at this age.

Statistics bear out this point. iGen teens are safer drivers. Fewer high school seniors get into car accidents, and fewer get tickets. This is a recent trend, beginning only in the early 2000s for tickets and in the mid-2000s for accidents. As recently as 2002, more than one out of three 12th graders had already gotten a ticket. By 2015 only one in five had.

A 2016 survey asked iGen teens what they wanted most out of a car, comparing them to Millennial young adults who recalled their preferences as teens. The feature iGen wanted much more than Millennials is safety.

iGen teens are also less likely to get into a car driven by some who’s been drinking; the number who did so was cut in half from 40% in 1991 to 20% in 2015.

Although iGen-ers tend to eschew alcohol, they are just as likely to use marijuana as Millennials were. The reason is that they tend to believe that marijuana is safe. Some iGen-ers believe that marijuana is not just safe, but beneficial. One iGen-er wrote, “Weed has been proven to provide many health benefits. It helps with pain, cancer, and many other illnesses. It can prevent people from getting addicted to other drugs that are way more harmful.” Nevertheless, iGen’ers remain cautious. Even though they are more likely to see marijuana as safe, use hasn’t gone up.

There has also been a decline in fighting and a waning of sexual assault. In 1991, half of 9th graders had been in a physical fight in the last twelve months, but by 2015 only one in four had. The homicide rate among teens and young adults reached a forty-year low in 2014. The number of teens who carry a weapon to school is now only a third of what it was in the early 1990s. From 1992 to 2015 the rate of rape was nearly cut in half in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports.

iGen’ers’ risk aversion goes beyond their behaviors toward a general attitude of avoiding risk and danger. Eighth and tenth graders are now less likely to answer positively to “I like to test myself every now and then by doing something a little risky.” Nearly half of teens found that appealing in the early 1990s, but by 2015 less than 40% did. They are also less likely to agree that “I get a real kick out of doing things that are a little dangerous.” In 2011, the majority of teens agreed that they got a jolt out of danger, but within a few years only a minority shared this view.

For the most part these changes can be regarded as improvements in attitudes and behavior. But Dr. Twenge notes that the flip side of iGen’s interest in safety is the idea that one should be safe not just from car accidents and sexual assaults, but from people who disagree with you. She provides as an example the most recent version of the “safe space” now known as a place where people can go to protect themselves from ideas they find offensive. She writes, “In recent years, safe spaces have become popular on college campuses as responses to visits by controversial speakers: if students are upset by a speakers message, they can come together in a separate location to console one another.

A 2015 “Atlantic” piece by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s on safe spaces and other campus controversies was titled “The Coddling of the American Mind” and was illustrated with a picture of a confused-looking toddler wearing a shirt that said “College.” Josh Zeits wrote in “Poilitico Magazine,” “Yesterday’s student activists wanted to be treated like adults. Today’s want to be cheated like children.”

Such an attitude precludes a full education. It also precludes an effective democracy.

The trend in iGen’ers is not to take an interest in education. They attend college because they feel they have to to get a better job. Dr. Twenge writes, “Teen’s interest in school took a sudden plunge beginning around 2012, with fewer students saying they found school interesting, enjoyable, or meaningful. The strong push for technology in the classroom seems to have assuaged students’ boredom during the 2000s, but by the 2010s little in the classroom could compete with the allure of the ever-tempting smartphone.

Arguments for a Belief in God

April 19, 2019

Given a decrease in religious beliefs and a decline in spirituality, please excuse a brief indulgence into arguments for a belief in God. This decline in spirituality has an adverse effect on iGen’ers empathy for their fellow humans. As will be seen in subsequent posts, this lack of empathy and caring has a negative effect on iGen’ers.

For many years, HM thought that the only accurate philosophical position on God was one of agnosticism. The question is what is the benefit in being an atheist, besides intellectual snobbery. Belief is a matter of faith, and one should not deny the faith of another. HM has also observed that the problem many, if not most, have with a belief in God really stems from their contempt of religion. Justified or not, there is a tendency to regard religions as hypocritical entities that trample on the beliefs of others.

Fairly recently HM has come to an argument that he finds compelling. Understand, there can be no logical proofs regarding the existence of God. Only closed mathematical or logical systems can produce proofs.

HM’s argument is based on a philosophical argument and a psychological effect.
The philosophical argument comes from the famed mathematician, Blaise Pascal. It is called Pascal’s wager. It is a philosophical argument based on cost/benefit analysis. Bear in mind that his words were different because he live in a different time. However, his fundamental argument is based on cost benefit analysis.

So what are the costs of believing in God? If he exists, then one is correct and might have taken some preparation for an afterlife. And should God not exist, one would never know that her belief was wrong as dead people are absent this capacity. However, even if wrong, one would have had the comfort of life continuing and of the possibility of finding people who had previously deceased.

But if one does not believe in God, she lives with no such comforts, and should she be wrong, perhaps some unpleasant surprises.

The psychological phenomenon is the Dunning-Kruger effect. The Dunning-Kruger Effect appears in fifteen previous healthy memory blog posts. The Dunning part of the effect comes from studies documenting that the more people think they know, the less the actually know. An example of this Dunning part of the effect can be found among physicists as the entered the twentieth century. Many thought that they knew practically all that could be known about physics. Perhaps computations could be done with some more precision, but on the whole, major matters had been figured out. But in 1905 Einstein published his special theory of relativity. And in 1915 he published his general theory of relativity. Both of these theories constituted giant advances in physics. But quantum physics had yet to appear in the twenties and with probabilistic effects and entanglement (remote effects), physics was truly revolutionized.

The Kruger part of the Dunning-Kruger effect refers to the tendency of true experts, to be aware of possible problems and tend to hedge their answers. Hence Truman’s fatal quest for a one-handed economist. When he asked an economist a question, they would typically respond on the one hand this, but on the other hand that.

And personally, HM thought he knew much more than he did when he was young. Getting a Ph.D. and a lifelong pursuit of learning has only convinced him of his own ignorance and of how much he does not know.

So as a species, we must be aware of this effect before making any unqualified statements about the existence of God.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

God & Religion

April 18, 2019

It is important to maintain a distinction between religion and God. Typically, the two concepts are conflated. A previous healthy memory post, God & Homo Sapiens, drew from a book by Reza Azlan titled “God: A Human History.” This book provides an exhaustive review of evidence for religions from, at least, the earliest humans, through the development of the large religious organizations that exist today. Azlan makes a compelling argument that the belief in the soul as separate from the body is universal. Moreover, he argues that it is our first belief, far older than our belief in God, and that it is this belief in the soul that begat our belief in God.

It is reasonable to assume that there were humans who believed in God that predated religions. There are even data that support the notion that neanderthals had religious beliefs. It is likely that the earliest groups of humans had religious leaders. HM has wondered about the souls of people who existed before organized religions. What happens to them? HM is impressed that the Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) has its members try to find their ancestors before the Church was founded so that they can be married and brought into the church in the temple. Unlike the tabernacle only Mormons can enter the temple.

Given that the size of our universe is still unknown as we are still waiting for light to reach us, it is likely that there are other species in this universe who are more intelligent than homo sapiens. It is unlikely that man has been made in God’s image. God is a spiritual entity of unknown form. Indeed, in pantheism God is omnipresent throughout the universe.

HM always wanted to believe in God, but he could never join a church because his thinking is governed by the law of Parsimony, and that law says to take the simplest explanation that explains the phenomena. What he disliked was that religions required one to believe. HM thinks that God gave us brains for thinking. not believing. It is men who tell us to believe so that they can govern us.

HM finds the Dalai Lama as the most impressive religious individual alive on earth. He is a Buddhist, but like other religions, there are different sects. The Buddhists who are attacking the Rohingya refugees from Myanmar living in Bangladesh are the antithesis of Buddhism. Although reincarnation is a central tenet in Buddhism, when asked if one needed to believe in reincarnation to be a Buddhist, the Dalai Lama answered “no.” All that was required is that one should love fellow humans and provide service to them. The Dalai Lama sends his priests to study science. He uses science to inform his religion. Unfortunately, too many religions are at war with science and fight science.

HM believes that we can communicate directly with God. During meditation there is a blissful state where one feels that he is in contact with his creator. So via meditation and contemplative prayer religions can be circumvented.

Understand that HM is not arguing against religions. If one has comfort in a religion that person should follow that religion, but not uncritically. Christians need to see if the preachings are in accordance with the gospels, rather than the old testament or parts of the new testament that are not gospels.

To learn more about meditation, begin with the relaxation response. You need to go to the main page of the healthy memory blog (by entering
https://healthymemory.wordpress.com into your browser.) Search for “relaxation response”. The next topic to search for is “loving kindness meditation”.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Irreligious

April 17, 2019

The title of this post is the same as the fifth chapter in iGEN: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood, by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. The remainder of the title is “Losing My Religion (and Spirituality).

In the early 1980s, more than 90% of high school seniors identified as part of one religious group or another. Only one out of ten chose “none” for religious affiliation. Beginning in the 1990s and accelerating in the 2000s, fewer and fewer people affiliated with a religion. The shift was largest for young adults, with religiously affiliations dipping to 66% by 2016. So a full third of young adults did not affiliate with any organized religion.

Of course, there is no need to affiliate with a religion to attend religious services. Dr. Twenge writes that attendance at services declined slowly until around 1997 and then began to plummet. In 2015, 22% of 12th graders said they “never” attended religious services. This is a pretty low bar; going to a service even once a year would still count as going. She continues, “iGen’ers and the Millennials are less religious than Boomers and GenX’ers were at the same age. The recent data on Millennials, who are now in their family-building years, indicate that they’re less likely to attend services than Boomers and GenX’ers were at that age, in fact, the decline in attending religious services for this group in their prime family-building years indicates that they are less likely to attend services than Boomers and GenX’ers were at that age. In fact, the decline in attending religious services for this group in their prime family-building years has been just as steep as that for young adults ages 18 to 24. Millennials have not been returning to religious institutions during their twenties and thirties, making it unlikely that iGen’ers will, either.”

“For twenty years, headlines and academic articles declared that yes, fewer Americans affiliated with a religion, but just as many were praying and just as many believed in God. Americans weren’t less religious, they said, just less likely to practice religion publicly. That was true for several decades: the percentage of young adults who believed in God changed little between 1989 and 2000. Then it fell of a cliff. By 2016, one out of three 18- 24-year olds said that they did not believe in God. Prayer followed a similar steep downward trajectory. In 2004, 84% of young adults prayed at least sometimes, but by 2016 more than one out of four said they “never” prayed.”

Note that the numbers do not indicate by any means that religions are disappearing. Rather they indicate that religious beliefs have been declining rapidly.

A common narrative about trends in religious belief says that spirituality has replaced religion. In 2001 Robert Fuller published a book titled “Spiritual but Not Religious” arguing that most Americans who eschew organized religion still have deep dynamic spiritual lives. This led the assumption that young people who are distrustful of traditional religion are still willing to explore spiritual questions. Data do not seem to support this narrative. In 2014 to 2016 slightly fewer 18- to 24-year-olds (48%) described themselves as moderately or very spiritual than in 2006 to 2008 (56%).

The reasons iGen-ers are leaving religions is in some part due to anti-science attitudes and anti-gay attitudes. A 2012 survey of 18- to 24-year olds found that most believed that Christianity was antigay (64%), judgmental (62%), and hypocritical (58%). Of course there are Christian churches who are not guilty of these criticisms. Moreover, one can find no basis for these criticisms in the gospels about Jesus. Jesus loved all, was nonviolent and forgiving. So these criticisms are deserved criticisms of too many ostensible Christian churches who are not only promoting grossly incorrect religious beliefs, and who are also trying to impose their beliefs on others through the process of legislation. Given the freedom of religion guaranteed in the Constitution, these churches are not only hypocritical, but also unAmerican. Unfortunately, this glaring hypocrisy is widely ignored.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Insecure: The New Mental Health Crisis

April 16, 2019

The title of this post is the same as the fourth chapter in iGEN: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood, by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. The problems discussed in previous posts are important. The critical question is whether this use increases feelings of loneliness, depression, and anxiety also been accompanied by changes in diagnosable depression and its most extreme outcome, suicide?

Since 2004 the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), which is conducted by the US Department of Health and Human Services has screened US teens for clinical-level depression. The project uses trained interviewers to assess a nationally representative sample of more than 17,000 teens (ages 10 to 17) across the country every year. Participants hear questions through headphones and enter their answers directly into a laptop computer, ensuring privacy and confidentiality. The questions rely on the criteria for major depressive disorders documented in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or the American Psychiatric Association. It is the gold standard for diagnosing mental health issues. The criteria include experiencing depressed mood, insomnia, fatigue, or markedly diminished pleasure in life every day for at least two weeks. This study is specifically designed to provide a benchmark for rates of mental illness among Americans, regardless of whether they’ve ever sought treatment.

The screening test showed a shocking rise in depression between 2010 and 2015 in which 56% of teens experienced a major depressive episode and 60% more experienced severe impairment.

So more people are expressing more than just symptoms and depression, and feelings of anxiety, but clinically diagnosable major depression. This is not a small issue with more than one in nine teens and one in eleven young adults suffering from major depression. This strongly suggests that something is seriously wrong in the lives of American teens.

This increase in major depressive episodes is far steeper among girls, which is the gender more likely to overuse social media. By 2015, one in five teen girls had experienced a major depressive episode in the last year.

Major depression, especially if its severe, is the primary risk factor for suicide. Between 2009 and 2015, the number of high school girls who seriously considered suicide increased 43%. The number of college students who seriously considered suicide jumped 60% between 2011 and 2016.

Dr Twenge mentions that a contributing factor is a shortfall in needed sleep. Many iGen’ers are so addicted to social media that they find it difficult to put down their phones and go to sleep when they should. More teens now sleep less than seven hours most nights. Sleep experts say that teens should get about nine hours of sleep a night, so a teen who is getting less than seven hours a night is significantly sleep deprived. 57% more teens were sleep deprived in 2015 than in 1991. In just the three years between 2012 and 2016, 22% more teens failed to get seven hours sleep.

So one way of improving mental health is to get more sleep. Dr. Twenge concludes the chapter as follows: “In other words, there is a simple, free way, to improve mental health: put down the phone and do something else.

In Person No More

April 15, 2019

The title of this post is the same as the third chapter in iGEN: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood, by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. There is a second part to this title which is “I’m with You, but Only Virtually.

When Dr. Twenge asked one of her iGen teens what makes his generation different, he doesn’t hesitate to answer: I feel like we don’t party as much. People stay in more often. My generation lost interest in socializing in person—they don’t have physical get-togethers, they just text together, and they can just stay at home.”

College students were asked how many hours a week they spend at parties during their senior year in high school. In 2016, they said two hours a week, which is only a third of the time GenX students spent at parties in 1987. Perhaps iGen-ers just don’t like partying; perhaps they just like to hang out. This is not the case. The number of teens who get together with their friends every day has been cut in half in just fifteen years, with especially steep declines recently.

College students in 2016 when compared against college students in the late 1980s spent four fewer hours a week socializing with their friends and three fewer hours a week partying. So seven hours a week less on in-person social interaction. This severe drop in getting out and getting together with friends occurred right when smartphones became popular and social media use really took off. Time spent with friends in person has been replaced by time spent with friends (and virtual friends) online.

Many malls across the country have closed. In activity after activity, iGen-ers are less social than Millenials, GenX’ers, and Boomers at the same age. This change in activities outside the home doesn’t mean teens are always staying at home having wholesome family time. So iGen’ers spend more leisure time alone. Dr. Twenge writes “Although we can’t say for sure, it’s a good guess that this alone time is being spend online, on social media, streaming video, and texting. In short, iGen teens are less likely to take part in every singe face-to-face social activity measured across four data sets of three different age groups. These fading interactions include everything from small-group or one-on-one activities, such as getting together with friends to larger group activities such as partying. “

Instead, they are communicating electronically. The internet has taken over. Teens are Instagramming, Snapchatting, and texting with friends more, and seeing them in person less. She concludes, “For IGen’ers, online friendship has replaced offline friendship.”

Unfortunately, these trends are leading to decreases in mental health and happiness. Among 8th graders here are the activities that decrease happiness among 8th graders (according to Monitoring the Future, 2013 to 2015). Video chat, computer games, texting, Social networking websites, and Internet. But there has been a decrease in the following activities that increase happiness: Sports or exercise, religious services, print media, and in-person social interaction.

One study with college students asked students with Facebook pages to complete short surveys on their phone over the course of two weeks—they’d get a text message with a link five times a day and report on their mood and how much they’d used Facebook. The more they used Facebook, the unhappier they later felt. Dr. Twenge concludes, “feeling unhappy did not not lead to more Facebook use. Facebook use caused unhappiness, but unhappiness did not cause Facebook use.

She reports that another study of adults fond the same thing: the more people used Facebook, the lower their mental health and life satisfaction on the next assessment. But after they interacted with their friends in person, their mental health and life satisfaction improved.

In a third study that randomly assigned 1,095 Danish adults to stop using Facebook for a week or to continue to use Facebook. At the end of the week, those who had taken a break from Facebook were happier, less lonely, and less depressed than those who had used Facebook as usual. These differences were sizable. 36% fewer were lonely, 33% fewer were depressed, and 9% more were happy. Those who stayed off Facebook were also less likely to feel sad, angry, or worried.

The risk of unhappiness due to social media is the highest for the youngest teens. Eighth graders who spent ten or more hours a week on social networking sites were 56% more likely to be unhappy, compared to 39% for 10th graders and 14% for 12th graders.

A commercial for Facebook suggests that social media will help you feel less alone and surround you with friends every moment. Unfortunately, this is not true for the always online iGEN. Teens who visit social networking sites every day are actually more likely to agree “I often feel lonely,” “I often feel left out of things,” and “I often wish I had more good friends.”

Research has also revealed that teens who spend a lot of time looking at their phones aren’t just at a higher risk of depression, they re also at an alarmingly higher risk for suicide. This is not to suggest that there is an alarming suicide epidemic, but there will likely be increasing in suicide rates.

Internet: Online Time—Oh, and Other Media, Too

April 14, 2019

The title of this post is the same as the second chapter in iGEN: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood, by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D.

iGen-ers sleep with their phones. They put them under their pillows, on the mattress, or at least within arm’s reach of the bed. They check social media websites and watch videos right before they go to bed, and reach for their phones again as soon as they wake up in the morning. So their phone is the last thing they see before they go to sleep, and the first thing they see when they wake up. If they wake up in the middle of the night, they usually look at their phones.

Dr. Twenge notes, “Smartphones are unlike any other previous form of media, infiltrating nearly every minute of our lives, even when we are unconscious with sleep. While we are awake, the phone entertains, communicates, and glamorizes. She writes, “It seems that teens (and the rest of us) spend a lot of time on phones—not talking but texting, on social media, online, and gaming (togther, these are labeled ‘new media’). Sometime around 2011, we arrived at the day when we looked up, maybe from our own phones, and realized that everyone around us had a phone in his or her hands.”

Dr, Twenge reports, “iGen high school seniors spent an average of 2.25 hours a day texting on their cell phone, about 2 hours a day on the Internet, 1.5 hours a day on electronic gaming , and about a half hour on video chat. This sums to a total of 5 hours a day with new media, This varies little based on family background; disadvantaged teens spent just as much or more time online as those with more resources. The smartphone era has meant the effective end of the Internet access gap.

Here’s a breakdown of how 12th graders are spending their screen time from Monitoring the Future, 2013-2015:
Texting 28%
Internet 24%
Gaming 18%
TV 24%
Video Chat 5%

Dr. Twenge reports that in seven years (2008 to 2015) social media sites went from being a daily activity for half of teens, to almost all of them. In 2015 87% of 12th grade girls used social media sites almost every day in 2015 compared to 77% of boys.
HM was happy to see that eventually many iGen’ers see through the veneer of chasing likes—but usually only once they are past their teen years.

She writes that “social media sites go into and out of fashion, and by the time you read this book several new ones will probably be on the scene. Among 14 year olds Instagram and Snapchat are much more popular than Facebook.“ She notes that recently group video chat apps such as Houseparty were catching on with iGEN, allowing them to do what they call ‘live chilling.”

Unfortunately, it appears that books are dead. In the late 1970s, a clear majority of teens read a book or a magazine nearly every day, but by 2015, only 16% did. e-book readers briefly seemed to rescue books: the number who said they read two or more books for pleasure bounced back in the late 2000s, but they sank again as iGEN (and smartphones) entered the scene in the 2010. By 2015, one out of three high school seniors admitted they had not read any books for pleasure in the past year, three times as many as in 1976.

iGEN teens are much less likely to read books than their Millennial, GenX, and Boomer predecessors. Dr. Twenge speculates that a reason for this is because books aren’t fast enough. For a generation raised to click on the next link or scroll to the next page within seconds, books just don’t hold their attention. There are also declines for iGen-ers with respect to magazines and newspapers.

SAT scores have declined since the mid-2000s, especially in writing (a 13-point decline since 2006) and critical reading ( a 13-point decline since 2005).

Dr, Twenge raises the fear that with iGen and the next generations never learning the patience necessary to delve deeply into a topic, and the US economy falling behind as a result.

In No Hurry: Growing Up Slowly

April 13, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of the first chapter in iGEN: “Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood” by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. Excerpts from this chapter follow.

iGEN teens are less likely to go out without their parents. Dr. Twenge writes that this trend began with Millennials and then accelerated at a rapid clip with iGen’ers. 12th graders in 2015 are going out less often than 8th graders did as recently as 2009. 18-year-olds are now going out less often than 14-year-olds did just six years prior.

Dr. Twenge writes that iGEN’ers are less likely to do adult things such as going out without their parents and having sex, and whether this trend of growing up more slowly is a good thing or a bad thing. She uses the approach called life history theory to provide insights. Life history theory states that how fast teens grow up depends on where and when they are raised. So developmental speed is an adaptation to a cultural context.

She writes, “Today’s teens follow a slow life strategy, common in times and places where families have fewer children and cultivate each child longer and more intensely. “ Life history theory explicitly notes that slow or fast life strategies are not necessarily good or bad; they just are. Nearly all of the generational shifts in this chapter and the rest appear across different demographic groups. The studies we’re drawing from here are nationally representative, meaning the teens reflect the demographics of the United States. Every group is included. Even within specific groups, the trends consistently appear; they are present in working-class homes as well as upper-middle-class ones, among minorities as well as whites, among girls as well as boys, in big cities, suburbs, and small towns, and all across the country. That means they are not isolated to the white, upper-middle-class teens whom journalists often wring heir hands over. Youths of every racial group, region, and class are growing up more slowly.”

When HM was a teen, one of the major milestones on the way to adulthood was getting a driver’s license. All boomer high school students had their driver’s license by spring of their senior year, by 2015 only 72% did. So more than one out of four iGen’ers did not have a driver’s license by the time they graduated from high school.

Another GenX memory is being a latchkey kid. They walked home from school and used their key to enter an empty house, because parents were still at work.

iGen’ers are also less likely to have jobs. In the late 1970s only 22% of high school seniors didn’t work for pay at all during the school year. By the early 2010s, twice as many (44%) didn’t. The number of 8th graders who work for pay has been cut in half.

With fewer teens one might think that more would get an allowance to buy the things they want. However, fewer iGen’ers get an allowance. When they need money, they just ask for it from their parents. It’s another example of 18-year-olds being like 15-year-olds: just like children and young adolescents, one out of five iGen high school seniors ask they parents for what they want instead of managing their own cash flow.

A positive fact about the iGen’ers is that they are much less likely to drink. This is especially true of binge drinking. However, iGen’ers smoke pot more often than the Millenials that preceded them.

Some have concluded that iGen’ers are more responsible. A 2016 Post article trumpeted that “Today’s Teens are Way Better Behaved than You Were.” Dr. Twenge thinks that it’s more informative to employ the terms of life history theory: ‘teens have adopted a slow life strategy, perhaps due to smaller families and the demands wrought by increasing income inequality. Parents have the time to cultivate each child to succeed in the newly competitive economic environment which might take twenty-one years when it once took sixteen. The cultural shift toward individualism may also play a role: childhood and adolescence are uniquely self-focused stages, so staying in them longer allows more cultivation of he individual self. With fewer children and more time spent with each, each child is noticed and celebrated. Cultural individualism is connected to slower developmental speeds.”

Perhaps this slower pace of development results in the 2014 emergence of he neologism “adulting”, which means taking care of one’s responsibilities. An Adulting School in Maine offers classes for young adults teaching the how to perform tasks such as managing finances and folding laundry.

Dr. Twenge ends this chapter as follows: “No matter what the reason. teens are growing up more slowly, eschewing adult activities until they are older. This creates a logical question” If teens are working less, spending less time on homework, going out less, and drinking less, what are they doing? For a generation called iGen, the answer is obvious: look no further than the smartphones in their hands.”

To which we turn in the next post.

Regardless of your age, how iGEN are you?

April 12, 2019

This post is taken from iGEN: “Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood” by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D.

Take this `15-item quiz to find out how “iGEN” you are. Answer each question with a “yes” or “no.”

_____1. In the past 24 hours, did you spend at least an hour total texting on a cell phone?
_____2. Do you have a Snapchat account?
_____3. Do you consider yourself a religious person?
_____4. Did you get your driver’s license by the time you turned 17?
_____5. Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?
_____6. Did you ever drink alcohol (more than a few sips) by the time you turned 16?
_____7. Did you fight with your parents a lot when you were a teen?
_____8. Were more than one-third of the other students at your high school a different race than you?
_____9. When you were in high school, did you spend nearly every weekend night out with your friends?
_____10. Did you have a job during the school year when you were in high school?
_____11. Do you agree that safe spaces and trigger warnings are good ideas and that efforts should be made to reduce microaggression?
_____12. Are you a political independent?
_____13. Do you support the legalization of marijuana?
_____14. Is having sex without much emotion involved desirable?
_____15. When you were in high schoool, did you feel left out ad lonely fairly often?

SCORING: Give yourself 1 point answering “yes” to questions 1,2,5,8,11,12,13,14.
and 15. Give yourself 1 point for answering “no” to questions 3,4,6,7,9, and 10. The higher your score, the more iGEN you are in your behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs.

iGEN

April 11, 2019

iGEN is the title of a new book by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. The subtitle is “Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood. iGEN is the smartphone generation. HM is a member of the Boomer generation. Generation X followed the Boomers around 1964. The Millenials were the generation born in the 1980s and early 1990s, Dr. Twenge noted around 2012 seeing large abrupt shifts in teens behavior and emotional states.

This iGEN generation was born in 1995 and later. They grew up with cell phones, had an Instagram page before they started high school, and could not remember a time before the internet. The oldest member of iGEN were early adolescents when the iPhone was introduced in 2007 and high school students when the iPad was introduced in 2010. The i in the names of these devices stands for Internet. The internet was commercialized in 1995. So this generation is named after the iPhone. According to a fall 2015 marketing survey, two out of three US teens owned an iPhone. A 17-year old interviewed in American Girls said, “You have to have an iPhone. It’s like Apple has a monopoly on adolescence.

The iGEN is the first generation for whom internet access has been constantly available, right there in their hands. Whether their smartphone is a Samsung and their tablet a Kindle, these young people are all iGen’ers. Even lower income teens from disadvantaged backgrounds spend just as much time online as those with more resources. The average teen checks her phone more than eighty times a day.

Dr. Twenge writes, “technology is not the only change shaping this generation. The i in iGEN represents the individualism its members take for granted, a broad trend that grounds their bedrock sense of equality as well as their reaction to traditional social rules. It captures the income inequality that is creating a deep insecurity among iGEN’ers, who worry about doing the right things, to become financially successful, to become a “have” rather than a “have not.” Due to these influences and many others, iGEN is distinct from every previous generation in how its members spend their time, how they behave, and their attitudes toward religion, sexuality, and politics. They socialize in completely new ways, reject once sacred social taboos, and want different things from their lives and careers. They are obsessed with safety and fearful of their economic futures, and they have no patience for inequality based on gender, race or sexual orientation, They are at the forefront of the worst mental health crisis in decades, with rates of teen depression and suicide skyrocketing since 2011. Contrary to the prevalent idea that children are growing up faster than previous generations did, iGENers are growing up more slowly: 18-year olds now act like 15-year-olds used to, and 13-year-olds like 10-year olds. Teens are physically safer than ever, yet they are more mentally vulnerable.”

Dr Twenge draws from four large, nationally representative surveys of 11 million Americans since the 1960s and identifies ten important trends shaping iGEN’ers:

The extension of childhood into adolescence.

The amount of time they are really spending on their phones—and what that has replaced.

The decline in in-person social interaction.

The sharp rise in mental health issues.

The decline in religion.

The interest in safety and the decline in civic involvement

New attitudes towards work.

New attitudes toward sex, relationships, and children.

Acceptance, equality and free speech debates.

Independent political views.

Not all these changes are the result of the new technology. It is interesting to look at which changes and to what extent they are the result of new technology, and what is responsible for other changes.

Future posts on these issues will follow.

Get A Life!

April 9, 2019

This is the final post of a series of posts based on an important book by Roger McNamee titled: “Zucked: Waking up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” Perhaps the best way of thinking about Facebook and related problems is via Nobel Winning Lauerate Daniel Kahneman’s Two System View of Cognition. System 1 is fast and emotional. Beliefs are usually the result of System 1 processing. System 2 is slow, and what we commonly regard as thinking.

The typical Facebook user is using System 1 processing almost exclusively. He is handing his life over to Facebook. The solution is to Get a Life and take your life back from Facebook.

The easiest way to do this is to get off from Facebook cold turkey. However, many users have personal reasons for using Facebook. They should take back their lives by minimizing their use of Facebook.

First of all, ignore individual users unless you know who they are. Ignore likes and individual opinions unless you know and can evaluate the individual. Remember what they say about opinions, “they’e like a—h—-s, everybody has one.” The only opinions you should care about are from responsible polls done by well known pollsters.

You should be able to find useful sources on your own without Facebook. Similarly you can find journalists and authors on your own without Facebook. Spend time and think about what you read. Is the article emotional? Is the author knowledgeable?

If you take a suggestion from Facebook, regard that source skeptically.

Try to communicate primarily via email and avoid Facebook as much as possible.

When possible, in person meetings are to be preferred.

In closing, it needs to be said that Facebook use leads to unhealthy memories. And perhaps, just as in the case of Trump voters, HM predicts an increased incidence of Alzheimer’s and dementia among heavy Facebook users.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

What’s Being Done

April 8, 2019

This is the twelfth post based on an important book by Roger McNamee titled: “Zucked: Waking up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” The remainder of the book, and that remainder is large, discusses what is being done to remedy these problems. So people are concerned. One approach is to break up monopolies. But that approach ignores the basic problem. Facebook is taking certain actions, one of which is encryption is definitely bad Encryption would simply allow Facebook to hide its crimes.

One idea, which is not likely but has received undeserved attention, is to monetize users’ data so the Facebook would have to pay for its use. Unfortunately, this has likely provided users with hopes of future riches for their Facebook use. Although this is indeed how Facebook makes it money, it is unlikely to want to share it with users. Advertisements are pervasive in the world. Although we can try to ignore them in print media, advertisements need to be sat through on television unless one wants to record everything and fast forward through the ads later.

Moreover, there are users, and HM is one of them, who want ads presented on the basis of online behavior. Shopping online is much more efficient than conventional shopping, and ads taken from interests users shown online, provide more useful information. Amazon’s suggestions are frequently very helpful.

The central problem with Facebook is the artificial intelligence and algorithms that bring users of like mind together, and foster hate and negative emotions. This increases polarization and hatred that accompanies polarization.

Does Facebook need to be transparent and ask if users want to be sent off to these destinations the algorithms and AI have chosen? Even when explanations are provided polarization might still be enhanced as birds of a feather do tend to flock together on their own, but perhaps with less hate and extremism. There are serious legal and freedom of speech problems that need to be addressed.

Tomorrow’s post provides a definitive answer to this problem.

Damaging Effects on Public Discourse

April 7, 2019

This is the eleventh post based on an important book by Roger McNamee titled: “Zucked: Waking up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” In the MIT Technology Review professor Zeynep Tufekci explained why the impact on internet platforms is so damaging and hard to fix. “The problem is that when we encounter opposing views in the age and context of social media, it’s not like reading them in a newspaper while sitting alone. It’s like hearing them from the opposing team while sitting with our fellow fans in a football stadium. Online, we’re connected with our communities and we seek approval from our like-minded peers. We bond with our team by yelling at the fans on the other one. In sociology terms, we strengthen our feeling of ‘in-group’ belonging by increasing our distance from and tension with the ‘out-group’—us versus them. Our cognitive universe isn’t an echo chamber, but our social one is. That is why the various projects for fact-checking claims in the news, while valuable, don’t convince people. Belonging is stronger than facts.” To this HM would add “beliefs are stronger than facts.” Belonging leads to believing what the group believes. As has been written in previous healthymemory blog posts, believing is a System One Process in Kahneman’s Two-process view of cognition. And System One processing is largely emotional. It shuts out System Two thinking and promotes stupidity.

Facebook’s scale presents unique threats for democracy. These threats are both internal and external. Although Zuck’s vision of connecting the world and bringing it together may be laudable in intent, the company’s execution has had much the opposite effect. Facebook needs to learn how to identify emotional contagion and contain it before there is significant harm. If it wants to be viewed as a socially responsible company, it may have to abandon its current policy of openness to all voices, no matter how damaging. Being socially responsible may also require the company to compromise its growth targets. In other words, being socially responsible will adversely affect the bottom line.

Are you in Control?

April 6, 2019

This is the tenth post based on an important book by Roger McNamee titled “Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” Facebook wants you to believe that you are in control. But this control is an illusion. Maintaining this illusion is central to every platform’s success, but with Facebook, it is especially disingenuous. Menu choices limit user actions to things that serve Facebook’s interest. Facebook’s design teams exploit what are known as “dark patterns” in order to produce desired outcomes. Wikipedia defines a dark pattern as “a user interface that has been carefully crafted to trick users into doing things.” Facebook tests every pixel to ensure it produces the desired response. For example: which shade of red best leads people to check their notifications? for how many milliseconds should notifications bubbles appear in the bottom left before fading away to most effectively keep users on site? what measures of closeness should we recommend new friends of you to “add”?

With two billion users the cost for testing every possible configuration is small. And Facebook has taken care to make its terms of service and privacy headings hard to find and nearly impossible to understand. Facebook does place a button on the landing page to provide access to the terms of service, but few people click on it. The button is positioned so that hardly anyone even sees it. And those who do see it have learned since the early days of the internet to believe that terms or service are long and incomprehensible, so they don’t press it either.

They also use bottomless bowls. News Feeds are endless. In movies and television, scrolling credits signal to the audience that it is time to move on. They provide a “stopping cue.” Platforms with endless news feeds and autoplay remove that signal to ensure that users maximize their time on site for every visit. They also use autoplay on their videos. Consequently, millions of people are sleep deprived from binging on videos, checking Instagram, or browsing on Facebook.

Notifications exploit one of the weaker elements of human psychology. They exploit an old sales technique, called the “foot in the door” strategy,” that lures the prospect with an action that appears to be low cost, but sets in motion a process leading to bigger costs. We are not good at forecasting the true cost of engaging with a foot-in-door strategy. We behave as though notifications are personal to us, completely missing that they are automatically generated, often by an algorithm tied to an artificial intelligence that has concluded that the notification is just the thing to provoke an action that will serve Facebook’s economic interests.

We humans have a need for approval. Everyone wants to feel approved of by others. We want our posts to be liked. We want people to respond to our texts, emails, tags, and shares. This need for social approval is what what made Facebook’s Like button so powerful. By controlling how often an entry experiences social approval, as evaluated by others, Facebook can get that user to do things that generate billions of dollars in economic value. This makes sense because the currency of Facebook is attention.

Social reciprocity is a twin of social approval. When we do something for someone else, we expect them to respond in kind. Similarly, when when a person does something for us, we feel obligated to reciprocate. So when someone follows us, we feel obligated to follow them. If w receive an invitation to connect from a friend we may feel guilty it we do not reciprocate the gesture and accept it.

Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) is another emotional trigger. This is why people check their smart phone every free moment, perhaps even when they are driving. FOMO also prevents users from deactivating their accounts. And when users do come to the decision to deactivate, the process is difficult with frequent attempts to keep the user from deactivating.

Facebook along with other platforms work very hard to grow their user count but operate with little, if any, regard for users as individuals. The customer service department is reserved for advertisers. Users are the product, at best, so there is no one for them to call.

It Gets Even Worse

April 5, 2019

This is the ninth post based on an important book by Roger McNamee titled “Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” This post picks up where the immediately preceding post, “Amplifying the Worse Social Behavior” stopped. Users sometimes adopt an idea suggested by Facebook or by others on Facebook as their own. For example, if someone is active in a Facebook Group associated with a conspiracy theory and then stop using the platform for a time, Facebook will do something surprising when they return. It might suggest other conspiracy theory Groups to join because they share members with the first conspiracy Group. Because conspiracy theory Groups are highly engaging, they are likely to encourage reengagement with the platform. If you join the Group, the choice appears to be yours, but the reality is that Facebook planted the seed. This is because conspiracy theories are good for them, not for you.

Research indicates that people who accept one conspiracy theory have a high likelihood of accepting a second one. The same is true of inflammatory disinformation. Roger accepts the fact that Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have created systems that modify user behavior. Roger writes, “They should have realized that global scale would have an impact on the way people use their products and would raise the stakes for society. They should have anticipated violations of their terms of service and taken steps to prevent them. Once made aware of the interference, they should have cooperated with investigators. I could no longer pretend that Facebook was a victim. I cannot overstate my disappointment. The situation was much worse than I realized.”

Apparently, the people at Facebook live in their own preference bubble. Roger writes, “Convinced of the nobility of their mission, Zuck and his employees reject criticism. They respond to every problem with the same approach that created the problem in the first place: more AI, more code, more short-term fixes. They do not do this because they are bad people. They do this because success has warped their perception of reality. To them, connecting 2.2 billion people is so obviously a good thing, and continued growth so important, that they cannot imagine that the problems that have resulted could be in any way linked to their designs or business decisions. As a result, when confronted with evidence that disinformation and fake news spread over Facebook influenced the Brexit referendum and the election of Putin’s choice in the United States, Facebook took steps that spoke volumes about the company’s world view. They demoted publishers in favor of family, friends, and Groups on the theory that information from those sources would be more trustworthy. The problem is that family, friends, and Groups are the foundational elements of filter and preference bubbles. Whether by design or by accident, they share the very disinformation and fake news that Facebook should suppress.

Amplifying the Worst Social Behavior

April 4, 2019

This is the eighth post based on an important book by Roger McNamee titled “Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” Roger writes, “The competition for attention across the media and technology spectrum rewards the worst social behavior. Extreme views attract more attention, so platforms recommend them. News Feeds with filter bubbles do better at holding attention than News Feeds that don’t have them. If the worst thing that happened with filter bubbles was that they reinforced preexisting beliefs, they would be no worse than many other things in society. Unfortunately, people in a filter bubble become increasingly tribal, isolated, and extreme. They seek out people and ideas that make them comfortable.”

Roger continues, “Social media has enabled personal views that had previously been kept in check by social pressure—white nationalism is an example- to find an outlet.” This leads one to ask the question whether Trump would have been elected via the Electoral College if it weren’t for social media. Trump’s base consists of Nazis and white supremacists and constitutes more than a third of the citizens. Prior to the election, HM would never have believed that this was the case. Now he believes and is close to being clinically depressed.

Continuing on, “Before the platforms arrived, extreme views were often moderated because it was hard for adherents to find one another. Expressing extreme views in the real world can lead to social stigma, which also keeps them in check. By enabling anonymity and/or private Groups, the platforms removed the stigma, enabling like-minded people, including extremists, to find one another, communicate, and, eventually, to lose the fear of social stigma.”

Once a person identifies with an extreme position on an internet platform, that person will be subject to both filter bubbles and human nature. There are two types of bubbles. Filter bubbles are imposed by others, whereas a preference bubble is a choice, although the user might be unaware of this choice. By definition, a preference bubble takes users to a bad place, and they may not even be conscious of the change. Both filter bubbles and preference bubbles increase time on site, which is a driver of revenue. Roger notes that in a preference bubble, users create an alternative reality, built around values shared with a tribe, which can focus on politics, religion, or something else. “They stop interacting with people with whom they disagree, reinforcing the power of the bubble. They go to war against any threat to their bubble, which for some users means going to war against democracy and legal norms, They disregard expertise in favor of voices from their tribe. They refuse to accept uncomfortable facts, even ones that are incontrovertible. This is how a large minority of Americans abandoned newspapers in favor of talk radio and websites that peddle conspiracy theories. Filter bubbles and preference bubbles undermine democracy by eliminating the last vestiges of common ground among a huge percentage of Americans. The tribe is all that matters, and anything that advances the tribe is legitimate. You see this effect today among people whose embrace of Donald Trump has required them to abandon beliefs they held deeply only a few years earlier. Once again, this is a problem that internet platforms did not invent. Existing issues in society created a business opportunity that platforms exploited. They created a feedback loop that reinforces and amplifies ideas with a speed and at a scale that are unprecedented.”

Clint Watts in his book, “Messing with the Enemy” makes the case that in a preference bubble, facts and expertise can be the core of a hostile system, an enemy that must be defeated. “Whoever gets the most likes is in charge; whoever gets the most shares is an expert. Preference bubbles, once they’ve destroyed the core, seek to use their preference to create a core more to their liking, specially selecting information, sources, and experts that support their alternative reality rather than the real physical world.” Roger writes, “The shared values that form the foundation of our democracy proved to be powerless against the preference bubbles that have evolved over the past decade. Facebook does not create preference bubbles, but it is the ideal incubator for them. The algorithms that users who like one piece of disinformation will be fed more disinformation. Fed enough disinformation, users will eventually wind up first in a filter bubble and then in a preference bubble. if you are a bad actor and you want to manipulate people in a preference bubble, all you have to do is infiltrate the tribe, deploy the appropriate dog whistles, and you are good to go. That is what the Russians did in 2016 and what many are doing now.

The Effects Facebook Has on Users

April 3, 2019

This is the seventh post based on an important book by Roger McNamee titled “Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” Roger writes, “It turns out that connecting 2.2 billion people on a single network does not naturally produce happiness at all. It puts pressure on users, first to present a desirable image, then to command attention in the form of Likes or shares from others. In such an environment, the loudest voices dominate.” This can be intimidating. Consequently, we follow the human tendency to organize into clusters and tribes. This begins with people who share our beliefs. Most often this consists of family, friends, and Facebook Groups to which we belong. Facebook’s news feed encourages every user to surround him- or herself with like-minded people. Notionally, Facebook allows us to extend our friends network to include a highly diverse community, but many users stop following people with whom they disagree. Usually it feels good when we cut off someone who provokes us and lots of people do so. Consequently friends lists become more homogeneous over time. Facebook amplifies this effect with its approach to curating the News Feed. Roger writes, “When content is coming from like-minded family, friends, or Groups, we tend to relax our vigilance, which is one of the reasons why disinformation spreads so effectively on Facebook.

An unfortunate by-product of giving users what they want are filter bubbles. And unfortunately, there is a high correlation between the presence of filter bubbles and polarization. Roger writes, “I am not suggesting that filter bubbles create polarization, but I believe they have a negative impact on public discourse and political because filter bubbles isolate the people stuck in them. Filter bubbles exist outside Facebook and Google, but gains in attention for Facebook and Google are increasing the influence of their filter bubbles relative to others.”

Although practically everyone on Facebook has friends and family, many also are members of Groups. Facebook allows Groups on just about anything, including hobbies, entertainment, teams, communities, churches, and celebrities. Many groups are devoted to politics and they cross the full spectrum. Groups enables easy targeting by advertisers so Facebook loves them. And bad actors like them for the same reason. Case Sunstein, who was the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for the first Obama administration conducted research indicating that when like-minded people discuss issues, their views tend to get more extreme over time. Jonathan Morgan of Data for Democracy has found that as few as 1 to 2 percent of a group can steer the conversation if they are well-coordinated. Roger writes, “That means a human troll with a small army of digital bots—software robots—can control a large, emotional Group, which is what the Russians did when they persuaded Groups on opposite sides of the same issue—like pro-Muslim groups and anti-Muslim groups—to simultaneously host Facebook events in the same place at the same time hoping for a confrontation.

Roger notes that Facebook asserts that users control their experience by picking the friends and sources that populate their News Feed when in reality an artificial intelligence, algorithms, and menus created by Facebook engineers control every aspect of that experience. Roger continues, “With nearly as many monthly users are there are notional Christians in the world, and nearly as many daily users as there are notional Muslims, Facebook cannot pretend its business model does not have a profound effect. Facebook’s notion that a platform with more than two billion users can and should police itself also seems both naive and self-serving, especially given the now plentiful evidence to the contrary. Even if it were “just a platform,” Facebook has a responsibility for protecting users from harm. Deflection of responsibility has serious consequences.”

Experimental Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion Through Social Networks

April 2, 2019

This is the sixth post based on an important book by Roger McNamee titled “Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” In 2014, Facebook published a study called “Experimental Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion Through Social Networks.” “This experiment entailed manipulating the balance of positive and negative messages in News Feeds of nearly seven hundred thousand users to measure the influence of social networks on mood. The internal report claimed the experiment provided evidence that emotions can spread over its platform. Facebook did not get prior informed consent or provide any warning. Facebook made people sad just to see if it could be done. Facebook was faced with strong criticism for this experiment. Zack’s right hand lady, Sheryl Sandberg said: “This was part of ongoing research companies do to test different products, and that was what it was; it was poorly communicated. And for that communication we apologize. We never meant to upset you.”

Note that she did not apologize for running a giant psychological experiment on users. Rather, she claimed that experiments like this are normal “for companies.” So she apologized only for the communication. Apparently running experiments on users without prior consent is a standard practice at Facebook.

Filter Bubbles

April 1, 2019

This is the fiftth post based on an important book by Roger McNamee titled “Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” Adults get locked into filter bubbles. Wikipedia defines filter bubbles as “a state of intellectual isolation that can result from personalized searches when a website algorithm selectively guesses what information a user would like to see based on information about the users, such as location, past click-behavior and search history.

Filter bubbles are not unique to internet platforms. They can also be found on any journalistic medium that reinforces preexisting beliefs of its audience, while surprising any stories that might contradict them, such as Fox News, In the context of Facebook, filter bubbles have several elements. In Facebook’s endless pursuit of engagement, Facebook’s AI and algorithms feed users a steady diet of content similar to what has engaged us most in the past. Usually that is content that we “like.” Each click, share, and comment helps Facebook refine its AI. With 2.2 billion people clicking, sharing, and commenting every month—1.47 billion every day—Facebook’s AI knows more about users than the users can possibly imagine. All that data in one place is a target for bad actors, even if it were well-protected. But Roger writes that Facebook’s business model is to give the opportunity to exploit that data to just about anyone who is willing to pay for the privilege.

One can make the case that these platforms compete in a race to the bottom of the brain stem—where AIs present content that appeals to the low-level emotions of the lizard brain, such things as immediate rewards, outrage, and fear. Roger writes, “Short videos perform better than longer ones. Animated GIFs work better than static photos. Sensational headlines work better than calm descriptions of events. Although the space of true things is fixed, the space of falsehoods can expand freely in any direction. False outcompetes true. Inflammatory posts work better at reaching large audiences within Facebook and other platforms.”

Roger continues, “Getting a user outraged, anxious, or afraid is a powerful way to increase engagement. Anxious and fearful users check the site more frequently. Outraged users start more content to let other people know what they should also be outraged about. Best of all from Facebook’s perspective, outraged or fearful users in an emotionally hijacked state become more reactive to further emotionally charge content. It is easy to imagine how inflammatory content would accelerate the heart rate and trigger dopamine hits. Facebook knows so much about each user that they can often tune News Feed to promote emotional responses. They cannot do this all the time for every user, but they do it far more than users realize. And they do it subtly in very small increments. On a platform like Facebook, where most users check the site every day small nudges over long periods of time can eventually produce big changes.”

The Role of Artificial Intelligence

March 31, 2019

This is the fourth post based on an important book by Roger McNamee titled “Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” Companies like Facebook and Google use artificial intelligence (AI) to build behavioral prediction engines that anticipate our thoughts and emotions based on patterns found in the vast amount of data they have accumulated about users. Users of likes, posts, shares, comments, and Groups have taught Facebook’s AI how to monopolize our attention. As a result, Facebook can offer advertisers exceptionally high-quality targeting.

This battle for attention requires constant innovation. In the early days of the internet the industry learned that a user adapts to predictable ad layouts, skipping over them without registering any of the content. There’s a tradeoff when it comes to online ads. Although it is easy to see that the right person is seeing the ad, it is much harder to make sure that the person is paying attention to the ad. The solution to the latter problem is to maximize the time users spend on the platform. If users devote only a small percentage of attention to the ads they see, then they try to monopolize as much of the users’ attention as possible. So Facebook as well as other platforms add new content formats and products to stimulate more engagement. Text was enough at the outset. Next came photos, then mobile. Video is the current frontier. Facebook also introduces new products such as Messenger and, soon, dating. To maximize profits, Facebook and other platforms hide the data on the effectiveness of ads.

Platforms prevent traditional auditing practices by providing less-than-industry-standard visibility. Consequently advertisers say, “I know half my ad spending is wasted; I just don’t know which half. Nevertheless, platform ads work well enough that advertisers generally spend more every year. Search ads on Google offer the clearest payback, but brand ads on other platforms are much harder to measure. But advertisers need to put their message in front of prospective customers, regardless of where they are. When user gravitate from traditional media to the internet, the ad dollars follow them. Platforms do whatever they can to maximize daily users’ time on site.

As is known from psychology and persuasive technology, unpredictable, variable rewards stimulate behavioral addiction. Like buttons, tagging, and notifications trigger social validation loops. So users do not stand a chance. We humans have evolved a common set of responses to certain stimuli that can be exploited by technology. “Flight or fight” is one example. When presented with visual stimuli, such as vivid colors, red is a trigger color—or a vibration agains the skin near our pocket that signals a possible enticing reward, the body responds in predictable ways, such as a faster heartbeat and the release of dopamine are meant to be momentary responses that increase the odds of survival in a life-or-death situation. Too much of this kind of stimulation is bad for all humans, but these effects are especially dangerous in children and adolescents. The first consequences include lower sleep quality, an increase in stress, anxiety, depression, and inability to concentrate, irritability, and insomnia. Some develop a fear of being separated from their phone.
Many users develop problems relating to and interacting with people. Children get hooked on games, texting, Instagram, and Snapchat that change the nature of human experience. Cyberbullying becomes easy over social media because when technology mediates human relationships, the social cues and feedback loops that might normally cause a bully to experience shunning or disgust by their peers are not present.

Adults get locked into filter bubbles. Wikipedia defines filter bubbles as “a state of intellectual isolation that can result from personalized searches when a website algorithms selectively guesses what information a user would like to see.

Brexit

March 30, 2019

This is the third post based on an important book by Roger McNamee titled “Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” The United Kingdom voted to exit the European Union in June 2016. Many posts have been written regarding how Russia used social media, including Facebook, to push Trump in the voting so that he won the Electoral College (but not the popular vote which was won by his opponent by more than 3 million votes).

The Brexit vote came as a total shock. Polling data had suggested that “Remain” would win over “Leave” by about four points. Precisely the opposite happened, and no one could explain the huge swing. A possible explanation occurred to Roger. “What if Leave had benefited from Facebook’s architecture? The Remain campaign was expected to win because the UK had a sweet deal with the European Union: it enjoyed all the benefits of membership, while retaining its own currency. London was Europe’s undisputed financial hub, and UK citizens could trade and travel freely across the open borders of the continent. Remain’s “stay the course” message was based on smart economics but lacked emotion. Leave based its campaign on two intensely emotional appeals. It appealed to ethnic nationalism by blaming immigrants for the country’s problems, both real and imaginary. It also promised that Brexit would generate huge savings that would be used to improve the National Health Service, an idea that allowed voters to put an altruistic shine on an otherwise xenophobic proposal.” So here is an example of Facebook exploiting System 1 processes that was explained in the immediately preceding post.

Roger writes, “The stunning outcome of Brexit triggered a hypothesis: in an election context, Facebook may confer advantages to campaign messages based on fear or anger over those based on neutral or positive emotions. It does this because Facebook’s advertising business model depends on engagement, which can best be triggered through appeals to our most basic emotions. What I did not know at the time is that while joy also works which is why puppy and cat videos and photos of babies are so popular, not everyone reacts the same way to happy content. Some people get jealous, for example. ‘Lizard brain’ emotions such as fear and anger produce a more uniform reaction and are more viral in a mass audience. When users are riled up, they consume and share more content. Dispassionate users have relatively little value to Facebook, which does everything in its power to activate the lizard brain. Facebook has used surveillance to build giant profiles on every user.”

The objective is to give users what they want, but the algorithms are trained to nudge user attention in directions that Facebook wants. These algorithms choose posts calculated to press emotional buttons because scaring users or pissing them off increases time on site. Facebook calls it engagement when users pay attention, but the goal is behavior modification that makes advertising more valuable. At the time the book was written, Facebook is the fourth most valuable company in America, despite being only fifteen years old, and its value stems from its mastery of surveillance and behavioral modification.
So who was using Facebook to manipulate the vote? The answer is Russia. Just as they wanted to elect Trump president. Russia used the Ukraine as a proving ground for their disruptive technology on Facebook. Russia wanted to breakup the EU, of which Great Britain was a prominent part. The French Minister of Foreign Affairs has found that Russia is responsible for 80% of disinformation activity in Europe. One of Russia’s central goals is to break up alliances.

Zucking

March 29, 2019

This is the second post based on an important book by Roger McNamee titled “Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” Roger writes, “Zuck created Facebook to bring the world together.’ What he did not know when he met Zuck, but that he eventually discovered was that Zuck’s idealism was unbuffered by realism or empathy. Zuck seems to have assumed that everyone would view and use Facebook the way he did, not imagining how easily the platform could be exploited to cause harm. He did not believe in data privacy and did everything he could to maximize disclosure and sharing. Roger writes that Zuck operated the company as if every problem could be solved with more or better code. “He embraced invasive surveillance, careless sharing of private data, and behavior modification in pursuit of unprecedented scale and influence. Surveillance, the sharing of user data, and behavioral modification are the foundation of Facebook’s success. Users are fuel for Facebook’s growth and, in some cases, the victims of it.”

The term “behavioral modification” is used here in a different sense than how it is usually meant. Typically behavioral modification is used to modify or eliminate undesirable behaviors, such as smoking. Although sometimes this involves the use of painful stimuli, there are effective techniques that avoid aversive stimuli.

The behavioral modification involved in Zucking can best be understood in terms of Kahneman’s two process view of cognition. The two process view of cognition provides a means of understanding both how we can process information so quickly and why cognition fails and is subject to error. There are several two systems views of cognition, all of which share the same basic ideas. Perhaps the most noteworthy two system view is that of Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahenman.

System 1 is named Intuition. System 1 is very fast, employs parallel processing, and appears to be automatic and effortless. They are so fast that they are executed, for the most part, outside conscious awareness. Emotions and feelings are also part of System 1. Learning is associative and slow. For something to become a System 1 process typically requires much repetition and practice. Activities such as walking, driving, and conversation are primarily System 1 processes. They occur rapidly and with little apparent effort. We would not have survived if we could not do these types of processes rapidly. But this speed of processing is purchased at a cost, the possibility of errors, biases, and illusions.

System 2 is named Reasoning. It is controlled processing that is slow, serial, and effortful. It is also flexible. This is what we commonly think of as conscious thought. One of the roles of System 2 is to monitor System 1 for processing errors, but System 2 is slow and System 1 is fast, so errors to slip through.

Zuck’s behavioral modification involves System 1 processing almost exclusively. System 1 is largely emotional and involves little, if any thinking. “Likes” are largely emotional responses. People like something because it is something they agree with and invokes a favorable emotional response. Similarly, when someone accesses a site, it is most likely a site that they like and have a favorable response.

Facebook collects the data to send users to sites that they like and are interested in. Most of this processing occurs at a non conscious level so users are not conscious that they are being manipulated. But they are being manipulated which can lead to poor decisions. Moreover, they are directed to like-minded individuals, so there is minimal chance that they will know about different opinions and different ideas.

This behavior that is being modified is all beneficial to Facebook. Facebook wants to keep users on Facebook as long as possible. This results in increased ad revenues for Facebook. The critical resource here is attention. And Facebook’s procedures are extremely effective at capturing and keeping attention.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Zucked

March 28, 2019

The title of this post is the first part of a title of an important book by Roger McNamee. The remainder of the title is “Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” Roger McNamee is a longtime tech investor and tech evangelist. He was an early advisor to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. To his friends Zuckerberg is known as “Zuck.” McNamee was an early investor in Facebook and he still owns shares.

The prologue begins with a statement made by Roger to Dan Rose, the head of media partnerships at Facebook on November 9, 2016, “The Russians used Facebook to tip the election!” One day early in 2016 he started to see things happening on Facebook that did not look right. He started pulling on that thread and uncovered a catastrophe. In the beginning, he assumed that Facebook was a victim and he just wanted to warn friends. What he learned in the months that followed shocked and disappointed him. He learned that his faith in Facebook had been misplaced.

This book is about how Roger became convinced that even though Facebook provided a compelling experience for most of its users, it was terrible for America and needed to change or be changed, and what Roger tried to do about it. This book will cover what Roger knows about the technology that enables internet platforms like Facebook to manipulate attention. He explains how bad actors exploit the design of Facebook and other platforms to harm and even kill innocent people. He explains how democracy has been undermined because of the design choices and business decisions by controllers of internet platforms that deny responsibility for the consequences of their actions. He explains how the culture of these companies cause employees to be indifferent to the negative side effects of their success. At the time the book was written, there was nothing to prevent more of the same.

Roger writes that this is a story about trust. Facebook and Google as well as other technology platforms are the beneficiaries of trust and goodwill accumulated over fifty years of earlier generations of technology companies. But they have taken advantage of this trust, using sophisticated techniques to prey on the weakest aspects of human psychology, to gather and exploit private data, and to craft business models that do not protect users from harm. Now users must learn to be skeptical about the products they love, to change their online behavior, insist that platforms accept responsibility for the impact of their choices, and push policy makers to regulate the platforms to protect the public interest.

Roger writes, “It is possible that the worst damage from Facebook and the other internet platforms is behind us, but that is not where the smart money will place its bet. The most likely case is that technology and the business model of Facebook and others will continue to undermine democracy, public health, privacy, and innovations until a countervailing power, in the form of government intervention or user protest, forces change.

Free Exchange | Replacebook

March 27, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of a piece in the Finance & Economics section of the 16 February 2019 issue of “The Economist.” The article notes, “There has never been such an agglomeration of humanity as Facebook. Some 2.3bn people, 30% of the world’s population engage with the network each month.” It describes an experiment in which researchers kicked a sample of people off Facebook and observed the results.

In January, Hunt Allcott, of New York University, and Luca Braghiere, Sarah Eichmeyer and and Matthew Gentzkow, of Stanford University, published results of the largest such experiment yet. They recruited several thousand Facebookers and sorted them into control and treatment groups. Members of the treatment group were asked to deactivate their Facebook profiles for four weeks in late 2018. The researchers checked up on their volunteers to make sure they stayed off the social network, and then studied the results.

On average, those booted off enjoyed an additional hour of free time. They tended not to redistribute their liberated minutes to other websites and social networks, but instead watched more television and spent time with friends and family. They consumed much less news, and were consequently less aware of events but also less polarized in their views about them than those still on the network. Leaving Facebook boosted self-reported happiness and reduced feelings of depression and anxiety.

Several weeks after the deactivation period, those who had been off Facebook spent 23% less time on it than those who never left, and 5% of the forced leavers had yet to turn their accounts back on. And the amount of money subjects were willing to accept to shut off their accounts for another four weeks was 13% lower after the month off than it had been before.

In previous posts HM has made the point that our attentional resources are limited, and that they should not be wasted. HM has also recommended quitting Facebook and similar accounts. Of course, this is a personal question regarding how each of us uses πour attentional resources. They key point is to be cognizant that our precious attentional resources are limited and to spend them wisely and not waste them.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

We Need to Take Tech Addiction Seriously

March 26, 2019

The title of this post is the same as an article by psychologist Doreen Dodgen-Magee in the 19 March 2019 issue of the Washington Post. The World Health Organization has recognized Internet gaming as a diagnosable addiction. Dr. Dodgen-Magee argues that psychologists and other mental-health professionals must begin to acknowledge that technology use has the potential to become addictive and impact individuals and communities. Sometime the consequences are dire.

She writes that the research is clear, that Americans spend most of their waking hours interacting with screens. Studies from a nonprofit group Common Sense Media indicate that U.S. teens average approximately nine hours per day with digital media, tweens spend six hours and our youngest, ages zero to 8, spend 2.5 hours daily in front of a screen. According to research by the Nielsen Company, the average adult in the United States spends more than 11 hours a day in the digital world. Dr. Dodgen-Magee claims that when people invest this kind of time in any activity, we must at least start to ask what it means for their mental health.

Both correlational and causal relationships have been established between tech use and various mental-health conditions. Research at the University of Pittsburgh found higher rates of depression and anxiety among young adults who engage many social media platforms than those who engage only two. Jean Twenge found that the psychological development of adolescents is slowing down and depression, anxiety and loneliness, which she attributes to tech engagement are on the rise. Multitasking, a behavior that technology encourages and reinforces is consistently correlated with poor cognitive and mental-health outcomes. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have published the first experimental data linking decreased well-being to Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram use in young adults. Dr. Dodgen-Magee concludes that our technology use is affecting our psychological functioning.

The author has been examining the interplay between technology and mental health for close to two decades. She finds that while technology can do incredible things for us in nearly every area of life, it is neither all good nor benign.

The author writes that when the mental-health community resists fully exploring the costs associated with constant tech interaction, it leaves those struggling with compulsive or potentially harmful use of their devices few places to turn. She continues that recently a woman scheduled a consultation with her because she was concerned about her inability to focus. She was a self-described Type A personality who found herself simultaneously interacting with three or four screens for nearly 20 hours a day, determined to stay on top of every demand. When it came time for her biannual revision of an important procedural manual, she couldn’t focus on the single tasks for the time to do it effectively. She is not the only individual with this problem.

She writes that consequently our attention spans are short. Our ability to focus on one task at a time is impaired. And our boredom tolerance is nil. People now rely on the same devices that drive so much of our anxiety and alienation for both stimulation and soothing. While, for many people, these changes will never move into the domain of addiction, for others they already have. In a recent Common Sense Media poll, 50% of adolescents reported already feeling that their use had become addictive and 27% of parents reported the same.

She writes, “If Americans were interacting with anything else for 11-plus hours a day, I feel confident we’d be talking more about how that interaction shapes us. Mental-health professionals must begin to educate themselves about the digital pools in which their clients swim and learn about the impact of excessive technology use on human development and functioning. It is too easy for therapists to assume that everyone’s engagement with the digital domain looks just their own and to go merrily from there. We would serve our client well by understanding the unique way in which many platforms encourage addictive pattens and behaviors. We should also create non-shaming environments in which they can candidly explore how their tech use impacts them.

It’s time to put our phones down and begin an informed conversation about how technology is impacting our mental health. Our clients’ health and the well-being of our communities may depend on it.”

Trump vs. a Buddhist Monk

March 25, 2019

What does this title mean? What are the criteria for comparing Donald Trump to a Buddhist Monk? In terms of financial wealth there is certainly no comparison. In terms of power there is no comparison. But what about happiness and personal satisfaction?

Previous posts have suggested that Trump suffers from the psychotic condition known as delusional order. In other words, he lives in his own reality and ignores objective truth. And whenever he confronts objective reality that he does not like, he lashes out. So if someone does something that displeases him, he lashes out with personal insults. Whenever he encounters news or someone says something that threatens his personal reality, he denies it. So he claims that there is false news and that the investigations involving him are witch hunts.

Now consider the Buddhist monk. He lives humbly and eats a small, healthy diet. He spends his time meditating, praying, and providing helpful services to his fellow humans. He tries to love all his fellow humans, even those who are obvious enemies who would want to hurt him. He works to control his thoughts and emotions. Through this he achieves peace within himself and good feelings towards his fellow humans.

Although it might not be immediately apparent, the Buddhist Monk is living a happier and more fulfilling life than Trump. Trump’s objectives are to keep acquiring personal wealth, which is a matter of ego satisfaction. This a never ending quest to win every encounter, which is impossible. Trump has no empathy towards his fellow humans. Even his charity was a scam to benefit him.

It is almost a virtual certainty that physical examinations would reveal that the monk is healthier than Trump, and that a psychological examination would reveal that the monk is happier and leads a more fulfilling life than Trump (Trump being the nominal leader of the United States notwithstanding).

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Living with the Modes

March 24, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of the final chapter in book by Stephen Kosslyn and G. Wayne Miller titled “Top Brain, Bottom Brain.” The subtitle is “Harnessing the Power of the Four Cognitive Modes.” This chapter contains some key points.

You might notice that you typically operate in one mode for short-term interactions and another for long-term interactions. It might make sense to operate in Adaptor Mode for immediate problems or social interactions, and in Mover Mode, when dealing with long-term problems or social interactions. Or one might find that different circumstances indicate different modes. For example, a person comfortable with Mover Mode at work may be most comfortable in Adaptor Mode at home, and a person who typically operates in Stimulator Mode with friends may find that Perceiver Mode works better with a mate.

It is also important to realize that the fact of operating in a particular mode does not guarantee that you will be effective in it. Effectiveness depends, in part, on how much you know about the relevant material (and hence how well you can classify and interpret the situation using your bottom brain) and how well you can formulate and carry out plans (and hence how well you can respond to an anticipate unfolding events, using your top brain—relying in part on information from your bottom brain).

At a minimum it is hoped that these Top Brain, Bottom Brain posts will provide some personal insights, and that it will help in interacting with others in different situations and in forming groups and teams. Of course, these posts cannot do justice to the book that they are drawn from, so please read the book by Kosslyn and Miller should this topic peak your interests.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

March 23, 2019

This is the seventh post in series of post based on a book by Stephen Kosslyn and G. Wayne Miller titled “Top Brain, Bottom Brain.” The subtitle is “Harnessing the Power of the Four Cognitive Modes.” The MBTI is the bane of most psychologists. Once people know that you are a psychologist, it is not unlikely that they will expound on the marvels of the MBTI. Moreover, it is used in some Intelligence Agencies. According to one estimate, about 2.5 million people a year take the test. So HM never resists the opportunity to set people straight on the MBTI.

The MBTI is scored on four dichotomous dimensions:

Extraversion vs. Introversion, which focuses on what sort of activities energize a person: Extraverts draw energy from interacting with others and are dampened down when they spend a lot of time alone; the opposite is true for introverts.

Sensing versus Intuition, which focuses on what a person prefers to pay attention to: Sensing types are very concrete, preferring factual material that is predigested and handed to them instead of material that requires them to abstract and organize meaning to distill underlying principles; the opposite is true for intuitive types.

Thinking versus Feeling, which focuses on decision-making preferences: Thinking types are logical, systematic and relatively detached when making decisions; feeling types are more inclined to rely on emotional considerations and to strive for overall “harmony.”

Judging versus Perception, which focuses on preferences for how to act in the world at large: Judging types like to plan and organize; perceiving types prefer to be open to new possibilities as they arise.

On the face of it these dimensions seem reasonable, and it is clear why this test has intuitive appeal.

But

The test was not developed by psychologists, statisticians, or any type of professional. Katherine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myer Briggs began to develop this test during WW2 as a tool to help women discover which wartime jobs would be most comfortable and appropriate for them. The test MBTI was the tool. Here are the problems:

It is not based on science; instead, it largely grew out of Jung’s theory of psychoanalysis, which he formulated on the basis of intuition and clinical observations.

Some of the assumptions that underlie the test appear to be contradicted by scientific findings. For example, the MBTI is scored as if “intuition” is distinct from “feeling”—but much evidence now indicates that emotion often underlies hunches.

When items are analyzed so that the underlying factors can be discovered, the results do not correspond to the four dimensions posited by the theory.

When scores are analyzed, they do not cluster around the middle of the dimensions.

in spite of the fact that the test developers stressed that their test is designed to assess preference and not abilities, researchers have examined whether scores predict performance—and they do not consistently do so. Moreover, when they do predict performance, this may be a consequence of the correlation between the MBTI scores and other measures.

Numerous researchers have found that the test has poor reliability. Test takers often get a different score when they take the test a second time.

In addition to the MBTI the authors of “Top Brain, Bottom Brain” also debunk a view of personality that focuses on the anatomical distinctions between the left and right halves of the brain. Although there are differences, under normal circumstance the two halves do interact, and way too much has be made of this theory.

Social Prosthetic Systems

March 22, 2019

This is the sixth post in series of posts based on a book by Stephen Kosslyn and G. Wayne Miller titled “Top Brain, Bottom Brain.” The subtitle is “Harnessing the Power of the Four Cognitive Modes.” When we don’t have the ability or skill to do something we need to do, we should turn to someone (or something) else for help. Sometimes there is a reluctance to ask for help. The authors recommendation is to overcome a reluctance to ask for help. Then the question is to whom, exactly, should we reach out to. The answers can be found in the principles of what the authors call social prosthetic systems, a name coined by drawing an analogy to physical prosthetic systems. Should we lose a leg, we would rely on a prosthesis to walk. The prosthesis makes up for shortcomings allowing one either to accomplish a task or to better accomplish a task or achieve an objective. Whenever we use a calculator we are using a cognitive prosthesis.

The authors note that the Internet has evolved into what can be called the mother of all cognitive prosthesis—the place many of us turn, typically via Google and other search engines to find facts, directions, images, translations, calendars, and more. We store personal data and cherished memories in the cloud, from which they can easily be retrieved. James Gleick, author of “The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood”, calls the many billions of pages that constitute the Internet “the global prosthetic brain.”

The authors note that this statement is not quite correct. The Internet is a vast memory, but less useful as a tool of reasoning—especially when emotion is involved. Despite its informational power, the Internet is of limited use when we need wise advice to help us navigate a thorny situation. The main cognitive prosthesis we rely on for such help is not software or machines, but other people: individuals who can help us extend our intelligence and discover and regulate our emotions. In the lingo of the healthy memory blog, these social prosthetic systems are part of Transactive Memory. There is an entire category of posts labeled Transactive Memory. Transactive Memory is memory that cannot be accessed directly from our brains. Paper, technology, and our fellow humans constitute Transactive Memory. So these Social Prosthetic Systems are part of Transactive Memory.

As the senior author defined it in his first paper on the idea, social prosthetic systems are “human relationships that extend one’s emotional or cognitive capacities. In such systems, other people serve as prosthetic devices, filling in shortcomings in an individual’s cognitive or emotional abilities.” The authors note that with the possible exception of a committed hermit, every person belongs to one or more of these systems.

The authors present an example of our being in an emotionally fraught situation—on the verge of breaking up with a spouse or partner. “Your partner complains that you work too much, and you feel trapped between the requirements of your job and your desire to maintain the relationship. You would probably not want to seek the counsel of someone who typically operates in Stimulator or Adaptor mode. A person operating in Stimulator Mode might simply offer a knee-jerk reaction, perhaps giving you the first idea that springs to mind (“Maybe you just need to explain why your job is so important to you”) and a person operating in Adaptor Mode might try to minimize the issue (“Life has its ups and downs—if you wait awhile this will probably get better”). So that would leave you with the choice of counsel from someone who typically operates in Mover Move or Perceiver Mode. And that choice would depend in part on your goals for the outcome. If you wanted strategic help on how to handle the situation, the theory suggests the person in Mover Mode would be the most appropriate (perhaps suggesting ways to achieve more work/life balance by avoiding work on weekends). But if you wanted reflection on how you were actually feeling, and on what you wanted and needed, the person who typically operates in Perceiver Mode might be more helpful (listening as you try to sort out why you feel so torn). Putting this together, you might want to seek counsel from two separate people to garner the benefits of both kinds of input. Thus informed, you could more wisely make decisions.

Personal Examples of the Adaptor Mode

March 21, 2019

This is the fifth post in series of post based on a book by Stephen Kosslyn and G. Wayne Miller titled “Top Brain, Bottom Brain.” The subtitle is “Harnessing the Power of the Four Cognitive Modes.” Elizabeth Taylor was a consummate actress who was highly successful as an actress. But when it came to personal relationships, she behaved as if she regularly operated in the Adaptor Mode.

When Taylor was eighteen, she married Conrad Hilton, Jr. He had a reputation as an obnoxious and abusive drunk. He was given to extreme mood shifts and was a notorious womanizer. Taylor married Hilton in 1950 and in January 1951, less than one year later, he became Taylor’s ex-husband number one.

After dating several men, in 1952 Taylor married Michael Wilding, an English actor who had been married before and was subject to dramatic shifts of mood. They had two children, but she quickly grew dissatisfied with him and began seeing other men, one of whom was Michael Todd, who had been married twice and whose volatile temper was legendary. He was killed in a plane crash before they had a chance to marry. Eddie Fisher was her next husband whom she married in 1959. On the set of the movie Cleopatra, released in 1963, Taylor became involved with Richard Burton. Burton was an alcoholic, philanderer, and abuser—the worst qualities of Taylor’s previous husbands. They married in 1964. By 1973, Taylor had had enough. She separated from Burton and they divorced the next year. In October 1975 they got back together and walked down the aisle again. In 1976 Taylor left Burton for the last time. She had two more marriages. both of which ended in divorce, and what the authors say was a degree of happiness—though not necessarily late-life wisdom.
One can regard Taylor as an excessive adaptor.

Thus far all personal examples of the modes are of famous people. In the absence of further examples of adaptors the authors created a character named Nick: a man in his late twenties they designed to illustrate what it means to think and act in the Adaptor Mode.

On the way to work,when he becomes stuck in traffic he relaxes and listens to his iPod. He doesn’t think to call his foreman to let him know that he’s stuck in traffic. His bottom brain does not lead him to see the broader implications of his current situation (its effects on other people such as his foreman), nor does he take advantage of the time to use his top brain to make plans about things that really matter to him. The authors write, “Instead the immediate situation is driving his agenda, as we expect is typical of people who are operating in Adaptor Mode. His top brain is not formulating complex or detailed plans that would guide his thought or behavior; instead, he waits for external guidance about what to do next.”

At work his foreman gives him a special assignment, he wants him to take a new apprentice under his wing. Nick knows what this will entail babysitting. There are plenty of other electricians with more experience who could handle the job. The authors note that the foreman has not asked Nick; he’s ordered him, and although Nick might win the battle if he pushed back hard (the foreman values him as one of the best workers), he decides it’s not worth it. He reasons that the order is not totally unreasonable, good relations with the boss count for a lot.

Nick is agreeable and usually does what the other person wants rather than what he would like to do. His childhood dream was to become a firefighter. He could enroll in an EMT course, join a volunteer fire company, or apply for the fire academy. This would be difficult, but he could probably manage while still keeping his day job and remaining a good dad.

But pursuing his old dream required detailed, long-range planning. Right now, it seems too much to undertake. Overall, life is pretty good as it is. Why rock the boat?

This section ends as follows: “Being in Adaptor Mode has some clear advantages. When you relax, you really relax—you don’t fret about the future or obsess about the past. Moreover, because you very likely are easy to get along with in this mode, other people often enjoy your company. The downside, according to our theory, is that you can be buffeted by the world around you—and that can be detrimental. As psychologists showed long ago, animals that have some control over their environment experience less stress (and fewer ulcers) than animals that are always on the receiving end, having no such control.”

If you have not tested yourself to see if you are classified in the Adapter Mode, go to the the first post in this series “Top Brain, Bottom Brain.”

Personal Examples of Stimulator Mode

March 20, 2019

This is the fourth post in the series of posts based on a book by Stephen Kosslyn and G. Wayne Miller titled “Top Brain, Bottom Brain.” The subtitle is “Harnessing the Power of the Four Cognitive Modes.” During the Vietnam War Abbie Hoffman was the Cofounder of the Youth International Party (Yippies). Hoffman organized marches, sit-ins, and demonstrations and by October 1967 was deeply involved in planning two days of actions at the Lincoln Memorial and outside the Pentagon. Preparations included obtaining a permit, which set a limit of 32 hours for the demonstrations. By the time that deadline arrived, organizers had achieved their primary objective, national coverage of their cause. Many began to leave, but Hoffman and others stayed on into a second morning—and were arrested. The authors note that this was pointless as the protest had already succeeded, and counterproductive for Hoffman, whose time would have been better spent planning the next action, not trying to free himself from the criminal justice system. The authors write, “With his long and intensive involvement in protests, Hoffman had repeatedly experienced the potential consequences—but he behaved like someone who did not engage in bottom-brain thinking as deeply as he should have.”

In 1968 Hoffman played a major role in planning demonstrations using his top brain. In the weeks leading up to the Democratic national convention Hoffman oversaw production of tens of thousands of leaflets, posters, and buttons urging antiwar protestors to join him in Chicago for the convention. He helped coordinate news coverage. He reached out to speakers and musicians and he presided over weekly meetings.

His work paid off: Thousands were on hand that August 28, when the Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey as their presidential candidate. With the world’s journalists present, Hoffman had his biggest platform yet and a chance to make a powerful statement. But he did not think of the consequences for writing the F-word in lipstick on his forehead when he dressed that morning. But the consequence was one that many would predict. Police arrested him for thirteen hours. Hoffman missed the demonstration that would become one of the iconic protests of the 1960s, and he stood trial as one of the Chicago Seven, which was a long court ordeal that effectively removed him from the leadership of the movement.

When he emerged from hiding as a fugitive he wrote, “It’s mind boggling, but being a fugitive I’ve seen the way normal people live and it’s made me realize just how wrong I was in the past. I’ve grown up too. You know how it is when you’re young and not in control. I’d like to go back to school and learn how to be a credit to the community…Age takes its toll but it teaches wisdom.” The authors conclude, “In his later years, Hoffman showed signs of having developed the ability to think in Perceiver Mode at least some of the time.”

The authors write, “What better contemporary example could we use to illustrate the characteristics of operating in the Stimulator mode than Sarah Palin, onetime vice presidential candidate, former governor of Alaska, and continuing presence in American culture?” Palin moves through life, formulating and carrying out plans. But it appears that, like Hoffman, she often does not adequately register the consequences and adjust her plans accordingly. As a vice-presidential candidate she presented a folksy, budget-cutting fiscal conservative and demanded instant attention. Voters who were wary of politicians who waste taxpayer dollars applauded this governor who had pared Alaskan state construction spending, sold the the gubernatorial debt, and refused to be reimbursed for her hotel stays.

However during the campaign, she and her family accepted $150,00 worth of designer outfits and accessories from Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Bloomingdale’s. She indulged in an expensive makeup consultation—a spending spree that stood in stark contrast to her image as a Kmart-shopping mom.

In March 2010 she posted on her Facebook page pictures of gun crosshairs that “targeted” Democratic members of Congress for defeat. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was one on whom she had place gun crosshairs. On 8 January Rep. Giffords was tragically shot and seriously injured. She is still recovering from her injuries. Palin is one of the favorite targets for the satire of the Capitol Steps.

If you have not tested yourself to see if you are classified in the Stimulator Mode, go to the the first post in this series “Top Brain, Bottom Brain.”

Personal Examples of Perceiver Mode

March 19, 2019

This is the third post in series of posts based on a book by Stephen Kosslyn and G. Wayne Miller titled “Top Brain, Bottom Brain.” The subtitle is “Harnessing the Power of the Four Cognitive Modes.” The chapter begins, “The nineteenth century poet Emily Dickinson illustrates well the characteristics of operating in Perceiver Mode—the mode of thinking and behaving in which people deeply engage in observing and analyzing their surroundings and circumstances (using the bottom brain) but tend not implement complex or detailed plans (using the top brain). She lived day to day with no career ambitions, sometime entertaining friends, but mostly reading and writing poems that she made little effort to have published.

She was a devoted gardener, and she loved her time with flowers, bees, and butterflies, from which she drew insights that informed her poetry. She wrote poems about the brain. This is poem number 632, she did not title her works.

The Brain—is wider than the Sky—
For—put them side by side—
The one the other will contain
With ease—and You—beside—

The Brain is deeper than the sea—
For—hold them—Blue to Blue—
The one the other will absorb—
As Sponges—Buckets—do—

Science was not Dickinson’s abiding passion. She found her greatest themes observing nature, in the changes of season and day, in the cycles of life and death. This would characterize someone for whom the Perceiver Mode was the typical way of thinking and behaving. Of the hundreds of poems Dickinson wrote about the natural world, the authors found the following poem one that nicely captures both her talent and her wisdom, presumably gleaned through deep utilization of her bottom brain.

Nay—Nature is heaven—
Nature is what we hear—
The Bobolink—the Seas—
Thunder—the Cricket—
Nature is what we know—
Yet have no art to say—
So impotent Our Wisdom is—
To her simplicity.

The authors write, “If the Theory of Cognitive Modes is correct, then people who typically think and behave in Perceiver Mode will not ordinarily seek publicity. Still, some have achieved prominence without aggressively seeking it. History has shown that spiritual and religious figures who have helped make sense of human existence can attract large followings. Although they do not engage in self-serving campaigns, their ideas compel others.

The Dalai Lama fits that description (There are thirty-one healthy memory posts on the Dalai Lama).

The authors write, “One could argue that a person who typically thinks in Perceiver Mode is better suited to bringing a deeper perspective to human existence than is usually offered by someone who generally thinks in one of the other three modes.”

The Dalai Lama writes in “Compassion and the Individual”:
“It is possible to divide every kind of happiness and suffering into two main categories: mental and physical. Of the two, it is the mind that exerts the greatest influence on most of us. Unless we are either gravely ill or deprived of basic necessities, our physical condition plays a secondary role in life. If the body is content, we virtually ignore it, The mind, however, registers every event, no matter how small. Hence we should devote most of out serious efforts to bringing about mental peace.

From my own limited experience, I have found that the greatest degree of inner tranquility comes from the development of love and compassion. The more we care for the happiness of others, the greater our own sense of well-being becomes.”

If you have not tested yourself to see if you are classified in the Perceiver Mode, go to the the first post in this series “Top Brain, Bottom Brain.”

Personal Examples of the Mover Mode

March 18, 2019

This is the second post in series of posts based on a book by Stephen Kosslyn and G. Wayne Miller titled “Top Brain, Bottom Brain.” The subtitle is “Harnessing the Power of the Four Cognitive Modes.”

On June 6, 2001 Michael Bloomberg announced the he would run for Mayor of New York city. He had no political pedigree. He had built Bloomberg LP, a media and financial giant, and was a billionaire. He had a comfortable life, prestige, and was well situated. Why would he run for mayor with all the attendant problems that go with public office? It appears that he was disposed in this context to think in Mover Mode. Given his business success, this certainly was nothing new for him. Remember that the mover mode is the mode of thinking and behaving in which people formulate and implement plans (using the top brain) and note the consequences of doing so (using the bottom brain), and adjust their plans accordingly. The authors write, “From his modest childhood in a suburb off Boston, Bloomberg consistently demonstrated such behavior: achieving Eagle Scout status as a young teen; excelling as an undergraduate at Johns Hopkins University; performing well as a student at Harvard Business School; and standing out during his early years in business, as a trader at Solomon Brothers.”

The authors continue, “We can conjecture that Bloomberg learned not just from his successes but also from his setbacks. Caught in the brutal cross fire of a leadership war inside Solomon Brothers, he was demoted after thirteen years to the tech support department—a humiliating fall from grace. But Bloomberg did not withdraw into self-pity (people in Mover Mode typically are not easily discouraged). Instead, he dedicated himself to a new challenge, the then frontier of financial computing. It was that experience that led him in 1981, to found Bloomberg LP—the company that revolutionized the delivery of financial information.

His next challenge was to consider running for the Presidency of the United States.

The Wright brothers, Wilbur and Orville, provide additional examples of people operating in the mover mode. Almost everyone knows that they developed and flew the first powered controlled heavier than air flight. What is less known is that these two brothers from Dayton, Ohio, achieved their breakthrough without benefit of a high school education or formal training of any kind.

Their father stimulated their fascination with flight when he gave them a toy helicopter, based on a design by a French aeronautical pioneer. It was constructed of cork, bamboo, and paper and was powered by a twisted rubber band. They played with it until it broke, but were unfazed when it did. They began building their own helicopters, improving each successive model with the knowledge gleaned from the previous ones. Although they were still in grammar school, the boys already exhibited behaviors characteristic of Mover Mode thinking. They embraced challenges and were not deterred by failure. Failures were not ends but valuable lessons in the progression to success.
After stints as self-taught printers, newspapermen, and repairers and builders of bicycles, they took on the challenge of powered flight. They believed, along with the German inventor Otto Lilienthal that the monumental hurdle was control, and not power. So their early work focused on gliders, specifically how to steer and bank them.

So the Wright brothers initially flew unmanned gliders. They continued their work with gliders. When 1902 drew to a close, the were ready to add a motor. The authors write, “You can see a pattern here: The brothers consistently devised and implemented plans (top brain), adjusting those plans on perceived outcomes (bottom brain)—these are typical Mover Mode behaviors.

Orville wrote, “The first flight lasted only about 12 seconds, but it was nevertheless the first in the history of the world in which a machine carrying a man had raised itself by it own power into the air in full flight, had sailed forward with a reduction of speed, and had finally landed at a point as high as that from which it had started” This was the humble beginning of aviation. We can all see how far we have gone.

If you have not tested yourself to see if you are classified in the Mover Mode, go to the immediately preceding post “Top Brain, Bottom Brain.”

Top Brain, Bottom Brain

March 17, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of a book by Stephen Kosslyn and G. Wayne Miller. The subtitle is “Harnessing the Power of the Four Cognitive Modes.” This book presents a new and useful way of thinking about our brains, that can not only increase how effectively we use our brains, but can also help us get along better with others.

The Theory of Cognitive Modes is built on conclusions arising from decades of research that have remained inside scientific circles. To the knowledge of the authors this book is the first time that these findings have been systematically brought to a mainstream audience.

The theory is built on three fundamental ideas:

The first is that the top part and the bottom part of the brain do different jobs. The top brain formulates plans and puts them into motion, and the bottom brain classifies and interprets incoming information about the world. For example, the bottom brain allows you to recognize a friend you see across the room and realize that she might be able to give you good advice about a problem at work; the top brain formulates one plan to walk over and another plan about how to broach the topic.

The second fundamental idea is that the two parts of the brain always work together; the top brain uses information from the bottom brain to formulate its plans (and to reformulate them as they unfold over time). The two parts of the brain are a single system.

The third idea is that different people may rely to greater or lesser extents on the two parts of the brain. Some tend to use both parts deeply, some favor the bottom brain, some favor the top brain, and some don’t typically lean too hard on either part.

The different ways that people rely on the two parts of the brain define four basic cognitive modes: general ways of thinking that underlie how a person approaches the world and interacts with other people. Each of us has a typical cognitive mode, which affects how we relate to others and how we deal with situations we encounter.

The theory has four cognitive modes:
The mover mode has a deeply utilized bottom and a deeply utilized top.
The perceiver mode has a deeply utilized bottom and a minimally utilized top.
The stimulator mode has a deeply utilized top and a minimally utilized bottom.
The adaptor mode has a minimally utilized bottom and a minimally utilized top.

A test follows that allows you to understand where you fall on these dimensions.

Twenty statements will follow which you use to rate yourself on a 5 point scale where 1 is disagree and 5 is agree.

When I look at a garden, I usually notice the patterns of plantings.
If I like a piece of furniture, I want to know exactly where it will fit in my home before I buy it.
I prefer to make plans about what to do before I jump into a situation.
In a museum, I like to classify paintings according to their style.
I try to examine items in a store very carefully.
I like to assemble all the necessary tools before I begin a project.
I prefer to call ahead to a hotel if I may not get there until late in the day.
As a rule, I try to react appropriately to my environment.
I like to examine the surfaces of objects in detail.
When I first turn on the TV, I like to identify specific people on the screen
I effortlessly note the types of dogs that I see.
I like to think about what to expect after I make a decision.
I like to look at people’s faces and try to classify where their ancestors came from.
I think of myself as someone who plans ahead.
Before I buy a new shirt, I think about whether it will go with my other clothes.
When I hear music, I like to identify different instruments.
I take the time to appreciate paintings when I go to an art exhibition.
I enjoy making plans.
In the morning, I often think hard about what I’ll need to do that day.
I prefer to examine objects closely enough to see how color changes on their surfaces.

To get your score:
Add up your ratings for items 2,3,6,7,8,12,14,15,18, and 19.
This is your top brain score.
Then add your ratings for items 1,4,5,9,10,11,13,16,17, and 20. This is your bottom brain score.

Summary of top brain scores
47 or higher Very strong tendency to use top-brain processing deeply.
38-46 Tendency to use top-brain processing deeply
Ave 37.5
28-37 Tendency not to use top-brain processing deeply
27 or less Very strong tendency not to use top-brain processing deeply

Summary of bottom brain processing

43 or higher Very strong tendency to use bottom-brain processing deeply
34-42 Tendency to use bottom-brain processing deeply
Ave 33.5
24-43 Tendency not to use bottom-brain processing deeply
23 or less Very strong tendency not to se bottom-brain processing deeply

Summary of the Four Processing Modes

Mover Mode. According to the theory, you often operate in Mover Mode if you scored over the average for both top and bottom-brain processing.

Perceiver Mode. You often operate in Perceiver Mode if you scored over the mean for bottom-brain processing, but at or below the mean for top-brain processing

Stimulator Mode. You often rely on Stimulator Mode if you scored over the mean for top-brain processing, but at or below the mean for bottom-brain processing.

Adaptor Mode. You often operate in Adaptor Mode if you scored at or below the mean for both top-brain and bottom-brain processing.

Specific examples will be provided for each mode in the following four posts. Then the concluding posts will elaborate further on this concept.

Good Advice from the Danes

March 15, 2019

This post is based on an article in the Washington Post by Marie Helweg-Larsen titled (in the electronic version) “Angry? Worried? Stressed Out? Just say ‘pyt” Danes are regarded as being among the happiest people in the world. The article notes that they also happen to have a lot of cool words for ways to be happy.

One is “hygge,” which is often mistranslated to mean “cozy,” but it really describes the process of creating intimacy. But the word “pyt” was recently voted the most popular word by the Danes. Pyt does not have an exact English translation. It’s more a cultural concept about cultivating healthy thoughts to deal with stress.

Pyt sounds something like “pid.” It is usually expressed as an interaction in reaction to a daily hassle, frustration, or mistake. It most closely translates to the English sayings, “Don’t worry about it,” “stuff happens” or “oh, well.”

If you break a glass in the kitchen, you would just shrug and say, “pyt.” If you see a parking ticket lodged under your windshield wiper and, as you become hot with anger, just shake your head and murmur, “pyt.”

It’s benefit comes from accepting and resettling. It provides a reminder to step back and refocus rather than overreact. Instead of assigning blame, it’s a way to let go and move on.

The author, who is a Danish psychologist writes, “ You might say “pyt” in response to something your did—“pyt, that was a dumb thing to say”—or to support another person—“pyt with that, don’t fret about your co-worker’s insensitivity.”

Pyt can reduce stress because it is a sincere attempt to encourage yourself and others to not get bogged down by minor daily frustrations. One Danish business leader has suggested that knowing when to say “pyt” at work can lead to more job satisfaction.”

The author notes that there’s a rich strain of psychological research devoted to understanding how we interpret and react to other people’s actions.

Study after study show that we are happier and live longer when we have fewer daily hassles. And in some cases, what constitutes a hassle might be tied to how we interpret what’s happening around us.

Pyt can also help people avoid the tendency to blame others. Say you’re late to an appointment and there’s a person in front of you who’s driving slowly. This can feel irrationally personal.

However, research shows that we get angrier when we explain someone’s behavior by pointing to their incompetence, intentionality, or poor character.

If you say “pyt,” you’re deducing that it’s not worth letting someone else’s actions, which are out of your control, bother you; It’s “water off a duck’s back.” You can also see other strategies, such as thinking about situational constraints—maybe the driver was ill—or considering whether this will be an issue in two hours, two days, or two weeks.

Of course, ‘pyt’ should not be said in response to being seriously wrong. Nor should it be used when you ought to take responsibility, nor should it be used as an excuse for inaction.

Danes who teach positive psychology have also written about how applying pyt to too many aspects of our life isn’t healthy, especially if they concern your core needs or values.

Other activities, such as walking in nature, doing yoga or meditation, exercising, keeping a journal, or engaging in creative work, can also facilitate letting go

And you can also get a pyt button. Danish teachers use pyt buttons to teach students how to let go. Teachers find that it can help children cope with smaller frustrations such as losing a game, or losing a pencil. It teaches children that everything can’t be perfect.

These are important skills. Research shows that perfectionism is related to worry and depression, whereas self-compassion and social support can help prevent perfectionism from leading to negative outcomes.

The pyt button has become popular recently among Danish adults. They can either make one at home or buy one that, when pressed, says “pyt pyt pyt” and “breathe deeply, it will all be okay” in Danish.

Enter “pyt button” in your browser search block to find where to get your own pet button.

Another factor contributing to the Danes being among the happiest people of the world is that they have government provided healthcare. Moreover, the costs of this healthcare is less than US costs, and the care that the Danes receive is better than the US. Of course, this is true of every advanced country other than the US. It is like these other countries are wearing shoes and the US is still barefoot.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Some Thoughts About Donald Trump

March 14, 2019

If you’ve read the preceding posts about emotional intelligence based on Daniel Goleman’s book, you’ve already read some hints that Trump’s behavior might be governed in some part by deficiencies in his brain. Trump does not behave like a president, and he is an embarrassment to the United States. When HM and his wife go on a cruise, they try to pass as Canadians. Trump behaves like a schoolyard bully. He uses degrading nicknames and fires back at whatever he regards as an insult or a failure to pay him proper respect. He does not speak the truth because he lives in his own reality that determines what he regards, at the moment, as the truth. He has no regard for facts, because what is true already exists in his mind. He disregards science and ignores the best intelligence system in the world.

If Trump’s actions are, at least in part, due to deficiencies in his brain, then he warrants sympathy, or maybe even pity. Unfortunately, he also warrants fear for a variety of reasons. Foremost is his control over nuclear weapons. He also is destroying international relations. He has already caused an enormous deficit and knowledgeable economists predict economic failures due to his policies.

Although Trump might warrant sympathy, the same cannot be said of the Republican Party, where the Republican Congress has ignored their constitutional responsibility to keep watch on the President. Instead, they have protected him and lied about the effectiveness of his policies. All genuine Republicans have left the party. Those who remain are either members of Trump’s base, viz., Nazis or White Supremacists, or want to maintain positions of power so they can enrich themselves.

It has been noted that Trump is likely to try to stay in power even if he loses the next election. He constitutes a genuine threat to the rule of law and our democracy.

The Republican Party died, a causality of the stupidity pandemic. What a shame. The loss of the GOP. The loss of the party of Lincoln.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Social Emotional Learning

March 12, 2019

The title of this post is the same as the title of a chapter in Daniel Goleman’s book “The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights.” Goleman is a strong advocate of the movement in social/emotional learning (SEL), school-based programs that teach the whole spectrum of emotional intelligence abilities. This topic has been addressed in a previous healthy memory blog post (see “Schooling the Emotions”). The best programs run from kindergarten through high school, and teach these abilities at every age in a developmentally appropriate way.

All the emotional intelligence skills develop in the curriculum of life, from childhood on—but SEL gives every child an equal opportunity to master them. That’s why Goleman co-founded the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning at Yale (CASEL) (Now at the University of Illinois at Chicago).

The brain is the last organ in the body to become anatomically mature. When you see the changes from year to year in how a child thinks, behaves, and reacts, what you’re really looking at is how their brain is developing. For example, when it comes to creativity, children are fabulously open and imaginative, especially young children. But there are two stages of brain growth that change this. The first is called the five-to-seven shifts, where the emotional circuitry comes under stronger prefrontal control. So children are better able to control their impulses, and to coordinate their imaginative efforts, to say nothing of them being better behaved.

At puberty there’s what is called a sculpting of the brain, a huge loss of under-used neurons. We are born with many more neurons that we use later in life, and the principal is use-it-or-lose-it (this is not the same as a steady deterioration. This occurs during puberty. This is not the same as a steady deterioration throughout life. Neurogenesis still creates new neurons daily, throughout our lives).

Social Emotional Learning programs are designed to give children the near lessons they need as their brain grows. This is what developmentally appropriate means.

On the wall in every SEL program there’s picture of a stoplight with its red, yellow, and green lights. It says, “When you’re getting upset, remember the stop light, stop! Calm down ad think before you act.” Stop is behavioral inhibition: activate the left prefrontal circuitry that can manage your amygdala impulses. Calm down shows that you can change your state to a better one. Think before you act teaches a critical lesson: you can’t control what you’re going to feel, but you can decide what you do next. Then, yellow light—think of a range of things you might do and what the consequences would be, and pick the best alternative. And green light: try it out and see what happens. This is drilled into kids. And this kind of lesson, along with all the others in the SEL program actually works.

Roger Weissberg, the psychologist who directs CASE analyzed data at over 200 SEL programs that were compared to schools without them, involving a total of 270,000 students. He found that , on average, SEL programs reduce anti-social behavior like misbehaving in class, fights, or substance abuse by about ten percent. The biggest gains are seen in the schools that need it the most.

Moreover, academic scores went up by eleven percent. Goleman suspects that this has to do with a large part of how the hypothalamic pituitary, amygdala (HPA) axis arousal interferes with cognitive efficiency and learning. If you’re a kid who’s preoccupied by worry, anger, distress, anxiety, or whatever stress causes in you, you’re going to have a diminished capacity to pay attention to what the teacher is telling you. But if you can manage those emotional upsets, your working memory, the capacity of attention to take in information increases. SEL teaches you how to manage these disruptive feelings—not just through lessons like the stop light, but through learning how to get along better with others kids (a major source of turbulent feelings). This lets you be a better learner.

For us adults at work, this identical skill set will make us better performers. And it’s never to late to develop further strengths in emotional intelligence.

Developing Emotional Intelligence

March 10, 2019

This title of this post is the same as the title of a chapter in Daniel Goleman’s book “The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights.” Every day the brain generates 10,000 stem cells that split into two. One becomes a daughter line that continues making stem cells, and the other migrates to wherever it’s needed in the brain and becomes that kind of cell. That destination is often where the cell is needed for new learning. Over the next four months, that new cell forms about 10,000 to created new neural circuitry.

The state of the art in mapping this neural circuitry coming out of labs like Richard Davidson’s have massive computing power. Innovative software tools for brain imaging can track and show this new connectivity at the single-cell level. Neurogenesis adds power to our understanding of neuroplasticity, that the brain continually reshapes itself according to the experiences we have. If we are changing a habit like trying to get better at listening, then that circuitry grows accordingly. However, when we are trying to overcome a bad habit, we’re up against the thickness of the circuitry for something we’ve practiced and repeated thousands of times. Goleman asks, “So what are the brain lessons for coaching or for working on our own to enhance an emotional intelligence skill?”

Number one, is to get committed. Mobilize the motivating power in the left prefrontal areas. If you’re a coach, you’ve got to engage the person, get them enthused about achieving the goal of change. Here it helps to draw on their dreams, their vision for themselves, where they want to be in the future. Then work from where they are to what they might improve to help them get where they want to go in life. Change this section from the third person to the second person for self instruction.

Be very practical. Don’t take on trying to learn too much all at once. Operationalize your goal at the level of a specific behavior. Make it practical, so you can know exactly what to do and when. For example, say someone has a bad habit of multi-tasking and essentially ignoring others, which undermines the full attention that can lead to rapport and good chemistry. You have to break the habit of multitasking. So the person might make up an intentional learning plan that says something like: at every naturally occurring opportunity-when a person walks into your office, stand, or you come up to a person—you turn off your cell phone and your beeper, turn away from your computer, turn off your daydream or your preoccupation and pay full attention. That gives you a precise piece of behavior to try to change. Goleman continues, “So what will help you with that? Noticing when a moment like that is about to come and doing the right thing. Doing the wrong thing is a bit that you have become an Olympic level master at—your neural working has made it a default option, what you do automatically. The neural connectivity for that is strong. When you start to form the new better habit, you’re essentially creating new circuitry that competes with your old habit in a kind of neural Darwinism. To make the new habit strong enough, you’ve got to use the power of neuroplasticity—you have to do it over and over again.

If you persist in the better habit, that new circuitry will connect and become more and more powerful, until one day you’ll do the right thing in the right way without a second thought. That means the circuitry has become so connected and thick that this is the brain’s new default option. With that change in the brain, the better habit will become your automatic choice.

For how long and how many times does an action have to be repeated until it’s hard-wired? A habit begins to be hard-wired the first time you practice it. How often you have to repeat so that it becomes the new default of the brain depends in part on how strong the old habit is that it will replace. It usually takes three to six months of using all naturally occurring practice opportunities before the new habit becomes more natural than the old.”

Mental rehearsal is another practice opportunity that can occur whenever you have a little free time. Mental rehearsal activates the same neural circuitry as does the real activity. Olympic athletes spend off-season running through the moves in their brain. This counts as practice time. It increase their ability to perform when the real time comes.

Goleman writes that Richard Boyatwzis has used this method with his MBA students at the Weatherhead School of management at Case Western University. He’s followed these students into their jobs as much as seven years later and found the competencies they had enhanced in his class were still rated as strong by their co-workers.

The Dark Side

March 9, 2019

This title of this post is the same as the title of a chapter in Daniel Goleman’s book “The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights.” Goleman begins, “Psychologists use the phrase the dark triad to refer to narcissists, Machiavellians and sociopaths.” As for examples, look no further than President Trump. He has hit the trifecta here. Goleman continues, “These types represent the dark side of emotional intelligence: such people can be very good at cognitive empathy, but lack emotional empathy—not to mention empathic concern. For instance, by definition the sociopath does not care at all about human consequences of their manipulation, and has no regrets about inflicting cruelty. Their feelings of any kind are very shallow; brain imaging reveals a thinning of the areas that connect the emotional centers to the prefrontal cortex.”

Goleman outlines deficits in emotional intelligence. Sociopaths have deficits in several areas key to emotional intelligence: the anterior cingulate, the orbitofrontal cortex, the amygdala, and insula, and in the connectivity of these regions to other parts of the brain. It is possible that deficits such as these can account for much of Trump’s behavior.

Gender Differences

March 8, 2019

This title of this post is the same as the title of a chapter in Daniel Goleman’s book “The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights.” On average, women have better emotional intelligence than men. However, this is on average. Think of two bell curves. The curves for men and women would overlap but they would be displaced and the averages would differ. There are many men with higher emotional intelligence than women, but there are more women with higher emotional intelligence than men.

The neuroscientist Tania Singer has brain data that relates to these trends. She was looking at two emotional systems, one for cognitive empathy and another for emotional empathy. Singer has found that women tend to be more highly developed in the mirror neuron system, and so rely on it more than men do for signals of empathy. In contrast, men tend to have a burst of the mirror neuron system and then go into a problem-solving mode.

Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge University provides another way of looking at male-female differences in EI. She says that there’s an extreme female brain which has lots of mirror neuron activity and is high in emotional empathy. In contrast, the extreme male brain excels in systems thinking and is poor at emotional empathy. These brain types are at the far extremes of a bell curve, with most of us somewhere in the middle. However, he does not mean that all men have the male brain, nor all women the female brain. Many women are adept at systems thinking, and many men excel at emotional empathy.

Ruth Mallow of the Hay Group in Boston has looked at gender differences on the “Emotional and Social Competence Inventory.” Her analysis found that while, in general, you find gender differences among the various competencies, when you only look at the pool of star performers (people in the top ten percent of business performance) those differences wash out. Across the board, the men are as good as the women are as good as the men.

Franz de Waal, the famed researcher on primate behavior at the Yerkes National Primate Center in Atlanta has made many interesting observations. Among them is the following: When a chimp sees another chimp in distress—either from an injury or a loss of social status—the first chimp mimics the behavior of the distressed chimp, which is a primal form of empathy. Many chimps will then go over and give some solace to the upset chimp such as stroking it to help it calm down. Female chimps offer this kind of solace more often than male chimps do—with one interesting exception. The alpha males, who are the troupe leaders, give solace more often than do female chimps. It seems that one of the basic functions of a leader is to offer appropriate emotional support.

The Varieties of Empathy

March 7, 2019

This title of this post is the same as the title of a chapter in Daniel Goleman’s book “The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights.” Goleman notes that there are three kinds of empathy. One is cognitive empathy. I know how you see things. I can take your perspective. Managers high in this kind of empathy are able to get better than expected performance from employees because they put things in terms that people can understand. Executives higher in cognitive empathy do better in foreign postings, because they pick up the unspoken norms of different cultures more quickly.

Emotional empathy is a second kind of empathy: I feel with you. This is the basis for rapport and chemistry. People who excel in emotional empathy make good counselors, teachers, client managers, and group leaders because of the ability to sense in the moment how others are reacting.

Empathic concern is the third kind of empathy: I sense you need some help and I spontaneously am ready to give it. Those with empathic concern are good citizens in a group, organization, or community, who voluntarily help out as needed.

Empathy is the essential building block for compassion. We have to sense what another person is going through, what they’re feeling, in order to spark compassion in us. A spectrum runs from total self-absorption (where we don’t notice other people) to noticing them and beginning to tune in, to empathizing, to understanding their needs and having empathic concern. Next comes compassionate action, where we help them out.

Distinct brain circuitry seems be involved in different varieties of empathy. Tania Singer, a neuroscientist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany studies emotional empathy. Singer sees the role of the insula as key to empathy (this is one of the neural areas that is crucial to emotional intelligence) The insula senses signals from our whole body. When we’re empathizing with someone, our mirror neurons mimic within us that person’s state of mind. The anterior area of the insula reads that pattern and tells us what that state is.

Singer has found that reading emotions in others means, at the brain level, first reading those emotions in ourselves; the insula lights up when we tune into our own sensations. She’s done fMRI studies of couples where one partner is getting a brain scan while seeing that theater partner is about to get a shock. At the moment the partner sees this the part of his or her brain lights up that would do so if he or sh were actually getting the shock, rather then just seeing the partner get it.

The recommended route to developing greater empathy abilities, involves getting feedback on what the other person actually is thinking—to verify or correct our hunches. Another means for boosting empathy has people watch a video or film without the sound and guess the emotions being depicted onscreen, checking their guesses against the actuality. Giving the neural circuits for empathy feedback on how the other person actually feels or thinks helps this circuitry learn.

The Social Brain Online

March 5, 2019

This title of this post is the same as the title of a chapter in Daniel Goleman’s book “The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights.” Here the question is how do social brains interact when we’re sitting looking at a video monitor instead of directly at another person? There was a major clue about the problems ever since the beginning of the internet, when it was just scientists emailing on what was called ARPAnet. The problem was, and still is, flaming. Goleman writes, “Flaming happens when someone is a little upset—or very upset—and with their amygdala in firm control, furiously types out a message and hits “send” before thinking about it—and that hijack hits the other person in their inbox. Now the more technical term for flaming is cyber-disinhibition, because we realize that the disconnect between the social brain and the video monitor releases the amygdala from the usual management by the more reasonable prefrontal areas.”

Online the social brain has no feedback loop: unless you are in a live, face-to-face teleconference, the social circuitry has no input. It doesn’t know how the other person is reacting so it can’t guide our response—do this, don’t do that—as it does automatically and instantly in face-to-face interactions. Instead of acting as a social radar, the social brain says nothing—and that unleashes the amygdala to flame and cause a hijack.

A phone call gives these circuits ample emotional cues from tone of voice to understand the emotional nuance of what you say. But email lacks all these inputs.

One reason personal connection is so important for online communication has to do with the social brain/video monitor interface. When we’re at our keyboard and we think a message is positive, and we hit send, what we don’t realized at the neural level is that all the nonverbal cues, facial expression, tone of voice, gesture and so on, stay with us. There’s a negativity bias to email: when the sender thinks the email was positive, the receiver tends to see it as neutral. When the sender thinks it’s neutral, the receiver tends to interpret it as somewhat negative. The big exception is when you know the person well; that bond overcomes the negativity bias.

Clay Shirky, who studies social networks and the web at New York University, tells an example of a local bank security team that had to operate 24 hours a day. In order for them to operate well, it was critical that they use what he calls a banyan tree model, where key members of each group get together and meet key members of every other group, so that in an emergency they can contact each other and get a clear sense of how to evaluate the message the group was sending. If someone in the receiving group knows that person well, or has a contact there whom he can ask about the person who sent the message, then the receiving group can better gauge how much to rely on it.

Goleman says that one enormous upside of the web is what you might call brain 2.0. Shirky points our, the potential for social networking to multiply our intellectual capital is enormous. It’s sort of a super-brain, the extended brain on the web. In the healthy memory blog, this is termed transactive memory.

Goleman writes that the term group IQ refers to the sum total of the best talents of each person on a team, or in a group, contributed at full force. What Goleman does not say is that the group can be more than the sum of its parts due to beneficial interactions within the group. He does note that one factor that makes the actual group IQ less than its potential is a lack of interpersonal harmony in the group. Vanessa Druskat of the University of New Hampshire has studied was she calls group EQ—things like being able to surface and resolve conflicts among the group, high levels of trust and mutual understanding. Not surprisingly, her research show that groups with the highest collective emotional intelligence outperform the others. Goleman notes the when you apply this to groups working together online, one core operating principle is that the more channels that come into the social brain, the more easily attuned you can be. So, when you video-conference, you have visual, body and voice cues. Even if it’s a conference call, the voice is extraordinarily rich in emotional cues. In any case, if you’e working together just through text, it’s best when you know the other person well, or at least have some sense of them in order to have a context for reading their messages, so you can overcome the negativity bias. Best of all is leaving your office or cubicle and getting together to talk with the person.

The Social Brain

March 4, 2019

This title of this post is the same as the title of a chapter in Daniel Goleman’s book “The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights.” Dr. Daniel Siegel is the Director of the MIndSight Institute at UCLA. Mindsight is the term he uses for the mind’s ability to see itself. His research makes a strong case that the brain circuity we use for self-mastery and to know ourselves is largely identical with that for knowing another person. In other words, our awareness of another person’s inner reality and of our own, are in a sense both acts of empathy. Dr. Siegal is a founder of the field of interpersonal neurobiology, which emerged only as science discovered the social brain. (Enter “Siegel” into the search block of the healthymemory blog https://healthymemory.wordpress.com/

The social brain includes a multitude of circuitry, all designed to attune to and interact with another person’s brain. When researchers started to study two brains in two people while they interacted open a wealth of discoveries.

One of the discoveries was mirror neurons that activate in us exactly what we see in the other person: Their emotions, their movements, and even their intentions. This discovery likely explains why emotions are contagious. Psychologists had known about this contagion for decades because of experiments in which two strangers come into a lab and fill out a mood checklist. They then sit in silence, looking at each other for two minutes. Afterward, they fill out the same checklist. The person in that pair who’s most expressive emotionally will transmit his or her emotions to the other person in two silent minutes. This is done via mirror neurons (and other areas like the insula, which maps sensations throughout the body), via what amounts to a brain-to-brain connection. This subterranean channel means there is an emotional subtext in every one of our interactions that is extremely important to whatever else goes on.

Consider the study where people were given performance feedback—some negative, some positive. If they were given negative performance feedback in a very warm, positive, and upbeat tone, they came out of there feeling pretty good about the interaction. If they were given positive feedback in a very cold, judgmental tone, they came out feeling negative, even about the positive feedback. So the emotional subtext is more powerful that the overt, ostensible interaction that we’re having.

This means that we are constantly impacting the brain states in other people. In Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence Model, managing relationships means, that we’re responsible for how we shape the feelings of those we interact with—for better or for worse. So relationship skills have to do with managing brain states in other people.

So, who sends the emotions that pass between people, and who receives them? For groups of peers, the sender tends to be the most emotionally expressive person in the group. But in groups where there are power differences, in the classroom, at work, in organization’s generally, it is the most powerful person who is the emotional sender, setting the emotional state for the rest of the group.

In any human group, people pay the most attention to, and put the most importance on, what the most powerful person in that group says or does. There are many studies that show if the leader of a team is in a positive mood, that spreads an upbeat mood to the others and that collective positivity enhances the group’s performance. Should the leader project a negative mood, that spreads in the same way and the group’s performance suffers. This result has been fun for groups making business decisions, seeking creative solutions, and even erecting a tent together.

The emotional contagion happens whenever people interact, whether in a pair, a group, or an organization. It’s most obvious at sporting events or theatrical performances, where the entire crowd goes through the identical emotion at the same time. This contagion can happen because of our social brain, through circuitry like the mirror neuron system. Person-To-Person emotional contagion operates automatically, instantly, unconsciously, and out of our intentional control.

“There was a study done of doctors and patients during a psychotherapy session. The interaction was videotaped and physiology monitored. The patients reviewed the tape, identifying moments when the doctor empathized with them—when they felt heard and understood, in rapport with the doctor, versus feeling really disconnected, thinking “My doctor doesn’t get me, doesn’t care about me.” In those moments when patients felt disconnected there was no connection in their physiology either. But at those moments when the patient said, “Yes, I felt a real connection with the doctor,” their physiologies moved in tandem. There was also physiological entrapment, with the doctor and patient’s heart rates moving in tandem.

That study reflects the physiology of rapport. There are three ingredients to rapport. The first is paying full attention. Both people need to tune in fully to the other, putting aside distractions. The second is being in synch non-verbally. This synchrony is orchestrated by another set of neurons, called oscillators, which regulate how our body moves in relationship to another body. The third ingredient of rapport is positive feeling. It’s a kind of micro flow, an interpersonal high. Goleman would expect you’re seeing prefrontal arousal for both people. These moments of interpersonal chemistry, or simpatico, are when things happen at their best, no matter the specifics of what we’re doing together.

An article in the Harvard Business Review calls this kind of interaction a “human moment.” How do you have a human moment at work? You have to put aside whatever else you’re doing and pay full attention to the person who’s with you. That opens the way to rapport, where emotional flow is in tandem. When your physiology is in synchrony with someone else you feel connected, close, and warm, You can read this human moment in terms of physiology, but you can also read it experientially, because during those moments of chemistry we feel good about being with the other person. And that person is feeling good about being with us.”

Optimal Performance

March 3, 2019

This title of this post is the same as the title of a chapter in Daniel Goleman’s book “The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights.” Goleman writes that “the relationship between stress and performance has been known for a century in psychology. It’s called the Yerkes-Dodson Law.” It’s likely that Yerkes and Dodson were unaware of this relationship. They were describing the relationship between motivation and performance. The relationship is an inverted U. Performance is poor at low levels of motivation and at very high levels of motivation. It is at moderate levels where performance is best.

At this point it would be good to review a previous healthy memory blog post, titled “How Our Bodies Respond to Stress.” Two stress hormones are cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). These two hormones are released by our adrenal glands during times of stress, but they serve different roles. Cortisol helps turn sugar and fat into energy and improves the ability of the body and brain to use that energy. Cortisol also surpresses some biological functions that are less important during stress, such as digestion, reproduction, and growth. On the other hand, DHEA is a neurosteroid, which is a hormone that helps the brain to grow. Just as testosterone helps the body grow stronger from physical exercise, DHEA helps the brain grown stronger from stressful experiences. DHEA also counters some of the effects of cortisol. For example, DHEA speeds up wound repair and enhances immune function.
We need both these hormones. Neither is a “good” or “bad” stress hormone. But the ratio of these two hormones can influence the long-term consequences of stress, especially when stress is chronic. Higher levels of cortisol can be associated with worse outcomes, such as impaired immune function and depression. In contrast, higher levels of DHEA have been linked to a reduced risk of anxiety, depression, heart disease neurodegeneration, and other diseases we typically think of as stress-related.

The ratio of DHEA to cortisol is called the growth index of a stress response. A higher growth index helps people thrive under stress. It predicts academic persistence and resilience in college students, as well as higher GPAs. A higher growth index was associated with greater focus, less dissociation, superior problem-solving skills, and fewer post-traumatic stress symptoms during and after military survival training.

It is also useful to remember the posts based on Dr. McGonigal’s book, ““The Upside of Stress: Why Stress is Good for You, and How to Get Good at It.” The key to good stress is that it is interpreted as being beneficial rather than harmful.

The goal is to be at the peak of the Yerkes-Dodson arc. This is the zone of optimal performance. Ideally one wants to experience what Mihaly Csikszenmentmihalyi terms “flow.” Flow represents a peak of self-regulation, the maximal harnessing of emotions in the service of performance or learning. During flow we channel positive emotions in an energized pursuit of the task at hand. Our focus is undistracted, and we feel a spontaneous joy, even rapture.

The flow concept was developed from research where people were asked to describe a time they outdid themselves and achieved their personal best. People described moments from a wide range of domains of expertise, from basketball and ballet to chess and brain surgery. No matter what the activity, the underlying state they described was one and the same.

Goleman continues, “the chief characteristics of flow include fast unbreakable concentration: a nimble flexibility in responding to changing challenges; executing at the top of your skill level; and taking pleasure in what you’re doing— joy. That last hallmark strongly suggests that if brain scans were done of people while in flow we might expect to see notable left prefrontal activation; if brain chemistry were assayed, we would likely find higher levels of mood and performance enhancing compounds like dopamine.

This optimal performance zone has been called a state of neural harmony where the disparate areas of the brain are in synch, working together. This is also seen as a state of maximum cognitive efficiency. Getting into flow lets you use whatever talent you may have at peak levels.”

At this point HM needs to intercede and provide a reality check. Although flow is a desired state, it is rarely reached. Consider that people who have mastered a domain of expertise and who operate at the top of their game typically have practiced a minimum of 10,000 hours and are often world class in their performance. Tellingly, when such experts are engaged in their skill, whatever it may be, their overall levels of brain arousal tend to become lower, suggesting that for them this particularly activity has become relatively effortless, even at its peak.

We have ample opportunity to observe these experts at athletic events. There might be rare occasions where an individual might appear to be in flow, but they are indeed rare. Professional athletes repeatedly fail and make errors. HM does not play golf and has difficulty understanding why others play golf. He does enjoy watching professionals play golf. But it seems like they are constantly making errors and ending up in undesirable areas. If HM could make the money successful professional golfers make, he would play golf. But as a normal hacker, he cannot understand where the pleasure is in the game.

There are times that one sees a skier skiing down the slopes in what appears to be a state of flow. But then he falls and the medics show up to take him off the course.

Goleman does discuss the benefits of regularly practicing methods that enhance concentration and relax us physiologically. There are voluminous healthymemory blog posts on the relaxation response, meditation, and mindfulness techniques. Use the search block on the healthy memory blog to find this posts.

He gets back on track by writing, “Anything that truly relaxes you helps, like playing with kids or taking the dog for a walk, or whatever is going to get you in a relaxed state. The more you can break the cycle of the right prefrontal capture by the amygdala, the more you’ll be to activate the beneficial circuitry of the left prefrontal cortex.

Managing Stress

March 1, 2019

This title of this post is the same as the title of a chapter in Daniel Goleman’s book “The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights.” The stress manager can be found in the prefrontal cortex, which holds circuitry that can inhibit amygdala-driven impulses that help us maintain emotional balance. The left prefrontal area also contains circuits active during positive states like enthusiasm, energy, and engagement.

Richard Davidson, the director of the Laboratory for Affective Neuroscience at the University of Wisconsin has done research on the left versus right prefrontal areas. His research group has found that when we’re in the grip of a hijack or under the sway of distressing emotions, there are relatively high levels of activity in the right prefrontal cortex. When we’re feeling great the left prefrontal area lights up. People who have more activity on the left than right are more lively to have more positive emotions. Those with more activity on the right are prone to having more negative emotions.

Davidson has also done research on what he calls emotional styles, which are really brain styles One motional style tracks how readily we become upset: where we are on the spectrum for a hair-trigger amygdala—people who easily become upset, frustrated, or angered—versus people who are unflappable.

A second style looks at how quickly we move from our distress. Some people recover quickly once they get upset, while others are very slow. At the extreme of slowness to recover are people who continually ruminate or worry about things. They are suffering, in effect, from ongoing, low-grade amygdala hijacks. Chronic worry keeps the amygdala primed, so you remain in a distress state as long as you ruminate. To learn more about emotional styles, and there are six of them enter “emotional style” into the search block of the healthy memory blog. There is also information on how emotional styles can be changed.

Goleman offers a few strategies to cultivate greater strength of activity in the left prefrontal areas that generate positive emotions. One is to take regular time off from a hectic, hassled routine to rest and restore. Schedule time to do nothing: walk your dog, take a long shower, whatever allows you to let go of leaning forward into the next thing in your on-the-go state.

Daniel Siegel has an elegant analysis of the brain area involved in mindfulness. In the most popular form of mindfulness you can cultivate an ever-hovering presence in you experience and in the moment, and awareness that is non-judgmental and non-reactive to whatever thoughts or feelings arise in the mind. It’s a very effective method for decompressing and getting into a relaxed and balanced state. To learn more about Daniel Siegel and his work, enter Daniel Siegel into the search block of the healthy memory blog.

Mindfulness-Based Stress /reduction has been developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn. Enter Jon Kabat-Zinn or Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction into the search block of the healthy memory blog to learn more about Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction. Davidson has done brain studies before and after the mindfulness program. Before, most people’s emotional set point was tipped to the right, indicating they were hassled. After eight weeks of mindfulness, they had begun to tip back to the left. Their own reports made clear that with this shift toward the more positive zone of emotions their enthusiasm, energy, and joy in their work surfaced. Davidson concluded that mindfulness seems a good choice for strengthening the dominance of critical zones in the prefrontal cortex, and the biggest bang for the buck from mindfulness in terms of shifting the brain’s emotional set point comes at the beginning of the practice. Although you don’t have to wait for years to feel the improvement, you probably need to continue practicing daily to maintain the shift.

Traditionally ,people end their daily mindfulness session with a period of loving thoughts toward other people. This is the practice of lovingkindness. This intentional generation of a positive mood enhances vagal nerve tone, the body’s ability to mobilize to met a challenge and then to recover quickly. The vagus nerve regulates the heartbeat and other organ functions, and plays a major role in calming down the body when we get distressed. Better vagal tone enhances our ability to arouse ourselves to meet a challenge and then to cool down rather than staying in high gear. To learn more about loving kindness meditation go to
https://healthymemory.wordpress.com and enter “loving kindness” into the search block.

Having good vagal tone helps us not just to recover from stress, but also to sleep better and guard against the negative health impacts of chronic stress in life. The key to building better vagal tone is to find a method we enjoy, and practice it daily like a workout for the vagus nerve. The methods include everything from simply remembering to count slowly to ten when you are starting to get ticked off at some, to systematic muscle relaxation, to meditation.

It should also be mentioned here that there is an upside to stress. In fact that is the title of a book by Dr. Mcgonigal, who is a health psychologist at Stanford University. The subtitle of the book is “Why Stress is Good for You, and How to Get Good at It.” (Enter “Mcgonigal” in the search block of the healthy memory blog (https://healthymemory.wordpress.com)

Goleman writes, “There are many kids of meditation each using a different mental strategy: concentration, mindfulness, and visualization to name a few. Each meditation method has specific impacts on our mental states. For example, visualization activates centers in the spatial visual cortex, while concentration involves the attention circuitry in the prefrontal cortes but not the visual area. A new scientific field, contemplative neuroscience, has begun mapping exactly how meditation A versus meditation B engages the brain, which brain center it activates, and what the specific benefits might be. An early book in this area is Goleman and Davidson’s “Altered Traits: Science Reveals How Meditation Changes Your Mind, Brain, and Body.” There are many healthy memory blog posts on this book.

Self-Mastery

February 27, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of a chapter Daniel Goleman’s book “The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights.” Self-awareness and self-management provide the basis for self-mastery. Competencies like managing emotions. focused drive to achieve goals, adaptability, and initiative are based on emotional self-management. These domains of skill are what make someone an outstanding individual performer in any domain of performance—and in business an outstanding individual contributor, or lone star.

Self-regulation of emotion and impulse relies on the interaction between the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s executive center, and the emotional center in the midbrain, particularly circuitry converging on the amygdala.

The prefrontal cortex is the key neural area for self-emulation. This area is guiding us when we are at our best. The dorsolateral zone of the prefrontal area is the seat of cognitive control, regulating attention, decision-making, voluntary action, reasoning, and flexibility in response.

The amygdala is a trigger point for emotional distress, anger, impulse, and fear. When this circuitry takes over, it leads us to take a actions we might regret later.

Dr. Goleman writes, “The interaction between these two neural areas creates a neural highway that, when in balance, is the basis for self-mastery. For the most part, we cannot dictate what emotions we are going to feel, when we’re going to feel them, not how strongly we feel them. They come unbidden from the amygdala and other subcortical areas. Our choice comes once we feel a certain way. What do we do then? How do we express it? If the our prefrontal cortex has its inhibitory circuits going full blast, we’ll be able to have a decision point that will make us more artful in guiding how we respond, and in turn how you drive other people’s emotions, for better or worse, in that situation. At the neural level, this is what ‘self-regulation’ means.

The amygdala is the brain’s radar for threat. Our brain was designed as a tool for survival. In the brain’s blueprint the amygdala holds a privileged position. If the amygdala detects a threat, in an instant it can take over the rest of the brain, particularly the prefrontal cortex, and we have what is called an amygdala hijack.”

The hijack captures our attention and focuses it on the that at hand. If an amygdala hijack occurs at work, we can’t focus on what our job demands. We can only think about what’s troubling us. We remember most readily what’s relevant to the threat, and can’t remember other things well. We can’t learn during a hijack and we rely on over-learned habits, ways we’ve behaved time and time again. Innovation flexibility are not available during a hijack.

Neural imaging has shown that when someone is really upset the right amygdala is highly active, along with the right prefrontal cortex. The amygdala has captured the prefrontal cortex, hence amygdala hijack, driving it in terms of the imperatives of dealing with the perceived danger at hand. We get the classic fight-flight-or-freeze response when this alarm system triggers. From a brain point of view this means that the amygdala has set off the HPA axis (hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis) releasing a flood of stress hormones, mainly cortisol and adrenaline.

Unfortunately, the amygdala often makes mistakes. While the amygdala gets its data on what we see and hear in a single neuron from the eye and ear, that’s super-fast in brain time, it only receives a small fraction of the signals those senses receive. The majority goes to other parts of the brain that take longer to analyzedthe inputs and get a more accurate reading. In contrast, the amygdala gets a sloppy picture and has to react instantly. Coleman writes, “It often makes mistakes, particularly in modern life, where the “dangers” are symbolic, not physical threats. So we overreact in ways we often regret later.”

Coleman identifies the five top amygdala triggers in the workplace:

Condescension and lack of respect.
Being treated unfairly.
Being underappreciated.
Feeling that you’re not being listened to or heard.
Being held to unrealistic deadlines.

Here are Goleman’s suggestions for minimizing hijacks. Pay attention. If you don’t notice that you’re in the midst of an amygdala hijack and stay carried by it, you have no chance of getting back to emotional equilibrium and left prefrontal dominance until you let the hijack run its course. It is better to realize what is going on and to disengage. The steps to ending or short-circuiting a hijack start with monitoring what’s going on in you own mind and brain, and noticing, “I’m really over-reacting,” or “I’m really upset now,” or “I’m starting to get upset.” It’s much better if you can notice familiar feelings tat a hijack is beginning—such as butterflies in your stomach, or whatever signals that might reveal you are in the cycle of a hijack. It is best to had it off to the bare beginning of a coming hijack.

And here is what Goleman recommends if we are caught in the grip of an amygdala hijack. First, you have to realize that you’re in one. Hijacks can last for seconds or minutes, or hours, or days or weeks. There are are lots of ways to get out of a hijack, if we can realize we’re caught and also have the intention to cool down. A cognitive approach is to talk yourself out of the hijack. Reason with our self, and challenge what you are telling your self in the highjack. For example, “This guy isn’t always an S.O.B. I can remember times when he was actually very thoughtful and even kind, so maybe I should give him another chance. Or you can apply some empathy and imagine yourself in that person’s position. This might work in those very common instances where the hijack trigger was something someone else did or said to us. You might have an empathic thought: Maybe he treated me that the way because he is under such great pressure.
There are also biological interventions. We can use a method like meditation or relaxation to calm down our body. But a relaxation or meditation technique works best during the hijack when you have practiced it regularly, at best daily. Unless these methods have become a strong habit of mind, you can’t just invoke them out of the blue. But a strong habit of calming the body with a well-practiced method can make a huge difference when you’er hijacked and need it most.

As readers should be aware that the healthymemory blog is a strong advocate of meditation and mindfulness, and there are many healthy memory blog posts on meditation and mindfulness.

The Creative Brain

February 26, 2019

The title of this post is the same as the title of a chapter in Daniel Goleman’s book “The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights.” The chapter begins,
“‘Right brain good, left brain bad.’ That belief about creativity and the right and left hemispheres of the brain dates back to the Seventies, and reflects a very outdated bit of neuromythology. The new understanding about left and right hemispheres is more specific to the topography of the brain: when it comes to left versus right, do you mean left front, left middle, left rear?”

The right hemisphere has more neural connections both within itself and through the brain. It has strong connections to emotional centers like the amygdala and to subcortical regions throughout the lower parts of the brain. The left side has far fewer connections with itself and beyond to the rest of the brain. The left hemisphere is made of neatly stacked vertical columns, which allow the clear differentiation of separate mental functions, but less integration of those functions. The right hemisphere is more of a mix structurally.

Brain studies on creativity reveal what goes on that “Aha!” moment, when we get a sudden insight. When EEG brain waves are measured during a creative moment, it turns out there is a very high gamma activity that spikes 300 milliseconds before the answer comes to us. This gamma activity indicates the acting together of neurons, as far-found brain cells connect in a new neural network as when a new association emerges. Immediately after that gamma spike, the new idea enters consciousness.

This heightened activity focuses on the temporal area, a center on the side of the right neocortex. This is the same brain area that interprets metaphor and gets jokes. This high gamma spike signals that the brain has a new insight. At that moment, right hemisphere cells are using these longer branches and connections to other parts of the brain. They’ve collected more information and put it together in a novel organization.

In spite of what you might have read or heard, there are two primary modes of creative thinking. The first is to concentrate intently on the goal or problem. The next stage is to let go. During this stage you are relaxing and letting your non conscious brain do its creative thing. This stage is characterized by a high alpha rhythm, which signals mental relaxation, a state of openness, or daydreaming and drifting, where we’re more receptive to new ideas. This sets the stage for novel connections that occur during the gamma spike. Of course, after that “aha moment” you need to return to concentration to evaluate the creative idea and asses how adequately it addresses the problem.

In all but rare cases, this is an iterative process. And this iterative process can occur over the course of years. There are documented cases of mathematicians trying to solve a problem. The problem appears to be intractable, because the “aha” moment never seems to come. But, sometimes it eventually appears seemingly from nowhere.
The name of this process is incubation, because you are not consciously trying to solve the problem. However, your non conscious mind has been working on this problem, perhaps even when you thought you were sleeping.

Goleman concludes the chapter with a final state, implementation. Here’s where a good idea will sink or swim. He remembers talking to the director of a huge research lab. He had about 4,000 scientists and engineers working for him. He told Goleman,”We have a rule about a creative insight: if somebody offers a novel idea, instead of the next person who speaks shooting it down—which happens all to often in organizational life—the next person who speaks must be an angel’s advocate someone who says, ‘that’s a good idea and here’s why.” Goleman writes, “Creative ideas are like a fragile bud—they’ve got to be nurtured so that they can blossom.”

Different creative people use different processes, so there is no optimal way of being creative. Each creative person creates her own creative process, which might even vary from problem to problem.

Self Awareness

February 25, 2019

This title of this post is the same as the title of a chapter in Daniel Goleman’s book “The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights.” There was a corporate lawyer who had a brain tumor. Fortunately, that tumor was diagnosed early and operated on successfully. But during the operation the surgeon had to cut circuits that connects key areas of the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s executive center, and the amygdala in the midbrain’s area for emotions.

After the surgery on every test of IQ memory and attention, the lawyer was as smart as he had been before the surgery. But he couldn’t do his job anymore. He lost his job and found that he couldn’t keep any job. He ended up living in his brother’s spare bedroom and, in desperation, he went to the neuroscientist Damasio to find out what was wrong.

The lawyer was fine on every neurological test. The clue to the problem became clear when Damaisio asked the lawyer, “When shall we have out next appointment?” Although the lawyer could provide rational pros and cons of every hour for the next two weeks, he could not decide which was best. Damaisio concluded that in order to make a good decision, we need to have feelings about our thoughts— and the lesion created during surgery meant he could no longer connect his thought with the emotional pros and cons.

These feelings come from the emotional centers in the midbrain, interacting with a specific area in the prefrontal cortex. When we have a thought its valences either positive or negative are evaluated by these brain centers. This helps us shuffle our thoughts into priorities, like when would be the best time for an appointment. Lacking that input, we don’t know what to feel about our thoughts, so we can’t make good decisions.

Our basal ganglia extracts decision rules as we go through every situation in life. Our accumulated life wisdom is stored in this primitive circuitry. However, when we face a decision, it’s our verbal cortex that generates our thoughts about it. But to more fully access our life experience on the matter at hand, we need to access further inputs from that subcortical circuitry. Although the basal ganglia have some direct connection to the verbal areas, it turns out also to have very rich connections to the gastrointestinal tract—the gut. So when making a decision, a gut sense of it being right or wrong is important information, also. It’s not that you should ignore the data, but if it doesn’t fit what you’re feeling, maybe you should think twice about it.

Coleman writes, “That rule-of-thumb seems to be at play in a study of highly successful California entrepreneurs who were asked how they made crucial business decisions. They all reported more or less, the same strategy. First, they were voracious consumers of any data or information that might bear on their decision, casting a wide net. But second, they all tested their rational decisions against their gut feeling—if a deal didn’t feel right they might not go ahead, even if it looked good on paper.”

The answer to the question,’Is what I’m about to do in keeping with my sense of purpose, meaning, or ethics?’ doesn’t come to us in words; it comes to us via this gut sense. Then we put it into words.”

Readers might remember that Trump says he thinks with his gut. However, unlike the entrepreneurs mentioned above, he is not a voracious consumer of data. In fact, he ignores data and depends on his gut. In this case what he gets from his gut is similar to what we find in our toilets.

A review of cortical and subcortical functions taken from Goleman follows:

The neocortex contains centers for cognition and other complex mental operations. The subcortex is where more basic mental processes occur. Just below the thinking brain, and projecting into the cortex, is the limbic center, the brain’s main areas for emotion. These areas are also found in the brains of other mammals. The more ancient parts of the subcortex extend down to the brainstem, known as the reptilian brain because we share this basic architecture with reptiles.

The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights

February 24, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of another book by Daniel Goleman. The previous book on which many healthy memory blog posts were based was “Emotional Intelligence.” Emotional intelligence is by far our most important intelligence. Dr. Goleman writes, “In this book I want to provide new updates, sharing with you some key findings that further inform our understanding of emotional intelligence and how to apply this skill set.”

There is a brain basis for emotional intelligence. This comes from neural imaging and lesion studies. Neural imaging allows the identification of where the activity in the brain is occurring. Lesion studies are from injuries or surgeries done on parts of the brain to see what functions are lost.

The right amygdala (there are two, one in each brain hemisphere) is a neural hub for emotion located in the midbrain. Patients with lesions or other injuries to the right amygdala showed a loss of emotional self-awareness—the ability to be aware of an understand our own feelings.

Another area crucial for emotional intelligence is also in the right side of the brain. It’s the right somatosensory cortex; injury here also creates a deficiency in self awareness, as well as empathy, the awareness of emotion in other people. The ability to understand and feel our emotion is critical for understanding and empathizing with the emotions of others. Empathy also depends on another structure in the right hemisphere, the insula, that senses our entire bodily state and tells us how we’re feeling. Tuning in to how we’re feeling ourselves plays a central role in how sense and understand what some else is feeling.

Another critical area is the anterior cingulate, which is located at the front of a band of nerve fibers that surround the corpus callosum, which ties together the two halves of the brain. The anterior cingulate is an area that manages impulse control, which is the ability to handle to handle our emotions, particularly distressing emotions and strong feelings.

Finally, there is the ventral medial strip of the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is just behind the forehead, and is the last part of the brain to become fully grown. This is the brain’s executive center; the abilities of solve personal and interpersonal problems, to manage our impulses, to express our feelings effectively and to relate well to others resides here.

When writing this HM wondered if deficiencies in these areas might, in part, explain Trump’s bullying, callous, and impulsive behavior. Perhaps such deficiencies might also explain his difficulties in keeping and recruiting staff.

Goleman’s Model of Emotional Intelligence has the following four generic domains: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management. Self awareness plays into both social awareness and self management. Social awareness and self management play into relationship management. And it is relationship management that has a positive impact on others.

Mindlessness in Korea

February 22, 2019

HM has a strong attachment with South Korea. He served in the Republic of Korea when he was in the army. Of all the Asian countries he found the Koreans most admirable. This small country was bounded by the giants of China and Japan. Nevertheless, Korean maintained pride in their country. They have a high degree of literacy, intelligence, along with a strong work ethic. When HM was stationed there, the per capita GDP was lower in South Korea than in North Korea, which received support from the Soviet Union and Communist China. Nevertheless, HM was virtually certain that South Korea would eventually grow into an economic power, and it did.

Japan occupied Korea early in the 20th century and ruled it harshly. The Soviet Union had done nothing to assist the United States in defeating Japan. Yet a decision made by Dean Rusk to divide the Korean peninsula at the 38th parallel sent half of Korea to a literal hell for no good reason, and gave a new Communist state to the Soviet Union. US and Soviet troops withdrew from the peninsula. Kim Il-Sung ruled the Communist North and Syngman Rhee was President of South Korea.

Michael Beschloss in his book “Presidents of War” writes that Kim Il-sung was eager to invade the South, but when he went to Moscow in March 1949 to make his case, Stalin, not wanting to risk a shooting war with the United States, would not grant his consent. But Stalin noticed when President Truman declined to employ the US military in an effort to keep China from falling to Mao Zedong’s Communists. Stalin was also told by some Soviet intelligence officials that Truman did not consider it crucial enough to defend South Korea by military force.

In January 1950, Truman’s Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, appeared before the National Press Club in Washington. He accidentally signaled Kim-Il-sung that America might not respond with military action should his armies invade the South. His speech described the American “defense perimeter” in East Asia, but did not include Taiwan or South Korea. Cold War scholar John Lewis Gaddis wrote that Acheson’s speech “significantly reshaped Stalin’s thinking on the risks of war with the United States in east Asia.”

After Acheson’s address, Kim Il-sung secretly told Moscow that it was time to “liberate” South Korea. Not surprisingly Kim believed that if he acted, South Korea should have “little hope of American assistance.” Stalin gave Kim a green light with the proviso that he would not provide support and that Kim needed to ask Mao for support.

And so the war started. Although the domino theory had probably yet be formulated, Truman was seized by the fear that Korea would be the first state that the Communists would attack.

The war went up and down the peninsula, killing many civilians and South Korean and American soldiers. Eventually, the war became deadlocked around the 38th parallel. Although deadlocked, many more needless deaths occurred there. Eventually a truce was proposed and a cessation of activities was agreed to. There was no peace agreement. Technically the two sides are still at war. HM is always disturbed to hear that the country is still divided at the 38th parallel. Actually, the country is divided around the 38th parallel with portions above and portions below the 38th parallel. This is where the forces were when the truce was signed. HM frequently rode buses that crossed above the 38th parallel.

The mindlessness referred to in the title should be readily apparent. How could a country, a single culture, be arbitrarily divided at the 38th parallel with half the country being consigned to hell. Apparently, this country was not populated by white people. These were gooks and dinks; so they were inconsequential. To hell with them.

If anything good came from Korea, it was a fortuitous experiment between a communist North and a capitalist south. Eventually South Korea, which is just half a country, became an economic power. Although North Korea remains poor and hungry, it became an effective totalitarian state and a nuclear power.

So the mindlessness came back to bite us Americans. There is another nuclear power to contend with. And North Korea presents more than just a nuclear threat; it also presents a cyber threat. Effective cyber warfare does not require a large state. Cyber warfare is something at which North Korea excels. It could turn out the lights in the United States or wreak havoc with the financial system.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Mindlessness in Vietnam

February 20, 2019

This post is based primarily on an excellent book by Max Hastings, or, more formally, Sir Max Hastings, titled “Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy, 1945 to 1975.” France effectively colonized Vietnam in 1883. Beginning in 1940 the Japanese effectively controlled Vietnam. Initially, the Vietnamese were pleased to see an asian country drive the French out of Vietnam. Unfortunately, the Japanese were just as brutal as the French, perhaps even more so, in controlling the area. With the defeat of Japan, the Vietnamese were looking forward to becoming an independent country, but the French were hell bent on keeping control of the country.

The Wikipedia entry lists the Vietnam war as lasting from 1 November 1955 to 30 April 1975. As will become apparent, the preceding ten years are key to understanding a possible solution to the Vietnam problem. American involvement ran until 27 January 1973. American involvement ended with a sham peace treaty that left the North Vietnamese in place to just wait a decent interval so that the United States could claim that there had been peace with honor. It should be noted that Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the peace treaty. His North Vietnamese counterpart recognizing the peace treaty as being a sham, although offered, refused to except the prize. After the presumed decent interval, North Vietnam concluded its conquest on 30 April 1975. In fact, the United States was defeated by North Vietnam, but maintained this sham of “peace with honor.”

Walt Boomer, a Marine captain in the infantry who weighted 185 entering the war and 155 getting out of the war later remarked, “It bothers me that we didn’t learn a lot. If we had, we would not have invaded Iraq.”

Hastings does a masterful job, not just of covering the Vietnam War, but covering it down not only to the level of individual combatants, but also to the civilians’ suffering during the war. Vietnam and its culture were effectively destroyed. Only a distinct minority were Communists, and being a Communist did not provide security from the Communists, because Communists killed other communists. It was apparent the North Vietnamese tended to be better soldiers as they did have an ideology and a desire for independence from western countries. But many Vietnamese were loyal to the Americans and very much wanted to live in a free country. This loyalty put these Vietnamese at risk. What is especially bad is that when Americans hastily exited the country, they left behind their records indicating which Vietnamese had been helpful. The Communists found these people and either executed them or sent them to re-education camps.

So the only victors in the war were the Communists who were a minority. The United States was not the only loser, but also the French and a majority of the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese culture was effectively destroyed.

So what does the title of this post, “Mindlessness in Vietnam” Imply?
Remember what mindfulness means. Unfortunately, many dictionaries define mindfulness as a mental state achieved by focusing one’s awareness on the present moment, while calmly acknowledging and accepting one’s feelings, thoughts, and bodily sensations, used as a therapeutic technique. Mindfulness also means being aware of the minds of others, and being respectful of their thoughts and feelings. So the title implies that the interests of the Vietnamese themselves, and their culture were ignored. HM contends that it was this lack of mindfulness of the Vietnamese that made the loss of Vietnam inevitable. Kinetic effects can accomplish only so much. And there was no shortage of kinetic effects in Vietnam. Even the ultimate kinetic effects, nuclear bombs would not have worked.

So, was it possible that Vietnam could have been saved? Hastings writes, “It seems narrowly possible that Vietnam’s subjection to communism could have been averted if France in 1945 had announced its intention to quit the country and embarked upon a crash transition process to identify credibly indigenous leaders and prepare them to govern, as did the British before quitting Malaya. Instead, however, the French decided to draft a long suicide note, declaring their ironclad opposition to independence. The colonialists’ intransigence conceded to Ho Chi Min the moral high ground in the struggle that now began to unfold.”

The following is from HM and not Sir Hastings. Remember that by this time Great Britain recognized that colonialism had ended and had given independence to India. The United States a former British colony, had fought for its independence from England. Rather than providing support to France’s effort to maintain its colony, the United States should have informed the French that the age of colonialism was over and that they should give Vietnam its freedom. And it should have informed the Vietnamese, that they too had been a colony of a European country and that we were on the their side in advocating for their freedom.

Actually U.S. members of the Office of Strategic Services—US sponsor of guerrilla war, in July of 1945 dispatched to China a team of paramilitary agents led by Maj. Archimedes Patti, who pitched camp with Ho Chi Min. Although a staunch communist, Ho Chi Min was foremost interested in independence for his country. Although, the possibility of getting Ho Chi Min to flip was remote, it would have provided a solution to the Vietnamese problem.

Even sans Ho Chi Min, the United States could have aligned itself with the Vietnamese in their quest for independence. Although the Communists would present a considerable obstacle, they still represented a minority of the Vietnamese. Getting on the right side of this conflict was essential to achieving victory.

Not to be overlooked is the blatant racism of the French and in America’s support of the French. The Vietnamese were regarded as gooks, dinks. They were not white people, and it was the right of white people to govern.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Invisible Hand

February 18, 2019

It is likely that this title appears strange to the reader. It is hoped that it will become clear later in the post. HM has become quite depressed due to not only Trump and his followers, but also the lack of caring that many conservatives show for their fellow humans. As has been mentioned in many previous posts, the United States is the only advanced country that does not have single payer government health insurance for all its people. In polls of general welfare and happiness the United States does not fare especially well. Michael Moore produced a valuable film titled “Where to Invade Next” that summarized the different ways that countries deal with their problems. They are definitely superior to the United States where a large tax cut is given the rich, increasing the national debt, and then used as an excuse to cut the few benefits American citizens have.

Actually this post is a follow up to the post titled “Would Adam Smith Be a Conservative Today?” in the series of posts on Linguistics and Cognitive Science in the Pursuit of Civil Discourse. Another relevant post is “The Strict Father Model.” This model was developed by George Lakoff, assisted by two conservative Christian linguists in the formulation of a model to facilitate an understanding of how conservatives think. They are strongly influenced by the concept of an invisible hand developed by Adam Smith, the author of “The Wealth of Nations,” the full title being ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776).” This is one of the most influential books every written as it formulated the ideas of capitalism and free trade. This book was a major contributor to economics and, indeed, the wealth of nations. If someone remembers anything from this book or anything about Adam Smith it is most likely “invisible hand.” The basic concept here is that there is something that works like an invisible hand that guides the flow of money to where it is most needed. And this definitely does seem to be the case. Unfortunately, some conservatives take this to mean that this invisible hand will address the needs of the people. Some even come to the conclusion that the poor and needy have not exerted enough effort or this invisible hand would have worked for them. So it is their problem, not a social problem.

Although “The Wealth of Nations” is Adam Smith’s most famous and influential work, he did not regard it as his best work. He had published “Theory of Moral Sentiments” in 1759, which he regarded as his most important work. “The Wealth of Nations” was published in 1776. Smith returned to working on “ The Theory of Moral Sentiments” until his death in 1790. It appears that he thought that he still needed to finish.The term “invisible hand” appears only once in each of these books. Clearly Smith did not overwork this term, although scholars and his followers have.

It is also quite obvious that Smith did not think that “invisible hand” would meet many needs of the people. Smith thought that empathy, understanding, and the well-being of our fellow humans is paramount. Although the term likely did not exist in Smith’s day, HM thinks that he was advocating mindfulness, meaning that humans needed to relate to their fellow humans in terms of their emotions and needs. There is a need to be mindful of our fellow humans. It is also clear that were Smith alive today, he would most certainly be a progressive and not a conservative.

Much more information can be found on both Adam Smith and his books on the Wikipedia. Kindle versions of each book for less than $1 are available from amazon.com.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Relationship Among Key Healthy Memory Themes

February 17, 2019

The immediately preceding post was on the role of mindsets in supporting resettling refugees. Specifically, people with growth mindsets tended to support resettling refugees. Resettling refugees is a progressive topic; it is likely that people with growth mindsets will tend to support progressive ideas.

Readers of the healthymemory blog should know that growth mindsets are important to healthy memories. There is also a relationship between growth mindsets and Kahneman’s Two System View of Cognition. System 1 is fast and is called intuition.  System 1 needs to be fast so we can process language and make the fast decisions we need to make everyday.  System 1 is also the seat of our emotions.  System 2 is called reasoning and corresponds loosely to what we mean by thinking.  System 2 requires mental effort and our attentional processes.  System 2 is central in learning, so it is also key to effective growth mindsets. Both growth mindsets and System 2 processing are central to building a cognitive reserve which serves to thwart Alzheimer’s and dementia.

To elaborate a tad further System 2 processing and growth mindsets also leads to a more fulfilling life, and in advocating progressive ideas, a better country and a better world.

Previous posts have written of a stupidity pandemic. Perhaps it has always been existent, but Trump’s presidency makes it apparent in its glaring stupidity. This makes growth mindsets, System 2 processing, and compassion for our fellow humans all the more critical.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Role of Mind-sets in Support for Resettling Refugees

February 16, 2019

This post is motivated by an article titled “Support for Resettling Refugees: The Role of Fixed versus Growth Mind-Sets by Shilpa Madan, Shankha Basu, Aceta Rattan, and Krishna Savani in “Psychological Science” 1-12, 2019.

There have been many healthymemory blog posts on the topic of mindsets. Fixed mindsets believe that intelligence is fixed and cannot be changed or only slightly changed. Growth mindsets mean that intelligence can improve or grow, if the individuals believe that their intelligence or knowledge can grow. The healthy memory blog is a strong proponent of growth mindsets. Not only is there strong evidence in support of growth mindsets, but growth mindsets also are central to a healthy memory and the avoidance of dementia.

The first two studies, one conducted in the U.S. and the other conducted in the U.K. found that people with growth mindsets were more likely to support resettling refugees in their own country.

The third study identified a causal relationship between the type of mindset people hold and their support for resettling refugees.

Studies 4-6 found that people with a growth mindset were more likely to believe that refugees can assimilate in the host country, but not that they should be forced to assimilate. These beliefs that refugees can assimilate but should not be forced to assimilate mediated the relationship between peoples’ growth mind-sets and their support for resettling refugees. People with fixed mindsets tended not to support these beliefs.

Another Hiatus

February 1, 2019

There will be a hiatus in new Healthymemory blogs. That should not be a problem as there are already well over a thousand articles posted.

Go to https://healthymemory.wordpress.com and use the search block to look for articles of interest.

Here are some suggestions:

The Myth of Cognitive Decline
fulfilling life
relaxation response
loving kindness
behavioral economics
growth mindset
system 2
cognitive reserve

and go to https://centerhealthyminds.org/about/founder-richard-davidson

The healthy memory blog will return.

A Wealth Tax is Imperative

January 31, 2019

This post is inspired by an article by Jeff Stein and Christopher Ingraham titled “Elizabeth Warren to Propose new ‘wealth tax’ on very Rich Americans, economists say” in the 20 Jan 2019 issue of the Washington Post. In 1960, the top 1% of families owned about as much as the bottom 43% of families. In 2015, the top 1% of families owned as much has the bottom 95%. Two economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the University of California have been advising Warren on a proposal to levy a 2% wealth tax on Americans with assists about $50 million, and a 3% wealth tax on those who have more than 1$ billion.

To understand why it is important to tax wealth and not just income read the healthy memory blog post “The Piketty Insight on the Accelerating Wealth Gap.” Piketty makes the following distinction between Productive Wealth and Reinvestment Wealth.

Productive wealth. This is the wealth generated by work, by producing and selling things or services, and the kind of wealth Adam Smith talked about. The prototypical case concerns individuals, for example a baker and a furniture maker. Each makes and sells things, and each needs and buys what the other sells. The baker’s income pays the furniture maker, and the furniture maker’s income pays the baker. Each works for himself, produces things, gets paid for it, and in a much oversimplified market, each produces wealth for himself and for the other. This is the kind of wealth, productive wealth, measured by the GDP. Piketty calls it “G.”

*Reinvestment wealth. This is wealth generated by receiving returns on investments and then reinvesting the returns over and over. This kind of wealth grows exponentially, like compound interest. The more you have, the more you invest, and the more you invest, the more you have. Piketty calls it “R.”

He computes a ratio between productive wealth and reinvestment wealth. Prior to the Reagan era in the United States productive wealth predominated. Now reinvestment wealth predominates

Note that most reinvestment wealth is inherited wealth. In other words the majority of it was inherited rather than earned. Here are some of the pernicious effects when inherited wealth predominates.

*Greater political leverage. Wealthy people and corporations have great lobbying power with public officials, and it is getting greater all the time.

*Greater control over public discourse. Wealthy people and corporations can control public discourse in many ways—by owning media outlets, sponsoring shows, massive advertising, and so on. This control works via the brain. Language and imagery that activate conservative frames (see the healthy memory blog post “Different Ways of Framing”) will also activate conservative morality—strict father morality (see the healthy memory blog post “The Strict Father Model”) in. As conservative morality gets stronger, progressive morality gets weaker in the brains of the public. This affects what people believe unconsciously as well as consciously, and therefore affects how people vote.

*Greater control over the rights of others. Through state control of legislatures, the wealthy can control the voting rights of poorer populations, and state control is cheaper than national control.

Whenever there is a claim that something cannot be done, do not be fooled.
After Republicans once again promoted their false trickle down tax cut that grossly benefited the rich, they warned that there might be needed cuts in social security and medicare.

One can make an argument that taxes on wealth are more justified than taxes on income. There is no reason why free healthcare and free higher education cannot be free for everyone. There is enormous potential funding by taxing wealth. Remember that most of this wealth was inherited and not earned.

It should be remembered that the belief in the United States is that all humans are created equal. Equal in what respect? Certainly not with respect to opportunity. Greater wealth leads to greater opportunity. The greater the discrepancy of wealth in the United States, the lower the opportunity. The point here is not to advocate equal wealth for all people, but rather to illustrate the obstacles created by largely discrepant wealth, some of which were outlined in preceding paragraphs.

 

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Coping with Blindspots

January 30, 2019

This is the concluding post in the series of posts based on the book Blindsight: Hidden Biases of Good People by Mazarin R. Banaji & Anthony G. Greenwald. So what can be done to help us dealing with implicit bias? One action to consider is to go to https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ and take selected IATs offered there. This would alert you to your implicit biases and being aware of one’s implicit biases is the first step in dealing with them. Besides these tests are fun and the results are interesting.

One way of dealing with blindspots is blinding. The blinding method used by symphony orchestras simply involved concealing the players as they played their pieces for their audition. This has dramatically increased women’s success in symphony orchestra auditions. Unfortunately, it is an underutilized strategy in many circumstances in which it can work.

Another underutilized strategy is the “no-brainer” solution of developing evidenced-based guidelines to enhance discretion in judgments that might otherwise afford opportunity for hidden-bias mindbugs to operate. When faithfully applied, intelligently developed guidelines will leave little room for hidden biases.

The authors write “We expect the next several years to produce a steady accumulation of research on methods to eradicate or outsmart mindbugs. Although we (presently) lack optimism about fully eradicating mindbugs, we are not similarly pessimistic about prospects for research to develop and refine methods for outsmarting mindbugs.”