Monday, December 1, 2014
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Creative Intelligence | Digital Tonto
Creative Intelligence
Albert Camus once said that “true art is characterized by an irresistible urge in the creative artist.” Henry Ward Beecher similarly wrote that “Every artist dips his brush in his own soul, and paints his own nature into his pictures.”
You don’t have to look far to find quotes like these, because art is something we consider intensely human. Art and the artist are so thoroughly intertwined that we can’t bear to think of one without the other.
For better or worse, we’re going to have to rethink this comfortable little notion. Machine intelligence is advancing to the point where algorithms have begun to invade the world of culture and the aesthetic. From recommendations to evaluation to the production of art itself, computers are becoming a force to be reckoned with in the creative realm.
The Search for Creative Assets
When you make a TV ad in Ukraine (as I have), you generally do it on a tight budget. You certainly don’t have the money to buy the rights to the latest hit by a big pop star or a vintage Beatles classic. There are some local musicians who can create something for you, but thats a pretty involved effort and, to be frank, the quality isn’t worth it.
I found a good solution with DeWolfe Music, which is an online database that gives you access to thousands of songs from unknown composers and performers. You can search by music genre, keyword (e.g. an artist that you’re trying to emulate) and tempo, quickly find what you need and license the music for a small fee.
Newer services, such as Pandora and Spotify, deploy a similar idea in order to build custom radio stations. Rather than a human programming director choosing your music, you can just give the software some clues about what you might want to listen to and it designs a selection from a nearly infinite database to cater to your mood and preference.
This is all done through the use of complex mathematical techniques, such as Bayesian classifiers and Gaussian copulas, that recognize similarities between data sets. So just like a sommelier might ask you what wine you typically like and offer you something similar,recommendation algorithms can do the same with music, films and even art.
Cultivating Creativity
Being able to search and find elements of art and culture is one thing, but can computers appreciate quality?
Mike McCready has shown that they can. His company, Music X-Ray, offers a service where composers can upload their music to evaluate its hit potential and it has been shown, in many cases, to outperform professional music executives (reportedly predicting the success ofNorah Jones when many industry experts were skeptical).
As crazy as the idea sounds, you’ve probably recently listened to many songs identified by the service. Every major label now uses some version of it and they’re not alone. Movie studios employ a similar service, called Epagogix to tell them which scripts are likely to become box office hits.
And it doesn’t stop there. Music scholar and composer David Cope has built algorithms which create music that has drawn critical acclaim. In fact, even music experts can’t tell the difference. When Cope’s computer generated music was played along with a Bach piece and another original composition, they couldn’t correctly identify which was which.
What is Creativity?
As impressive as all of this is, it creates a particularly thorny, visceral problem: If creativity can be reduced to an algorithm, doesn’t it lose its soul?
While I admit, I find something troubling in all of this as well, after thinking it through I have come to believe that artificial intelligence actually has the potential to help us appreciate creativity even more, in much the same way as Richard Feynman explains how understanding the inner workings of a flower help him acknowledge its beauty.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28
Our brains, in many ways, are inferior to computers. They transmit information at the relatively feeble rate of 200 mph, vs the speed of light for computer chips. They get tired, need nourishment, age, forget things and don’t interface with other databases of information effectively. Objectively speaking, they are slow, inefficient and prone to error.
Their saving grace is that they are a massively parallel complex network. They are made up of 100 billion neurons and each one can connect to any other. These interfaces, calledsynapses, optimize themselves as they strengthen and decay with use and link to the outside world through our five senses of sight, touch, taste, hearing and smell.
While computers have relatively few active pathways at work at any given time, we have millions, giving rise to infinite permutations of thoughts, feelings, bodily functions and sensory inputs. Perhaps not surprisingly, these hierarchies get tangled, resulting in strange loops that manifest themselves in what we have come to know as original creativity.
As Douglas Hofstadter said, “In the end, we self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages are little miracles of self-reference.”
Rethinking the Creative Process
The creative process has always been cloaked in mystery and artistic types tend to be resistant to formality. Nevertheless, professional individuals and organizations strive to develop an effective framework to enhance the productivity and quality of their work and creativity researchers have been able to identify some basic principles of creativity.
However, in light of the breakthroughs in machine creativity, I think that we need to revisit past thinking about creativity and identify three major processes:
Forming Intent: Every creative endeavor has its purpose. Designers work on a brief that someone else creates while true artists form their own purpose, but in either case, the final result is, in essence, a solution to a particular problem.
For example, my purpose in creating ads was to sell a product, while Picasso’s purpose in creating cubism was to establish a fundamentally different way at looking at the world. In the final analysis, both are judged by the significance and the degree to which the original intent was fulfilled.
Searching the Domain: As Howard Gardner explained in his highly regarded study, Creating Minds, great creativity requires a thorough knowledge of the domain. Picasso’s cubism, for example, was inspired by his encounter with obscure African art. The larger your database of experience, the greater your ability to create.
Computers obviously far outperform humans in this regard. They have practically limitless memory and their vast computational power enables them to search incredibly quickly and accurately.
Tangling Hierarchies: As I’ve written before, great breakthroughs come from synthesizing across domains, whether that be Picasso’s blending of European and African art or Rock and Roll’s unique fusion of various american music styles. It is when two or more ideas collide in a meaningful way that people find inspiration and creative flow.
It is this last trick, that of emulating the strange loops in our mind, which computers have recently learned how to do, that has given rise to machine creativity. David Cope, for example, found that his computer generated music was dull and lifeless until he injected an element of randomness into his algorithms.
Flying By Wire
Pilots don’t really fly planes anymore as much as they direct them. These days, their controls and instruments don’t actually connect to the plane’s mechanism, but to computers which translate their intent into meaningful action. In doing so, they make flying far safer and more efficient.
This is known as flying by wire and we don’t see anything threatening or strange about it. While at first it may seem to be a bit more disconcerting when computers start navigating the realm of abstract thought rather than the mechanics of aviation, it shouldn’t be, any more than driving a car should affect our feelings about walking.
So what makes us creative? Our ability to form our own intent. It is only through creating a purpose that is uniquely our own that we can fully embody the human spirit.
– Greg
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Friday, October 31, 2014
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Observational Learning - YouTube
Seinfeld clips the pledge - YouTube
Elaine observes the unusual behavior of Mr Pitt eating a Snickers bar with utensils and imitates him and others continue the pattern demonstrating observational learning gone mad.
Elaine observes the unusual behavior of Mr Pitt eating a Snickers bar with utensils and imitates him and others continue the pattern demonstrating observational learning gone mad.
Operant Conditioning - YouTube
Big Bang Theory-operant conditioning - YouTube:
Big Bang Theory Video to teach the theory of behavior modification when looking specifically at altering consequences. This clip specifically examines positive reinforcement.
Big Bang Theory Video to teach the theory of behavior modification when looking specifically at altering consequences. This clip specifically examines positive reinforcement.
Classical Conditioning - Vimeo
Pavlov Theory - YouTube:
This clip, which comes from a television show (The Office) rather than a movie, shows a comedic take on classical conditioning. Since classical conditioning only applies to automatic bodily responses, only Dwight's "dry mouth" (not his arm extension) is an example of a classically conditioned response.
This clip, which comes from a television show (The Office) rather than a movie, shows a comedic take on classical conditioning. Since classical conditioning only applies to automatic bodily responses, only Dwight's "dry mouth" (not his arm extension) is an example of a classically conditioned response.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Watch "Schizophrenia & Dissociative Disorders: Crash Cou…" on YouTube
Schizophrenia & Dissociative Disorders: Crash Cou…: http://youtu.be/uxktavpRdzU
Invisible Qualities
http://bible.com/111/rom.1.19-20.niv since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Bible.com/app
Bible.com/app
Monday, September 29, 2014
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Sunday, September 14, 2014
First Scientific Proof Of God Found - WIT
Linguistic professors at Bob Jones University, long noted for its intellectual rigor, began to attempt to translate the decoded segments that W.I.T. was providing. The structure was notably and demonstrably human in nature. The coding language found, which utilized sequences of twenty-eight independent values, fell easily into the incidence range of known alphabets. Sequences of independent connected values likewise mirrored the structure of word composition in human languages. The Linguistic and Philology team at Bob Jones began an extensive comparison of the quizzical script found in the “Junk DNA” with the catalog of every recorded human language; hoping to find similar lingual threads so that they could begin to formulate translations of the message laying hidden in the DNA. Professors were rocked with sheer awe when they found that one existent language, and one language alone, was a direct translatable match for the sequential DNA strands.
The Language in the “Junk DNA”, the DNA that scientists had for years discarded as useless, was indistinguishable from ancient Aramaic. Even more amazingly, as linguists started to translate the code within the human genome, they found that parts of the script it contained were at times remarkably close in composition to verse found in the bible. And at times contained direct biblical quotes.
On the human gene PYGB, Phosporomylase Glycogen, a non-coding transposon, holds a linguistic sequence that translates as “At first break of day, God formed sky and land.” This bears a stunning similarity to Gen 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Gene Bmp3 has a Retrotransposon sequence which translates to the well-known 1 Cor 6:19 “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own.” This is repeated over and over throughout the entire sequence of human DNA: embedded equivalent genetic code of ancient Aramaic that seems to translate as the word of god to his people.
Matthew Boulder, chief linguist for the project and professor of applied creation sciences at Bob Jones University, issued this statement: “As for the evidence- it is there and it is, to my view, undeniable. The very word of God, elegantly weaved in and out of our very bodies and souls, as plain as day. And the beauty of it, that God would lay down the words of truth in our very beings, shows his love and The Miracle.”
Scientists at W.I.T. await replication of our own research extracting and sequencing “Junk” DNA and verification of translation into Aramaic by independent sources before we move forward on the peer review process and the release of our total research and discovery to date.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Friday, September 12, 2014
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Saturday, September 6, 2014
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Article: 4 Strategies For Remembering Everything You Learn
If you're going to learn anything, you need two kinds of prior knowledge: • knowledge about the subject at hand, like math, history, or programming • knowledge about how learning actually works The bad news: Our education system kinda skips one of them, which is terrifying, given that your abilit...
How to Ruin a Perfectly Good Relationship | Psychology Today
The second behavior that predicts divorce with over 90% accuracy, according to John Gottman's research and the experience of most couples' counselors, is stonewalling. Different from an occasional timeout to calm down or collect your thoughts, stonewalling is absolute refusal to consider your partner’s perspective. If you listen at all, you do it dismissively or contemptuously.
The common songs of the stonewaller are:
The other divorce-predictive behaviors – criticism, defensiveness, and contempt - are gender neutral, i.e., men and women do them more or less equally. Stonewalling, according to the research of Gottman and others, as well as the experience of most couples' counselors, is far more likely to be a male thing. When women stonewall, it’s typically a function of temperament – they’re shy, inhibited, or introverted. More commonly, it’s a learned behavior – engaging in conflict or emotion-laden conversation has exposed them to put-downs or abuse in the past.
Stonewalling is more natural to males. In general, males - of all social animals - have a more rapid arousal level – stonewalling is a way of shutting out stimulation that spikes arousal. They also have a smaller corpus calossum, the tissue that connects the brain’s hemispheres and facilitates communication between them. It’s easier for males to cut off information from the emotional part of their brains when things get hot, a practice they begin as little boys.
Of course, cultural reinforcement plays a large part, as the icon of the “the strong, silent male,” reinforces stonewalling.
Men are less likely than women to know when they stonewall, because it seems so natural for them. A sure sign that a man is stonewalling is if he believes his partner nags him. That means he’s not listening. The nagging partner is an unheard partner.
Frustrating vs. Painful
The experience of being stonewalled tends to be different for men and women. Men who are stonewalled feel frustrated – their goal of resolution is blocked by the stonewalling. But the experience is downright painful for women who are stonewalled, as they are apt to feel isolated – a sense that no one cares about them. To understand the effects of stonewalling on most women, a man need only think of how bad humiliation feels. That’s how isolation feels to his partner, which is why she tries so hard to break through the stone wall
Aggressive vs. Defensive Stone Walls
In aggressive stonewalling, the stonewaller knows that the silence, cold shoulder, and emotional isolation hurt his partner. He stonewalls to gain leverage or power. This is a common tactic in battering relationships, in which the more powerful partner systematically controls or dominates the less powerful one.
In defensive stonewalling, conflict seems overwhelming to the stonewallers. It seems that their only choice is to shut it out (stonewall) or crush it with aggression. So shutting it out seems the better of the two. Of course, treatment teaches them that there are other choices, such as emotion regulation, engagement, and connection.
Looks Different on the Outside
While stonewalling can look aggressive, mean, or childish from the outside, if feels very different on the inside. The defensive stonewaller feels like he’s trying to protect himself. He can also think that he’s protecting his family. Not only have I observed this countless times in my clients, I experienced it my personal life. For about 10 years or so, before becoming a therapist, I regularly stonewalled my wife when things got hot. I was afraid of my anger, having grown up in a severely violent home. I never wanted my wife or daughter to see that kind of rage or know that kind of chaos. In truth, I never had that kind of anger, but there was always the fear.
I had to learn, as all stonewallers need to do, that we need to step outside ourselves to see our behavior more objectively. We stonewall to avoid feeling inadequate. We’re convinced that we’ll fail if we try to engage - fail as communicators and, more important, as husbands and boyfriends.
Like all avoidance strategies, stonewalling only proves that we are inadequate and unlovable, or else we wouldn’t need to do it. Thus the more we do it, the more it seems that we need to do it.
The trick in overcoming feelings of inadequacy is to realize that everything we’ve ever done (that required a certain level of skill), we were inadequate at doing when we first started. The discomfort of inadequacy motivated us to learn to do the task, at which point we gained a feeling of competence and mastery. We can use feelings of inadequacy in love in the same way, as motivation to learn how to be better partners and parents.
The common songs of the stonewaller are:
- “Just leave me alone…”
- “Do whatever you want...”
- “End of conversation…”
- “Stop talking...”
- “Get out of my face…”
- “That’s enough…”
- “I’ve had it!”
The other divorce-predictive behaviors – criticism, defensiveness, and contempt - are gender neutral, i.e., men and women do them more or less equally. Stonewalling, according to the research of Gottman and others, as well as the experience of most couples' counselors, is far more likely to be a male thing. When women stonewall, it’s typically a function of temperament – they’re shy, inhibited, or introverted. More commonly, it’s a learned behavior – engaging in conflict or emotion-laden conversation has exposed them to put-downs or abuse in the past.
Stonewalling is more natural to males. In general, males - of all social animals - have a more rapid arousal level – stonewalling is a way of shutting out stimulation that spikes arousal. They also have a smaller corpus calossum, the tissue that connects the brain’s hemispheres and facilitates communication between them. It’s easier for males to cut off information from the emotional part of their brains when things get hot, a practice they begin as little boys.
Of course, cultural reinforcement plays a large part, as the icon of the “the strong, silent male,” reinforces stonewalling.
Men are less likely than women to know when they stonewall, because it seems so natural for them. A sure sign that a man is stonewalling is if he believes his partner nags him. That means he’s not listening. The nagging partner is an unheard partner.
Frustrating vs. Painful
The experience of being stonewalled tends to be different for men and women. Men who are stonewalled feel frustrated – their goal of resolution is blocked by the stonewalling. But the experience is downright painful for women who are stonewalled, as they are apt to feel isolated – a sense that no one cares about them. To understand the effects of stonewalling on most women, a man need only think of how bad humiliation feels. That’s how isolation feels to his partner, which is why she tries so hard to break through the stone wall
Aggressive vs. Defensive Stone Walls
In aggressive stonewalling, the stonewaller knows that the silence, cold shoulder, and emotional isolation hurt his partner. He stonewalls to gain leverage or power. This is a common tactic in battering relationships, in which the more powerful partner systematically controls or dominates the less powerful one.
In defensive stonewalling, conflict seems overwhelming to the stonewallers. It seems that their only choice is to shut it out (stonewall) or crush it with aggression. So shutting it out seems the better of the two. Of course, treatment teaches them that there are other choices, such as emotion regulation, engagement, and connection.
Looks Different on the Outside
While stonewalling can look aggressive, mean, or childish from the outside, if feels very different on the inside. The defensive stonewaller feels like he’s trying to protect himself. He can also think that he’s protecting his family. Not only have I observed this countless times in my clients, I experienced it my personal life. For about 10 years or so, before becoming a therapist, I regularly stonewalled my wife when things got hot. I was afraid of my anger, having grown up in a severely violent home. I never wanted my wife or daughter to see that kind of rage or know that kind of chaos. In truth, I never had that kind of anger, but there was always the fear.
I had to learn, as all stonewallers need to do, that we need to step outside ourselves to see our behavior more objectively. We stonewall to avoid feeling inadequate. We’re convinced that we’ll fail if we try to engage - fail as communicators and, more important, as husbands and boyfriends.
Like all avoidance strategies, stonewalling only proves that we are inadequate and unlovable, or else we wouldn’t need to do it. Thus the more we do it, the more it seems that we need to do it.
The trick in overcoming feelings of inadequacy is to realize that everything we’ve ever done (that required a certain level of skill), we were inadequate at doing when we first started. The discomfort of inadequacy motivated us to learn to do the task, at which point we gained a feeling of competence and mastery. We can use feelings of inadequacy in love in the same way, as motivation to learn how to be better partners and parents.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Friday, August 22, 2014
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Unit 14: Social Psychology
- Introduction
- We are social animals.
- We are moved to love and to hate, drastically.
- We almost always care what others think or what others do or say.
- Social psychology is the study of how we think about, influence, and relate to others.
- Attributing behavior to persons or to situations
- Fritz Heider came up with the attribution theory which says people measure others’ behavior by either their internal disposition or the external situation that they’re in.
- In other words, people behave due to their innate nature or because they’re caught up in the situation.
- For example, a person may be quiet by nature, but in the right situation, may be very outgoing.
- The fundamental attribution error is that we tend to overestimate a person’s natural personality and underestimate the position that they’re in.
- An experiment with a set-up “mean or friendly” girl showed that we see behavior as being determined by one’s personality, not by the situation.
- When we view others, it’s easy to fall into the fundamental attribution error trap. Studies show that when people have the situations reversed, they better see the situation from another’s point-of-view.
- How we interpret another’s behavior has consequences—both good and/or bad.
- We must be cautious in interpreting another person’s actions or inactions.
- Politics comes into play when interpreting actions or inactions.
- For instance, the author of the textbook's on which these notes are based seems to clearly hold the biased view of a political liberal. He suggests that a person’s place in life the result of things beyond his or her control.
- From the liberal angle, the author argues that the people who stayed in New Orleans while Hurricane Katrina bore down on New Orleans. He suggests leniency for their inaction because they were “not offered bus transportation.”
- The political liberal also suggests that society is the cause of crime and terrorism and that people must “consider the situations that breed terrorists.” America’s understanding of this situation, a political liberal believes, will somehow prevent terrorism.
- Political conservatives tend to attribute a person’s situation to his or her own action or inaction.
- Conservatives might suggest, “If you don’t like where you are in life, don’t complain by saying it’s someone else’s fault. Rather, if you wish to better your place in life, then work hard and do just that—improve your life. You have the power to change your life!”
- Conservatives would state that terrorism is due to the actions of the terrorists themselves. Terrorism is not a result of the understanding, or lack of understanding, by the victims whom terrorists attack. This “blame-the-victim-logic” is the same as saying, “A woman was raped because she didn’t consider the situation that bred the rapist.”
- For instance, the author of the textbook's on which these notes are based seems to clearly hold the biased view of a political liberal. He suggests that a person’s place in life the result of things beyond his or her control.
- Fritz Heider came up with the attribution theory which says people measure others’ behavior by either their internal disposition or the external situation that they’re in.
- Attitudes and actions
- Attitudes are feelings that drive us to respond to a situation, person, or event in a certain way. Our beliefs often influence feelings.
- How we feel about someone or something, right or wrong, impacts the way we react to it.
- The central route persuasion is a change-of-attitude where people evaluate arguments and respond with favorable thoughts.
- Simply, this occurs when you weigh the evidence of something and make a rational decision.
- For instance, both Republicans and Democrats analyzed and weighed the intelligence available at the time and overwhelmingly voted to support Pres. George W. Bush’s plan to use force to remove remove the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein (the vote was 297-133 in the House, 77-23 in the Senate).
- The peripheral route persuasion is a change-of-attitude where people are influenced by quick cues and make quick judgments.
- Simply, this occurs when you make a quick decision based on a snap judgment, emotion, what's cool, popular, sexy, etc.
- For instance, many people watched Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, became caught up in the flash and glamour of “going green,” and accepted man-made global warming as scientific truth.
- People made their decision because they’d seen a movie, not due to the results of analysis of a scientific experiment.
- This causality error is common. Only experimentation shows causality (not a movie).
- What you hold as your attitude affects how you act.
- The foot-in-the-door phenomenon says that if a person goes along with a small requests, he or she will go along with bigger requests.
- For instance, American prisoners in the Korean War were increasingly given rewards for “going along” with communist ideas. What started as something tiny grew to full-fledged agreement with socialism/communism.
- To get people to agree to a big lie, start with a small lie.
- What’s more, once you go along, what you do starts to become what you believe. That’s why many Korean War prisoners returned to the U.S. “brainwashed” and believing that socialism/communism was actually good for America.
- Some good news, the belief-follows-action phenomenon works not only for the bad, but for the good as well.
- The role that a person fills also affects his or her actions.
- People tend to behave in a manner that they think is appropriate for whatever role they are in.
- The most famous role-playing situation was the famous “Zimbardo Prison Experiment” done by Philip Zimbardo at Stanford in 1972.
- Zimbardo set up a fake prison in the basement at Stanford, then randomly assigned prisoners and guards.
- They role-played. Guards were given clubs and uniforms and told to keep order. Prisoners were given humiliating robes.
- The effect—the “guards” assumed their roles and basically abused the “prisoners”. The experiment was called off after 6 days.
- The bottom line—we are what we do.
- When our attitudes and our actions don’t match up, we feel tense. This is called “cognitive dissonance”. To fight this tension, thecognitive dissonance theory tries to bring our attitudes and our actions together to relieve tension.
- In essence, we rationalize our actions and we make excuses for what we do.
- We either change our attitudes to match our actions, or vice versa. Usually, it’s the attitude that’s changed rather than the behavior.
- The good news, changing one’s behavior can be relieving.
- The foot-in-the-door phenomenon says that if a person goes along with a small requests, he or she will go along with bigger requests.
- Attitudes are feelings that drive us to respond to a situation, person, or event in a certain way. Our beliefs often influence feelings.
- Conformity and obedience
- People mimic other people’s actions, as with looking up or yawning.
- The so-called “chameleon effect” says we reflect the characteristics of those whom we’re around.
- Taking on others’ feelings is called “mood linkage”—we’re happy around happy people, sad around depressed people.
- Conformity is changing your behavior or thinking to the group’s norm.
- Solomon Asch did a conformity study where he asked which line was the same length as another (the answer was obvious).
- However, others in the group were “in on the joke” and set up one person who was not.
- Those “in on it” chose the right answer a couple of times, then they purposely chose an obviously wrong answer.
- The one person who was not “in on the joke” eventually went over to the others’ wrong choice 1/3 of the time.
- Asch came up with conditions that strengthen conformity…
- Insecurity.
- Group must have 3+ people.
- The group is unanimous.
- Someone in the group is admired.
- No commitment has been made yet.
- Others watch one another.
- Your culture values social standards.
- The reasons that we conform are…
- To avoid being ostracized, which can be a serious punishment. Thus, we respond to the normative social influence, meaning, we adjust our behavior to that of the group’s.
- Other people can give us information. This informational social influence leads us to go along with the group lest we be “left out of the loop.”
- Robert Baron did an updated Asch experiment. His conclusion…
- If a person is unsure of their judgment, they’ll listen and conform to others.
- People in Western cultures, which value individualism, are less conforming than people in Eastern cultures.
- Obedience is obeying the directions of an authority figure (or someone perceived as an authority figure). The most famous/infamous obedience experiment was done by Asch’s student, Stanley Milgram. It’s usually just called the Milgram Experiment or the “Obedience to Authority Experiment.”
- Milgram had 3 groups of people…
- Experimenter—was the overall boss.
- Learner—was to answer word pair questions.
- Teacher—was to “teach” word pairs and give electric shocks for incorrect answers.
- The Experimenter and Learner were both “in on the joke”—they knew the shocking was fake. The Teacher was left out of the loop.
- The teacher would start at 15 volts, then after each wrong answer, go up a notch. The electrical dial went up to 450 volts.
- If the teacher got nervous about shocking the Learner, the Experimenter told the Teacher to continue.
- Milgram’s purpose was to see how far the Teacher would go (how obedient would the Teacher be)?
- The findings—most people (63%) went all the way to 450 volts.
- The Milgram Experiment is often cited as ethically wrong. Namely, it put the Teacher under considerable stress (thinking he was torturing the Learner). And, the idea of “Informed Consent” was very questionable because the Experimenter, under false pretense, tried to talk the Teacher into continuing.
- Milgram had 3 groups of people…
- Lessons from conformity and obedience studies…
- People seem driven to get along and to follow instructions. We are social animals.
- The foot-in-the-door effect works, as in the Milgram experiment, the shock started small then worked up. Those who resisted usually did so early on.
- Ordinary people are capable of terrible things when just “following orders.” For instance, the Holocaust of WWII.
- People will follow horrible orders even more so when someone else does the nasty work.
- Group influence
- Social facilitation is the phenomenon of better performance while someone is watching. For instance, runners run faster when competing against people than against the clock.
- Having others watch arouses us (it wakes us up) to the task-at-hand.
- Sometimes though, having others around hinders our performance. This happens when we’re doing something difficult for us.
- What we do well, we do better when others watch.
- Social loafing is the phenomenon where people put forth less effort while in a group as compared to being on their own.
- While in a group, we rely on the group to pick up more weight than when we have to go it alone.
- This happens because the person feels less accountable and that his efforts won’t matter much.
- Men in individualistic cultures tend to be the highest social loafers.
- Deindividuation is giving up normal restraints and giving in to the crowd.
- This happens when the group both arouses us and lowers our accountability (we’re hyped up and feel like we can get away with something in the crowd).
- Deindividuation is why a normally calm person in a crowd might yell like crazy at an umpire. Or, after Hurricane Katrina, many people used the flood as a reason to loot stores because they felt their actions would get lost in the crowd.
- Sometimes this phenomenon is called “herd poisoning” because the crowd/herd poisons the mind and judgment of a normally rational person.
- The effects of group interaction
- Group polarization is the idea that the differences between two groups will widen as time passes.
- For instance, the political views between two groups of college freshmen may be slight at first, but by their senior years, the gap will have widened.
- Talking about the issue seems to actually widen the gap. The more you talk about it, the more set in your views you become.
- “Groupthink” occurs when everyone in the group quietly goes along with the others to keep harmony, even though the idea may be unrealistic.
- Groupthink is fueled by overconfidence, conformity, self-justification, and group polarization.
- To fight groupthink, allow alternative opinions, allow experts to view the plans, and ask for possible problems.
- Group polarization is the idea that the differences between two groups will widen as time passes.
- Social facilitation is the phenomenon of better performance while someone is watching. For instance, runners run faster when competing against people than against the clock.
- Cultural influence
- The culture that we live in gets soaked up by our brains. Our culture impacts our behaviors, ideas, attitudes, values, and traditions.
- We pass on things from person to person.
- Although cultures differ, the ability to have and to pass on culture to others is universal.
- Different cultures have their own variations.
- The examples are too many, but some differences are: beachwear in different places, wearing shoes in the house or not, to greet with a handshake or kiss. Each area has its own norms—simply, what’s normal.
- Personal space is the comfortable area between you and another person. North Americans and northern Europeans like wider personal spaces than Latin Americans, the French, and Arab nations.
- Punctuality differs too. North America, northern Europeans, and Japanese are time-conscious. Mediterranean, Indonesia, and Caribbean countries are more unworried about time.
- The effect—time-watchers see the others as charming but inefficient; laid-back countries see time-watchers as efficient but cold.
- Culture’s change over time as well. Think of beachwear, what’s commonly worn on the beach today definitely would not have been the norm 100 years ago.
- The culture that we live in gets soaked up by our brains. Our culture impacts our behaviors, ideas, attitudes, values, and traditions.
- The power of individuals
- Even though we are social animals, people have the power to do things on their own. History shows it is the power of an individual working alone who brings about great change, rather than many working as a group.
- Witness Gandhi who freed India using nonviolent protest or Isaac Newton who literally wrote calculus or Martin Luther who restored Christianity to its Biblical roots.
- Prejudice
- Prejudice is to “prejudge”—to draw a conclusion prior to analyzing a situation.
- At times, stereotypes influence prejudice. Stereotypes are preconceived notions about a person or situation. They may or may not fit the actual situation. Stereotypes could be good or bad, they could be right or wrong.
- To discriminate means to draw a distinction between two things. Discrimination in and of itself is not a bad thing.
- Ironically, it’s prejudiced in itself to conclude life’s injustices as being caused by prejudice. Or, it’s odd that thinking of the word “stereotype” as being solely negative is a stereotype of that very word!
- When applied to people though, prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination can be ugly.
- A study suggested people have prejudice based on one’s name (and thus perceived race).
- In another example, people tend to see women as being more nurturing, sensitive, and less aggressive. This was seen in two pictures of a man. One was normal and the other was feminized. Women then chose the feminized man as being more loyal, trustworthy, and family-oriented.
- There are many, many examples of injustice in the world. But to be fair, it is unclear how much of this injustice is due to prejudice, and how much is due to other causes.
- When society yields people at the top of the socio-economic ladder (the “rich”) and those at the bottom (the “poor”), certain things happen…
- The “rich” see themselves as having earned their position.
- A “blame-the-other-guy” mentality follows…
- The “rich” say the “poor” are where they are because they’re lazy. The poor are the result of their own actions or inactions. The rich blame the poor for their low status.
- The “poor” see themselves as victims of the “riches’” actions, but not the result of their own actions or inactions. The poor blame the rich for their low status.
- The “ingroup” includes those on the inside of a social circle and the “outgroup” excludes all others. The group we’re in is the ingroup, others are the outgroup.
- What’s more, we have an ingroup bias where we favor our own group.
- Why are people prejudiced?
- Prejudice can begin with the fear of attack by others. It can also start with the scapegoat theory, which says people tend to look for someone on whom to place blame when things go wrong.
- We can also “think” our way into prejudice. People tend to simplify and categorize things in order to make sense of them. This adds to the “us-them” mentality.
- People are able to see differences among their own racial/ethnic group, but others are seen as if “they all look the same.” This is called the other-race effect or the “own-race bias.”
- The just-world phenomenon states that good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is punished.
- Hindsight bias plays into this as well. Sometimes the victims can be blamed. For instance, after 9/11, liberals blamed the United States for a lack of understanding of the terrorists and said the Americans therefore deserved the attacks.
- Prejudice is to “prejudge”—to draw a conclusion prior to analyzing a situation.
- Aggression
- Aggression, in psychology, is any physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt or destroy. It can be emotional or very calm, as long as it meets those characteristics.
- Aggression has biological factors built into it.
- Genetics lays the groundwork first. People are like different types of dogs who are more or less prone to fighting. Twin studies have backed this up. Males are more prone to aggression.
- Neural influences affect aggression. Neural networks in the brain that inhibit or activate aggression. Namely, the amygdala can activate aggression, and the frontal lobes are important for controlling impulses. There is no one true “hot spot” however.
- Biochemical influences affect aggression. Drugs and hormones can affect aggression. Violent people tend to be male, muscular, with low serotonin and high testosterone, and lower intelligence. Alcohol also increases aggression.
- There are psychological and social factors that play into aggression.
- The frustration-aggression principle says that when things go badly, we’re more inclined to get aggressive. Simply put, we seek revenge.
- For example, after 9/11, most Americans sought revenge for the unprovoked actions of terrorists.
- People are more aggressive when they’re cranky. Things like hot weather increase aggressive behavior.
- Aggression is more common when people have been taught that their aggression yields results.
- For example, terrorists continue to terrorize when they’re told that their actions bring about a change in those whom they terrorize.
- To counter this, the victims of terrorism should remain strong and send the message that terrorism will not bring about the desired change of the terrorists.
- Aggression is modeled in many ways.
- Parents can model aggression by yelling and beating their children, rather than lovingly disciplining their child. Rather, constructive physical discipline (spanking) is calm, loving, just, and teaches a lesson for the child’s good. Allowing a child to misbehave is, in fact, extremely unloving.
- TV and movies are ridiculously aggressive and violent. The message conveyed is clear: violence is sexy and productive.
- The “rape scene” and blaming-the-victim infamously comes back. The “rape myth” holds that women (being the “good girls”) initially flee from a rapist, then give in, then enjoy it. Here, they say the woman deserved what she got.
- This blame-the-victim, backward logic is the same as a “terrorism myth.” This occurs when political liberals blame America for the terrorism of 9/11. They say America deserved the attacks of 9/11. Here, they say America deserved what she got.
- Pornography has negative effects in many ways—it makes one’s spouse appear less attractive, it makes sexual crimes seem less severe, it makes sexual violence seem less offensive.
- Social scripts are the “screenplays”, conveyed by the media and our culture, that show us how to act in situations.
- Youngsters who constantly see glamorized gangsta rappers denigrating women and flashing guns will mimic just that.
- Liberal TV shows and even cartoons constantly glamorize free and open sex, then it’s accepted as okay behavior and reenacted in real-life.
- Video games are extremely violent. The question is, “Does this violence release aggression in a harmless way or add to aggressive behavior?”
- At times, people have copy-catted the violence of games to real life.
- Certainly, video games desensitize the gamer to violence. A person’s head cut off? No big deal!
- The experimental research is clear…
- Violent games lead to an increase in aggressive and violent behavior.
- The “cartharsis hypothesis” is NOT supported. This is the idea that a person can use a video game as a harmless outlet to aggression (“catharsis” means to let something out, to release the “pressure” that’s built up).
- The frustration-aggression principle says that when things go badly, we’re more inclined to get aggressive. Simply put, we seek revenge.
- Attraction
- We become friends to some people, fall in love with some people, but don’t with others. Why?
- To grow close to someone, people must first share a proximity—they must be geographically close together.
- Sometimes being close means we fight. Usually, it means we get along.
- Being close means being familiar. And, familiarity plays a big part in who we like. The bottom line—we like people with whom we’re familiar and who are like us. Conversely, we distrust (and maybe dislike) people unfamiliar and unlike us.
- The mere exposure effect says that repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases how much we like it. In other words, as we get used to something, we like it more.
- Experiments show the more we see a person, the more attractive we find them.
- We like our own faces too. An experiment morphed the subject’s faces with a stranger’s. Not surprisingly, the subject liked the morphed face more than the stranger’s.
- Physical attractiveness matters (AKA, “hotness” matters!).
- After proximity, the next biggest factor that draws attraction isphysical appearance (sorry, but it’s not a “nice personality”).
- Attractive people get more interest from the opposite sex.
- Attractiveness also influences people’s perceptions. The good-looking are seen as healthy, happy, sensitive, successful, etc. (all things good). Attractive and well-dressed people get better jobs and earn more as well.
- Defense for the not-so-attractive people…
- Self-esteem and happiness are independent of attractiveness.
- Most people don’t feel they are unattractive (the mere exposure effect is at work here—we’re prone to like our own appearance).
- Different cultures, and different time periods, have different definitions of beauty. People go to extremes to alter their appearances in trying to meet the perceived definition of beauty.
- Across cultural boundaries though, men like young-looking women, women like men who look healthy, mature, dominant, successful.
- Characteristics like honesty, humor, manners, etc. are great. And, once a person gets to know you with these characteristics, they tend to start seeing you as more physically attractive.
- A face that is a computer composite of many faces is seen as more attractive than the faces that make it up. This is perhaps because the averaged face is symmetrical, which we like.
- After proximity and physical appearance, similarity, or getting to know a person, is the next factor that plays into attraction.
- Do opposites or similar people usually attract? The research clearly shows that opposites do not attract. We dislike those unlike us, we like people like us. The saying, “birds of a feather flock together” is right.
- Friends and couples usually have these things in common: age, religion, race, education, intelligence, smoking behavior, economic level.
- The “reward theory of attraction” says we’ll like people whose behavior is rewarding to us in some way.
- If we live in someone’s proximity, we can enjoy their company frequently.
- If they’re physically attractive, it’s nice to be with them and may “up” our status.
- If they share our thoughts and feelings, they validate our thoughts and feelings.
- Romantic love can be broken down into short-term “passionate love” and long-term “companionate love.”
- Passionate love is usually brought on by arousal. Arousal can come in many forms, such as fright, aerobic exercise, eroticism, funny or crude talk.
- Whatever the cause of arousal, a study showed men who were aroused viewed a woman as being more attractive than men who were not aroused.
- Simply put, when the heart is pounding, we see a member of the opposite sex as more attractive.
- Companionate love lasts the test of time—it’s steady, deep affection. Whereas passionate love yields children, companionate love yields families.
- Having a relationship based on equity is important. This is where both the man and woman help out one another.
- Also, self-disclosure is important. This is revealing our innermost desires and dreams to our spouse. To reach this, two people must spend time with one another and gradually earn one another’s trust. Research shows that sharing ourselves with others binds us together.
- Passionate love is usually brought on by arousal. Arousal can come in many forms, such as fright, aerobic exercise, eroticism, funny or crude talk.
- Altruism
- Altruism is when we put others ahead of ourselves.
- The 1964 rape and murder of Kitty Genovese awakened social psychologists to the power of social behavior. Though 38 neighbors heard her cry, they were hesitant to call the police. This is an example on “non-altruism” because the neighbors did not want to inconvenience themselves by getting involved.
- The Kitty Genovese case also exemplifies the bystander effect. It says that, if there are several people present during an emergency, we’re less likely to take action.
- If only one person was there, he or she usually took action.
- Having many people around during an emergency resulted in a “diffusion of responsibility.” This is because our level of responsibility is “watered down.”
- Other patterns of altruism show the best odds of someone helping take place when…
- The person seems to need help.
- The person seems similar to us.
- We’ve just observed someone else being helpful.
- We’re not in a hurry.
- We’re in a small town or rural area.
- We’re feeling guilty.
- We’re not preoccupied.
- We’re in a good mood. This is one of the most consistent findings. When people are happy, they’re more inclined to help.
- The 1964 rape and murder of Kitty Genovese awakened social psychologists to the power of social behavior. Though 38 neighbors heard her cry, they were hesitant to call the police. This is an example on “non-altruism” because the neighbors did not want to inconvenience themselves by getting involved.
- Social psychologists wonder, “Why do people help others anyway?’
- A cold-and-calculating theory simply says that we help others if we weigh the costs and benefits and the benefits outweigh the costs. This is called either the social exchange theory, or “cost-benefit analysis” or “utilitarianism.” Simply put, we get more out of it than we put in.
- There are intrinsic rewards. Helping people makes us feel good. Brain scans support this.
- The reciprocity norm says we should give help (not harm) to those who’ve helped us.
- The social-responsibility norm says we should help those who are in need.
- Altruism is when we put others ahead of ourselves.
- Conflict and peacemaking
- Conflict is a perceived incompatibility of actions, goals, or ideas. It’s bickering or fighting.
- Social traps occur when our self-interest leads us into lose-lose situations.
- Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776. In it, he explained that the greatest economic good is achieved through capitalism, by each person pursuing his or her own self-interest.
- Capitalism yields the greatest common good, the best for the most people, even though social traps do occur.
- Other economic systems, namely communism and socialism, have been shown by history to result in elitism and class inequality, stripping of freedoms, economic stagnation, and widespread hunger.
- Jean Jacques Rousseau came up with the “game theory” known as thePrisoners’ Dilemma.
- Imagine two criminals arrested then held in separate rooms. Under interrogation, each is given a choice, either (A) don’t confess or (B) confess.
- If person 1 confesses, he gets off easy, especially if person 2 does not confess.
- If person 2 confesses, he gets off easy, especially if person 1 does not confess.
- What usually happens is that both people will confess (they both act in their own best interest). The best option is that neitherconfesses, but out of fear of “being slammed” by their partner, they do what’s best for themselves and both confess.
- A real-life example of a social trap might be a person who thinks, “If I don’t recycle, that’s only one person not doing it.” If a million others think that way, it makes a big difference.
- Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776. In it, he explained that the greatest economic good is achieved through capitalism, by each person pursuing his or her own self-interest.
- The mirror-image perception concept says we tend to view others as evil and untrustworthy and they see us the same way.
- Our negative behavior toward the other group can in turn be reflected back toward us. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where we think they don’t like us, we act unfriendly, and thus, they in fact don’t like us and return the unfriendly behavior.
- An example of this occurred when Saddam Hussein’s military overran tiny and helpless Kuwait in 1990. After America showed altruism by coming to Kuwait’s aid and pushing Saddam out, Hussein reciprocated a bitter hatred toward America.
- Contact with people whom we prior had held prejudice or dislike helps us get along. In other words, we may say we don’t like someone or a certain type of people, but if we spend time with them, we can get along. For example…
- The races have grown much closer by being closer on a regular basis.
- Being around homosexuals regularly increases their acceptance by straight men and women.
- In other words, familiarity breeds content.
- Cooperation can lead to achieving superordinate goals—shared goals that cancel out differences and which can only be achieved through cooperation.
- For example, after 9/11, George W. Bush’s approval rating shot up to 91%, the highest ever. The shared goal of America was to achieve justice for the wrong brought on by terrorists.
- “Rebranding” a person aids in cooperation. Whereas you used to be a “Jet” or a “Shark”, if rebranded as a New Yorker, you’re more likely to work together.
- Communication is critical.
- Sometimes, when communication breaks down, mediators step into the middle. They try to turn a lose-lose situation into a win-win situation.
- During times of crisis, communication is most-needed, but least likely to take place.
- Conciliation is overcoming disagreements and giving in to, or appeasing, another person.
- For example, after Saddam Hussein took over tiny Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush said America would “kick Saddam’s ass.” Saddam said Americans will “swim in their own blood.” No conciliation here.
- Charles Osgood offered a path of conciliation called “GRIT” (Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-Reduction). The steps are…
- Announce mutual interests and plans to lessen tensions.
- Make a small conciliatory act (give in to the other side). This opens the door to reciprocity.
- If the enemy responds with reconciliation, that gets another conciliatory response. If the enemy responds with aggression, appropriate action is taken.
- In laboratories, GRIT seems promising. In real-life GRIT has not done well.
- Hitler was repeatedly given conciliatory responses and appeasements, notably by Neville Chamberlain, which merely encouraged his maniacal behavior.
- Saddam Hussein was given many chances to cooperate with the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But Saddam’s stubbornness left President George W. Bush with no rational alternative but to follow the final step of GRIT—if the enemy responds with aggression, appropriate action is taken. Thus, Saddam was removed from power.
- Two hard-but-true lessons are taught here by history:
- Politicians who naively follow the GRIT theory (by relying solely on diplomacy and sanctions) are often played as fools by bullies.
- Despite one’s own desire to seek out the good in humanity, evil does exist and is very real. And, the evil-doer will use his counterpart’s naïve desire-for-good for his own wicked advantage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
