Want your kids to be more pro-social? Quit building their self-esteem!
That might be one message a person could extract from a recent finding on personality attributes and self-less behavior. In the words of one of the study authors, Wade Rowatt -
"Our discovery here is that the understudied trait of humility predicts helpfulness." [source]
Hmm. Humble people don't generally consider themselves to be awesome. And yet they are more likely to do awesomely good deeds. At least good in terms of the greater good of a group. As for personally awesome deeds, well, you have to turn to American Idol to witness those. (!)
In pain? Distract yourself. In other words, turn your attention away from the unpleasant stimuli. It seems that what we focus on looms larger in our minds (to use everyday vocabulary).
A new study on pain management suggests that both placebos and distraction techniques (watching a movie, gardening . . . ) work to diminish pain sensations in similar ways. Not only that, but based on experimental results, it seems neither technique requires conscious/deliberate thought processes, and when used together they have a greater effect.
Interesting. This finding brings to mind a couple of personal experiences. First, I recall taking a cat to the vet for a vaccine. Just prior to the vet inserting the needle -- likely causing what would be a sharp twinge of pain -- the veterinary assistant began thumping the cat's head with a finger. She explained that it would make the cat notice it less. And the cat did seem to overlook what was going on elsewhere on its body.
Brilliant. I imagine this technique works on two levels. First, it "floods" the brain with other sensations so the needle prick loses its relative amplitude. Second, by tapping on the cat's head in a rhythmic fashion, it may set up the expectation of subsequent taps. And with expectation comes focus.
As for my own experiences with pain, I have found that my biology does not respond to over-the-counter pain killers. Which is a bummer (the technical term). Aspirin, acetaminophen, naproxen . . . I may just as well toss them over my shoulder instead of down my throat. Don't do nothing. But I have found my own semi-effective solution. For those really bad, "it feels like entire universe is splitting-in-two," headaches that can keep me from falling asleep, I have found that applying a Ben-Gay-type "hot" patch to my forehead helps.
Fortunately, no photographic evidence of those instances exists. But it does help. I don't know how to describe it, except to say that the not-pleasant sensation of heat on my forehead somehow drowns out a lot of the pain. Not completely, but enough for me to get some sleep. The brain is a weird thing. Or is it just mine?
Back to pain management and perhaps even mood management as well. The following analogy strikes me as relevant: Envision a floating, sphere-shaped compass. The viewer-window shows "S" for south. Pivot the vehicle and south is still there, but it is no longer in view.
Does consciousness work a little like this?
I was listening to a podcast the other day, "This Week with Larry Miller," when I learned that Larry considers a good artist to be someone who can accurately represent natural scenes, including people.
Wow. Do I disagree. For me, technical aptitude is but one aspect of art. Another equally important aspect, if not more important, might be called "creative vision." To re-create something in nature strikes me as not very creative. Congrats, you win the Xerox award for artistic achievement!
BTW - I really enjoy Larry Miller's podcast. While it's an audio show basically about nothing, I guess I enjoy Miller's personality, so welcome time in his company while I complete "mindless" tasks such as yardwork and workbench-tidying.
As for taste in art, maybe I have gray matter that welcomes flying off the handle of its customary apprehension of reality. Mind you, the work of art does not have to be fully abstract for me to like it. It . . . just needs to challenge me a little, I guess.
For example, in the photo below (taken by moi), I find the portrait of a Jesus ("a" Jesus for there are many different depictions if the dude) on the upper left to be the least artistic and creative. In fact, what I am most drawn to (intrigued by?) is the overall spatial arrangement of the items coupled with the dynamic of the visual space.
"Dynamic of the visual space"? WTF! Maybe art critics and wine tasters come off as pretentious because they lack generic terms to describe what they are attempting to describe.
Likewise, in this next photo (provided by NASA) I find not the bald objects themselves to be of interest, but of the relation between them (and the background).
Lastly, what follows is my own attempt at a Warhol-like self-portrait. My interpretation: What matters is not only the object of our focus, but the characteristics--plural--of the subject doing the viewing. Maybe.
I have finally figured it out. To bring immediate gender equality to our society, all we need to do is to boost men's oxytocin levels while simultaneously boosting women's testosterone levels.
The Eurakalert headline tells it: Testosterone makes us less cooperative and more egocentric, study finds.
As the article relates, the hormone oxytocin has already been implicated in behaviors described as trusting/loyal/cooperative. Pro-social stuff. Meaning putting needs of the group ahead of your own -- traditionally considered (in our time/society and with tongue-in-cheek) as girly stuff.'
A new study has shown that giving female subjects testosterone supplements influenced their behavior toward a more selfish direction.
[H]igher levels of testosterone were associated with individuals behaving egocentrically and deciding in favour of their own selection over their partner's.
Son of bitch and culture-be-damned, we've got hormones circulating in our bodies that may predispose us to certain types of behaviors.
Of course, that is not to say that culture doesn't play a role. No, no, no. It certainly does -- even to the extent of actually influencing hormone levels. The point: culture isn't working with blank slate.
Wouldn't it be nice if all decisions could result in win-win (times n) scenarios? (Times n = any number of variables involved.) One decision that may not be win-win-win is that of deciding to be one of the few in your community to attend college. Sure, a college-degree is a win in terms of employment possibilities. But could there possibly be a drawback, a not-win?
It seems there can be. In somewhat of a bummer finding, sociologists at Cornell University discovered this correlation:
College reduces odds for marriage among disadvantaged
Darn. Go to college and you increase your chances for a good job. But you decrease your chances for marriage. That's not win-win.
The longitudinal study found a strong decrease in "marriage chances" for both males and females. For men, 38 percent, for women, 22 percent.
If this dynamic holds up, one might wonder, "Why the decrease in marriage rates for college-educated individuals coming from a community with few college-educated people?
Lead author Kelley Musick speculates:
Men and women from the least advantaged backgrounds who attend college appear to be caught between social worlds -- reluctant to "marry down" to partners with less education and unable to "marry up" to those from more privileged upbringings. Lower marriage chances appear to stem from men's and women's mismatched social origins and educational attainment.
That makes sense. Of course, it might not be the case (on average), but until ruled out, or until a better explanation is ruled in (supported by evidence), it's something to consider.
Recent Comments