Thursday, May 01, 2008

Being best Buddies with Your Spouse Can Mean a Happy Marriage


From Psychology Today, a brief article that suggests couples who are friends and have fun together have happier and healthier relationships. Makes sense to me.

Body of Evidence: Play Mates
Being best buddies with your spouse can mean a happy marriage.


Names: Grace Lee and John Lee

Professions: Art Director And Real-Estate Financier

"I never imagined myself being married. I had no fantasy of being married, and I didn't really expect much of it," says Grace Lee, explaining why years after the two exchanged vows their friendship has only deepened. "It's been fun. We can be very silly together," she reports. "Most of our friends think we're the ideal couple, fun and adventurous. We can joke with each other and know it's not more than that. They have to be more careful with their partners, and we're past that." She credits him with making her more athletic: He taught her snowboarding, surfboarding, and weight-lifting. She's taught him tennis—or at least tried. The net effect? "I'm much less cynical than I used to be."

  • Leisure Suits Us

    How people play is changing the way they mate and what constitutes the (often unspoken) marital bargain. Despite the stress so many people feel, there has been real growth in leisure time over the last four decades—corresponding to at least an extra five weeks of vacation a year. Now more than ever, recreation drives marital pairing.

  • Marriage American Style

    Although Americans are generally marrying less, they still marry, divorce, and—especially—remarry at rates higher than in most other countries where the population has comparable income levels. This marital pattern of "churning" very much resembles what goes on in the American labor market, distinctive in its robust—and rapid—entry and exit. What's more, there is a boom in later-life marriages. People over 65 are now more likely than ever to be married—as likely as those ages 16 to 65.

  • The Love Debt

    Consumer spending may be good for the economy, but it can undermine your marriage. The more debt recently married couples incur, the more likely they are to experience dissatisfaction with each other. Couples burdened with consumer debt wind up spending less time together and more time arguing about money. Both changes erode the happiness of the marriage.

  • What Goes Around...

    What's the best way for couples to handle issues that remain unresolved even after arguments? Forgiveness can keep persistent hurt and anger from wrecking the future of the relationship. Women who can summon up benevolence and actively forgive their partners end up experiencing lower levels of conflict one year later, regardless of the initial levels of happiness in the marriage, the character of the conflict, and the severity of the issue that troubled them.

Sources:

Institute for the Study of Labor Discussion Paper 2602; Family Relations; Journal of Family Psychology.



Franz Kafka - A Rock Opera

Weirdly cool.


via videosift.com


Wednesday, April 30, 2008

I Wonder Who the Third and Fourth Party Candidates Are?

Because I agree with Kos.

I have been a huge supporter of Barack. He is the guy I've been behind for quite awhile now. Check my older diaries if you wonder about that. And while I've been steeling myself for a Barack loss in November, because I think the Repug machine is too good for him to beat, I had resigned myself to still working hard for him and for the Progressive cause!

But today something changed for me...

Today, the scales fell from my eyes and I saw Barack Obama for what he truly is: a weak man and a standard politician. I really never thought I would say this...

But I am disgusted with him!

Kos does make a good point:

I just watched Barack throw someone who has been a huge part of his life overboard because a bunch of white-bread advisors told him he had to.

And why? Because white America was freaked out by a black preacher!

I thought Barack was going to lead us past that. I thought he was bigger than that. I thought he was different.

I thought he was going to lead us past that, too. And I am disappointed. But I am more disappointed in Obama's judgment than I am with his decision to disavow his friend and minister. A lot of conservatives are saying that we have to look at this whole episode as an example of Obama's lack of judgment. Do we want a president who makes bad choices in his friends?

We saw with Bush that one's friends have a powerful impact on how a person manages a country.

Obama should have saw this coming. Reverend Wright was probably a good preacher -- he was certainly well respected within the Black community of Liberation Theology. But when his reputation was challenged, he threw Obama under the bus to protect his apparently fragile ego.

A better man would have held his tongue for a few months (until after the election in November) and then written the obligatory book, done the media circuit, and ended up with a nice retirement fund as he watched his former parishioner run the country.

But not this man. His ego demanded he speak out now, to make his case for his righteousness. And a pitiful display it was.





You can tell he was loving the attention. He was soaking that shit up like water on a sponge.

At least one of the Libertarian candidates looks interesting to me, Mike Gravel.

A couple of interesting ideas he supports:

The National Initiative for Democracy Mike fully supports the National Initiative for Democracy. The NI4D is a way to bring legislative power back to the people. In many states, citizens can put measures on the ballot and Mike believes as citizens of the United States we should all have that power. Read More about The National Initiative

Progressive Taxes - A fair Tax Senator Gravel's Progressive Fair Tax proposal calls for eliminating the IRS and the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax on new products and services. To compensate for the tax on necessities, such as food, lodging, transportation and clothing, there would be a "rebate" to reimburse taxpayers. This would be paid in a monthly check from the government to all citizens. The focus on taxing new goods would also help tackle the global climate change problem. For more information go here and here More information on what FairTax is and how it works can be found here, here, and here.

LGBT Rights Senator Gravel supports same-sex marriage and opposes the Defense of Marriage Act. He supports expanding hate-crime legislation and opposes laws that allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or one's gender identity or expression. Senator Gravel strongly opposes the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, as it restricts the rights of gay Americans. He opposes any state or national constitutional amendment that restricts the rights of the gay community.

The War on Drugs The War on Drugs has been a failure. It is time to end prohibition and start treating addiction as a public health problem. This has ravaged our inner cities, and we are losing an entire generation of men and women to prisons. We must regulate hard drugs for the purpose of treating addicts, which would emphasize rehabilitation and prevention over incarceration. We must decriminalize minor drug offenses and increase the availability and visibility of substance abuse treatment in our communities as well as in jails and prisons. The United States incarcerates more people and at a higher rate than any other industrialized nation in the world. Some 2.3 million Americans are now behind bars. This tragedy must end.
I won't vote for Nader, so I don't have too many options.


Ways of Seeing -- An Old BBC Documentary

Click Opera found and posted all four episodes of this old BBC documentary. More than that, Imomus offers a good commentary on the series.
It would be easy to say that Ways of Seeing is hopelessly dated -- made in 1972, the films come across as a puritan-groovy mix of Monty Python, the Open University and the Look Around You spoofs. And yet what's so remarkable about this series is that it seems more apposite, subversive and thought-provoking than ever. The Britain we glimpse in the films, already alienated by spooky BBC Radiophonic Workshop music by Delia Derbyshire, is alienated even more by the passing of time. Alienated usefully, in the Brechtian sense; we look at a capitalist society which is like, and unlike, our own.

One way our own society is unlike 1972 is in the fact that, despite the enormous plethora of TV and internet TV we have now, nobody has made anything quite like this. In art history, the treatment of women's bodies, in our relationship with objects and property and in advertising (the themes of the four films) the same mystifications and objectifications and manipulations carry on. What doesn't carry on is analysis of them on this level.

Sure, there are a thousand media studies courses out there. But several things have happened since Ways of Seeing was made. Firstly, Western societies have swung right; they're much less resisting of the capitalist beast -- much more infused with its values -- than they were in 1972. There's very little actually-existing socialism now, and perhaps globalisation has also eroded national differences quite a bit in the thirty-six years since the series was made. Secondly, postmodernism has made it much more difficult to critique popular culture now. PoMo collapsed high and low, then and now, author and writer, and as a result it became much more difficult to attack authority; in PoMo there was no more them-and-us, no more there there. Everything was just scales on the ouroboral snake. Ways of Seeing is not just a Marxist take on representation, but a late Modernist one, informed by Benjamin, Barthes, Brecht. There are no TV Modernists left; people who believe in the avant garde, and believe that the mandarins -- in the form of a radical intelligentsia -- can help the masses to shed their ideological chains.
Read the whole post.

Here are the first two parts of the first episode, followed by links to all the rest.

Episode One, Part 1:


Episode One, Part 2:


Episode 1 Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Episode 2 Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Episode 3 Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Episode 4 Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.


Albert Hoffman Died & The 2008 World Psychedelic Forum


As many people already know, Albert Hoffman, the discoverer of LSD, died Tuesday at the age of 102. Here is the note from Wired.
Albert Hofmann, the pioneering Swiss chemist and advocate of psychedelics who discovered the hallucinogenic properties of LSD, died Tuesday. He was 102.

Hofmann reportedly died of a heart attack at his home in Basel, Switzerland.

Hofmann's most famous discovery happened on April 16, 1943. He was researching the synthesis of a lysergic acid compound, LSD-25, when he inadvertently absorbed a bit through his fingertips. Intrigued by the effect it had on his perception, Hofmann decided further exploration was warranted. Three days later, on April 19, he ingested 250 milligrams of LSD, embarking on the first full-fledged acid trip. That day became known among LSD fans as "bicycle day" because Hofmann began experiencing the drug's intense effects on his bicycle trip home from the lab.

In his autobiography, LSD, My Problem Child, Hofmann remembered his discovery this way:

"In a dreamlike state, with eyes closed (I found the daylight to be unpleasantly glaring), I perceived an uninterrupted stream of fantastic pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of colors. After some two hours this condition faded away."

The experience led Hofmann to begin experimenting with other hallucinogens and he became an advocate of their use, in both the arenas of psychoanalysis and personal growth. He was critical of LSD's casual use by the counterculture during the '60s, accusing rank amateurs of hijacking the drug he still refers to as "medicine for the soul" without understanding either its positive or negative effects.

In a celebration of Hofmann's 100th birthday in 2006, Hofmann told the crowd of well-wishers -- which included 2,000 researchers, scientists, artists and historians -- that "LSD wanted to tell me something. It gave me an inner joy, an open mindedness, a gratefulness, open eyes and an internal sensitivity for the miracles of creation."

Hofmann was also the first scientist to synthesize psilocybin, the active ingredient in psilocybin mushrooms, in 1958.

Fittingly, Daniel Pinchbeck, writing at Common Ground, relates this year's World Psychedelic Forum. He was both a speaker and a grateful listener. The event happened before Hoffman's death.
The 2008 World Psychedelic Forum was an almost shockingly respectable affair. Held in Basel, Switzerland, in a spacious convention center next to the five-star SwissĂ´tel Basel, the event drew 1,500 visitors for a two-day symposium on the past and present state of psychedelic thought and research. Despite flashes of eccentricity and DayGlo, you could have easily thought you were at a conference for alternative medicine or some abstruse but uncontroversial hobby. I felt honored to be one of the speakers, part of a high-profile group which included the Czech LSD researcher and theorist Stanislav Grof; Ralph Metzner, a well-known author and teacher and one of Leary’s original partners at Harvard; botanists Dennis McKenna, Christian Raetsch and Kat Harrison; MAPS director Rick Doblin; anthropologist and author Jeremy Narby; visionary artists Alex and Allyson Grey; and many more.

The Gaia Media Foundation organized the forum, following upon their successful LSD conference, marking the 100th birthday of LSD chemist Albert Hofmann, two years ago. The 2008 event mingled nostalgia and insularity, futurism and hope, in equal measures. On the nostalgia side, Timothy Leary’s archivist Michael Horowitz mounted an exhibit of psychedelic art and media imagery, much of it from the heyday of late-sixties flower power, while Carolyn (Mountain Girl) Garcia gave a heartfelt speech about her journeys with the Merry Pranksters and the early Haight Ashbury days of the Grateful Dead. Although Hofmann is still alive, he declined to attend the festivities. A proper Swiss bourgeois, he didn’t approve of the conference being scheduled for Easter weekend.

Sixty-five years since Hofmann’s first accidental dose, new frontiers in psychedelic research are opening up, represented at the Forum by an array of therapists and scientists from institutions across Europe, the U.S. and Canada. After a 35-year blockade on the subject, psychedelic research with human subjects is being permitted again. In Switzerland, a new study explores LSD as a tool of psychotherapy — the first such study to be allowed since the early 1970s. After years of persistent effort, the Multidisciplinary Association of Psychedelic Studies (maps.org) has succeeded in shepherding a number of projects through the regulatory system. Studies underway in the United States include research on use of psilocybin as a treatment for cluster headaches, and on MDMA (Ecstasy) as a treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, a complex likely to haunt tens of thousands of veterans as they return from the Iraq War.

Today, there is potential for psychedelics to be reintroduced into mainstream culture, not as drastic catalysts of social upheaval but as tools that can help people overcome serious problems. In the future, MAPS sees itself becoming a “nonprofit pharmaceutical company” that distributes psychedelics to qualified professionals. On a deeper, almost subconscious level, cultural and political resistance to the scrupulous study and use of psychedelics seems to have dissipated. A recent study conducted by John Hopkins, giving psilocybin to subjects who had never taken a psychedelic before, found that most subjects had long-lasting positive changes in their worldview. CNN and The Wall Street Journal gave prominent coverage to the results of this study.
Read the rest of this article.


Science and Religion - Ken Wilber, Francisco J. Ayala, and More

First, some housekeeping.

Ken Wilber recently appeared in an interview in Salon magazine that seems as though it might be new. It wasn't. I'm guessing few people paid much attention to the banner at the top of the article (I didn't):
This is a rehash of a series produced by Wisconsin Public Radio in 2006. See this banner:

Not quite the same, but the interview is the same. Listen to the interview, at the end of the show -- a show that also features A.O. Wilson, Karen Armstrong, and Richard Dawkins. (Requires Real Player.) The show has four other parts, all of which are good. Part two (the cosmos), three (the brain and belief), four (debating Darwin), and five (awe and wonder). I highly recommend part three, which looks at Buddhism in the first part of the episode.

No plagiarism here, since the interview on WPR was conducted by Steve Paulson, just a little deception.

OK, on to more interesting topics.

* * * * *

From The New York Times, a look at how science and religion can co-exist in the mind of an evolutionary biologist, Francisco J. Ayala.
Roving Defender of Evolution, and of Room for God

For a university professor, Francisco J. Ayala spends a lot of time on the road.

An evolutionary biologist and geneticist at the University of California, Irvine, he speaks often at universities, in churches, for social groups and elsewhere, usually in defense of the theory of evolution and against the arguments of creationism and its ideological cousin, intelligent design.

Usually he preaches to the converted. But not always.

As challenges to the teaching of evolution continue to emerge, legislators debate measures equating the teaching of creationism with academic freedom and a new movie links Darwin to evils ranging from the suppression of free speech to the Holocaust, “I get a lot of people who don’t know what to think,” Dr. Ayala said. “Or they believe in intelligent design but they want to hear.”

Dr. Ayala, a former Dominican priest, said he told his audiences not just that evolution is a well-corroborated scientific theory, but also that belief in evolution does not rule out belief in God. In fact, he said, evolution “is more consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for.”

Consider, he said, that at least 20 percent of pregnancies are known to end in spontaneous abortion. If that results from divinely inspired anatomy, Dr. Ayala said, “God is the greatest abortionist of them all.”

Or consider, he said, the “sadism” in parasites that live by devouring their hosts, or the mating habits of insects like female midges, tiny flies that fertilize their eggs by consuming their mates’ genitals, along with all their other parts.

For the midges, Dr. Ayala said, “it makes evolutionary sense. If you are a male and you have mated, the best thing you can do for your genes is to be eaten.” But if God or some other intelligent agent made things this way on purpose, he said, “then he is a sadist, he certainly does odd things and he is a lousy engineer.”

That is also the message of his latest book, “Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion” (Joseph Henry Press, 2007). In it, he writes that as a theology student in Spain he had been taught that evolution “provided the ‘missing link’ in the explanation of evil in the world” — a defense of God’s goodness and omnipotence, despite the existence of evil.

An interesting article.

Much to his credit, Dr. Ayala refused to allow Ben Stein's Expelled to be part of his appearance at a mega-church in California.

But Dr. Ayala said another proposed engagement, at a conference at the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, Calif., a 10,000-member church that is the base for the “Hour of Power,” a weekly televised religious service, was canceled earlier this year. A spokesman for the organization said Dr. Ayala’s talk was canceled “due to overbooking” of speakers.

Dr. Ayala said the event’s organizers wanted him to be introduced by Ben Stein, a writer (and business columnist for The New York Times) who is the star of the new anti-evolution movie, “Expelled,” and wanted to show the film in conjunction with his talk.

“I don’t mind who introduces me,” he said he told them, “but I would not want the film to be part of my presentation. They said they could not meet my conditions.”

Finally, I want to offer up this section from the article, in which Dr. Ayala addresses evolution and atheism -- I am in full agreement with what he says (and I suspect he and KW could have a nice discussion).

Dr. Ayala said he remained surprised at how many Americans believe the theory of evolution is contrary to belief in God, or that the theory is erroneous or even fraudulent. (In fact, there is no credible scientific challenge to it as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth.)

Sometimes, he says, people come to his talks determined to challenge him, usually by citing familiar creationist arguments — that a body part like the bacterial tail, or flagellum, is too complex to have arisen through evolution, or that scientists lied when they demonstrated that moths in England evolved to be darker as the Industrial Revolution covered their native trees with soot.

But he said he had yet to encounter a challenge he could not meet. When people ask about the bacterial flagellum, for example, “I bring up that by now it has been worked out in great detail how the basic parts of the bacterial flagellum have evolved independently and exist independently,” he said.

As for the moths, he conceded that in famous photographs illustrating the discovery, the dark moths had been glued to the dark trees. But the observation that the moths had darkened along with the trees was real, he said. “To have a nice photograph, we glue them,” he said. “That is not falsifying science. That is something for facilitating teaching.”

And he dismisses the argument that it is only fair to teach both sides of the evolution/creationism controversy. “We don’t teach alchemy along with chemistry,” he said. “We don’t teach witchcraft along with medicine. We don’t teach astrology with astronomy.”

He said he was saddened when he saw the embrace of evolution identified with, as he put it, “explicit atheism,” as in the books of the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins or other writers on science and faith.

Neither the existence nor nonexistence of God is susceptible to scientific proof, Dr. Ayala said, and equating science with the abandonment of religion “fits the prejudices” of advocates of intelligent design and other creationist ideas.

“Science and religion concern nonoverlapping realms of knowledge,” he writes in the new book. “It is only when assertions are made beyond their legitimate boundaries that evolutionary theory and religious belief appear to be antithetical.”

* * * * *

Utne Reader posted this article, which brings together the Wilber interview and some other sources.

Faith and Reason, Art and Science, Together at Last

A prevailing view among scientists and atheists is that everything is knowable. Humans are simply particles in motion, governed by biology and physics. Given the right tools and information, some people believe that human beings could know all the secrets of the universe, past and present. This mode of thought has led to a number of remarkable discoveries, but according to theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman, writing for the scientific website the Edge, it is fundamentally “reductionist.”

Viewing the human experience as nothing more than biology and physics allows for only happenings. “There are no meanings, no values, no doings,” Kauffman writes. There is also no room for spirituality, or acceptance of forces beyond human comprehension. “Science has driven a wedge between faith and reason,” according to Kauffman, elevating science and devaluing faith as irrelevant.

The schism between science and religion has turned into a philosophical “cold war” according to philosopher Ken Wilber. In an interview with Salon.com, Wilber talks about how neither science nor religion are fundamentally wrong. They’re actually complimentary, if a person looks at them the right way. Wilber says some of the world’s greatest scientists, including Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and Sir Arthur Eddington, were fundamentally mystics, because they understood the limits of physics and science.

“Understanding the limits to human knowledge and intervention is going to be the question of the twenty-first century,” according to opera director Peter Sellars in an interview with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (pdf). Science is able to push the boundaries of knowledge, but science alone has proven itself unable to understand the limits. That’s where not only faith, but art can play a useful role.

Uniting arts and sciences, faith and reason, could instill some reverence and responsibility into science. In the twentieth century, “science was made into a God, a substitute for religion,” Sellars said in the interview. Sellars’ new opera, Dr. Atomic, is about the atomic bomb, one of the most destructive creations of science. “And it’s bad enough for a religion to be a religion,” Sellars said, “but when science becomes a religion, it’s very dangerous.”

—Bennett Gordon


Tim Russert's Tiny Ego

A good piece from AlterNet. I have to say I agree with her. The myth of the liberal media is just that, a myth.

Mighty Tim Russert Wields His Clout

It seems that Arianna Huffington has run up against the impenetrable wall that is Tim Russert's ego. Huffington, who is currently on tour for her new book "Right Is Wrong: How The Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded The Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe, will be appearing on CNN, ABC, and CBS. She had been booked on Morning Joe and Countdown with Keith Olbermann as well, but those bookings were suddenly and inexplicably cancelled.

NBC confirmed that Huffington wouldn't be booked on any NBC-affiliated show to promote her book, but refused to explain why. Huffington's people say that this is Tim Russert's doing, that Russert is out for revenge because Huffington called him a "conventional wisdom zombie" in her book and devoted seven pages to faulting Russert for allowing his Meet the Press guests to go unchallenged (not to mention HuffPo's RussertWatch).

If Huffington's claim is true and Russert has been pulling rank with NBC, then this whole affair smacks of immature middle-school antics. Is Russert really that sensitive that he can't take criticism from Huffington? And if he truly thinks his show hasn't become an outlet for Bush administration figures to push their message uncontested (as Huffington suggests), then shouldn't he bring Huffington on and challenge her assertions? Or, at the very least, allow Huffington to go on another NBC show?

Probably not, since that would mean Russert would have to ask tough questions for a change.

Here is what you won't see on NBC affiliated networks.




Andy Goldsworthy - Collaborating with Nature

A cool video looking at some of Andy Goldsworthy's work -- not sure who the singer/song is.


via videosift.com

From Wikipedia:

The materials used in Andy Goldsworthy's art often include brightly-coloured flowers, icicles, leaves, mud, pinecones, snow, stone, twigs, and thorns. He has been quoted as saying, "I think it's incredibly brave to be working flowers and leaves and petals. But I have to: I can't edit the materials I work with. My remit is to work with nature as a whole."[7] Goldsworthy is generally considered the founder of modern rock balancing. For his ephemeral works, Goldsworthy often uses only his bare hands, teeth, and found tools to prepare and arrange the materials; however, for his permanent sculptures like "Roof", "Stone River" and "Three Cairns", "Moonlit Path" and "Chalk Stones" (Petworth, West Sussex, 2002) he has also employed the use of machine tools. To create "Roof", Goldsworthy worked with his assistant and five British dry-stone wallers, who were used to make sure the structure could withstand time and nature.

Photography plays a crucial role in his art due to its often ephemeral and transient state. According to Goldsworthy, "Each work grows, stays, decays – integral parts of a cycle which the photograph shows at its heights, marking the moment when the work is most alive. There is an intensity about a work at its peak that I hope is expressed in the image. Process and decay are implicit."[8]

Goldsworthy commisioned a work for San Francisco's De Young Museum called "Drawn Stone", which echoes San Francisco's frequent earthquakes and their effects. His installation included a giant crack that broke off into smaller cracks and broken limestone, which could be used for benches. The smaller cracks were made with a hammer adding unpredictablity to the work as he created it. [9]

Two other videos.

Rivers and Tides:

via videosift.com

Environmental Artist:


via videosift.com

Who Is Robert Anton Wilson?

Perhaps that should be "was." Alas, Robert Anton Wilson passed on in 2007. This video takes a look at the man who created E-Prime, a language without to-be verbs. Quantum Psychology, in which he proposes his variation on English, is a must read and is available online, along with a few other of his books.



A cool video that looks at E-Prime.


The Tuymans Experiment

Last year, Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post wrote an article that came to be known as the Joshua Bell Experiment. The article won a Pulitzer Prize.

The premise was simple: If world-famous violinist Joshua Bell played for tips in a Washington DC subway, would anyone notice the brilliance of the music. Most people didn't. Sure you can say that people were busy going to and from work, or simply otherwise distracted, but of those who did stop to listen, few recognized the quality of what they were hearing.

In what can only be a variation on the Joshua Bell Experiment, in "The Tuymans Experiment," the acclaimed Belgian painter Luc Tuymans and some art-world collaborators set up the same general scenario. The painter -- whose work apparently sells for millions at auction and whose reputation is presumed to be large in his native country (obviously, few of us will have heard of him) -- paints a mural on a busy Antwerp street. A hidden camera records whether passersby stop to appreciate the work of a "master." It's a thought-provoking video. We should, however, keep in mind that this modern art, a genre few people -- even Europeans -- really appreciate.

Here is the video:



From Good Magazine, where this "experiment" appeared:
We're all for public art, and the modest Tuymans is a good sport. But, when only 4% of passersby stop, the narrator hopes that "these numbers will wake people up...[to] take more interest in art." We're a little uncomfortable with the suggestion that a busy student, or surgeon, or postal worker, is obligated to stop just because a Tuymans painting is there. After all, people routinely walk past entire museums full of art for perfectly good reasons.

Just for fun, we'd be curious to try the opposite experiment: take a painter without critical credentials, put them in a respected gallery, and secretly tape the praise of the aesthetes.
Good point, and a nice idea for another experiment.


Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Psychology Articles of Interest - Language, Emotions, and Self-Esteem

Three interesting studies have hit the news of late, as well as a couple of new books worth a look.

First up, psychologists at the University of Liverpool have discovered that children develop certain language skills much earlier than originally thought. The study looked at whether or not kids aged six to nine could identify grammatically correct, but made-up, past tense verbs forms. The results showed that they possessed the same skill in this task as linguistic students in a previous experiment.

Both Science Daily and Medical News Today picked up the article.
In a study conducted by the University's Child Language Study Centre, children aged between six and nine were given sentences containing made-up verbs such as 'the duck likes to spling' and were asked to judge the acceptability of possible past tense forms. The study focused on the process the children used to come to their conclusions rather than whether their answers were right or wrong.

They found that the children's judgements followed a virtually identical pattern to those of linguistics students who took part in a similar study at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the US.

University of Liverpool psychologist, Ben Ambridge, said: "Previous studies have concentrated on getting children to produce past tense forms for made-up words. This study is unique in that the children were asked to judge the acceptability of different forms that we gave them.

"One of the main questions raised when looking at children's ability to pick up their native language is whether abstract symbolic rules or the use of memory and comparison affect how a child attributes past tenses to words.

"The study was designed to investigate whether we coin novel past-tense forms like 'emailed' by applying the default rule of adding 'ed' to the present-tense form or by making an analogy with similar-sounding words stored in the memory, for example in the way we know to form 'sailed' from 'sail' by linking it to like-sounding words such as 'tail' or 'fail'. The study found evidence for the latter, supporting the view that we solve problems by making analogies with similar events stored in our memory rather than by applying abstract mental rules."

He added: Grammaticality judgements are generally used by adult linguists so it's impressive that children have been able to make them. They can't tell you how they do it, but even six-year-olds know when a made-up word just doesn't sound right."

* * * * *

In a study sure to excite the marketing and advertising industries (who probably have already intuited this information), it was found the emotions can be manipulated by unconscious and/or subliminal stimuli.

Again, Science Daily and Medical News Today picked up the study.
The scientists hypothesized that, since humans have evolved to respond quickly and unconsciously to stimuli, they should be able to react to an emotional event without full awareness: “You are likely to live longer if you immediately stop moving at the sight of a growling grizzly bear and do not need full awareness for such a response to be instigated,” explained Ruys and Stapel.

The researchers measured people’s thoughts, feelings and behavior to determine whether specific emotions were induced without awareness of their cause -- a study based on the theory implying that, due to natural selection, humans should be able to detect specific emotion-evoking information automatically. Participants were separated into three groups and were told that very short flashes would appear on a computer screen. They were then instructed to press the ‘R’ key if it appeared on the right side of the screen or the ‘L’ key if it appeared on the left.

In actuality, the ‘flashes’ were subliminal images selected to elicit fear, disgust or no emotion at all. The images flashed at varying speeds making it impossible for the participants to be fully conscious of their presence. In other words, the participants were unaware that they were viewing images of growling dogs and dirty toilets or even neutral images, such as horses or chairs.

The participants then underwent three tests to measure the effect of the images on their cognition, feelings and behavior. For the cognitive measure, they completed word fragments with a variety of words including those that expressed disgust, fear, anger, generally negative, generally positive and neutral feelings. Next, participants rated the overall positivity or negativity of their mood and the extent to which they felt fearful, disgusted, satisfied, relieved, proud, angry, shameful and joyful on 7-point scales.

During the behavioral measure, participants were asked to take part in either a ‘strange food test’ or a ‘scary movie test,’ assuming that, for example, those who were exposed to the disgusting images would want to avoid the possibility of eating something unpleasant. At the end of the study, the researchers asked gradually more specific questions about the subliminal images to gauge the participants’ awareness of the study’s purpose and intent.

The intriguing results, which appear in the April issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, strongly support the psychologists’ theory. Those participants who viewed only the disgust-inducing subliminal images were more likely to use disgust words in the word-completion task, to describe their feelings with the disgust words and to choose to take the ‘scary movie test.’ The same held true for those who viewed only the fear-inducing images -- they also were more likely to use words related to fear and to take the ‘strange food test.’

The psychologists also found that after quick (120ms) speed exposures to emotional stimuli, a general, negative mood developed accompanied by a specific emotion, such as fear after seeing fearful pictures. After the super-quick (40ms) speed exposure, only a general negative mood was induced without a specific emotion involved. These empirical findings are the first to demonstrate that specific emotions can be evoked without awareness of the cause and that a person’s global mood can develop into a specific emotion.

And while the study did not investigate how an individual eventually becomes conscious of their emotions, the scientists did pose an additional hypothesis: “When emotions are full-blown, people become aware of their emotions by perceiving their own actions and bodily reactions; likewise, when emotions are weak, people fail to notice their weakly-related actions and bodily reactions.”

This is further evidence for the idea that we make a lot of decisions prior to material entering into awareness. But then, emotions are body-centered, so it makes some sense that our bodies know things before our minds become of aware of them (after passing through various filters).

* * * * *
Self-esteem has been a hot topic in recent years -- maybe because so few people have a healthy version of it. This study shows that high self-esteem is not the same as healthy self-esteem. I smell narcissism someplace in the background of these findings.

Live Science and Medical News Today covered the story, which was also picked up by mainstream news outlets.

The recent study, detailed in the June issue of the Journal of Personality, adds to a mound of navel-gazing research that is painting a more complex picture of self-esteem.

"There are many kinds of high self-esteem, and in this study we found that for those in which it is fragile and shallow it's no better than having low self-esteem," said Michael Kernis of the University of Georgia. "People with fragile high self-esteem compensate for their self-doubts by engaging in exaggerated tendencies to defend, protect and enhance their feelings of self-worth."

Kernis says the results are not meant to knock down high self-esteem, which has been stamped as one of the keys to happiness and to moving up the popularity or professional ladder. The study only adds another layer to this psychological phenomenon.

Self value

In general, individuals with so-called secure high self-esteem tend to present an authentic self to the world; they are genuinely happy with themselves and accept their weaknesses. A fragile self-esteem is unstable, and can fluctuate from day to day or within one day. Without constant validation, this person's self-worth will take a dive.

With funding from the National Science Foundation, Kernis and his colleagues got the self-value goods on 100 undergraduates, about 90 of whom were female. Questionnaires measured different types of self-esteem, life satisfaction and overall psychological well-being. Then, researchers measured verbal defensiveness by having each participant describe several challenging life experiences, including:

  • A time when you have felt less sexually desirable than a friend
  • A time when you've broken the rules
  • A time when somebody has come to you for help and you didn't want to help them

Individuals with stable high self-esteem were the least verbally defensive while the unstable participants were the most verbally defensive. In addition, the researchers found that greater verbal defensiveness was associated with less life satisfaction and lower psychological well-being.

I'm better than you

One student, whose responses scored high on the defensiveness scale, described not helping another student in his geometry class, saying "... I didn't feel like there was any gain for me. Even if that sounds selfish, it was really justified, because I was a better student and he was not a good student ... I felt good about not wanting to help him."

Another "defensive" participant described a time when she broke the rules, saying, "I have honestly never done anything bad. Like the worst thing I do is burn CDs ... I've honestly never drank anything. The only time I have drank anything was in Mexico and I was 18 at the time so that was legal ... I've never like broken any rules."

Basically, the "defensive" students took the questions as threats to their perhaps artificially elevated self-esteem. "Potential threats are in fact more threatening to people with low or fragile high self-esteem than those with secure high self-esteem," Kernis said, "and so they work harder to counteract them."

Individuals with secure high self-esteem accept themselves "warts and all," and so they are less threatened by the outside world, Kernis said.

As far as I can tell, what they identify as "fragile" self-esteem is actually a narcissistic self sense. The reality is actually low self-esteem that is defended against with an inflated sense of self. But that inflation is a mask, it is easily deflated, thus fragile.

Here is how a narcissistic personality is defined (and please note this is the personality disorder known as narcissism, which is more extreme than a run-of-the-mill narcissist).

To the extent that people are pathologically narcissistic, they can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of others' needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen [3].

* * *

People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight criticism, real or imagined [7]. To avoid such situations, some narcissistic people withdraw socially and may feign modesty or humility.

Though individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional achievements [8]. With narcissistic personality disorder, the person's perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments.

Sounds like a more extreme version of "fragile" high self-esteem to me.

* * * * *

Finally, two new books reviewed as Metapsychology Online Reviews.

The first one looks as emotional regulation.
Review - Emotion Regulation
Conceptual and Clinical Issues
by Ad Vingerhoets, Ivan NyklĂ­ÄŤek and Johan Denollet (Editors)
Springer, 2008
Review by Marion Ledwig, Ph.D.
Apr 29th 2008 (Volume 12, Issue 18)

The editors of this state of the art volume on emotion regulation with its fifteen excellent chapters are Associate Professor Ad Vingerhoets, Professor Johan Denollet, and Assistant Professor Ivan NyklĂ­ÄŤek. All three of them work in the Department of Medical Psychology at Tilburg University. This book represents the key contributions of a conference on emotions, emotion regulation and health research held at Tilburg University in 2003. It is divided into two parts -- part I dealing with conceptual and neurobiological issues comprising chapters one to seven and part II covering clinical perspectives and interventions in chapters eight to fifteen. The book itself is not aimed at students or at newcomers to the field, but it is mainly directed at researchers, clinicians, and graduate students coming from such diverse fields as psychiatry, psychosomatics, behavioral medicine, health psychology, clinical psychology, and medical psychology, who have already considerable insight into the subject matter. Yet, it is written in such a way that it is understandable by everyone.

The book covers such diverse areas as coping, crying, emotional intelligence, depression, anxiety disorders, trauma-related affect dysregulation, the connection between emotions and eating disorders, emotional competence and health in children, the connection between expressive writing and emotional health, and alexithymia. Alexithymia can be characterized by a "reduced ability to differentiate between emotional feelings", a "reduced ability to fantasize", a "reduced ability to verbalize emotional experiences", "a reduced ability to experience emotional feelings", and "a reduced tendency to reflect upon emotions", this volume p. 27). Although so many different areas are covered, the contributions to this volume go considerably into depth and detail, so that one gains considerable knowledge and is not left with the feeling that one hasn't got a thorough overview with regard to these cutting edge research topics.
Read the whole review.

The other review looks at a collection of essays that attempt to propose a way beyond cognitivism, and to define what that word actually means. [Hint: cognitivism reduces mind to neurons, dendrites, and neurotransmitters.]
Review - The Mind, the Body and the World
Psychology After Cognitivism?
by Brendan Wallace
Imprint Academic, 2007
Review by Richard G T Gipps, Ph.D.
Apr 29th 2008 (Volume 12, Issue 18)

This collection of essays has been put together with the aim of considering cognitivism (p. 1): 'what it is (was?), how it originated, and whether or not it is now desirable to look for ways to go beyond it'. The authors are philosophers, cognitive scientists, and psychologists and they write within these genres. Their contributions are divided into three sections on theory, language, and practice respectively, sections framed by an introduction and conclusion from the editors.

The result is something of a curate's egg. Whilst some authors write with style, address well-defined issues, introduce their technical vocabulary with clear definitions, and remain pertinent to the critical investigation of cognitivism, others do not. Different meanings of key terms, and radically different valuations of key concepts - 'representation', 'information processing', 'cognition', 'cognitivism' – are presented throughout the desultory text. The editors miss the opportunity to hold the authors to common standards or meaning, to request that they address one another's work, or to map out the upshot of their diverse contributions in the conclusion (which instead simply recapitulates the preface). Further, some of the contributors also made frequent use of irritating rhetorical devices akin to what a friend of mine called Hume's 'tis obvious' indicator: using a phrase like ''tis obvious' or 'of course' or 'as X noted' when 'tis obvious that what is really wanted is not an observation but an argument for something that is, well, not at all obvious.
Read the whole review.

I suspect there is some good stuff in this book, but also a lot of useless articles as well. Sounds like one to get used.


Daily Om: Defense Mechanisms


A good Daily Om today on defense mechanisms, something we all have but seldom are aware of.

Beyond Behavior
Defense Mechanisms

We all have defense mechanisms that we’ve developed over time, often without being aware of it. In times of trouble, the behaviors that have worked to get us past challenges with the least amount of pain are the ones that we repeat; even when part of us knows they no longer work. Such behavior is a natural response from our mental and physical aspects. But because we are spiritual beings as well, we have the ability to rise above habits and patterns to see the truth that lay beyond. And from that moment on, we can make choices that allow us to work directly from that place of truth within us.

Most of our defense mechanisms were developed in childhood; from the moment that we realized crying would get us the attention we craved. Passive aggressive ways of communicating may have allowed us to get what we needed without being scolded, punished or laughed at, so we learned to avoid being direct and honest. Some of us may have taken refuge in the lives of others, discovering ways to direct attention away from ourselves entirely. Throwing ourselves into projects or rescuing others from themselves can be effective ways to avoid dealing with our own issues. And when people are truly helped by our actions, we get the added bonus of feeling heroic. But while defenses can keep away the things we fear, they can also work to keep our good from us.

When we can be honest with ourselves about what we truly desire, then we can connect our desires to the creative power of the spirit within us. Knowing that we are one with the energy of the universe allows us release any need for defense. Trusting that power, we know that we are exactly where we are meant to be, and that challenges bring gifts of growth and experience. When we can put down arms raised in defense, then we are free to use our hands, minds, hearts and spirits to mold and shape our abundant energy to create and live our lives.


The Modernist Journals Project

A very cool resource for those who enjoy Modernist Literature, especially poetry.

The Modernist Journals Project

Background

The MJP is a multi-faceted project, which is intended to become a major resource for the study of the rise of modernism in the English-speaking world, with periodical literature at the center of this study. As such, its historical scope has a chronological range of 1890 to 1922, and a geographical range that extends to English language periodicals, wherever they were published. With magazines at the center, the MJP also has a generic range that extends to the digital publication of books directly connected to modernist periodicals and other supporting materials for the study of these periodicals. At this stage of the MJP's development, however, the chronological range of periodicals extends only from 1904 to 1922.

We end at 1922 for both intellectual and practical reasons: the practical reason is that copyright becomes an issue with publications from 1923 onward; the intellectual reason is that most scholars consider modernism to be fully fledged in 1922, a date marked by the publication of James Joyce's Ulysses and T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land. We are concentrating, then, on the rise of modernism, in which the magazines played a crucial role.

History

The MJP (http://www.modjourn.org) began in 1995 at Brown University, with funding from the University and small local grants, as a website of digital editions of periodicals connected to the rise of modernism in the English-speaking world. Our first major project began in 1996: a digital edition of The New Age, a British weekly magazine edited by A. R. Orage from 1907 to 1922. In the course of preparing this edition, the MJP generated various supporting materials, including a set of biographical sketches over a thousand artists mentioned in the magazine, with images of their work, along with essays on contributors to the magazine and historical introductions to each six-month volume. Our edition of The New Age was completed, with the aid of a grant from the NEH, in 2004.

The University of Tulsa joined the MJP in 2003. Using copies in Tulsa's McFarlin Library, we were able to add Dana, an Irish magazine of 1904-1905 best known for first publishing James Joyce, to our digital archive in 2005. In that same year, the MJP redesigned its technological infrastructure from scratch, both to accommodate growth and to bring its materials and methods into conformance with the best practices of the digital library community. (The technical details of the new MJP are discussed below.) At the same time, in response to requests from members of the Modernist Studies Association, the MJP has added a digital edition of the well-known Vorticist magazine, Blast, based on copies in the McFarlin Library. The MJP's website was also redesigned from the ground up, producing a data-driven, standards-compliant interface to the MJP's resources.