Not Doing Very Much

knittedbreast Mon 06-Jun-11 12:13:18

"I can’t be the only one who has a list the length of my arm for things I really need to do but just haven’t done.... am I the only one?What’s on your list?"

Taken from one of the many internet discussion boards, the above extract probably sounds quite familiar (aside from the name perhaps). Most of us have a set of goals and aims in life that we at least say we want to achieve and themajority of the time I would guess we really do mean what we say. Weight loss, revision, exercise, healthier eating, charity work, redecorating. Rationally speaking we can and should be able to achieve the majority of the goals we set ourselves. Examples of others doing much more than losing a few pounds, exercising or redecorating the second bathroom are in abundance. An inspection of some of the bizarre and endurance based records that have been set in the Guinness Book of World Records underlines this. Furthermore, we all personally know people who have lost a few pounds, exercise regularly or have a well decorated second bathroom.

Why is it then that we sometimes find we don't we ever get round to achieving these important goals? Very occasionally the goals or challenges we set ourselves are ridiculous and we fail epically because they are past our means (http://failblog.org/2008/12/08/coconut-breaking-fail/), but looking over the usual candidates on New Year’s resolution lists, most seem more than do-able. Yet, most turn out to be beyond us. Is there something that can be done? Can psychological research help us?

I believe so. One reason we don't achieve what we desire is that we can fall into a tendency of believing that merely wanting to do something and having some vague idea about when ('sometime next week') and how ('I will look it up beforehand') things will happen is enough to facilitate change. We devise very basic and open ended plans (or don't plan at all) and although we might have intentions to keep to them, this doesn't seem to be enough. If one doesn't have concrete plans set out, with specifics such as what, where, when and how, it is very easy to put things off or find yourself not doing it. A body of research underlines this in psychology; 'Implementation Intentions' (we will call them II's).

An unnecessarily long winded and unclear name, II's basically mean the practise of ensuring one creates extremely specific plans. At the start of the week, if you have set aside a specific day, time and have planned a location and activity that is in fitting with your goal, this makes doing this a whole lot easier. There are lots of convincing sounding reasons as to why this should work; the process should make sure you remember to do it, ensures you have set aside the appropriate resources (time) and thought about the practicalities. In addition, having spent some time planning and having these hand written plans on your wall or desk, reminds you of how much you want the goal and probably makes ducking out just a little more embarrassing to oneself.

A study by Luszczynska and colleagues (2007) shows the power of the II. Here researchers visited a Weight Watchers group and assigned half of the group to receive a very short amount of training and guidance from a researcher about how to use II's and were given some nice looking sheets on which to make their II's for the next 8 weeks. For weight loss, one II might be something along the lines of (Aerobic exercise – body pump class, 7pm – 8pm, Monday night, Munroe Sports Centre, getting there by car, leaving at 6.45, meeting friend Lucy at 6.55 outside, have done this class before, is challenging but I can do an hour). The other half carried on with their weight loss programme as usual without receiving any training about II's. At 2 months the control group had lost 2.1kg (just short of 5 pounds). A truimph for Weight Watchers.

But it is of course the II group we are more interested in. They had lost 2 times the amount the control group lost (4.2 kg). This is quite a finding, as the participants in the control condition were actively trying to lose weight also. They just lacked the power of foresight and strategic planning through II's. Furthermore, the more participants had taken to the programme and made II's frequently the more weight was lost. The power of planning ahead through some careful consideration at the start of a week is impressive.

A further reason why we might have the best intentions at new years but have little to show come March time is because of a tendency to view our future selves in an overly optimistically light. Often you will hear friends saying that they will start next week, do it in a fortnight or next month 'will the big one'. A series of studies have shown how time can change our perceptions of our abilities. When an exam is several weeks in the future people tend to be overly optimistic about their performance and are probably not too worried. However, move the time point when you ask them about how hard they think the test will be and how well they will do, to a day or two before the exam and you get different results.

What this might suggest is that when things are far off in the future it is very easy to think about them abstractly and with rose tinted glasses. Hence, when people are putting plans off till next week or next month, there is likely to be a genuine belief they will do them. But they are more often than not kidding themselves. They don't know their future selves very well. If you haven't done any exercise this week, what is going to happen next month that makes your future self so keen to hit the gym? Of course, you might find excuses for why you didn't do it this week or attribute your failings elsewhere (we like doing this a lot – http://psychologyshared.blogspot.com/2010/11/im-great-fact.html), but as creatures of habit, the best predictor of what you'll be doing next week is what you’re doing this week. To stop looking hopefully into the future and make plans in the present would seem to be a sensible idea.

A final consideration as to why we often don't achieve what we hope to is our fear of hard work. Sometimes we believe what we have to do (i.e. exercise, eat healthily) won't be particularly enjoyable. However, a lot of studies have shown that we aren't particularly great at knowing what we will and won't enjoy. A recent study by Ruby et al. (2011) examined how this might influence intentions to exercise. Using all sorts of different exercise classes (Pilates to Yoga to Weight training) and all sorts of work out difficulty levels, the researchers asked members of these classes to estimate how enjoyable these activities would be, as well as measuring how enjoyable they actually were when they were partaken in.

Participants tended to significantly under-estimate how enjoyable the exercise would be. This is especially interesting as the participants they sampled were often regular exercisers, so if they don't know how good it is, what chance do those without such experience stand?The authors also argued that this misprediction occurs because people naturally focus on the early difficult stages of an exercise session which can often be uncomfortable, but once you’re over this hill, the rest of a work out is often enjoyable. Furthermore, the feel good factor of having exercised is likely to stretch for hours after the session. Indeed, the researchers also showed that reducing this bias of focusing on the negative parts increases individuals intentions to do more exercise.

Similarly, in a number of studies my research group have recently published, we showed that getting participants to recall a pleasant memory of eating a healthy food not only increases their expected enjoyment of eating that food, but also results in them eating a lot more of it when later making food choices (Robinson et al. 2011). More often than not what we have to do in life isn't all that bad, but we might not necessarily realise this. There are enjoyable parts to most things. Trying to take a more optimistic and rounded view of the good as well as the bad should help us make that exercise class, revision session or opt for the salad rather than burger. Knowing you need to do something is one thing, but knowing it will have pretty enjoyable aspects of it might be the difference.

It is worrying how many short cuts and biases we possess that enable us to slack off, but awareness and harnessing alternative strategies should be helpful. Here are some useful and useless thoughts:

Start looking at the facts and making honest appraisals of how many hours you've put in and whether you really should be excusing yourself.

Deciding what I do and don't like

We are inherently social creatures and spend most of our time in the presence of others. Population growth, working environments, telephones and social networking all result in us being exposed to the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of a lot of people. This of course must have some effect on us. The idea that one behaves as a 'lone' decision maker, impervious to the influence of others around us, is naïve. Of course we know of people who like to think of themselves as unique and embed this idea of 'going it alone' and not being influenced by those around them into their identity, but on the whole they are probably misguided. One reason we can be strongly influenced by those around us is a need to belong or to be liked by others. A blog here discusses it http://psychologyshared.blogspot.com/2010/10/i-cant-be-alone.html. To some extent this isn't such a bad thing, as sometimes to get along in life we need to be liked by others and adapting our behaviour to fulfil this need is sensible. Sometimes you have to grin and bear things to please others.

This consideration aside, the following blog discusses another side of social influence, which I have aptly named; 'informational social influence'. The main idea being that we will often use information others provide us with as evidence about our own reality. Such influence may be particularly strong when a situation is ambiguous or when we are uncertain about something. In general, although the idea of conforming or being influenced by others has somewhat negative connotations (probably due to a current over emphasis and implicit liking of individualism).This kind of influence definitely isn't always a bad thing. However, there will be times when it is and isn't in our best interests to be guided by informational social influence. This blog uses some existing research to attempt to think about when such informational social influence may be advantageous and very useful to us, and under what circumstances it may be more of a hindrance than a help.

When thinking about an event in the future we haven't experienced before, one might have a tendency to think we know best about what we will and won't like. A friend who won't try a new food you have been raving about is a simple enough example. 'Nobody knows me better than I do, so I should go with my instincts.' But this perhaps isn't such a wise stance to take; as those around us can provide us with valuable information we haven't had access to. In fact, observing how others react to experiences or 'vicarious learning' is thought to be a key mechanism by which we learn about the world. In line with this, developmental psychologist Leann Birch and colleagues show that a child’s likelihood of trying a novel or unfamiliar food is greatly increased once they have seen somebody else eat it, presumably because this tells us the food is safe to eat. For example, Addessi et al. (2005) examined this in 2-5 year olds and showed that the kids would be far more likely to try some semolina if they observed an adult eating that food, rather than eating something slightly different. Knowing that somebody else has eaten something and it hasn't been unpleasant or perhaps has even been enjoyable is valuable information.

Wilson et al. (2010) report a study that shows this kind of idea in more of a real 'grown up' world scenario. Here psychology undergraduates were invited to take part in a speed dating event. Each lucky girl would get the opportunity to go on a mystery date with a male undergraduate student and shortly afterwards rate how much they enjoyed themselves. However, prior to the date, participants were given some pretty interesting information. In one condition the females were given background information, such as course, hobbies etc. about their up and coming date. In another, the females got something slightly different. They were given information about how much the previous participant enjoyed their date with the bloke awaiting them. Both groups then predicted how much they thought they would enjoy the date.

The main analysis of interest was whether knowing how much another enjoyed the date resulted in participants being more accurate in their predictions of enjoyment, or whether 'non social' information (such as hobbies and interests; that you might suggest reveals a lot about a person) was more useful. Participants were far more accurate in working out how enjoyable the date would be after having been given access to others accounts of their dates. One might like to view oneself as having very individual tastes and therefore right to ignore others accounts of experiences. Yet, as we all have a fair deal of similarity in what we do and don't like, what this kind of study suggests is that we would be wise to spend time listening to others experiences if we really want insight into what we will and won't like in life when we haven't had first hand experience of it our self. This of course poses another question. What about when we have had first hand experience of something our self? Should we be so keen to be led by the voices and behaviours of others?

I would argue that this is when we really should be extremely wary of the information others are giving us. A classic study by psychologist Solomon Asch underlines this well. Here participants attended a study in which they sat with others in a room whilst looking at some images of lines that varied in length (yes, an exciting study for all). In front of them would be two lines, their simple task was to judge which was longer. Viewing this experiment from the outside, it would seem as though the correct answers were painstakingly obvious. However, the other 'participants' sat with them were not real participants at all. They were actors who were working with the experimenter to examine whether answering incorrectly would cause the real participant to follow suit. The results are interesting and show a strong account of social influence in action; knowing others beliefs about the correct and incorrect answers strongly influenced participants and caused a high proportion to answer incorrectly. A follow up study also showed that when participants answered questions out of sight and in private (and thus under little influence to please the other group members,but still after hearing others incorrect responses), the impact of the others incorrect responses still remained. Thus, others can skew our perceptions of reality and influence us, even when we have first hand experience of what is going on in front of us.

A suggested limitation of Asch like studies is that they don't tell us much about the real world. The line judgement task isn't representative of a situation in which we might be influenced by others. The good news is that I have an experiment that I have done that very much is. Here we had participants come to our lab and eat a snack food. We then slightly mislead participants and told them the study was about whether other peoples eating habits and preferences can tell us anything about their personalities. So, we gave participants some answers one of our 'previous participants' had given us regarding their eating preferences and dieting habits. Our previous participants had also happened to have eaten the same snack food that our participant had eaten earlier in the session and written their thoughts about it. In one condition of the experiment our previous participants really didn't like the snack food, in another condition (a control condition), they thought it was OK, average, nice enough. Twenty minutes later we then asked our participant to think back to eating the snack food and rate how enjoyable it was. Being exposed to negative views about the snack food had a big impact on how much participants thought they enjoyed the food; it dropped significantly. Furthermore, I have data from a different study which suggests that hearing others positive views can have a similar effect and this then has a knock on effect on how keen participants are to eat the food again.

In the above case, we would perhaps be best to rely on our own opinions. If we didn't enjoy a film or food the first time round, it is unlikely to change that much the second. There are of course exceptions to every rule – sometimes friends might be able to point out something that we missed or we may have tried something and it has now changed. Yet, a problem arises when we already have first hand evidence that we don't particularly like something, but after a word in our ear we then find ourselves doing it again. Those around us are a rich source of information and when we have very little experience or expertise of something we should be taking in as much 'social information' as possible, as this is likely to improve how accurate we are in second guessing whether something will be enjoyable or for us in life. Yet, first hand experience is probably even more compelling evidence and when we have this we should think carefully about how others might be influencing our perceptions and opinions of what we do and don't like.

Application

The general application is very much spelt out in the blog.

Tell your friends you couldn't care less how much they like things that you don't.

Use IMDB more.

Poor Me (boo hoo)

Feeling sorry for oneself every now and again is common, as every now again circumstances or situations fall against us and we feel the need to moan about it. Such expressions of discomfort or disappointment are normally directed at others and to some extent, this may be a good idea, as in some circumstances those around us may be able to help in some way. But what about if this occasional tendency starts to become more of a regular occurrence? Everyone has friends who are forever wearing their upset hearts on their sleeves on facebook, or have colleagues they avoid getting stuck in a conversation with for the sake of losing the will to live. At certain periods in life we may even be guilty of it ourselves – life seems so unfair at times.

However, over the last 50 years or so medicine, poverty and life expectancy have all improved dramatically. Furthermore, for the majority of us, life is very kind – we are born into middle class backgrounds, we are well educated and rarely face real adversity in the grand scheme of things. This blog first discusses some literature that suggests a “poor me” mentality of dwelling on our slights is likely to be a bad idea and then starts to think about what factors might be contributing to the 'poor me' mindset and how we might combat succumbing to it too often.

So why is the 'poor me' mentality a bad thing? I think it is bad on many levels. Perhaps most importantly, it may be bad for our well being. An extremely large collection of literature that has relevance to the 'poor me' mentality we will discuss is the psychological effects of 'rumination'. Rumination can be described as a tendency to focus ones thought on aspects of ones life that are distressing and to do so in a fairly repetitive manner. Furthermore, such thinking isn't done in a way that is conducive to problem solving, it is more akin to becoming fixated on the problem and why it is bad, rather than doing something about.

In a large scale review Noelen-Hoeksema et al. (2008) discuss a number of problems with this 'mind set'. Studies show that rumination can cause depressed mood and is frequently shown to be associated with the onset of depression. Furthermore, it predicts the onset of a number of other psychological problems and is commonly associated with a lower sense of satisfaction with life. In addition, there is some suggestion that ruminating about past slights and problems may be problematic as it serves to 'rehearse' these memories, so that in the future we continue to view ourselves as hard done by in life.

An interesting study by Baumeister and colleagues (1990) can help in starting to shed some light on why it seems so natural for us to feel our circumstances are worse than they are. The researchers asked participants to recall occasions when they had been angered by someone else (victim narrative) or angered someone else (perpetrator narrative) and describe the story behind each event. The researchers then had judges blindly rate the descriptions for several qualities, including amongst others; how negative the consequences of the act were, how immoral the act was and whether it was unavoidable. As you might expect, when participants described an act that was perpetrated against them (victim), the content was very different to when they themselves committed that act against another. When they fell foul of the act , participants tended to think that the consequences of it were much worse. Furthermore, they judged the act to be more immoral and deliberately hurtful, compared to when they were the force behind the act of annoyance (perpetrator).

This suggests that we might be biased in our interpretation of personal injustice, in a way that results in us overplaying the importance and significance of bad things that happen to us. When bad things happen to us (someone angering us) we can believe it is much worse than when it is happening to someone else (us annoying someone else). Yet, if everybody is thinking like this, then somebody must be wrong. What this might result in is us starting to see ourselves as worse off than others, when we may well not be.

A further study by Jackson et al. (2006) builds on this idea of self vs other differences. Amongst other tasks, in this study participants viewed images of individuals in painful or non painful situations and then imagined how much pain would be experienced from one of two perspectives; either if it were themselves experiencing the pain (self condition) or another person (other condition). When individuals imagined themselves in the scenario they imagined a greater amount of pain would be experienced than if it were someone else. Thus, it is not only social injustice that we view in a biased way, but pain too. It appears as though we might have a tendency to believe the world is a worse off and more painful place for ourselves than others around us.

Another potential reason why we can find ourselves moaning and stuck in self pity is a tendency for us to believe in a 'just world', otherwise known as the 'just world belief hypothesis', suggested by Lerner & Miller (1978). Through the use of experimental studies and observations, there is fairly strong evidence that we tend to believe that the world is fundamentally 'just' and fair. “What goes around comes around”. People get what they deserve, and so forth. Thus, if a set of circumstances arise that are detrimental to ourselves then this can come as quite a shock. 'How could something like this happen to somebody like me”? “I don't deserve this”. We struggle to come to terms with what feels like injustice (i.e. someone dents our car, or our mail is lost in the post). It is understandable if it happens to others, 'but me”? “I definitely don't deserve this.” Yet, injustices happen. Perhaps what would be more realistic is to recognise and remind oneself that the world doesn't balance itself out perfectly, sometimes bad things happen to undeserving people. Dwelling on seemingly unjust circumstances that we can do little about is probably best avoided. Bad things do happen, whether we deserve it or not.

A final factor that may make us feel let down by life is how we compare ourselves to others in the world. A slightly depressing, but realistic thought is the realisation that there is always likely to be people 'above us' in the world. Earning more, working more convenient hours, whose work is more highly regard by others, in better physical shape, more attractive, a quicker runner – the list could go on forever. Comparing oneself to those 'above us' may leave one feeling disappointed. What perhaps might be more positive is to make comparisons in the opposite direction; downwards. Realising there are others in less positive situations than us and what we possess is pretty good compared to others might perhaps make the world seem like a better place. We are lucky.

For example, in a study by Buunk et al. (2001) the researchers were examining how adjusting how people compare themselves to others might effect relationship satisfaction. Participants either wrote down reasons why they believed there relationship was better than others (downward comparisons) or just listed reasons why there relationship was good (control condition). The researchers found that comparing oneself to others had a striking effect on satisfaction, with these participants rating their relationship satisfaction far higher than the other group. One explanation as to why we see this effect is that by comparing ourselves to others who haven't quite got what we have, we adjust our bench mark for what we expect a 'good' relationship to be.

The question that arises from findings of downward comparisons is, under what circumstances upward comparisons might actually be good for us. In some circumstances they may well be – setting targets and goals based on what others have achieved may well be motivational and useful; increasing productivity at work or attempting to improve a running time. Yet, realising there are many who don't quite have what we do, as well as those 'above' us, who have more, would seem a healthy stance that may put our slights and grievances with life into some perspective. Further research, here - http://psychologyshared.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-can-make-me-feel-good.html suggests that a more gratuitous attitude may be rewarding in the long term too.

Finally, perhaps we should also consider taking our lives slightly less seriously. Although we sometimes do have trials and tribulations in life, one wonders whether at times our own sense of self importance (or need for a dramatic narrative to life) can result in us making bigger dramas out of inconveniences than we really need to. Indeed, there may almost be a slight perverse enjoyment of finding ourselves with reason to complain, as to some extent, it may provide us with moments of significance amongst otherwise dull days. This must at least explain the joy of self importance elderly neighbours exude when complaining and moaning about the appearance of a 7 or 8 yr olds boys football on their lawn once or twice a week.

Application

Letting go and accepting unjust circumstances rather than focusing too much on slights and inconveniences may be wise in life. The majority of annoyances and disappointments seem trivial with time and when we think about what else is going rather well.

Arguing & Complaining

Arguments and disagreements often don't work out all that well. Even if to you your point is painstakingly as clear as day and is irrefutable, this rarely ever means that somebody else will also see it that way. Of course a lot of people can have minor disagreements and get on with things soon after, but this is far from the case all of the time. Siblings shun each other and vow never to speak again, marriages end as a result of constant bickering and on a more grand level, political hostilities can be fuelled by disagreements and failed negotiations. One probable reason arguments so often seem doomed is because people can be very easily offended and if anything they stand for is challenged or questioned, they decide to go on the offensive. Few of us like being directly challenged and one can often feel hostile because of it.

However, this alone doesn't seem to explain what is going on with our failed and frustrating discussions and disagreements. What I (and many others) suggest is that there is a more fundamental and powerful reason; individuals tend to approach arguments in a magnificently biased manner and typically we aren't aware of this. For want of a better saying, when we jump into arguments we can't see the wood for the trees, we don't realise that our perception is massively biased by our own personal beliefs and motivation to prove ourselves right. This blog discusses some of the ways in which we act so biased and why it is problematic.

When we assess others points of view we are strongly influenced by our beliefs. A US study by Cohen (2003) nicely underlines this tendency and hints at how this might become problematic. The researchers took students who were either supporters of the Democratic or Republican parties.Democrats and Republicans have rather divergent policies and belief systems about how to govern. Using a cover story, the researchers then had the participants read a news story concerning proposed welfare cuts and manipulated the newspaper to lead participants to believe one of two things: either the cuts were proposed by the Democratic party or the Republican party. Shortly afterwards, the researchers then asked participants to indicate whether they thought the policy was a good idea or whether they opposed it.

The effects were very clear. If participants believed that the policy came from their opposing party, they tended to disagree strongly with the policy. But if they were led to believe it was in fact their party, they thought the policy was a great idea. Participants' opinions were being shaped not by the relative credits of the policy, but by their perception of whether it came from someone on 'their side' or the opposition. What this study suggests is that we tend to be very biased when evaluating our opponents views or suggestions. Even if an opponent puts together a great argument, we have a tendency to evaluate it in a more negative way than perhaps it should be. Yet, our bias doesn't stop at argument evaluation, we also seem to try and ignore arguments and evidence that counter our beliefs.

Frey & Stahlberg (1986) report a clever study in which they gave participants a mock IQ test and then led some participants to believe that they had scored rather dismally or very well on the test. The interesting part is what they did next: they set the experiment up so that participants could later peruse newspaper articles about how reliable or valid IQ tests are. Some articles championed the IQ test, others questioned their reliability. The researchers timed how long participants spent looking at the different articles. If participants had been led to believe they'd done badly, they then spent far more time reading articles that suggested IQ tests aren't great measures of intelligence after all. Thus, it appears as though we tend to search for and pay more attention to information and evidence that bolsters our views. If it doesn't, it seems a lot easier to turn a blind eye. If on

e is aware of this tendency, what can be done? Perhaps we should spend more time consciously looking for information that counters our arguments rather than confirm them, if we really want to gain anything from debates and discussions.

You get into an argument with a house mate and you suggest that you take the rubbish out all the time inthe house. Furthermore, you can easily recount many instances of you doing so. Yet, when confronted, he/she doesn't seem to take to this very well and suggests otherwise. What is going on? It may well be that your 'belief bias' filter is acting on memory. If we are arguing for one proposition, memories that support this idea can spring to mind very easily as memory can be belief or desire driven. For example, in a study by Sanitioso et al. (1990) some participants were led to believe that individuals high in the characteristic of extroversion (being socially outgoing) are more likely to be successful in life. After this, participants were then asked to recall memories of their past behaviour in order to help the researcher determine whether they were extroverted or introverted. The result? Driven by the desire to view oneself as an extrovert, participants were far more likely to recall memories of extroverted like behaviours. Who doesn't want to succeed in life?

The heat of arguments can also be problematic. The ease with which we find confirmatory information for a point of view seems to be very important in whether we decide that point of view holds any validity, perhaps even more important than the amount of evidence. Some classic, yet seemingly paradoxical studies by Schwarz et al. (1991) underline this well. Here participants are asked to either list 6 or 12 examples that would confirm an argument. For example, it could be 6 or 12 examples of generous thing you did in the last week. With this information you could then conclude whether you really are all that generous. What happens here is that participants in the 6 example group can come up with these 6 examples fairly quickly. Whereas the 12 examples group have to think harder for all of their examples and might fall short at 10 and then give up.

What happens when each group later judge whether they are generous? Even though the 12 example group might have more examples of generosity in the last week than the 6 example group, because they found it more difficult, they would be less convinced of their generosity. This of course seems slightly illogical, as the 12 example group actually possess more evidence for their generosity. It appears as though the ease at which information springs to mind is important in shaping how valid we believe our arguments to be. Thus, when we are arguing and actively searching for information that supports our beliefs (good old belief bias), evidence can easily be found, and this results in us becoming even more swayed into believing our point of view is definitely the correct one. The only problem is that everybody else believes that too.

What these studies suggest is that when we find ourselves in arguments we probably don't treat others points of views and arguments fairly or objectively. We favour our own and reason in a biased way. We seem to lack perspective and generally appear to believe that our perception of reality is right. Yet, this obviously can't always be true, as everybody must be wrong sometimes. Perhaps we need to be more forthcoming in deliberately attempting to take other persons' perspectives, or consciously search for reasons as to why our view point might be flawed. Perhaps if we all did this it would be easier to meet in the middle. Although this is all probably easier said than done, there is evidence that individuals with a tendency to take others' points of view (perspective takers), do tend to have better social relations (Davis, 1983). Yet, perspectives may not be enough - if we want to settle disputes or get to the truth we really must be aware of our overwhelmingly strong biases and blind spots.

A final point of consideration is whether we should find ourselves in arguments to start with. Constant arguments can damage friendships or relationships. Companionship is good for many reasons and we all like our friends. Furthermore, science backs this up – feelings of social connectedness are associated with all sorts of important things, like life satisfaction, happiness and even our physical and mental health. In addition, the common myth that a good argument can 'get it all out of our systems' through some form of catharsis is extremely questionable. So perhaps we should be choosing our arguments and complaints more wisely. Some issues are of importance, and long lasting positive changes can occur as a result of discussion. Yet, so often they don't. Awareness of whether new or old ground is being covered is probably of importance. For example, if we hear ourselves having the same arguments with friends or partners, it seems unlikely things are going to change any time soon, as surely they would have previously? If a friend is constantly letting us down, should we continue to complain ? Or should we reconsider whether it is wise to continue to put ourselves out there to be let down by them again?

Application

Don't argue about anything. Let it all boil up inside and then eventually go absolutely insane.

Or, try and be aware of the pitfalls of complaints, disputes and arguments and be a more reasoned and all around good person.

Don't continue to have the same complaints about horrific boyfriends or terrible friends. Ditch them, forget about it, move on. Find better ones. Join a salsa class.

Snobbery

What is snobbery? And why is it such a problem? When one pictures a snob they imagine a person acting condescendingly to another, turning their noses up at the choices and behaviour of others. Yet, this isn't the complete story. Snobbery has a lot to do with how individuals live their lives; life style choices. A snob sees their own choice/view point or way of living as superior to how others behave and they are often at odds with the majority's preferences. Snobs are normally extremely annoying. Considering what the problems with snobbery are and trying to understand why we feel it to be inherently wrong might be fun exercises in themselves, but they may also help us to avoid making similar mistakes ourselves. This blog attempts to do something along those lines.

Snobbery in itself is annoying because snobs often act condescendingly and are rude to others, who have what they would class as 'less cultured' views or ways of living. Snobbish behaviour and being looked down upon is unpleasant. Most members of society subscribe to the maxim of 'do unto others as you would have done unto yourself', which seems like a fair rule to follow in life. Thus, causing others to feel discomfort or annoyance in itself is a reason why snobbery is a problem. However, there is more than one victim when we consider why snobbery is a problem. Rather than musing about the many examples of snobbery and how snobs can be annoying, in this blog I will look further afield to what is inherently wrong about snobbery and why it can be problematic. First of all, the views that a snob subscribe to can be massively inaccurate, which is problematic if you believe that ignorance is undesirable. Secondly, if one falls foul of snobbery (we all probably have and will), this may lead us to make misinformed choices in life.

What is often annoying about snobs is their ignorance. For many things in life there is good reason to believe that certain products or choices are superior to another. If one has dry skin, then choosing to use a moisturiser over plain old water truly is a superior choice. But the problem with snobbery is that the conclusions drawn about what choice or decision is superior, are often misguided. A fine example is the recent rise in popularity of organic food produce. Organic is cool and a bit of an exclusive club. Because of these things it isn't odd to hear these words uttered from the wife of an upper-middle class investment banker or accountant; “I simply won't buy non-organic fruit and veg, organic is so much tastier and healthier”. Food snobs are common, and organic is the new cool when it comes to food snobbery. Indeed it is far more expensive than non-organic food and therefore an exclusive club. But what it isn't, is healthier or tastier than non-organic.

Basker (1992) fed groups of participants non-organic and organic samples of loads of different fruits and vegetables and measured participants preferences. The important thing in this study was that the participants were blind to which sample was organic or non-organic. The results : no significant difference in preferences between organic and non organic produce. In some instances, participants even tended to prefer the conventional products over organic. Furthermore, no decent research to date has shown clear results that suggest organic really is better off for one's health. Snobs often believe their choice is superior to the masses, but often this simply won't be the case.

Perhaps what is more interesting is how this type of misguided snobbery occurs. The relationship between expectations and experience is one likely candidate. Although organic is unlikely to be tastier than non-organic, individuals expectations about the taste experience may shape their actual enjoyment. A nice study by Wilson et al (1989) underlines this idea. The researchers showed participants a series of cartoons. The first half of the cartoons were funny and the other half not very funny at all. When participants looked at the cartoons without any prior expectations they reported exactly that; funny first half, not very funny second half. However, the researchers also led some participants to believe that previous participants had found all of the cartoons extremely funny. The result: these participants also reported that the three not particularly funny cartoons were a hoot. Furthermore, they didn’t only just report they were funnier but their facial expressions followed suit too.

This type of expectation effect on actual experience is well replicated in food studies – a nice label makes a cheap wine elegant and enjoyable and a sophisticated sounding dish is far more enjoyable when dining out at a restaurant. Thus, when one expects something to be enjoyable this influences their online experience to be more enjoyable than it would be without such positive expectations. So snobs really do believe the hype and end up living it too.

A type of snobbery we may all be guilty of is an avoidance of cheaper value products. When faced with several products it is

common to pick one priced somewhere in the middle and avoid the cheapest, as we expect it to be nasty tasting or of poorer quality. Yet, this obviously isn't always the case. With many products, it is the label that is the selling point. Although not a published empirical study, of late we have been doing some experiments that require participants to have a disappointing taste experience ce with a food they normally enjoy eating. For example, eating a bar of milk chocolate and finding it to be rather un-enjoyable. To do this I searched Sainsbury's basics range for snacks foods. Although I eventually found some products that participants did enjoy less than the upper end products, the overwhelming majority of value products produced extremely pleasant experiences for my participants. A victory for JB Sainsbury's and an overwhelming failure for snobbish attitudes to cheaper value products.

Another reason one may continue to exhibit such snobbish behaviour is worry of appearing cheap or lacking in 'culture' or 'class' to those around them. One may avoid trying slightly less cool hobbies and pursuits in life. One may be embarrassed to buy cheap products. But if one assumes that when shopping we aim for some kind of balance between quality of product and price, and much of the cheaper brands are no lesser in quality than their fancy labelled and expensive counterparts, perhaps we should shun such embarrassment and use our saved money on other things that might be more enriching in life.

A final observation on snobbish behaviour is the tendency for snobs to avoid mainstream pursuits. Everyone has a friend who only listens to unsigned bands. But the mere fact that something is extremely popular suggests snobbish avoidance of it might be rather irrational. Although hype around popular music or film may sometimes be over the top, the quality of music a band produces is probably strongly related to the chances of them being signed and their popularity. The desire to come across as individualistic and edgy surely must have something to do with all of this. The irony is of course is that such behaviour isn't individualistic at all, as hundreds of other snobs are behaving in just the same way.

What this all suggests is that we should be more careful and examine whether our preconceptions are always correct. The preconceptions concerning taste quality that drives many people to buy organic don't appear to be accurate at all. The snobbish wine lovers avoidance of anything priced under £30 is likely to be similarly inaccurate. The ignorance of snobbish behaviour is in itself a crime. A lack of open mindedness to less fashionable or cheaper options in life may end up to be costly, as individuals might end up missing out on all sorts of hidden joys in life and paying for labels and marketing rather than actual quality.

Application

Try cheaper, more mainstream or uncool stuff with an open mind; you might really like it.

Snobs are annoying and by nature closed minded and ignorant. None of this is good.

Don't buy organic vegetables. EVER.

.............Bad Memes .............

In the last blog I talked about how we sometimes have goals in life that aren't necessarily 'good for us' so so to speak. Some of these goals naturally occur because of our evolutionary heritage. The poor pacific salmons quest to reproduce, which ultimately results in rapid deterioration and death is an extreme example of this. A less extreme example in humans is the finding that having children makes people seemingly less satisfied and happy in life, during child rearing years. This blog discusses similar goals or ways of living that won't necessarily be good for us, but for some reason we have acquired and believe in. The difference is that these ways of living or ideas are determined as a result of cultural transmission. We learn them through our experiences in the world, rather than being born with them. In popular psychology and science they are also sometimes described as 'memes'.

Memes are numerous and all around us. An example of one that a significant proportion of people adhere to is the idea of 'a healthy body houses a healthy mind'. This is an idea or way by which we should live life that has been culturally transmitted. It's first appearance dates back to a philosopher/poet of ancient Rome (Juvenile). Thus, over the centuries, individuals have donned spandex and ran around quite a lot. This turns out to be a pretty accurate meme. Exercise is thought to be preventative in developing depression and as early as 1984, McCann & Davis reported findings from a large scale clinical trial that indicated enrolling in intensive exercise classes can be rather useful in combating depression.

But there are of course memes aren't always entirely accurate. A good example is the idea that eating lots of fruit will reduce the risk of you catching flu, because of all the lovely vitamin C inside of it. For the royal college of GP's, Joshi (2007) reviewed studies involving around 11, 000 participants and the data indicated that regular consumption of vitamin C had no effect on common flu incidence. What was found was that a large daily dose of vitamin C could have a very small effect on the length of a cold once you've got one, but it certainly doesn't look like it can prevent flu and nor is it a cure.

The vitamin C is a good example, because many common beliefs about illness and health are confused or just complete rubbish (carrots and night vision for example). But are these really a problem? Unless you are paying big money for vitamin C, these probably aren't real problems for people like me. There are some terrible reports from Swaziland concerning a belief that blood or body parts coming from an albino person can cure HIV. This is a super bad meme; both in terms of its accurateness and effect it has had on innocent people who happen to lack skin pigment. This blog will instead talk about one meme that we, as well off middle class and educated white westerners are more likely to come across in life. My main focus is modern day religion.

The problems with most modern day religions are numerous. First of all; which to choose? They can't all be right, and some of the practises in one directly disobey practises of others. Secondly, things often don't addup. Catholicism and Christianity adhere to the gospel and although it is a lovely little book, it doesn't match up to reality. We know a fair amount about our past in terms of the age of the Universe and earth and there also appears to be strong evidence for an evolutionary account in explaining how we got to where we are today. Unless somebody made a lot of copying and pasting errors, the bible is just wrong on many things; the age of the earth is ridiculously wide of the mark. Nor can it account for evolution. Furthermore, should we base our entire lives on a collection of stories that were written by numerous different authors, at different points and such a long time ago? How do we know it is accurate? What we do know is that a lot of it is inaccurate.

There are many arguments as to why you should believe in a god or somekind of higher transcendence and I am still to come across a good one. You will sometimes hear 'how could there be so much beauty without a creator?' as an argument. One obvious reply is how can there be so much misery and pain? Another is that things happen by chance, but us humans don't much seem to like the idea of chance and randomness. Occasionally the condensation on my window makes a pretty picture. I rarely find myself wondering how could something so beautiful occur without a creator.

If people really want to be religious regardless then fair enough. There is good reason probably. Religion can give structure and meaning in life. These are the types of things that make people happy. Religion can also help us avoid worrying questions about what happens after death. Religion often results in strong social networks and support groups, which are again useful. Yet, if one thinks about things rationally and not driven by 'faith' then there is surely only one real answer to whether any of the modern day religions stand up to the test. Religion is a 'bad' meme in the sense that it's fundamental preachings are very unlikely to be true. In many ways religion does possess strong and valiant messages; love thy neighbour, be a good Samaritan and so on. Generally speaking these are 'good'. But do we need religion to lead prosperous, satisfying and 'good' lives? I think we don't and I also think living ones life to a lie feels wrong.

Most religions instruct us to live our lives in certain ways. Catholicism hasn't liked condoms for a very long time and condemned the use of them. Catholicism was and is quite widespread in Africa. As is HIV. The bible directly promotes homophobia - "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.". Jewish religious law prohibits eating of a whole host of foods. Sausages taste nice. My mother remembers moments of her childhood when she couldn't sleep at night because she was struck with worry that her father wouldn't get into heaven, as he didn't attend church on a Sunday regularly. This is a bit cute, but still wrong. There are enough real worries in the world we have to tackle. The list of laws by which religions instruct people the correct and incorrect ways to live are endless.

Thus, religion really is the super meme. What it promises and preaches just isn't accurate. Attending church services regularly increases the chance of eternal life to a similar degree to regular attendance of neo-nazi white power rallies. One might argue that unless religious people are less happy than non religious people, then it isn't a bad meme after all. But living ones life by what seems most likely to be a lie doesn't seem right. Truth feels important in life.

Although religion probably helps to provides strong social support and structure and meaning in some cases, these can be achieved elsewhere in pursuits that aren't shrouded in falsehoods. One can find social support and make close friends though a shared interest for example. One can find meaning through belief in their job. If one loves teaching or caring for others, then one can form meaning and value in life from the belief that what they are doing is inherently right. Furthermore, education and nursing don't condone homophobia and don't arbitrarily denounce all manner of other seemingly inoffensive behaviours.

If the ideas in this blog are interesting, then I think it is because they introduce the idea of the meme and might make us think more carefully about what we do and don't subscribe to in life. As the study of human behaviour and emotions, psychology should be able to highlight what memes may let us down, so to speak. For example, the meme that lots of money will make us happier in life is very questionable (http://psychologyshared.blogspot.com/2010/09/show-me-money.html), but is nevertheless believed by some and will shape the way those people choose to lead their lives, maybe for the worse. So how can one spot a meme? A lot of memes sound fairly convincing and perhaps because of this they are even more likely to be believed; as one feels less compelled to test or question their credibility. Careful evaluation and consulting science when possible (now highly accessible on the web), would seem like good places to start.

Overcoming Evolution

If one is to lead a ‘good’ or ‘successful’ life and achieve whatever it is one wants from life, then understanding what causes us to behave the way we do would seem like a good place to start. This blog discusses some causes of behaviour that we are thought to have acquired as a result of our evolutionary heritage. Generally speaking, evolution is a well supported theory that tells us how we got to where we are today. Perhaps the major point of interest for this blog is that we have developed certain behaviours and traits because they were adaptive for the replication of our genetic make up. They did the job, so to speak, and were advantageous for the survival of our genes.

Yet, genes essentially use human bodies as a form of vehicle in which they can travel and replicate. Certain behaviours or traits are useful in ensuring gene replication (i.e. through sex or looking after our children) and when we reproduce they appear in future generations. The key idea here is that our evolutionary history produces behaviours that are ‘good’ for our genes, but not necessarily for our happiness or life satisfaction. A very good example of how genes could be described as ‘selfish’ is the pacific salmon.

The pacific salmon has a relatively short life and at the tender age of 4 it embarks on a monumental journey to mate, because they are hard-wired to do so as a result of their genetics. Over several months they travel 3000 miles in an attempt to return to mate in the fresh waters in which they were hatched. Although this sounds romantic, it really isn’t. The course of their journey leads millions to be killed by killer whales, stella sea lions, salmon sharks and bald headed eagles. If they are lucky enough to make it to fresh waters, then the risk of parasites and infections is huge, even in the fresh waters they battle against powerful torrents before reaching the spawning ground.

When they finally arrive they are tired and their battered bodies are easy prey for patrolling bears, but their hard wired behaviour means they won’t leave the spawning area until they have mated. Yet, the very water which they are drawn back to will eventually kill them. Kidneys and organs adjust to lack of salt water, resulting in a physiological response which renders appetite obsolete. After eggs are laid and fertilized, most salmon have (at the most) two weeks of rather uncomfortable life left in them, before their bodies which have been rapidly deteriorating for weeks, finally give up on them.

To me, this is a bit of a sad story. Genetic drives cause these salmon to undergo what would seem like tremendous suffering if human. I in no way think that salmon have thoughts and feelings, so maybe it isn’t all that sad. But we too are like salmon, in the way that often of our life can be driven by behaviours that might be useful for our genes, but not necessarily ‘us’. Many modern thinkers have described our genes as ‘selfish’, as they don’t really care about our happiness or life satisfaction and as the case of the pacific salmon underlines, they would happily cause much suffering if it meant there replication and survival was significantly increased. In this blog we will discuss some evolutionary drives and how they can get in the way of us leading ‘better’ lives.

Children. Perhaps the strongest evolutionary drive is to make some cute little kids. Women start to get very broody at 30 and warm to the idea of having another person living inside of them for 9months and men start to imagine how great it would be if they had a son who was a professional footballer. Although the popular conception is that children = great joy in life, this isn’t necessarily accurate. One thing that children do seem to do is have a big negative effect on how happy one is in their marriage. And as spousal relationships have a big impact on general life satisfaction this is fairly significant. This isn’t particularly new news.

Walker and colleagues (1977) report data which shows that marital satisfaction drops dramtically once the stork makes his drop off and doesn’t tend to recover until they have buggered off to university and flown the nest. Furthermore, Kahneman and colleagues use a very clever method of sampling how much joy individuals feel moment by moment and show that women tend to be significantly less happier when caring for their children than when shopping or watching T.V for example! This thrown in with the tremendous financial strain and stress children cause is perhaps somewhat saddening news (I have even heard that childbirth is a little bit painful as well). What this might suggest is that for some people children mightn’t be that good an idea. Does this reduce the genetic drive to reproduce? And do our genes care about this? The answer is no to both.

A further drive that has been proposed is our need for social acceptance and belonging to those around us. Pin pointing whether this is a definite evolutionary drive is difficult. Baumeister & Leary (2000) believe there is good reason to think there may be, as achieving such things would be helpful in aiding survival. If magnified, the need to be accepted and respected by others can be problematic. Although only speculatively, Baumeister and Leary (2000) go on to suggest that the reoccurring pattern of victims of domestic violence returning to their abusers may be testament to this. In addition, there is thought that the now all too familiar appearance of individuals working ridiculously long hours in stressful jobs for money that they don’t even need may be due to a similar mechanism, as such positions are coupled with elevated social standing. Furthermore, the extra income that such jobs provides is likely to have little effect on life satisfaction and happiness. If you were to ask yourself: what is more important? My life satisfaction and happiness or the extent to which others think I am at the top of my game? I would guess that on the balance of things most people would be picking the first one.

The first two examples are quite interesting but perhaps difficult in knowing what to do about. Are children for me? is a difficult question to answer. Yet, the final example is perhaps a bit more practical and straight forward. Humans appear to be quite neophobic about food, when young. We are risk averse and sometimes don’t like new things that we try. This would seem sensible, as new things can be dangerous or be toxic and until we have learnt about them we shouldn‘t probably take the risk. A fine example of evolution in action is our pickiness over vegetables. Naturally occurring toxins and poisons often are bitter tasting and previously if we had come across such foods when foraging, eating them would have been potentially fatal. It is because of this, it is thought that we have inherited a dislike and avoidance for bitter tastes in general.

Yet, many vegetables are bitter tasting. Although I personally love vegetables, a lot of people don’t and choose to avoid them, children even more so. However, many studies have shown that eating vegetables might good for a lot of things; significantly reducing the risk of heart diseases and maybe even promoting longevity if enough are eaten. Although slightly less dramatic than the pacific salmon example, this shows how our inherited tendencies aren’t always so good for us. There is good news concerning vegetables though. Our evolutionary past has also left us with fairly useful memory systems, by which we can learn from our past experiences and use such information to guide behaviour in the future. For example, Lakkakula and colleagues (2010) have shown that repeated taste exposures to vegetables increases their acceptance in school children (eventually learning that veg isn’t all that bad), which suggests that we can overcome such inherited obstacles with enough persistence.

Application

Don’t bother with children; get a micro-pig instead. They are cheaper, cuter and have funny little curly tails.

Avoid bitter tasting foods when foraging, they may contain toxins.

Befriend a pacific salmon and have a serious chat.