Ironic Reversal...What in the world...

When we are trying to avoid doing, saying or thinking about something, we often find that this is impossible.

This is because of the 'Catch 22' situation that in order to avoid thinking about something, we need to know what we are trying to avoid and hence we have to think about it. The situation then gets worse as our failure to succeed causes us to work harder at the task.

The thought can also act as a block against other thoughts. When searching for a word for a particular situation, the more available words that pop into our minds first become more available and consequently keep coming back when we try to think of other words.

As we get worn out by this fruitless task, our ability to control the situation weakens, we get stuck in the cycle and thinking can easily turn into saying and doing. Repetition also tends to strengthen our belief in what we are thinking, as in Mere Exposure Theory.

This spiral can easily fall into obsessive-compulsive behaviors and many psychological disorders include an inability to stop thinking about something uncomfortable.

Hypnotists use this in phrases like 'You may notice how, as your eyes close, your hand gets heavier and you sink into a deep trance.'

When you are trying to solve a crossword puzzle or quiz question, even though your first idea is not right, it gets in the way of you finding the correct answer.

Telling children not to drop a plate makes them think about dropping it, and that often takes them a step closer to the act!

If you want someone to think about something, talk about it (or even tell them not to do/say/think about it). To accentuate the effect, get them cognitively overloaded and stressed beforehand.

The way out of the trap is not to try. It's like going to sleep: the more you try, the more you can't. The trick is to not be bothered about it, reducing the stress.

TJ

What Do You Believe About People?

We have beliefs about many things. 

These may be 'black and white' polarities. 

They may also range along a spectrum between the two ends. 

What I (you) believe about people will drive how I (you) behave towards them.

Intent: concerned for others vs. concerned for self

This is the belief about how basically selfish people are. A balance between these two concerns leads to the Care-Behavior Matrix.

The Collaborator
If we believe in the rights of people to be cared for, that we have a duty of care towards them, and also believe that others are trustworthy and caring, then we will seek to collaborate and work together with them.
The Collaborator is the opposite of the Independent. They make good team players and can become very frustrated when working with Users and Independents.

The Nurturer
If we believe in the rights of people to be cared for and that we have a duty of care towards them, but that they do not care about others, then we will try to be helpful and guide them in their actions (perhaps even if they do not want help).
The Nurturer is the opposite of the User. When Users and Nurturers work together, the Nurturer can become a victim.

The User
If we believe that people have no rights to be cared for, but that others are trustworthy and caring, then we may seek to take advantage of this. We may stereotype or depersonalize them as we seek to absolve ourselves of any guilt about this.
The User is the opposite of the Nurturer and when they work together, the User may become a bully or callously take advantage of the Nurturer's good faith.

The Independent
If we do not believe in the rights of people to be cared for, and that others do not care about us, then we will go our own way and generally ignore others.
The Independent is the opposite of the Collaborator and will usually prefer to work alone rather than in teams.

Concern for others

I can believe that people are basically good and kind and have a natural tendency to help others. People who believe this way are likely to be trusting and trustworthy. They may also be naive and open to unprincipled persuasion.

Concern for self

I can believe that we are all basically selfish, and all actions are self-motivated. People who see the world in this Machiavellian way will not trust others and will manipulate the world for their own ends. They may even interpret pro-social, helpful actions as for the purpose of making me feel good.

Capability: natural talent vs. ability to learn

Natural talent

This is also called Trait Theory. It assumes that people are born with particular talents and abilities and that there is no point trying to change these.

This was popular in the early years of psychological theories and then was scotched when the complexity of people, the (particularly Freudian) effects of early development and their ability to learn was considered. More lately, it has return in the guise of Behavioral Genetics.

If people in organizations believe more in natural talent, this increases significantly the importance of recruitment and decrease the importance of training and development.

If I believe that I have some talents and not others, then I am less likely to seek to learn and more likely to try to live based on what I can already do and what I believe I know.

Ability to learn

I can believe that, by and large, we all have similar talent, and that the question of ability is more about learning. All people are seen as 'learning machines' and the focus is more often rather on whether we can learn but our preferred learning style.

If people in organizations believe more in our capability to learn, this increases significantly the importance of training and development and decrease the importance of recruitment.

If I believe that I can develop through learning, I will be more likely to seek higher education and take an approach of 'life-long learning'.

Intelligence: Fixed ability vs. Growth mindset

Similar to nature-nurture capability beliefs, this is often a personal belief: Am I as clever as I am or can I become more intelligent. as with other beliefs, each creates a self-fulfilling prophesy whereby a person grows intellectually or not. (Research, by the way, has shown that around half of your 'intelligence' is inherited and half is about what you do).

Fixed ability

The fixed ability belief is that we have a certain intelligence and ability and are unable to change this.

It has been found that children who are praised as being 'clever' tend to take on less risky challenges as they do not want to lose this 'intelligent' tag. 

Growth mindset

In contrast to the fixed viewpoint, a person with the 'growth' mindset believes that if they work hard they will become more and more clever.

Children who are praised as 'working hard' take on more challenging tasks, in contrast with those who were praised for being clever.

TJ

Paradoxical Ideas?

I am not a hardcore nativist, but I do tend to fall in line with genetic causes having primacy in determining behavior. I do have an issue with those who hold fast to the tabula rasa belief system. A person being born with a mind that is totally blank and ready for information seems to be fantasy at best. 

The journal article I chose to enhance my argument had to do with epigenetics. The article was titled, Behavioral Epigenetics: How Nurture Shapes Nature, by Tabitha Powledge from the Journal of BioScience.

Epigenetics has to do with the way nurture shapes nature. It is concerned with the molecular events that govern the way the environment regulates the genomes of organisms (Powledge, 2011). The article suggested that being able to manipulate DNA and histone interaction, within the context of the hippocampus; it might be possible to change things from someone’s appearance, physiology, cognition, and behavior. Basically, how to trans-mutate experiences into changes in body function and behavior. In particular this study and the study of epigenetics in general, are concerned with the early development stages of life. This study, in particular, is concerned with behavioral epigenetics; the study of how signals from the environment trigger molecular biological changes that modify what goes on in brain cells (Powledge, 2011). 

The basic premise is that the basis of behavior is learning and memory and how studies have shown that modifications made to specific genes can have measurable affects on learning and remembering. They show how DNA methylation and histone modifications are essential for learning and remembering, and how inhibiting their effects can eliminate conditioned responses to learned behavior. Conversely, blocking deacetylation can actually intensify or strengthen a memory in reference to a conditioned response. 

The secondary premise of the article is that research has shown a connection between social experiences and how they can actually cause genetic changes. What is more interesting is that those changes can persist across generations. 

Through the study they determined that by studying male mice, they could eliminate many confounds, and reach a somewhat more reliable consistency. When they introduced alcohol into the mice prior to mating, the offspring had more difficulty with spatial tasks, they were more aggressive, and they took more risks, and displayed more anxiety type behavior. When they introduced cocaine prior to mating, the outcome was smaller brains, attention deficits, and poor working memory. This was backed up by a study of people from northern Sweden. In this study they found that the risks of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and early death is linked generationally in men (but not women) with grandfathers who had plenty of food available prior to puberty. The downside of epigenetics is that human research will be limited because human tissue is tough to come by, especially living brain tissue. 

What does all of this mean?

For me, it would suggest that genetics continues to play a primary role in determining behavior. However, through genetic manipulation, whether achieved through medicine, diets, drug abuse, or during gestation behavior can be modified. I continue to remain resolute in genetic based behavior with some room for environmental manipulation.

With the “facts” surrounding both camps, the discussion of nature vs. nurture has somewhat shifted from an either/or to a discussion of how much of each.

Still,

Francis Galton offered a great question when discussing nature vs. nurture. I will restate it here:

Given that heredity and environment both influence the person we become, which is more important? Why?

 

Powledge, T. (2011). Behavioral Epigenetics: How Nurture Shapes Nature. BioScience , LXI (8), 588-592.

TJ

Root Principle

Having and using a right standard of why we do what we do is important to sound judgment and understanding who we are and why we do what we do. Without a right standard we will be susceptible to the fundamental attribution error.

 Measuring ourselves, our values, and our behaviors using our situation, and excluding our personality traits is equally as dangerous as others judging us by using our personality traits to the exclusion of situational factors in our lives.

The root of just about all of the principles in social psychology usually comes in the form of cognitive bias called the fundamental attribution error. It reveals how people tend to consider their own behavior in a different, biased, way from the way they perceive the behavior of others.

Real Life

Within the world of congregational Christianity, or, one might say, the church world this error has proved to be very invasive. As a minister, there never seems to be a dull moment. Each week brings many and varied challenges that seemingly pop up to derail us from our already overloaded schedule. 

One of the major points of conflict between staff members (ministers) and laity (church members) is understanding the differences between who we are, what we do, and what we deal with everyday. Ask a church member to comment on how effective they believe a particular minister is in their role, and many of the comments will revolve around likes and dislikes pertaining to the minister’s personality. 

In contrast, ask a minister about his effectiveness and you will likely hear about the daily grind, and all of the areas of responsibilities and unforeseen circumstances that make up their ministry. As much as the minister’s tend to lean into the situation, the membership leans much hard into the personality.

It is normal to want to understand why people behave the way they do. It is just natural curiosity for most of us. Using cognitive biases is a standard way for the brain to process human behavior. The problem we need to recognize is that cognitive biases can be wrong. 

Observing someone’s personality can allow us to make quick decisions about that person, but we need to be careful and remain cognizant of our biases so we can consider the alternate explanations for someone’s behavior.

To remedy the fundamental attribution error I try to put myself in the shoes of the other person. I think about what I might do in the same situation. 

By doing these things, I can come up with some situational factors that may lend themselves to the behavior exhibited. I also look for hidden factors to help me better read the other person’s behavior. 

The inverse is also just as important. When I look at my own behavior, I need to avoid the actor-observer effect, and be sure to include my own personality when I am assigning credit for my own actions. 

TJ