When you change your attitude about something, do you know why? Psychologists have argued that the inner workings of our minds are largely hidden away from us. One aspect of this is the surprising finding that people are often unaware when they have changed their attitudes.
How do great artists create? How do brilliant scientists solve the hardest problems in their field? Listen to them try to explain and you’ll probably be disappointed. Artists say mysterious things like: “The picture just formed in my mind.” Writers tell us that: “I don’t know where the words come from.” Scientists say they: “Just had a hunch.”
It’s one of the great paradoxes of life that we all want to be happy, yet so few of us seem to know exactly where happiness comes from. Happiness itself can be defined in many different ways, it may have all kinds of components, it may be a life’s work, or even no work at all, but we are, most of us, in pursuit of this elusive goal.
Psychologists have good and bad news about our search for happiness. The bad news is that we have essentially no control over 50% of our happiness levels. Happiness, like many of our other attributes is partially set by our genes. While these do interact to a certain extent with the environment, on a day-to-day basis this 50% can be considered immovable.
A television commercial for Nabisco’s Fig Newton bars that debuted Friday preys on a wide range of innate human weaknesses, from greed and gluttony to the compulsive need for self-gratification in an otherwise cold and uncaring world, industry sources reported Monday.
“Flattery, pride, self-aggrandizement, fear of rejection: This latest Fig Newtons ad campaign fires on all cylinders,” advertising executive and CNBC talk-show host Donny Deutsch said. “It has nothing but contempt for its target audience, its exploitative nature borders on the unethical, and it’s one of the most brilliant marketing strategies in years.”
Back in 1994 a television company claimed a dog called ‘Jaytee’ could psychically sense when its owner returned home. And they had some evidence to back up their claim.
One TV crew was sent out with Jaytee’s owner while she walked around her home town and the other stayed at home with Jaytee. The cameras showed that just as the dog’s owner turned to go home, Jaytee got up and went to the porch and remained there until she returned.
“The best minds in the F.B.I. had given the Wichita detectives a blueprint for their investigation. Look for an American male with a possible connection to the military. His I.Q. will be above 105. He will like to masturbate, and will be aloof and selfish in bed. He will drive a decent car. He will be a “now” person. He won’t be comfortable with women. But he may have women friends. He will be a lone wolf. But he will be able to function in social settings. He won’t be unmemorable. But he will be unknowable. He will be either never married, divorced, or married, and if he was or is married his wife will be younger or older. He may or may not live in a rental, and might be lower class, upper lower class, lower middle class or middle class. And he will be crazy like a fox, as opposed to being mental.
If you’re keeping score, that’s a Jacques Statement, two Barnum Statements, four Rainbow Ruses, a Good Chance Guess, two predictions that aren’t really predictions because they could never be verified – and nothing even close to the salient fact that BTK was a pillar of his community, the president of his church and the married father of two.”
Are your conditions for happiness primarily external? Biochemist turned Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard has a message for you.
Are your conditions for happiness primarily external? Biochemist turned Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard has a message for you. The Dalai Lama’s right-hand man explains that the mind is malleable and happiness can be learned and measured:
Do we learn to laugh when tickled or is it an innate response? Professor Clarence Leuba used his own children, no less, as experimental subjects.
[Photo by Xander]
Do we learn to laugh when tickled or is it an innate response? That is the question psychologist Professor Clarence Leuba set himself to examine using his own children, no less, as experimental subjects.
In 1933 he decided that he would not laugh in the presence of his first child while tickling him (Leuba, 1941). Everyday life in the Leuba household, therefore, was devoid of tickling except for one special experimental period. During this period he would cover his own face with a mask while tickling his son so his facial expression was hidden.
The legal profession in America is taking an increasing interest in neuroscience. There is a flourishing academic discipline of “neurolaw” and neurolawyers are penetrating the legal system. Vanderbilt University recently opened a $27 million neuroimaging centre and hopes to enrol students in a programme in the law and neuroscience. In the courts, as in the trial of serial rapist and murderer Bobby Joe Long, brain-scan evidence is being invoked in support of pleas of diminished responsibility. The idea is abroad that developments in neuroscience – in particular the observation of activity in the living brain, using techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging – have shown us that we are not as free, or as accountable for our actions, as we traditionally thought.
Which leads defence lawyers to try arguing their clients didn’t commit murder – it’s their brains that are to blame.