Jeremiah Stanghini

The Psychology of Everything from Professor Paul Bloom

Here’s a great animated (!) 45-minute video from Professor Paul Bloom of Yale University explaining psychology through 3 case studies of compassion, racism, and sex. This video is fantastic in just how much you’ll learn about the different areas of psychology in less than 60 minutes. Take some time this Sunday to enlighten yourself about some of the important findings of psychology:

After having watched the video, what do you think? Any immediate thoughts or ideas? I’d love to hear about them in the comments below.

Money Doesn’t Matter, Right?

I came across this short 3-minute clip narrated by Alan Watts and thought you might be interested:

Being in an MBA program, I’m certainly sympathetic to the argument that money does matter, but after watching this video, I was reminded of a story I’ve heard on many occasions. The story’s fame was aided because it was printed in Ferriss‘ “The 4-Hour Work Week“. Without further adieu:

An American businessman was standing at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish.

“How long it took you to catch them?” The American asked.

“Only a little while.” The Mexican replied.

“Why don’t you stay out longer and catch more fish?” The American then asked.

“I have enough to support my family’s immediate needs.” The Mexican said.

“But,” The American then asked, “What do you do with the rest of your time?”

The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take a siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos, I have a full and busy life, senor.”

The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds you buy a bigger boat, and with the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats.”

“Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the consumers, eventually opening your own can factory. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually NYC where you will run your expanding enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But senor, how long will this all take?”

To which the American replied, “15-20 years.”

“But what then, senor?”

The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO (Initial Public Offering) and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions.”

“Millions, senor? Then what?”

The American said slowly, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take a siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos…”

[source]

The Psychology of the Petraeus Affair

I’ve had this link on my list of things to write about for a few days and even though it’s not the most compelling thing to write about right now, I wanted to make sure I wrote about it before it got to be too far away from the incident. The link is a panel discussing the motives behind the Petraeus affair.

The only thing I’ve written so far is my bafflement with Petraeus’ forced resignation “because of possible blackmail.” When I heard about this discussion, I thought I should also add something to the discussion. Some of the reasons that were discussed in the video/article:

Invincibility
Self-sabotage
“God made us this way”
“Men are simply no good”
Opportunity
Risk-seeking behavior (paired with the first one, invincibility)

While those are all plausible explanations, some carry more weight than others. Better yet, I think that there is an important one missing from this list: drive.

As the panelists tell us, this is not the first time that we’ve seen high-profile people and infidelity. In fact, this isn’t even something that’s limited to politicians — athletes do, too. Both Kobe Bryant and Tiger Woods come to mind as two very high-profile athletes who’ve publicly admitted to infidelity. (I say publicly admitted because who knows how many other accounts of infidelity there have been that the public has not been privy to.) In researching for this article, I came across a good summary of the literature on infidelity in a post about Tiger Woods:

The precursors to cheat could be summarized as:

Significant, ongoing, unresolved problems in the primary, long-term relationship or marriage

A significant difference in sex drive between the two partners

The older the primary relationship

A greater difference in personality than perhaps the partners realize

And to a far lesser extent, perhaps some theoretical, evolutionary remnants that may have reinforced multiple partners over monogamy (although this is just a hypothetical argument that would be difficult to disprove)

While these are some helpful (in understanding) precursors to cheating, there’s still one more I want to discuss — personality. Yes, personality is named in this list, but I don’t think that it adequately gets to the point I’d like to make.

Think about the kind of personality required to make it to the levels that Petraeus, Woods, and Bryant have. It takes quite a bit of discipline, dedication, and perseverance. These men didn’t just wake up one day at the pinnacle of their professions. They worked hard for it. While, of course, talent plays a big role in being able to make it to the upper-echelon, drive also plays a big part, too. It is this drive that I think plays a large part in infidelity. It’s almost as if we could theorize that there’s a triangle.

In fact, it reminds me of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love (pictured above-left). I would argue that drive is one of the vertices of a triangle, invincibility is another, and opportunity is the third. Without these three things present, one won’t necessarily cheat. Similarly, with these three vertices present, one won’t necessarily cheat. Though, when these three vertices are present, I would bet that the incidence of cheating is elevated.

Musings from the movie Lincoln

My intention was fulfilled: I did get to go and see Lincoln yesterday — and it didn’t disappoint. I know it’s Thanksgiving in the US and many of you are with your families, but I wanted to share a few thoughts on the movie:

1. First ladies (or wives of world leaders) seem to experience decisions just as much as the President or the world leaders do.

(minor spoiler alert)

2. When Senator Stevens was faced with the decision to — essentially — speak out against everything he’d been fighting for over the last 30 years, I wondered — would I be able to do that? Would you be able to do that? Of course, we can bring in Bentham‘s utilitarianism to help us explain doing what’s best for the “greater good,” but I still think it would be a difficult decision. Especially today, in the information age, when everything you say or do is kept — seemingly — forever.

3. Lincoln, in pursuing the abolition of slavery, had to know that he might lose his life. The day he died was not the first assassination attempt. So, in pursuing what he was pursuing, he had to know that he might die. The lesson here: would I be willing to give my life for a cause or a belief? Will there be a time when I’m faced with such an instance where I would give my life for what I believed in? Will you? Would you have given your life in the way Lincoln did? After I ask those questions, the thought occurs to me: Lincoln may not have seen it that way. he may not have seen it as, “I could die for this cause, so I should weigh the pros/cons.” My sense is that it might not even have been a question for him. He just knew that abolishing slavery was what he had to do — no matter the cost.

Have a great Thanksgiving all!

A Newfound Sense of Empathy: Taking Medicine for Dizziness or Headaches

When I got out of bed this morning, I wasn’t feeling very well. To be more specific, when I stood up, I felt a bit dizzy. The more I moved my head, the dizzier I felt. I laid down — dizzier, still. It wasn’t until I realized if I sat up, the dizzying feeling stopped. Now, this might not sound strange to a lot of you, but for me, being sick (or feeling unwell) is not something I’m familiar with.

I rarely — rarely — get sick. And when I do, it’s usually some kind of cold. The experience I had this morning was very humbling. There wasn’t a lot I could do to make myself feel better. I just sat there on the bathroom floor, trying not to think about … the things that usually happen when you’re sick. The best word I can think to describe it: humbling.

It’s important to rest when you’re sick, but when I wrote that piece, I didn’t consider the incapacitating feeling of being dizzy or having an “unusual” or abnormal feeling in your head. If your head’s not right, there really isn’t anything you can do.

I’m saying all of this because my experience this morning gave me a better understanding of why people take aspirin (or other kinds of pharmaceuticals). I suppose I’ve been rather lucky in life — I haven’t been very ill (or had many injuries). My one visit to the hospital was for taking a baseball to the face (maybe one day I’ll share that story on here). So, because I’ve had little need to take these kinds of drugs, I’ve always wondered why people appeared to be so dependent on them (I’m taking more about aspirin or things that help you when your sick, not other, more debilitating kinds of maladies/diseases). After my experience today, I have a newfound understanding for those who feel it necessary to take this kind of medicine.

The Lincoln Memorial and Civil Rights

This past weekend, I had the quintessential DC experience. Even though I’ve lived in Metro DC for over a year now, I hadn’t been to many of the monuments/memorials. On Saturday, I went to just about all of them. As a side note, I never realized just how big they were. There was one monument in particular that made me think — the Lincoln Memorial.

On my way to the bathroom (at the Lincoln Memorial), I noticed a tiny museum of sorts that had a number of Lincoln’s quotes on the wall. There was also a history channel (I think?) documentary-like movie playing in one corner of the museum. In the place where the video was playing, there were more things on the wall. One of the things on the wall that caught my eye was of someone holding a sign opposing civil rights. To me, it seemed an odd thing to find in a museum about the Lincoln Memorial. It also reminded that there was opposition to civil rights.

After I left the museum and continued my exploration of the other Memorials/Monuments, it made me think: what’s “today’s” version of what happened then? Is it marriage equality? Is it something else? More than that, what will be the next generation’s version of that? Or the generation after that? It’s a question I’ve wrestled with before: what are we doing today that will be thought of as ludicrous by the generations that follow.

I’m really glad I had the chance to check out the Lincoln Memorial this weekend because I’m planning on watching Lincoln tomorrow afternoon. My plan on watching it in the afternoon is that I’ll be more “alert” for what I’ve read is one of the best movies of the year. I’m certainly excited for it because I’ve wanted to read Team of Rivals for some time. In fact, when I borrowed a bunch of books a few months ago, I had Team of Rivals on my list!

Are Grades and Tests the Best Way to Measure Learning?

The other week in class, I was speaking with a classmate about grades and learning. We were opining about how sometimes, getting the right answer (on an assignment) shouldn’t necessarily be the goal of the assignment. That is, shouldn’t learning be the goal? Shouldn’t improving one’s storehouse of wisdom be the goal? Shouldn’t understanding be the goal?

Of course, that is the intention with these assignments — that one will learn/understand the material. After having spent (almost) an entire semester on the other side of the classroom, I certainly have [some] empathy for teachers and their assignments. While I don’t have to report to a department chair, I understand that in order to measure students, there needs to be something measurable and I understand that tests/assignments have become the easy way of doing this. Should this be acceptable, though?

I recently came across an interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that addresses this issue:

According to this view, the nature of teaching and learning should be measured instead of relying solely on an outcome like a grade or a test. Students should be exposed to courses and assignments that require them to analyze information and apply it to new contexts, reflect on what they know, identify what they still need to learn, and sort through contradictory arguments.

Such opportunities are described in research literature as “deep approaches to learning.” They figure prominently in Thursday’s release of data from the National Survey of Student Engagement. While Nessie, as the survey is known, has long sought data on those practices, this year’s report replicated and extended the previous year’s findings, which showed that participation in deep approaches tends to relate to other forms of engagement, like taking part in first-year learning communities and research projects.

This article has sparked a great deal of debate in the comments section, too. Here’s one comment that I found particularly on-point:

I do not want to be an apologist for the way things are, because it is always possible to improve our practices and in many respects we are responsible for the critical view the public have of us (honestly, it isn’t all the fault of right wing politicians with an anti-intellectual bent); however, higher ed adminstrators and the higher ed press have to stop treating each new study, each new innovation and each new utterance from some rich person suddenly interested in, but also dismissive of, higher ed (I’m looking at you Bill Gates) as the silver bullet that is going to transform and save higher ed. My head is not in the sand, I know higher ed (particularly public higher ed) is going through rough times but the panicked responses of the folks in charge is truly dismaying.

I once wrote about the need to shift towards Waldorf- & Montessori-like education. When I wrote this, I was thinking more about elementary and high school. I wonder — what should the model look like for college/university? Should it also be Waldorf- & Montessori-like? I don’t know, but it’s certainly a question worth asking.

Is There No Easier Way To Choose a President?

I think this cartoon — while meant to be funny — also has a good point. The USA just went through one of the longest and most expensive campaigns — isn’t there an easier way to do this?

I understand that some folks think that there might not be and I really don’t have a definitive answer to the question. I would look to some of the European countries like France where the campaign/election takes a fraction of the time as it does in the US. Or, there are the US’s neighbors to the North — Canada. An election is called and 6 weeks later, there is voting! I realize that the US has quite a larger population than Canada, but I wonder how much more productive the policymakers of the US would be if campaigning/elections were only 6 weeks long.

Think about all the time that lawmakers spend at fundraisers or campaigning. Just about all of that time could then be reallocated to creating public policy! One would think that things might move along quicker, but who knows, maybe they wouldn’t.

If you have an idea for how you think elections should run in the US, I’d love to hear. Let me/us know in the comments! On the face of it, there certainly seems to be a need to reduce the time it takes to choose a President in the US. If we start counting the time all the way back to the primaries, it takes over a year to pick a President in the US. That certainly seems like a long time, especially given that some of these same people are also tasked with running the country.

“Write Your Own Wiki Page” is the new “Write Your Obituary”

This past week in one of my classes there was a dynamic guest speaker who spoke about life and business. He talked about many of the things he’s done and that he’s still looking to make his mark on history. He framed ‘career’ into ‘quarters.’ There’s the “first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, and the fourth quarter.” In the first quarter, you are sort of getting your feet wet. In the second quarter, you start to take charge and take on more responsibility. I’m sure you get the metaphor by now.

As I was thinking about my life and the its “quarters,” I was remembered of the exercise that people are often asked to do when they’re making long-term goals: “write your own obituary.” The purpose of an exercise like this is to help you focus on those things that you would like to accomplish in life. When one reflects on the things one wants to be remembered for, there’s a good chance that one’s priorities might need to be rearranged (in order to meet those goals).

As I thought more about the idea of ‘writing my obituary,’ I thought: “I haven’t read very many obituaries in the NYT, but I certainly have read a number of Wiki pages of people who’ve died!” And thats’ when it hit me — “Writing Your Own Wiki Page” is probably ‘this’ generation’s version of write your own obituary.

Letting that sink in for a bit was kind of strange: Who am I to have a Wiki Page. Well, I better get cracking on ‘changing the world,’ if I want to have a Wiki page about me. More than that self-talk was the idea of future generations. I said that writing your own Wiki page could be thought of as this generation’s version of write your own obituary. So… what will the next generation’s version of write your own Wiki page be?

Confessions of a Toronto Blue Jays Fan: So This is what it Feels Like to be a Yankees or Red Sox Fan

This past week has been momentous. Absolutely momentous. Okay, maybe I’m being a tad hyperbolic, but it’s been an exciting week for the Toronto Blue Jays (and their fans). This past week, the Toronto Blue Jays made the biggest trade in franchise history:

Going to the Miami Marlins

Yunel Escobar (SS)
Henderson Alvarez (SP)
Adeiny Hechavarria (IF)
Jeff Mathis (C)
Justin Nicolino (SP)
Jake Marisnick (OF)
Anthony Desclafani (SP)

Coming to the Toronto Blue Jays

Josh Johnson (SP)
Mark Buehrle (SP)
José Reyes (SS)
Emilio Bonifacio (UT)
John Buck (C)
$4 million

This was a huge deal. Not only did a number of players change hands, but a number of marquee players. Reyes is a 4-time all-star and NL batting champion from 2011. Buehrle is a 4-time all-star. Johnson is a 2-time all-star. Buck is a 1-time all-star. Both Alvarez and Hechavarria are two prospects that were expected to lead the Blue Jays over the next decade. This trade will certainly solidify the Blue Jays’ prospects of making the playoffs in 2013.

Not only did the Blue Jays make a splash with this huge deal, they also signed a couple of players to fill a few holes. They signed Macier Izturis who can play all the infield positions and Melky Cabrera who was an all-star this year and the all-star MVP this year.

There are a ton of things going well for Toronto Blue Jays’ fans. Having been born and raised in the Greater Toronto Area, I’ve certainly followed the Blue Jays quite a bit, especially because growing up, baseball was my favorite sport. I loved the game, so naturally, I was interested in watching the professionals, too. I can remember back to 1992/1993 (when the Blue Jays won back-to-back World Series) — it was glorious. Those two teams were stacked with talent. In fact, leading up to the 1992 season, the Blue Jays made a very big trade to acquire to cornerstones of those championship teams. Many are comparing the trade I described above to that trade.

The number of deals (and the size of the deals, with regard to money), are not something that you usually see from the Blue Jays in the offseason. The Blue Jays usually have a very low-key offseason, picking up a few players here and there. I always remember the Blue Jays taking a more “Moneyball” approach. Part of this has to do with the size of the payroll. The only time I can remember the Jays spending a great deal of money in the offseason was during those two World Series years I described above.

There is no salary cap in baseball, so teams are allowed to spend as much as they want. As a result, you find the bigger marquee teams (like the Yankees and the Red Sox) able to spend more. (Though, there might be a chicken and egg problem here.) That’s why I’ve titled this post the way that I have. There haven’t been many times in Blue Jays’ history when they’ve spent this much in the offseason. As a result, I would imagine that this is what it feels like to be a Red Sox fan or a Yankees fan. Fans of these teams — I suspect — have become accustomed to their team spending a great deal of money in the offseason to keep them competitive.

Only time will tell if the success of the Reyes, Johnson, and Buehrle can equal the sucess of Roberto Alomar and Joe Carter. I, and most of Canada, most certainly hope that it will.