The Miracle of Modern Medicine
I just got home a couple of hours ago from having the battery in my ICD changed and I am pretty stunned at how efficiently it went. My past experiences with surgery in general have not been good as I usually wake up sick and/or in pain. This time was much different. I actually feel pretty good, though a bit whoozy.
The main difference, I think, is that the anesthesiologist I had asked great questions and pinpointed how to treat my nausea. He diagnosed my motion sickness as a possible culprit in why I had trouble before and had a motion sickness patch attached to my upper right ear prior to the surgery. It helped a lot. My only problem was throwing up in a barf bag on the way home but that seemed pretty tame compared to the side effects I have had before. Modern medicine is such a blessing, the fact that I could be in and out of the hospital this quickly is truly a miracle, though I suppose science also played a good part.
I recently posted on a book about doctors called In Stitches
The main difference, I think, is that the anesthesiologist I had asked great questions and pinpointed how to treat my nausea. He diagnosed my motion sickness as a possible culprit in why I had trouble before and had a motion sickness patch attached to my upper right ear prior to the surgery. It helped a lot. My only problem was throwing up in a barf bag on the way home but that seemed pretty tame compared to the side effects I have had before. Modern medicine is such a blessing, the fact that I could be in and out of the hospital this quickly is truly a miracle, though I suppose science also played a good part.
I recently posted on a book about doctors called In Stitches
Is "Now Hiring" the new "We do our part" sign of the Depression?
Why are there "Now Hiring" signs in front of so many businesses these days when so many people are complaining about not finding a job? Everywhere I go in Knoxville, there are generic "Now Hiring" signs from the hotels to the car dealerships to the stores at the mall.
Is it just a slogan to make people feel better about the business? Are they truly hiring? Or are they just waiting for the perfect person to show up and taking applications from the rest? I find it puzzling because if businesses were really that desperate to hire, so much so that they are all putting up signs, why are so many people saying they are having trouble finding work?
During the Depression, businesses showed their compliance with New Deal programs by putting up the "Blue Eagle," with the motto "We do our part." "The eagle, which had been modeled on an Indian thunderbird, was displayed in windows and stamped on products to show a business's compliance." Consumers were encouraged to only shop at the businesses that displayed the blue Eagle logo. It seems that I remember also reading something about this in Amity Shlae's terrific book The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression
Is it just a slogan to make people feel better about the business? Are they truly hiring? Or are they just waiting for the perfect person to show up and taking applications from the rest? I find it puzzling because if businesses were really that desperate to hire, so much so that they are all putting up signs, why are so many people saying they are having trouble finding work?
During the Depression, businesses showed their compliance with New Deal programs by putting up the "Blue Eagle," with the motto "We do our part." "The eagle, which had been modeled on an Indian thunderbird, was displayed in windows and stamped on products to show a business's compliance." Consumers were encouraged to only shop at the businesses that displayed the blue Eagle logo. It seems that I remember also reading something about this in Amity Shlae's terrific book The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression
Facing Violence
I received a couple of copies of Rory Miller's new book Facing Violence: Preparing for the Unexpected
from the publisher and immediately started reading the book. What I like about the authors of violence prevention books at YMAA Publication is that they focus a lot on the psychology of violence, preparing your mind and understanding what violence is and isn't. However, I often feel that they offer up similar advice to those who are thuggish types who tend to escalate violence and those who are minding their own business and encounter violence out of the blue. In my opinion, the psychology between these two is immensely different and should be reflected in how to think and respond.
In the first chapter and throughout the book, Miller discusses the legal and ethical aspects of violence. He talks about how laws set the standard for behavior and you will be held to it. "You must know how the law limits what you can and cannot do--and then you must adapt your training to work within those limits."
Miller goes on in the book to discuss how most middle class types have little idea about how criminals think (true enough) but focusing on how to defend yourself constantly to a jury is not exactly the best mindset for what to do when facing unexpected violence. Say you are coming out of a movie and someone jumps you with a knife? "Gee, what would the law say to do here?" is not going to help you survive. Knowing when to fight and when to flee is paramount here, not second guessing jury decisions. Sorry Mr. Miller, but as the saying goes, "I would rather be judged by a jury of twelve than carried by six."
I think regular people have enough problems displaying or even thinking about violence. Overcoming that in this culture is hard. As much as experts lament the "culture of violence" that we have in our society, the truth is, in our day to day lives, most normal people are not used to violence and have no idea what to do when it strikes unexpectedly.
Miller does a good job in this regard. He discusses the ethics of knowing where your line is before you come in contact with violence. He talks a lot about "breaking the Freeze." Freezing is "the state of not moving when you are in danger." Miller does a great job here of describing how to practice getting out of a freeze. He tells the reader to practice doing hard things and gives other suggestions.
Overall, a very good book for learning specific techniques when confronted with violence and a good manual for young guys (or older ones) who tend to be hot-headed and need to learn to manage their anger. However, the real people who need this book will never read it. They will be too busy disregarding the law, not worrying about the legalities of what they are doing and clearing their minds of anything but their next criminal act. For those who are not criminals and predators, but just innocent potential victims, a clear mind allows focus and forethought on the task in front of you. If it is unexpected violence, a plan is good, a head clouded with legal fears is not.
from the publisher and immediately started reading the book. What I like about the authors of violence prevention books at YMAA Publication is that they focus a lot on the psychology of violence, preparing your mind and understanding what violence is and isn't. However, I often feel that they offer up similar advice to those who are thuggish types who tend to escalate violence and those who are minding their own business and encounter violence out of the blue. In my opinion, the psychology between these two is immensely different and should be reflected in how to think and respond. In the first chapter and throughout the book, Miller discusses the legal and ethical aspects of violence. He talks about how laws set the standard for behavior and you will be held to it. "You must know how the law limits what you can and cannot do--and then you must adapt your training to work within those limits."
Miller goes on in the book to discuss how most middle class types have little idea about how criminals think (true enough) but focusing on how to defend yourself constantly to a jury is not exactly the best mindset for what to do when facing unexpected violence. Say you are coming out of a movie and someone jumps you with a knife? "Gee, what would the law say to do here?" is not going to help you survive. Knowing when to fight and when to flee is paramount here, not second guessing jury decisions. Sorry Mr. Miller, but as the saying goes, "I would rather be judged by a jury of twelve than carried by six."
I think regular people have enough problems displaying or even thinking about violence. Overcoming that in this culture is hard. As much as experts lament the "culture of violence" that we have in our society, the truth is, in our day to day lives, most normal people are not used to violence and have no idea what to do when it strikes unexpectedly.
Miller does a good job in this regard. He discusses the ethics of knowing where your line is before you come in contact with violence. He talks a lot about "breaking the Freeze." Freezing is "the state of not moving when you are in danger." Miller does a great job here of describing how to practice getting out of a freeze. He tells the reader to practice doing hard things and gives other suggestions.
Overall, a very good book for learning specific techniques when confronted with violence and a good manual for young guys (or older ones) who tend to be hot-headed and need to learn to manage their anger. However, the real people who need this book will never read it. They will be too busy disregarding the law, not worrying about the legalities of what they are doing and clearing their minds of anything but their next criminal act. For those who are not criminals and predators, but just innocent potential victims, a clear mind allows focus and forethought on the task in front of you. If it is unexpected violence, a plan is good, a head clouded with legal fears is not.
The PickUp Artist
I just ordered two books to add to my library. The first by Mystery is The Pickup Artist: The New and Improved Art of Seduction and the second is Neil Strauss's The Game.
I have looked at these books before but didn't own them so thought it was about time to add them to my personal library. I recently recommended them to a friend of mine for her son who she said was depressed over his lack of ability to get a date. At first, I started to give the same old tired advice. "Just tell him to be himself and a woman will find that attractive." "Bullshit," I thought to myself. "Give him a copy of 'The Pick Up Artist' by Mystery or 'The Game' by Neil Strauss and let me know how it goes." Two months later? My friend tells me her son is no longer depressed and is dating and learning how to interact with women.
Score one for Mystery and Strauss. Zero for dumb advice on how to "be yourself."
I have looked at these books before but didn't own them so thought it was about time to add them to my personal library. I recently recommended them to a friend of mine for her son who she said was depressed over his lack of ability to get a date. At first, I started to give the same old tired advice. "Just tell him to be himself and a woman will find that attractive." "Bullshit," I thought to myself. "Give him a copy of 'The Pick Up Artist' by Mystery or 'The Game' by Neil Strauss and let me know how it goes." Two months later? My friend tells me her son is no longer depressed and is dating and learning how to interact with women.
Score one for Mystery and Strauss. Zero for dumb advice on how to "be yourself."
"... no one can picture that same legal fate befalling Maria Shriver."
Roissy:
Cursing is a start, but organized political action against those who enact these legal injustices against men is better.
The Arnold scandal is interesting in another way: it holds a mirror up to our discriminatory, absurdist legal system. As Helen Smith says, what if this had been Maria’s kid? In today’s anti-male legal climate, Arnold would have been on the hook for child support if Maria had a ten year old kid by another man on the downlow. The courts and their femcunt foot soldiers would say “in the interest of the children” and “a bond has been formed” and all that self-serving horse shit that is nothing but cover for institutionalizing the second-class treatment of men. And then Arnold, still reeling from the news that Maria had been cheating on him, would suffer the additional body blow of financial responsibility for raising the bastard spawn of Maria’s infidelity.
Of course, no one can picture that same legal fate befalling Maria Shriver. There’s no court in the land that will saddle Maria with a court order to pay up for Arnold’s love child. If they did, Oprah would command an army of yentas to storm the Capitol building until legislators changed the law, quaking in fear before all that female empowerment.
And yet, according to most women and their male sycophants, it’s perfectly fine, nay even morally just, to exact this same malevolent injustice upon men.
To that I give a hale and hearty FUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUU.
Cursing is a start, but organized political action against those who enact these legal injustices against men is better.
What if Shriver had to pay for a child that wasn't hers?
So the news is blaring about how Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered a child with a woman working in their home over ten years ago. While I feel sorry for his wife, Maria Shriver, one thing she does have on her side in this situation is the law. Imagine if she had been a man?
I was watching the Today show about this case and the hosts of the show were all atwitter about how women were so upset by this type of infidelity, to the point it made their skin crawl and anyone should understand. Unfortunately, if you are male in this country and your wife has a child by another man, that's your problem. The women on the show acted as though only men were unfaithful.
Apparently, they never read (or neglected) the studies such as one from U.S. News & World Report stating "Studies of blood typing show that as many as 1 out of every 10 babies born in North America is not the offspring of the mother's husband."
A man has no choice but to pay for a child in this situation should he find out ten years after the fact, or even sooner. Not only does a woman not pay, but I heard a news show saying that Shriver may be entitled to compensation in a divorce if Schwarzenegger paid any support for the child. Imagine the outrage if Shriver was kicked in the gut not only with the news of this illegitimate child but double-kicked when told by the law that she now had to contribute to the child's support until the child was 18? It is unimaginable. Not so for men.
Why is there no similar outrage for men in this situation?
Update: "Schwarzenegger May Not Be the Legal Father Says Celebrity Attorney Andree Taylor" (thanks to the reader who emailed this article).
I was watching the Today show about this case and the hosts of the show were all atwitter about how women were so upset by this type of infidelity, to the point it made their skin crawl and anyone should understand. Unfortunately, if you are male in this country and your wife has a child by another man, that's your problem. The women on the show acted as though only men were unfaithful.
Apparently, they never read (or neglected) the studies such as one from U.S. News & World Report stating "Studies of blood typing show that as many as 1 out of every 10 babies born in North America is not the offspring of the mother's husband."
A man has no choice but to pay for a child in this situation should he find out ten years after the fact, or even sooner. Not only does a woman not pay, but I heard a news show saying that Shriver may be entitled to compensation in a divorce if Schwarzenegger paid any support for the child. Imagine the outrage if Shriver was kicked in the gut not only with the news of this illegitimate child but double-kicked when told by the law that she now had to contribute to the child's support until the child was 18? It is unimaginable. Not so for men.
Why is there no similar outrage for men in this situation?
Update: "Schwarzenegger May Not Be the Legal Father Says Celebrity Attorney Andree Taylor" (thanks to the reader who emailed this article).
The wonder of Matt Drudge
The New York Times:
I’ve lived the Drudge effect. Over a decade ago, I was working at Inside.com, a media news site, and wrote about a poll that had taken place on one of the presidential candidates’ planes that seemed to suggest a liberal bias among the campaign press. Mr. Drudge liked it, for obvious reasons. Our servers melted as we stood back in wonder, staring at what the linked economy meant and how one guy in a fedora seemed to know something we didn’t. He still does.
I am glad to see that Blogger is working again. It looks like even the Althouse blog is back up! It makes me realize how important some type of back up is for a blog, after all, it is years of work and information that goes into a blog and to have it lost could be devastating.
CNBC: "Prices at the Pump Likely to Keep Rising."
I believe it, I just filled up my gas tank at over $4.00 a gallon. I thought prices were supposed to be coming down. I was talking to a gas station attendant recently and was surprised when he said that no customers were complaining. "Really?" I asked. "Oh, people seem to understand," he said. Funny, they didn't when Bush was president. Perhaps the lack of negative media hype leaves people feeling less upset. Funny about that.
I believe it, I just filled up my gas tank at over $4.00 a gallon. I thought prices were supposed to be coming down. I was talking to a gas station attendant recently and was surprised when he said that no customers were complaining. "Really?" I asked. "Oh, people seem to understand," he said. Funny, they didn't when Bush was president. Perhaps the lack of negative media hype leaves people feeling less upset. Funny about that.
Is leadership overrated? (maybe not, but only when it is genuine)
When the famous management professor Henry Mintzberg, in an interview for Dutch television, was asked �what would you recommend for leadership in the 21st century?� he answered, without delay or hesitation: �Less of it�.
Henry clearly thought we need less �leadership�, and more people who actually do stuff. And true; it has become a business buzz word and something that everyone puts on his list of career aspirations. However, not everyone can be a leader. Moreover, their effect often seems overestimated.
In reality, business leaders make very few decisions that really significantly impact the course of action of their firms. When a large corporation does well, we attribute it to the forceful, brilliant individual at the top (e.g. Jack Welch, Steve Jobs). When the corporation fails, we also hold the individual crook at its helm responsible beyond mercy (e.g. Jeff Skilling, Dick Fuld). Yet, these individuals� influences might be overestimated, both positively and negatively, because their decisions often have very limited impact on the everyday practices in their firms.
Yet, I would say that that does not mean they have no influence. They surely do, but it might not be directly through their decisions. CEOs often have a much more symbolic role, in terms of providing inspiration and motivation. And that type of impact can be very real indeed.
Tolstoy � in his epic novel War & Peace, through the eyes of one of its main characters, Prince Andrei � seemed to understand that well. He described how one of the Russian commanders � prince Bagration � in a battle against Napoleon�s army, had very little real influence on how the battle unfolded: stuff just started to happen once the guns got rattling, whatever commands he did or did not shout. However, his presence, and perhaps his successful pretence of planning and control, did have some genuine impact:
Prince Andrei listened carefully to Bagration�s colloquies with the commanding officers and to the orders he gave them and remarked to his astonishment that in reality no orders were given but that Prince Bagration merely tried to make it appear as though everything that was being done of necessity, by accident or at the will of individual commanders, was performed if not exactly by his orders at least in accordance with his design. Prince Andrei noticed, however, that though what happened was due to chance and independent of the general�s will, the tact shown by Bagration made his presence extremely valuable. Officers who rode up to him with distracted faces regained their composure; soldiers and officers saluted him gaily, recovered their spirits in his presence, and unmistakably took pride in displaying their courage before him.
Hence, the impression we have of leaders� actions, their determination and vision, do influence people lower in the organization, in terms of their commitment and motivation. For example, a study by professors Ping Ping Fu, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and colleagues, published in the prestigious academic journal Administrative Science Quarterly, asked 177 executives of 42 companies to rate their CEOs in terms of the questions �the CEO shows determination when accomplishing goals�, �the CEO communicates high performance expectations�, �the CEO articulates a compelling vision of the future�, and �the CEO transmits a sense of mission�. They then surveyed 605 middle managers of these same companies in terms of their commitment to the firm and their intention to leave. And the results clearly showed that middle managers who worked for a company whose CEO seemed more determined and better at communicating and articulating a sense of mission and vision, were more committed to their companies. Hence, the image that a CEO managed to exhibit of his leadership and control had a significant impact on the motivation of his middle managers.
Then Ping Ping and colleagues did something interesting. Using an innovative survey technique (called the Q-sort method) they managed to construct a measure of the CEOs� values. Particularly, they measured CEOs� self-transcendence values (the transcendence of self interests, enhancement of others� happiness, and the acceptance of others as equals) and self-enhancement values (which emphasize the pursuit of one�s own happiness, success, and dominance over others) and, surprisingly, the findings described above were only true for CEOs with a healthy dose of self-transcendence values. By contrast, if the CEO secretly harbored some pretty selfish values (i.e. was high on self-enhancement), middle managers were not much motivated and committed to the firm whatever the CEO said or did.
�What is surprising about that?� you might think. Well, it may not be surprising that employees prefer their CEOs to have selfless instead of selfish values � I guess we all prefer our bosses to be selfless � but it is a lot more surprising that they are able to detect these values. Because what this study really shows is that, if you had multiple CEOs behaving in the exact same way � expressing a clear vision, showing determination, setting expectations, and what have you � only some of them would succeed in motivating their employees, where others would hopelessly fail. Because what sets the effective and ineffective leaders apart are the values they harbor, in terms of having their own or others� interests at heart.
Apparently middle managers see right through you. If you, as a CEO, display all sorts of motivating, leadership type behavior, but secretly harbor some pretty selfish values, it simply ain�t going to work. You can shout and dance and do whatever you like, but this motivational stuff only renders the desired effect if you really mean it.
Henry clearly thought we need less �leadership�, and more people who actually do stuff. And true; it has become a business buzz word and something that everyone puts on his list of career aspirations. However, not everyone can be a leader. Moreover, their effect often seems overestimated.
In reality, business leaders make very few decisions that really significantly impact the course of action of their firms. When a large corporation does well, we attribute it to the forceful, brilliant individual at the top (e.g. Jack Welch, Steve Jobs). When the corporation fails, we also hold the individual crook at its helm responsible beyond mercy (e.g. Jeff Skilling, Dick Fuld). Yet, these individuals� influences might be overestimated, both positively and negatively, because their decisions often have very limited impact on the everyday practices in their firms.
Yet, I would say that that does not mean they have no influence. They surely do, but it might not be directly through their decisions. CEOs often have a much more symbolic role, in terms of providing inspiration and motivation. And that type of impact can be very real indeed.
Tolstoy � in his epic novel War & Peace, through the eyes of one of its main characters, Prince Andrei � seemed to understand that well. He described how one of the Russian commanders � prince Bagration � in a battle against Napoleon�s army, had very little real influence on how the battle unfolded: stuff just started to happen once the guns got rattling, whatever commands he did or did not shout. However, his presence, and perhaps his successful pretence of planning and control, did have some genuine impact:
Prince Andrei listened carefully to Bagration�s colloquies with the commanding officers and to the orders he gave them and remarked to his astonishment that in reality no orders were given but that Prince Bagration merely tried to make it appear as though everything that was being done of necessity, by accident or at the will of individual commanders, was performed if not exactly by his orders at least in accordance with his design. Prince Andrei noticed, however, that though what happened was due to chance and independent of the general�s will, the tact shown by Bagration made his presence extremely valuable. Officers who rode up to him with distracted faces regained their composure; soldiers and officers saluted him gaily, recovered their spirits in his presence, and unmistakably took pride in displaying their courage before him.
Hence, the impression we have of leaders� actions, their determination and vision, do influence people lower in the organization, in terms of their commitment and motivation. For example, a study by professors Ping Ping Fu, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and colleagues, published in the prestigious academic journal Administrative Science Quarterly, asked 177 executives of 42 companies to rate their CEOs in terms of the questions �the CEO shows determination when accomplishing goals�, �the CEO communicates high performance expectations�, �the CEO articulates a compelling vision of the future�, and �the CEO transmits a sense of mission�. They then surveyed 605 middle managers of these same companies in terms of their commitment to the firm and their intention to leave. And the results clearly showed that middle managers who worked for a company whose CEO seemed more determined and better at communicating and articulating a sense of mission and vision, were more committed to their companies. Hence, the image that a CEO managed to exhibit of his leadership and control had a significant impact on the motivation of his middle managers.
Then Ping Ping and colleagues did something interesting. Using an innovative survey technique (called the Q-sort method) they managed to construct a measure of the CEOs� values. Particularly, they measured CEOs� self-transcendence values (the transcendence of self interests, enhancement of others� happiness, and the acceptance of others as equals) and self-enhancement values (which emphasize the pursuit of one�s own happiness, success, and dominance over others) and, surprisingly, the findings described above were only true for CEOs with a healthy dose of self-transcendence values. By contrast, if the CEO secretly harbored some pretty selfish values (i.e. was high on self-enhancement), middle managers were not much motivated and committed to the firm whatever the CEO said or did.
�What is surprising about that?� you might think. Well, it may not be surprising that employees prefer their CEOs to have selfless instead of selfish values � I guess we all prefer our bosses to be selfless � but it is a lot more surprising that they are able to detect these values. Because what this study really shows is that, if you had multiple CEOs behaving in the exact same way � expressing a clear vision, showing determination, setting expectations, and what have you � only some of them would succeed in motivating their employees, where others would hopelessly fail. Because what sets the effective and ineffective leaders apart are the values they harbor, in terms of having their own or others� interests at heart.
Apparently middle managers see right through you. If you, as a CEO, display all sorts of motivating, leadership type behavior, but secretly harbor some pretty selfish values, it simply ain�t going to work. You can shout and dance and do whatever you like, but this motivational stuff only renders the desired effect if you really mean it.
Married couples now a minority in Tennessee
Marriage in decline:
The article mentions that more services are needed, given all the single family households. I wonder how this will play out in terms of personal responsibility--will more and more of these households expect government entitlements?
The U.S. marriage rate dropped 14 percent between 1998 and 2008. Even Tennessee, which has some of the nation's higher marriage numbers, saw a 30 percent decline, from 82,947 marriages licenses requested in 1998 to 58,464 in 2008.
The article mentions that more services are needed, given all the single family households. I wonder how this will play out in terms of personal responsibility--will more and more of these households expect government entitlements?
CNBC: More Couples Arguing About Money, Sneaking Purchases:
The article makes no mention of how many men hid purchases from wives but I did find another related CNBC article that said women ages 35-44 hide the most small purchases from their spouse (23%). Women ages 18-34 were also more likely to hide cash and at 20 percent, women aged 35-44 are almost twice as likely as any other age or gender group to hide bills. However, men aged 45-54 are the most likely at 9 percent to hide major purchases from a partner.
Have you ever hidden financial information from a partner or had your partner hide finances from you?
Another interesting tidbit is one in five women who are in a relationship admit to hiding purchases from their partner. The number rises even further when you ask people if they have ever hidden purchases from their spouse, with three in five people admitting they bought items on the sly.
The article makes no mention of how many men hid purchases from wives but I did find another related CNBC article that said women ages 35-44 hide the most small purchases from their spouse (23%). Women ages 18-34 were also more likely to hide cash and at 20 percent, women aged 35-44 are almost twice as likely as any other age or gender group to hide bills. However, men aged 45-54 are the most likely at 9 percent to hide major purchases from a partner.
Have you ever hidden financial information from a partner or had your partner hide finances from you?
Reagan's Journey
I am reading a new book on Ronald Reagan that just came out this week entitled Reagan's Journey: Lessons From a Remarkable Career.
The author, Margot Morrell is a leadership expert who describes Reagan's journey from an "introverted boy" to "The Great Communicator." She highlights the strategies and tactics he used to become successful and "offers a model for leaders and managers in every walk of life."
Some advice from the book includes:
Cross-posted at the PJ Tatler.
The author, Margot Morrell is a leadership expert who describes Reagan's journey from an "introverted boy" to "The Great Communicator." She highlights the strategies and tactics he used to become successful and "offers a model for leaders and managers in every walk of life."Some advice from the book includes:
Keep in touch with your network of friends and supporters.Good advice.
Maintain good relationships with opponents and rivals. You never know when you will need their help and cooperation.
Find a life partner or trusted confidant who is supportive of your goals and dreams. That person will be integral to your success.
Forge strategic alliances. Seek out business partners whose strengths and talents complement your abilities.
Surround yourself with positive and upbeat people who support your success.
Cross-posted at the PJ Tatler.
Can you "banish evil?"
Glenn linked to an interesting article about the work of Simon Baron-Cohen (Sasha's cousin) and his work on empathy:
Baron-Cohen argues that this lack of empathy can be monitored and treated. Maybe, but I have a number of questions about assuming that everyone has some deep buried empathy that can be brought out. I don't think they do.
How would a person be monitored and treated? How is empathy to be defined? Remember that some psychologists and psychiatrists feel that it is okay to medicate inmates and others for having racist thoughts with anti-psychotic drugs. What else could they do? How would this fit into one's political beliefs? Those on the left often see themselves as "empathetic" but they might be using "empathy" as a synonym for leftist thought. Since the majority of those in the mental health field are leftists, how would this play out? Would Republicans who "lack empathy" in their eyes need to be monitored and treated?
Yes, it would be great if we could get psychopaths and narcissists to have some empathy for others, but at what cost?
As a scientist seeking to understand random acts of violence, from street brawls to psychopathic killings to genocide, he has puzzled for decades over what prompts such acts of human cruelty. And he's decided that evil is not good enough.
"I'm not satisfied with the term 'evil'," says the Cambridge University psychology and psychiatry professor, one of the world's top experts in autism and developmental psychopathology.
In the book, entitled "Zero Degrees of Empathy" in Britain, and "The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty"in the United States, where it comes out in July, Baron-Cohen seeks to pick apart and define components of empathy -- including hormones, genes, environment, nurture, and early childhood experiences.
Citing decades of scientific research, he says there are at least 10 regions of the brain which make up what he calls the "empathy circuit". When people hurt others, either systematically or fleetingly, parts of that circuit are malfunctioning.
Baron-Cohen argues that this lack of empathy can be monitored and treated. Maybe, but I have a number of questions about assuming that everyone has some deep buried empathy that can be brought out. I don't think they do.
How would a person be monitored and treated? How is empathy to be defined? Remember that some psychologists and psychiatrists feel that it is okay to medicate inmates and others for having racist thoughts with anti-psychotic drugs. What else could they do? How would this fit into one's political beliefs? Those on the left often see themselves as "empathetic" but they might be using "empathy" as a synonym for leftist thought. Since the majority of those in the mental health field are leftists, how would this play out? Would Republicans who "lack empathy" in their eyes need to be monitored and treated?
Yes, it would be great if we could get psychopaths and narcissists to have some empathy for others, but at what cost?
Pass the salt shaker?
CNN Health:
Those who consumed the least salt had a 56 percent higher risk of death from a heart attack or stroke compared with those who had the highest consumption, even after controlling for obesity, cholesterol, smoking, diabetes, and other risk factors....
Despite the study's shortcomings, the findings do suggest that sodium guidelines should perhaps take into account differences among individuals, says Randal Thomas, M.D., a preventive cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota.
"We know that not everybody is as sensitive to sodium in their diet as others. Even among people with high blood pressure, no more than half are probably sodium sensitive, and in the general population, it's probably less than 10 percent," Thomas says. "In setting up a public policy, it's important to recognize the need to have a policy that doesn't punish the majority for the benefit of the minority."
CBS Atlanta news show on kids who kill
I was interviewed last month by CBS Atlanta for a show on kids who kill. The show will air tonight at 11:00 Eastern for those of you who are in that viewing area. I will link to the show when it becomes available on their website for those readers who are interested in the topic.
Update: You can watch the video here. Notice that in the story, several of the featured killers are girls.
Update: You can watch the video here. Notice that in the story, several of the featured killers are girls.
PJTV: The Dark Side of Altrusim
I interviewed Barb Oakley, the author of Cold-Blooded Kindness: Neuroquirks of a Codependent Killer, or Just Give Me a Shot at Loving You, Dear, and Other Reflections on Helping That Hurts
about the dark side of altruism:
You can watch the interview here.
about the dark side of altruism:Author Barbara Oakley joins Dr. Helen to discuss the dark side of altruism. Could good intentions create bad results, like stress, unhappiness or worse?
You can watch the interview here.
Six scientific ways to suck up successfully (it is not as easy as you might think it is)
Sucking up really isn�t so easy. You can�t just tell your boss �you�re the greatest� because (although he might believe you) he is likely to grasp that you�re trying to sweet talk him into giving you this job, a raise, or a positive appraisal. As a result, it might all backfire because, as we know from research, people who think you are trying to trick them are less likely to actually give it to you. No, sucking up � or ingratiation behavior, as we euphemistically call it in management research � is easier said than done.
But now we have some good evidence � from research by professors Ithai Stern from Northwestern and Jim Westphal from the University of Michigan � how you can make it work, so pay attention:
1. Frame your flattery as advice seeking. For example, asking someone �how were you able to pull off that strategy so successfully� is more likely to hide your underlying motive than �gosh you�re good�.
2. Pre-warn your target that you are going to flatter him or her. For example, let your sucking up be preceded by statements such as �you are going to hate me for saying this but� [gosh you�re good]� or �I know you won�t want me to say this but� [gosh you�re good]� or �I don�t want to embarrass you but� [gosh you�re good] � you get the picture.
Now you that you have mastered the previous two relatively simple skills, it is time to up your game. It requires a bit of planning, but then it is likely to be highly effective:
3. Repeat the opinion that your target expressed earlier to a colleague. You can�t just keep agreeing to everything your boss says in every meeting, now can you? So what can you do? Well, when you find out your boss�s opinion on a particular matter from a colleague, who had a meeting with him earlier, bring up that same topic and opinion to your boss next time you�re meeting with him, before he has had a chance to do so. He will be duly impressed with the sharpness of your analysis.
4. Compliment your boss to one of his friends. So, saying face-to-face to your boss over and over again �gosh you�re good� is unlikely to do the trick. What might work though is to say to one of his friends �gosh, he�s good�. That friend is likely to, at some point, mention to your boss �he sure thinks highly of you�. And since you did not say this to his face, he might actually think you were trying to avoid brown-nosing him! Expect a friendly smile and sudden pat on the back.
Now that you have gained these more subtle skills of sucking up, you are ready to move to the advanced level. This one is sure to work, and you do not even have to say to your boss (or anyone else) that he is the greatest. All you have to do is make him feel the two of you are birds of a feather.
5. Engage in value conformity. What we mean by this is that you start a discussion with your boss by expressing commitment to a cause, institution, or other code of conduct that you know your boss feels strongly about. For example, if your boss is a family-man, begin your casual talk with how important family is to you. Or refer to your joint religion, or if he is into environmental protection, become green too (at least verbally). When you start of with statements that indicate that you share the same set of values, your boss is going to look at everything you subsequently say in a different light.
6. Refer to common affiliations. Similar to the previous tactic, refer to your joint political party, religious organization, or alumni club. These tactics build on so called in-group out-group biases; all of us humans see people who are in the same groups as we are in a more positive light, and your boss is no exception. So emphasize your joint group affiliation, and he will like the rest of you too.
Do these things really work? Yes they do. Ithai and Jim examined these tactics constructing and using an elaborate database on 1822 top executives, measuring their ingratiation behavior (assessed through questionnaires) and various other variables. Subsequently, they examined a rather important outcome variable to these folks: how likely their CEO (i.e. their boss; the target of their sucking up) was to nominate and appoint them to another board of directors on which he served. Directorships are highly coveted (and highly paid) jobs - that is, they want them! And all 6 aforementioned ingratiation tactics worked getting them.
Ithai and Jim also examined what sort of people were more likely to use these 6 tactics to their advantage. Executives with a background in engineering, accounting, or finance were plain clumsy at it. It is not that they did not try to suck up to their boss; they did, but they did it the coarse way (�gosh, you�re great�) and therefore were unlikely to succeed.
The people most skilled at successfully using the six sucking up tactics were executives with a background in sales, law, or politics. Perhaps not coincidentally, these are the professions we most mistrust (if not despise) to tell the truth: salesmen, lawyers, and politicians. They have had to practice these subtle ingratiation tactics all their lives. And it seems, also in the brown-nosing domain, practice makes perfect. And now they are reaping the benefits.
But now we have some good evidence � from research by professors Ithai Stern from Northwestern and Jim Westphal from the University of Michigan � how you can make it work, so pay attention:
1. Frame your flattery as advice seeking. For example, asking someone �how were you able to pull off that strategy so successfully� is more likely to hide your underlying motive than �gosh you�re good�.
2. Pre-warn your target that you are going to flatter him or her. For example, let your sucking up be preceded by statements such as �you are going to hate me for saying this but� [gosh you�re good]� or �I know you won�t want me to say this but� [gosh you�re good]� or �I don�t want to embarrass you but� [gosh you�re good] � you get the picture.
Now you that you have mastered the previous two relatively simple skills, it is time to up your game. It requires a bit of planning, but then it is likely to be highly effective:
3. Repeat the opinion that your target expressed earlier to a colleague. You can�t just keep agreeing to everything your boss says in every meeting, now can you? So what can you do? Well, when you find out your boss�s opinion on a particular matter from a colleague, who had a meeting with him earlier, bring up that same topic and opinion to your boss next time you�re meeting with him, before he has had a chance to do so. He will be duly impressed with the sharpness of your analysis.
4. Compliment your boss to one of his friends. So, saying face-to-face to your boss over and over again �gosh you�re good� is unlikely to do the trick. What might work though is to say to one of his friends �gosh, he�s good�. That friend is likely to, at some point, mention to your boss �he sure thinks highly of you�. And since you did not say this to his face, he might actually think you were trying to avoid brown-nosing him! Expect a friendly smile and sudden pat on the back.
Now that you have gained these more subtle skills of sucking up, you are ready to move to the advanced level. This one is sure to work, and you do not even have to say to your boss (or anyone else) that he is the greatest. All you have to do is make him feel the two of you are birds of a feather.
5. Engage in value conformity. What we mean by this is that you start a discussion with your boss by expressing commitment to a cause, institution, or other code of conduct that you know your boss feels strongly about. For example, if your boss is a family-man, begin your casual talk with how important family is to you. Or refer to your joint religion, or if he is into environmental protection, become green too (at least verbally). When you start of with statements that indicate that you share the same set of values, your boss is going to look at everything you subsequently say in a different light.
6. Refer to common affiliations. Similar to the previous tactic, refer to your joint political party, religious organization, or alumni club. These tactics build on so called in-group out-group biases; all of us humans see people who are in the same groups as we are in a more positive light, and your boss is no exception. So emphasize your joint group affiliation, and he will like the rest of you too.
Do these things really work? Yes they do. Ithai and Jim examined these tactics constructing and using an elaborate database on 1822 top executives, measuring their ingratiation behavior (assessed through questionnaires) and various other variables. Subsequently, they examined a rather important outcome variable to these folks: how likely their CEO (i.e. their boss; the target of their sucking up) was to nominate and appoint them to another board of directors on which he served. Directorships are highly coveted (and highly paid) jobs - that is, they want them! And all 6 aforementioned ingratiation tactics worked getting them.
Ithai and Jim also examined what sort of people were more likely to use these 6 tactics to their advantage. Executives with a background in engineering, accounting, or finance were plain clumsy at it. It is not that they did not try to suck up to their boss; they did, but they did it the coarse way (�gosh, you�re great�) and therefore were unlikely to succeed.
The people most skilled at successfully using the six sucking up tactics were executives with a background in sales, law, or politics. Perhaps not coincidentally, these are the professions we most mistrust (if not despise) to tell the truth: salesmen, lawyers, and politicians. They have had to practice these subtle ingratiation tactics all their lives. And it seems, also in the brown-nosing domain, practice makes perfect. And now they are reaping the benefits.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)