Attraction Across the Web

My best friend lives in Arizona.


While I like to consider a number of people here at SU my friends, there are very few people here that I can really say I know all too well. The fact of the matter is that I've been somehting of a hermit the past year and a half or so and my friendships in real life have suffered for it. I have not gotten to meet very many new people or spend time with many people in person.


However, I do spend a lot of time online. And online was where I met my best friend, Adam.


Adam lives in Arizona, so the fact that he's nowhere near me suggests that not every aspect of attraction (in this case proximity) is necessary to achieve a long lasting friendship. (Latane et al., 1995) However, the amount of time I spent online and the fact that he is online most of the time I am does mean that the mere exposure effect likely had a play in our friendship (Kuntz-Wilson & Zajonc, 1980). It certainly had a hand in us meeting for the first time when we both tended to join in with another mutual friend of ours in a chatroom at the same time a great many times. 


But the biggest basis for our friendship is just how similar we are (Montoya et al., 2008). Adam and I are damn near the exact same person in a lot of ways. We are both artistic and enjoy sci-fi and fantasy. We both loe to draw and to write. We both love comics, video games, and cartoons but aren't too fond of Japanese Anime. Prety much everything that I like, he likes and vice versa.


However, at one point, our friendship almost fell through. And that was the one time we found something different, and it was a big one. I really hate how we keep coming back to the concept of religion buuuuuuut...


Turns out Adam is a Presbyterian Christian; a very faithful one at that. And the one time religion came up and I mentioned that I was agnostic and I started to explain some of my views on religion, we got into a heated argument very quickly. If we had not quickly just stepped back and both said "stop" to ourselves, and gone on to agree to disagree with one another on this matter, it is likely we would have ended our friendship right there. Luckily we were both mature enough to let this slide pretty quickly and we have been close internet-buddies ever since. Goes to show you that opposites really DON'T attract.


Though I have never met him in person, from vid-chats and text chats, as well as the amount of time we have just spent talking, I can safely say that Adam is one of the only people I would really trust with my life. I am arranging to meet with him this Spring and we hope to go into business together once I get out of college.






~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Resources:




Kuntz-Wilson, W., & Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207, 557-558.


Latane, B., Liu, J. H., Nowak, A., Bonevento, M., & Zheng, L. (1995). Distance matters: Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 795-805.


Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889-922.

Predictably Irrational: Revenge of the Predictable Irrationality

Bah Weep Granah Weep Ninni Bong, everybody. (If you actually get that reference I love you forever.)

So I just got done reading this one book, entitled "Predictably Irrational." It's actually a really fascinating piece of work. The author, Dan Ariely, is what is known as a Behavioral Economist, and his book has won the "notable book of the year" award from the New York Times.

The focus of Predictably Irrational is to take a close look at all of the little odd quirks and irrational mistakes that human beings tend to make in their every day lives and continue to keep making. Mistakes that, in the face of rational information or sense, should honestly not continue to happen. To give an example, there is the concept of "free" and how when a person sees something that mentions the word free (ex.Buy 2 get one free) a person will likely jump to grab at whatever this free item is, even if it means depriving the self of pleasure or engaging in behavior that one would not normally engage in.

MOST of the topics presented in the book are economically based. Predictably Irrational focuses greatly upon how human beings will make mistakes with money and be lured into making mistakes with their money (for example, spending more on designer jeans over jeans from Wal-Mart  because obviously, if you spend more for your clothes they must be more comfortable) or how we deprive ourselves of pleasure to save money (for example, how everybody in an experiment decided to take a free Hershey's kiss over a fifteen cent Lindt Truffle [Which is hella cheap for a truffle and I'd know]) and how money insinuates a certain market relationship which can destroy social relationships (For example, you wouldn't offer to pay your mother in law for a home-cooked Thanksgiving dinner, she'd kick you out of her house). (Ariely, 2008)

What the book does is it takes a close look at various ideas such as these and how irrational they are in the face of hard fact and economics, and delves into the way the mind works and justifies its actions when faced with these irrational situations. For example. Why did Black Pearls become so incredibly popular after the sixties when before then they were seen as near worthless? Because we associate them with rarity and high class because the first place they were ever prominently seen was a famous jewelry store and they were very high priced. Suddenly they become the most popular new "thing" even though their worth is actually very dubious. Worth is relative in this sense. (Ariely, 2008)

Or how about why we pay for the lousy pair of socks with the buy-one-get-one-free pitch rather than the good, padded hiking socks you went into the sports store for in the first place? Because we hear the word free and we immediately associate it with not losing anything in a transaction and immediately choose it as the most personally beneficial choice as a result. After all, you do have two pairs of socks now, right? Well, yes. But you're going to get blisters when you go hiking. (Ariely, 2008)

The book is full of all the things that humans do and they do on a regular basis without ever learning from their mistakes. It takes a look at them, analyzes them closely, gives experiments and results done to take a closer look at the phenomenon, and then explains why humans likely engage in these activities on a regular basis with no learning from or acknowledgement of their mistakes.

I chose this book because I have always held firm to the phrase "Humans are silly little creatures."It's something I say relatively often. So as I was looking up the descriptions of the tradebooks, I was interested to see just how silly humans might be and how irrational we really are on a day to day basis from a more professional perspective. And I must say I'm glad I read this book. Because not only did it validate my concerns as to the human's inherent "silliness," but it also helped explain what sorts of silly things we engage in in a great deal of depth, and also went into how we might avoid them or learn from them.

I would certainly recommend this book to others. In fact, I would recommend it to pretty much everybody on the planet it has that much to say. To the social psychology students, it actually treads almost exactly the same ground as last lesson's lecture about Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience and the traps marketers will set and how to avoid them... but it also goes much more in depth than we did and it has a lot more to say about the topics. Furthermore it does go into other concepts like sexual arousal and decision making, social relationships vs. market relationships (that thing with the mother in law), and trust issues in the modern world. And I truly think that if everyone were to learn from their irrationality and work to try and fix it through reading this book, we could all benefit. 

The book is very clear and would be perfectly accessible to people with no psychology background and it is applicable in everyone's daily lives. The book has tips on how to deal with procrastination, how to deal with sneaky marketers and salesmen, how to make good decisions and stick with them, rather than flip-flopping between tons of choices as so many people do, and how to deal with close social relationships versus monetary relationships. An example of the first one, for example, is when there is no deadline to speak of, is to set specific deadlines for yourself. Or if there is a deadline, to adhere to it by setting specific smaller deadlines for yourself along the way. (Ariely, 2008) For me, a good example is how I engaged in a writing competition one time on the art site I frequent. The object was to write a 10,000 word scary story by the end of October 2010. The contest began at the end of September. The deadline was one month away, but I set small deadlines for myself at the very beginning. I would have 2500 words done every week. By adhering to that schedule I managed to get the story done painlessly. (I still didn't win though. I came in tenth place out of 89 contestants, however, so that's pretty impressive I think)

What I like about the book the most is the way in which it just lays bare everything we do that makes no sense, but it also gives us ways to fix our problems. An example would be the chapter on mistrust. There is a high amount of mistrust present in the American population of large corporations and companies because of how many times we have been screwed over by defective products or faulty customer service or executives trying to hide their asses. But the book lays bare how this might be fixed. It cites a poisoning scare by Tylenol in the 1980's where a biological terrorist spiced a number of Tylenol bottles with cyanide. Seven people died and Tylenol quickly recalled every bottle of Tylenol and urged consumers to throw out or return their bottles. It apologized and started an investigation. In the process it lost several million dollars and it looked like the company would collapse. However, when Tylenol came back a year later with safely sealed bottles, having completed their investigation, they had managed to build up trust in their consumers and they were back on top and doing better than ever. Consumers were pleased and Tylenol was pleased. Everyone was pleased. (Ariely, 2008)

But this is the best example of trust from a large company we have. The book outlines how if more companies would act in this manner, mistrust wouldn't be so high, and people would be happier all around, but people continue to shy away from possible good deals because they lack trust and companies continue to be dishonest. (Ariely, 2008)

The Author, Dan Ariely, has written one other book and is in the process of writing a third, which according to his personal website, will focus greatly on dishonesty. He holds an M.A. and a Ph.D in Cognitive Psychology and a Ph.D in Business. He has also taught at both MIT and Duke University. Personally I happen to think that that alone makes him more credible than most of the population of the world. From what I read in his book, he seems to know what he is talking about and is a rather credible source.

This book is an excellent guide to how we, as human beings, are passionate, irrational creatures and how we might learn to help ourselves in the future to become smarter and more thoughtful of our actions. If I had to give one point that the book was trying to drive home it would be "stop, watch yourself, and learn from what you're doing."

________________________________________________________________________

Source:

Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our behavior. (2 ed., Vol. 1). New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Preached At

Now, I know I went and did a whole thing on how religion is a tricky topic on the internet but if there's a place and time that I've ever really felt cognitive dissonance, it's back home in Illinois on Sunday.


Cognitive Dissonance, you see, is the tension we feel when stressed or anxious because our attitudes do not match up with our behaviors. (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959) And perhaps the place that I feel it the most is when I go to church when I'm home for a holiday.


You see, I come from a family that is very strongly Christian. My father is damn near Puritanical in his beliefs, and while my mother and sister are more flexible and forgiving of other religions, alternative lifestyles, progressive movement, etcetera, they're still very firmly entrenched in their faith.


Which, you know, I try not to mind. After all, like I said, I can respect looking to a faith to find reassurance and meaning in the universe. It's a scary world after all.


But it's very stressful to have to deal with it when you're the only one who is anti-organized-religion and  doesn't immediately ascribe to the idea that "God made the heavens and the earth."


And it only gets all the more stressful when I'm back home and go to church to be preached at for two hours. I sit there in the pew, just stewing for 120 minutes, having to act all smiley and nodding my head and singing hymns to a god that I very likely would choose not to follow even if he did exist (The Christian God, as he is portrayed in the Bible, comes across as borderline sadistic and evil to me.)


The fact is that when I go to church, I am experiencing Cognitive Dissonance. I feel stressed, angry, and tense because here I am a firm agnostic with disdain for religion and I'm acting like a torch-bearer. It's very trying.


Generally to deal with it I play down the choice that I had in the matter. I tell myself "My mother and sister would be very dissapointed if I didn't join them for something they hold so close. I really don't have a choice." (my father I could care less about). Saying things like this helps to minimize the tension I feel during these sermons. (Gosling et al., 2006)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




References:


Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.


Gosling, P., Denizeau, M., & Oberlé, D. (2006). Denial of responsibility: A new mode of dissonancereduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 722-733.

Captain Marvel vs. Sub-Zero. Who Wins?

I'm very very picky when it comes to video games.


I've been playing video games since I was five years old. On Christmas Day I opened up a great big box and pulled out my very first PlayStation System and my very first game: Crash Bandicoot. I remember playing the hell out of that game.In fact I still have that very first disc. It still works!


I played games for hours when I was younger and I was always looking for more games. So of course, it wouldn't be long before I found my very first BAD game.


I remember it... it was called "Rascal." It was about a kid who traveled through time and shot things with a bubble gun. The thing is the difficulty curve was set so frigging high from the very beginning that it wasn't even "Nintendo Hard," it was "I Wanna Be the Guy"hard.
...or maybe that was just the fact that I was only seven when it came out... but honestly given how the game was pitched and the content of it I can't really imagine somebody much older than that enjoying it... :/


But let's get to the point, shall we? After several experiences with really bad games I very quickly learned that you can't buy a game simply because it has a character you enjoy or because it looks pretty or because it's very popular. Take a look at Crash Bandicoot: Twinsanity, Rage, and Halo and I'll rest my case there (no, fans. Halo is not a good game. it is middle of the road. Deal with it.).


Indeed, I very soon learned that I had to read reviews of games from TRUSTED sources and think very hard about whether or not it was worth my money before I would buy a game. While occasionally, if I found a game in a bargain bin, I might buy it on premise or just appearance alone, usually a video game has to put forward a really damn good case these days before I'll even consider putting money down for it. This is me taking a central route to persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).


However, the Central Route doesn't always hold up with me... I must admit, occasionally I do falter from this method. Such was the case with "Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe." It's worth mentioning that I am a HUGE fam of Mortal Kombat. For a fighting game, it has a really interesting story, a ton of colorful characters with neat personalities and backgrounds, and a very intricate mythology and eyecatching settings. Also, it's always felt like the stakes for what you're playing for are a lot higher than in any other fighting game. It's also worth mentioning that I am a big-time comics reader and I love characters like Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. So now there's a game where the two universes and the characters therein (Including my favorite Mortal Kombat character: Sub-Zero and my favorite DCU character: Captain Marvel) are going to go head to head?


Well that was enough to rope me in.


...And wouldn't you know it, the game was crap.


The fighting mechanics were slower than normal, the story was ludicrous, the characters all acted like idiots and there were no decent unlockables to be found. The game was sub-par at best.


Indeed, this time I had taken a peripheral route to persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), and it cost me. I had been roped in by a more superficial aspect of the game (the characters involved) and it ended up costing me a good 40 dollars. 


What I'm most angry at though is how they could possibly screw a game like this up. >_<




Well, no matter. I'm off to speculate what would happen if Mortal Kombat met Marvel. Ghost Rider vs. Scorpion... now THAT'S a battle for the ages...








~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
References:


Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Don't Talk about Religion on the Internet

There are a lot of things that you're "not supposed to talk about in public." Politics and religion are the two biggies, and things like racism, homophobia, and other such topic all tend to be known to stir up trouble. And while in person these topics may cause a rift between two people to form, on the internet it can cause a webpage to turn into a full-on war zone. Insults will be strewn about and swear words will fall from the sky like fire and brimstone and somebody will inevitably be compared to Hitler.


But we're not here to talk about Youtube commenters. We're here to talk about the Implicit Association Test.  (Greenwald et al., 1998) 


The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a device used to measure Implicit Racism, or racism that functions unconsciously and without intent, but remains just as damaging as Explicit Racism, which is the type that is deliberately and intentionally enacted against one's fellow man and has declined greatly compared to the former. (Baron &Banaji, 2006; Dunham et al., 2008; Eberhardt et al., 2006)


The IAT works by having a participant press specific keys as fast as he/she can when posed with certain words affiliated with "good" and "bad."After a short preliminary trial, the participant is then posed with a concept such as religion or race or age and is asked to sort those by pressing the keys. And then comes the interesting part. The Participant is asked to sort BOTH a concept such as religion or race as well as words affiliated with good and bad. Through how fast these words are sorted and how mistakes are spotted between the concepts, one can get an idea of how the participant's unconscious mind works when dealing with various concepts like race, religion, weight, age, gender, and sexuality.


(Honestly, without copying the blurbs from the site, I SWEAR there is no easy way to describe these tests "in my own words" Just go do a few: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/ here. They aren't hard and are actually kinda entertaining.)


The first test I took was a test about gender and how people associate it with science. I took this one because I have always considered myself a feminist and I wanted to see if my subconscious held up with my conscious beliefs. To my relief, they did. I got through that test and discovered that there was no association with me between gender and science. Both consciously and unconsciously I do indeed believe in equality between genders. This could easily have to do with the fact that my grandmother was a chemist and I've grown up among a greater number of women than men, or it could jut be because of all the intricate philosophies I've built up over the years. But yes, in this case I think it shows the "true me."


After that first test I decided to take the "Disability" test, where I would find out if I discriminate against people who have disabilities. Now I went into this honestly with no personal knowledge about the subject. Effectively, I really don't know much about disabled people beyond Oracle from DC Comics (who is a badass genius hacker and leader of the Birds of Prey, but I'm sure you don't know what I'm talking about). I have met only a few disabled people in my life and, while I don't believe I've ever shown any ill will towards disabled people, I wouldn't have been surprised if I ultimately had a slight bit of prejudice against them. To my surprise the results actually came out that I held the disabled in strong PREFERENCE over regular people. Honestly, while I'm glad I don't discriminate against the disabled, I find this hard to believe. I honestly think it messed up. It DID say that if you make too many mistakes that it will give an inaccurate score and I think that's what happened. I made a ton and a half of mistakes during that trial. I mean, I'm not upset that I got this score. Honestly, the disabled need somebody to sympathize with them, given how apparently things aren't in their favor usually, but... it just seems a little bit dubious...


...Unless my unconscious mind thinks all disabled people are like Oracle... then I WOULD prefer the Disabled over normal people...
...If that's the case my unconscious is an idiot...


But just in case I did the Disabled test wrong I went ahead and did a third trial. I did the "Religion" trial. And... unfortunately it confirmed what I've known all along. In a nutshell, I hate religion. Actually, Judaism and Christianity I only slightly discriminate against but Islam I apparently strongly discriminate against. I've known this for a while and it hasn't exactly been UNconscious, but I try not to let it affect my interactions with people. I try my best to just keep religion out of it.


The thing is, I'm agnostic. Very VERY firmly agnostic. I'm not going to say there ISN'T a god or anything, because let's face it, there's just as little evidence to prove against a god than for one. Until I get good, hard evidence either way, I'm not going to say anything about a "god."


However, I think ORGANIZED RELIGION is ultimately harmful to society. At it's core it isn't a bad idea. A bunch of people giving out moral lessons to the public. Okay, sounds good in THEORY, but in practice you actually end up with a ton of people spreading more hate and prejudice, even if they don't mean to, and you really end up only making things worse for people. Honestly, how many people have died at the hands of "God?" How many people have killed innocents because "Allah" says it's what they're supposed to do?


I probably shouldn't go much further on this matter... but suffice to say that religion is a very volatile button with me. I have trouble talking about it without pissing EVERYBODY in the room off.


Now of course, I understand that most people involved in organized religion don't act like this. Certainly not. Most are just looking for answers and comfort in the universe and I can certainly respect that but I do tend to have trouble putting aside the fact that they are ultimately attached to an organization that has resulted in millions upon millions of death throughout time.


Damn. I'm getting off topic and people are going to hate me next class period now... >_<


I've gone on long enough but suffice it to say, yes. I do tend to have a fair bit of prejudice against most religious folk. It's a fault of mine that I really should work on trying to get rid of since I consciously know that most of these people are good people that just want to find comfort and purpose.


Anyway... I should probably wrap this up. In summation, the IAT basically confirmed most of what I already knew about these topics, but I've no doubt that it would be useful in revealing Implicit racism in others. 




(P.S. - There was a fourth religion in that test: Buddhism. I actually strongly associated that religion with good things. I can tell you that yes, this is probably the only organized religion I like for numerous reasons. Mostly because it focuses more on achieving a personal enlightenment and spreading peace and harmony than it does shoving a strict set of rules down a persons throat and if you don't follow these rules then burn in hell you heretic. Also I don't think I've ever heard of anyone killing in the name of Buddhism. If I ever convert I think I know what it'll be to.)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
References - 

Baron, A., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The Development of Implicit Attitudes: Evidence of Race Evaluations from Ages 6 and 10 and Adulthood.  Psychological Science, 17(1), 53-58. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01664.x

Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2008). The development of implicit intergroup cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(7), 248-253. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.04.006

Eberhardt, J. L., Davies, P. G., Purdie-Vaughns, V. J., & Johnson, S. (2006). Looking Deathworthy: Perceived Stereotypicality of Black Defendants Predicts Capital-Sentencing Outcomes. Psychological Science, 17(5), 383-386. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01716.x

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,1464 - 1480.

What are You Laughing At?

A few days ago I found myself back home in Illinois among a fairly sizey group of friends and family and I decided that among these people that had known me for such a long time and were familiar with my behavior patterns and the way I usually ticked, this would be a fairly decent time to try and take care of a little participant observer experiment that I needed to handle.


I like to laugh. A lot of people know that. I will drop a joke whenever I see an opening and I tend to crack up at the smallest joke, even when it's not well told. Heck, even when the joke has to be explained to me, I still laugh once I finally get it, which is something most people won't or even can't do. There are some forms of really really dark humor that I actually find a little depressing, but that's because I'm also really compassionate... but that's another story entirely.


(Of course, it's also worth mentioning that when I do laugh, I tend to cover my mouth as a do so. Stupid crooked stained teeth *grumblegrumble*)


But that's beside the point!


Laughter. I think it's a fair amount of what keeps me going day to day. Jokes, funny pictures, cartoons, comic strips... they're strewn all about my room. So for this experiment, for one day, I attempted to not be the funny guy. I did my best to be as stoic, stolid, and solemn as possible.


Let me tell you, that's not easy. Like in any way at all. It's so natural for me to laugh that it's really something of a natural schematic trait, and it's really REALLY important to my self concept. I think a fair bit of how I see myself depends upon whether or not I'm capable of seeing something as funny and laughing it off rather than upsetting and getting moody. (Markus, 1977)


So pretty much the whole day was really hard. First of all, it was hard trying to keep myself from laughing in the first place since it's generally a rather automatic response, at least for me. I'm pretty sure that people don't have to force themselves to laugh... at least when the joke is actually funny. When "Full House" is on I guess people might be forcing themselves to laugh but that's not exactly the point, now is it? I very quickly learned that I needed to try and replace the automatic response with something else. The easiest thing to replace the laughter with, I found, was anger. So whenever something humorous came around I ended up forcing myself to get snippy, perhaps even blowing into a full blown rage, wherein I would accuse people of being "silly and foolish" or some such.


And you better believe people noticed. These were people that have known me for a while and I've never been known to act like this before. My mother took particular concern at my behavior, continually asking me what was wrong that day. Other friends of mine acted similarly but didn't show quite the same amount of concern as family members who I ended up spending a lot of time around. Furthermore, when I ended up forced to act in anger to avoid laughing, my mother and sister would act distressed, while my friends generally opted to just leave me alone, as if letting me blow off some steam or something.


I have to admit though, though I engaged in a small amount of affective forecasting in an attempt to figure out how much these actions would affect me, I never could have been able to predict just how drastic the effects would be.  (Gilbert, et al., 2004) The fact of the matter is that while I did focus a great deal upon the impact I had upon the people around me, it was only towards the end of the day when I realized how damn crappy I felt.


I remember being told that people who smile are happier, and that people who laugh are healthier. Well I have to admit, at the end of the day I felt miserable and sick. The fact is that by cutting off laughter I had to cut off joking around and taking enjoyment at a large amount of things that tend to give me joy. So as a result I spent the whole day doing things that I honestly didn't enjoy or just sitting around being bored. I was also forced to end up thinking in ways that were not befitting of me: specifically when people tried to cheer me up or ask what was wrong I basically had to tell myself that I was perfectly in the norm and these people were wrong or inferior or silly or stupid in some manner. It was really the only way to avoid being cheered up by my friends and family. The result was I ended up thinking like an elitist or something for a day and honestly, I felt sickened by myself once it was over. I also felt sad that I had made so many people upset or worried or pissed people off by having to blow up at the smallest things.


I've always felt very secure with myself and my self-concept and boy oh boy, did this do nothing but reinforce that once it was all over. During the experiment I simply felt awful.I got absolutely no rewards all day or any real happiness from anything and I caused a lot of people I care about to get upset.


It absolutely baffles me now, how many humorless, stolid and downright grouchy people are out there after this experiment. I do not understand how the "other half" can possibly live like that. It really feels painful. It's boring at best and horribly HORRIBLY upsetting at worst. I think my self concept is pretty damn stable after doing this because if I can help it there is no way that I'm going back to an attitude like this.


Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go watch a Marx Brothers' movie.






~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gilbert, D.T., Morewedge, C. K., Risen, J. L., & Wilson, T. D. (2004). Looking forward to looking backward: The misprediction of regret. Psychological Science, 15, 346-350. 


Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.

I had a friend back in high school. His name was Alan.

EVERYBODY loved Alan.

You ask someone in the hallway. "Hey, you know Alan?" "Yeah! I know Alan! He's a cool guy!"

Pretty much everyone would say that. No matter what you defined as "cool," Alan would fit that description.

Now, being one of the guys that knew Alan a little closer than most people, perhaps I should reveal something.

ALAN WAS THE BIGGEST POSER YOU EVER MET.

Okay, that'snot being fair to the guy. Lemme explain.

Oh, yeah. Deep Down he was a nice guy really. He was good at sports and he was smart enough to keep making good grades, but perhaps his greatest talent was just how good of a self-monitor he was. The fact is, while Alan really did enjoy soccer and movies and video games and computers, deep down what Alan liked most was to be liked by other people. 

Not that he was really lying. That's not true. The fact is that what Alan liked... what the REAL Alan liked, was spending time with friends. It didn't matter how he spent it with his friends, but if he was spending time with friends he was having a blast. But he presented himself a little differently. He would come across as enjoying "Magic the Gathering" almost as much as he was enjoying the people he was playing it with. Or he would come across as having enjoyed the movie he was discussing more that simply the act of discussing the movie. To an extent, it seemed as though, when you got right down to it, Alan enjoyed everything.

And yeah, Alan seemed to always make the best of everything he did, but really what he was doing was watching himself and always making sure that he came across to people the best he could so that he could keep up the many friendships he had made.

Actually looking back, I can't imagine how tough that must've been...

Anyway, I'm tired and my bed is calling. Hopefully my next blog will be a little better thought out. See y'all later. 

(/Self Handicapping... but that's a different story altogether)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.

Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.