How the actor behaved influenced the behavior of the other participants in the game.

A rather interesting experiment was conducted some years ago in which an actor played the part of a contestant in a betting game with unwitting participants. Participants knew they were involved with an experiment but had no idea what the experiment was.

Each participant was introduced to the actor as though the actor was another participant. The participant and actor were to compete in a betting card game in which all winnings would be given to the winner.

Bets would be placed up to a maximum level for each “hand” played – the game was played one card at a time – face down – the larger card wins each hand. Neither participant could see the other’s card until after all bets were made.

The interesting part was in how each participant reacted to the actor.

Read the rest of this entry »

How quickly and accurately we recognize a pattern could mean the difference between death and survival 20,000 years ago.

Patterns – it’s the stuff of life. We don’t perceive reality – we literally create it with our assumptions – based on our perception of patterns. We assume a pattern as soon as we “guess” that one exists. After that, we tend to “fill in the blanks” rather than test our hypothesis (our “guess”).

To illustrate my point, consider the following pattern:

1, 2, 3…

Can you predict the next number? Of course you can. You assume it is 4. That’s because you perceive a familiar pattern. But, what if it is not 4. What if it is 5 instead? Is the pattern broken? Maybe – unless you can perceive a new pattern, you will not be able to predict the next or the next number.

Prediction is how we survived on the plains 200,000 years ago when we were considered food by many of the then existing fauna. Correct predictions brought about survival. Incorrect predictions often brought about death. Over the course of millions of years of evolution, prediction has become so ingrained in humans as to make it invisible to us.

Read the rest of this entry »

My mother and I often engage in small talk – but it’s code for “I love you.”

Researchers investigated the difference between happy and unhappy people in the types of conversations they tend to have. Their conclusion – happy people tend to have more substantive conversations and less small talk than do unhappy people. In fact, the study showed the happiest participants had twice as many substantive conversations and one third as much small talk as the unhappiest participants.

“Just as self-disclosure can instill a sense of intimacy in a relationship, deep conversations may instill a sense of meaning in the interaction between partners,” say the researchers.

It’s okay to talk about the weather or basketball scores, but why do you talk about such things? Are you nervous or anxious or concerned about the person with whom you’re having a conversation? Then why not just come out with it instead? Well, for many of us, just “coming out with it” is uncomfortable and sometimes opens windows or doors into worlds of hurt and shame. So we “code” our conversations so as not to directly shake the tree, so to speak.

Read the rest of this entry »

Although I sprayed them every year they’d just come back stronger. They had become resilient.

There is a spot in our backyard garden where the same weeds pop up every spring – and which I spray each spring. Over time, the spray seems to be lessening its effect on them and now, the weeds simply cannot be killed using those sprays I’ve used before – they have survived and learned to be resilient.

For years I’ve believed that victimhood is the key to therapeutic inaction and failure. Clients who believe they are the victim of abuse feel powerless and helpless against the intense feelings that boil within them. “I can’t help it – I was beaten as a child. It’s DADDY’S fault I’m fat!”

What if you were to look at yourself instead as a survivor imbued with a strength called resilience? Rather than feeling helpless and hopeless, might you feel more empowered? And what if you were to learn that by putting your strength to work for you, you might actually make your life work better? What if you considered resilience an evolutionary gift rather than a problem needing correction?

Read the rest of this entry »

Perhaps there is hope for marriages where at least one partner is willing to exchange “I” for “we”.

UC Berkeley researchers analyzed conversations between 154 middle-aged and older couples about points of disagreement in their marriages and found that those who used pronouns such as “we,” “our” and “us” behaved more positively toward one another and showed less physiological stress. Couples who emphasized their “separateness” by using pronouns such as “I,” “me” and “you” were found to be less satisfied in their marriages. This was especially true for older couples.

“Individuality is a deeply ingrained value in American society, but, at least in the realm of marriage, being part of a ‘we’ is well worth giving up a bit of ‘me,’” said UC Berkeley psychology professor Robert Levenson, a co-author of the study published in the journal Psychology and Aging.

Previous studies have established that the use of “we-ness” or “separateness” language is a strong indicator of marital satisfaction in younger couples. These latest findings, however, take this several steps further by showing how powerful this correlation is in more established couples, linking it to the emotions and physiological responses that occur when spouses either team up or become polarized in the face of disagreements, researchers said.

Read the rest of this entry »