Using the Web in a right brain way

Pivot is a bit like how the right brain sorts and compares data, looking for patterns, anomalies and relationships. Like the right hemisphere, Pivot relies on global processing and dealing with generalities. I suspect as it becomes more used, Pivot will also specialize in finding patterns that can be described visually, but are difficult to describe in words. And like the right brain, Pivot arranges visual stimuli by appearance, using stored data to arrange parts.

Our right brains take simultaneous streams of information and created a master collage of that moment, using images, sounds, tastes, smells and feelings (both tactile and emotional). It manipulates those streams of information in ways not unlike Pivot's algorithms. What is amazing is that the right hemisphere is better at catching errors than the left. It is easier to prime, benefiting from even the weakest association. It is also easier to update with new information.

The "Dawn of Reason" gave humanity the opportunity to hone many left-brain dependent processes. I foresee this as the "Dawn of Global Analysis", which will hone many right-brain dependent functions in the decades and maybe centuries to come. I look forward to the other data analysis tools that will be spawned by this.

How we learn to see

Pawan Sinha talks about how our brains learn to see, based on his research with blind children and adults in India. Despite what some scientists had extrapolated from animal studies about sight, human brains can learn how to see even after many years of vision deprivation, even into adulthood.

"The one thing that the visual system needs in order to begin parsing the world is dynamic information."

This makes a world of sense when you consider that visual perception is dependent on eye movement. Vision and movement are linked. To quote Wikipedia: "Humans and other animals do not look at a scene in fixed steadiness; instead, the eyes move around, locating interesting parts of the scene and building up a mental 'map' corresponding to the scene. One reason for the saccadic movement of the human eye is that the central part of the retina—known as the fovea—plays a critical role in resolving objects. By moving the eye so that small parts of a scene can be sensed with greater resolution, body resources can be used more efficiently."

Try this. Focus on the red dot in the image below. After a while, the blue circle will start to fade. This illusion is based on how your eyes move.


[If you're like me, you will find it hard to stay focus on the dot once you notice the circle starting to look different. I actually got a headache fighting the impulse to compensate for the lack of microsaccade movement, through the use of gross eye movement.]

Visually thinking and different types of minds

Temple Grandin talks about thinking in pictures. I am so grateful that she has been able to find a way to verbalize how she visually processes things. There is no way I could possibly match her explanations. I straddle verbal and visual processing, but that doesn't mean that I totally understand a visual mind that doesn't has the access to the verbal skills I have. I know that I use visual processing. I also know that there I have not fully developed my visual processing ability. Verbally and mathematically, I had the training. I've been writing poetry since I was seven years old, thanks to my second grade teacher, who introduced poetry writing as part of an English/spelling lesson.

In this world of internet videos, I hope that more people like Temple Gardin are able to show us how to visually think - not only for those like me who intuit its power extends further than we see, but for everyone's benefit.

Modern Artist Spotlight - Tom Shannon

Tom Shannon's visually perplexing sculptures and installations allude to unseen forces better known to physics -- and to Star Trek fans -- than to conventional art.
- Art in America



I appreciate Tom Shannon's sculptures because they are not only aethetically engaging, pleasing and inspiring, but they are also wonders of science and technology, which engage the analytical as well as the artistic mind. The Artist's Official Website and the following TED.com video give wonderful examples of his works.

Gravity-defying sculpture inspired by the sun, the earth, the moon.



As a student of the mind, I am touched by his paintings on a couple of levels. First, the marriage of order and chaos - of math and art. Second, on the level of a creative and artistic mind being clever and resourceful enough to find a way to create works of interest and beauty, even while suffering from Parkinson's Disease. Lastly, and most importantly, of the human spirit to strive in the face of difficulty.

The painter and the pendulum

The Shift of Yin-Yang in View of Cultural Differences

"Whatever idea you may have, the opposite may also be true." - Derek Sivers

I love the idea of a doctor getting payed for keeping well versus getting paid for treating your illness. Of course, I know of hyprochondriacs who would be delighted to bankrupt a doctor like this. However, I suspect that part of the deal is that the patient is required to follow the doctor's orders, or find themselves in breach of contract. I do know of a case in Japan, where a woman was not told that she had bladder cancer because (at least at that time) Japanese doctors did not believe in disclosing such information to the patient. Instead, she was told she had gallstones. Her husband sued the doctor for malpractice, stating that had his wife known how serious the situation was, she would have gone through with the surgery. The doctor's defense was that had she followed his instructions, she would have lived longer. At the time, the court sided with the doctor.

In an individualistic culture, such apparently blind acceptance of another's judgment is considered by some to be nothing short of blasphemy. In a collectivist culture, it's considered a matter of respect and duty. And recent studies suggest that it might not be as blind as one might think. People in collectivist societies are more likely to read things that counter their personal beliefs than those in individualistic societies. A person in a collectivist society probably is more used to accepting ideas other than their own because they have to. They also have the security of a clearer social code than those in a society where individuality make the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors uncertain. In an individualistic society, the need to justify one's self to others is more constant.

The upshot of the study is that those in a collectivist societies are less likely to have confirmation baises. People in individualistic societies have a greater drive to "be right", which leads to a greater tendency to ignore information that might prove them wrong - which is the very definition of confirmation bias.

Ironically, I will have to admit that despite knowing all of this, I still have a hard time with the idea of accepting another's judgment in certain things. I am still very individualistic. However, even as I write this, I can think of areas of my life where I balance this out, of times when I will willingly defer to another's judgment without question. And I strongly suspect that most of us are this way. Individuality and collectivism is a continuum. Take individuality to an extreme and one runs the risk of being antisocial and/or egotistical. Take collectivism to an extreme and there is the possibility of becoming too dependent on and/or enmeshed with others. Look very close at people and you will find collectivism and individuality expressed in countless ways: like the rebel teen who wears the same clothes as their friends or the factory worker who has to alter his issued uniform.

Mirror neurons

The greatest thing I think/feel that comes from mirror neuron research is the scientific proof of empathy as an actual human quality, based in neurological structure, versus the idea that it's just something we try to tell ourselves we can have. The second greatest thing of this research is that it also gives us a better idea why we have empathy and how we benefit from it.

This talk covers all of that AND gives us more to consider, based on the research of the phantom limb phenomenon.



In a way, humans benefit from the ability to have a "hive" mind, based on mirror neurons, and also individuality, based on sensory feedback. This dual modality is the basis of our ability to create complex and highly varied civilizations. With it, we can grasp organization and chaos. The trick is managing both.

Happy New Year!

Enjoy some "brain magic".

A.J. Jacobs: My Year of Living Biblically

This talk is more amusing than anything else, but he does make some good discoveries: such how changing your behavior, changes your mind; how giving thanks, changes your mood; the importance of reverence; and not stereotyping religious people. The only thing I find missing is the differentiation between the Law of Moses and the New Testament teachings that came from Christ. He did touch on it some, but seemed to miss the significance of the Sermon on the Mount.

Anyway, I'm sure most of you will enjoy it and everyone will take something different away from it.

Education

© Universal Press Syndicate

In his TED talk, Sir Ken Robinson talks about how current education "stripmines" the minds of our youth. While I wholeheartedly agree with him about the need to change this, I also think we need to find ways to reclaim those older minds who have gone through this system and are now stuck in a changing world, in dire need of those skills that were not developed earlier. For both scenarios, I recommend the following:


Teaching for the Two-sided Mind by Linda Verlee Williams

It's an excellent book for the teacher and the adult learner. Instead of trying to divide people into left and right brain thinkers (which really doesn't have much validity according to neurological studies), Williams comes from the angle that we are ALL left and right brain thinkers. Not only can this book help you refine how you learn information and analyze problems, it also invites you to try other ways of learning. You will be surprised at how much you actually do use both sides of your brain.

Enjoy!

For my 45th birthday, I'm going to take it easy and just post a fun talk. I'll try to rev the brain back up next week for more meaty posts.

The Effects of Sound

Some of you might find it interesting that we can hear sound through our skin. I, personally, find it even freakier that we can hear it through our bones. As a brief break from my exploration of visual stimuli, I share with you this TED talk on sound.



Highlights of this talk

The four ways sound affects us:
1) physiologically
2) psychologically
3) cognitively
4) behaviorally


"You listen consciously, you can take control of the sound around you. It's good for your health. It's good for your productivity."

Examples of the effects of sound

1) A means to help us spot electric cars better as well as other things:
"when there was a visual cue, respondents were significantly less accurate than with no cue. With an audio cue, they were significantly more accurate. And when both audio and visual cues were given, the difference from the no-cue condition wasn't significant (although it was significantly different from both the other conditions). So the audio cue, especially when not paired with a visual cue, made respondents more accurate than a visual cue. If anything, the visual cue seemed to make it more difficult for respondents to identify which circle was disappearing."

2) Affecting moods, like anxiety and depression.

3) To mark psychological boundaries. I've seen this from person experience. I've lived in some diverse socio-economics areas during my life--from upper middle class to what some people would consider "a 'hood". One thing I've noticed in general, the more stressful a neighborhood is, the noisier it is. I've also noticed that the more homogenious the neighborhood, the quieter it is. Over the years, I've developed the theory that many people use sound/music to isolate themselves from others. It's corolary is that groups of people use noise to stake psychological territory.

The last place I lived in became the noisiest and ugliest place after it became more diverse and the ethnic groups felt the need to "mark their territory". The fact that it was a high crime area made things worse. The place I live now is ethnically diverse, but slightly higher socio-economically. Because of that, while we occasionally get someone being loud, it doesn't last for long.

When a few men moved into our apartment building from a lower social bracket last spring, I could tell that they felt uncomfortable, because they gave furitive looks and then would talk "homie/gang-banger" when someone came near them. It wasn't long before I was awoken from my very needed nap by the sounds of one of them screaming profanities at a girl on his cell phone outside, with all the charm of a cat in heat. Finally he hung up, but the next time he started, the neighbors below me started to blare Tejanos music to drown them out. They turned the music down when the next phone call stopped.

Since we live near a lake, we also had the sounds of nature to compete with, which thankfully would drown both parties out from time to time. Within about six weeks, the sound wars ended and nature won.

Symmetry, Math, Life and Art

After watching this video a few times, I have decided that the Japanese had some good insight into the creative process with their Essays In Idleness:

"In everything . . . uniformity is undesirable. Leaving something incomplete makes it interesting, and gives one the feeling that there is room for growth..."

Following what was said in the video, I think this is another feature of art that engages the viewer in conversation.

I'm going to apologize here. I was going to go ahead and write up some of the things I read about humanity's need for balance and such, but I think I will save that for another post.

Delayed Gratification

I'm really worn out at the moment, so I'm going to post a couple of short entries. For the curious, I write rough drafts for these ahead of time and the flesh them out later.

Recent research has shown that children who learn how to delay gratification are more successful in life. The following video talks about the Marshmallow Experiment originally done at Stanford University, its follow up research, and its replication in other countries.



The little girl the video clip ended with scares me a little. Not because of the fact she tried to trick the researchers by eating the inside of the marshmallow, but because she had such an intense reaction to wanting it. For a moment I was wondering what they had laced that marshmallow with, because she was acting like a heroin addict.

Anyway, back to the concept of delayed gratification. You know Aesop's fable about the Tortoise and the Hare. When you really think about it, it wasn't as much as the tortoise being slow and steady that gave him the race, as it was the Rabbit not delaying his gratifying nap that did.

On the flip side, youth who fell unsafe have trouble delaying gratification. I suspect that may be true for adults too, but the study focused on youths. If you thought you might die soon, there is less incentive to wait for a reward. In fact, there is less reason to play it safe, period, because it wouldn't matter in the long run.

Learning from primitive cultures

In my last post, the second video I embedded by Gever Tulley mentioned how the Inuits taught their children how to use knives at a very young age, thus allowing them to gain better control of a basic tool of their life. In my foundations of sociology class, I had the opportunity to read and critique a wonderful article by Richard Sorenson on the Fore culture, which had some amazing cultural social stucture.

I like the TED.com talks, because they give me a way to share ideas without totally bogging people down with my wordiness. I had thought I had found an excellent talk about documenting endangered cultures; however, while the efforts shown are commendable, I truly feel that the speaker is missing out on the real lost of these cultures. It's good to know that there are other cultures and other ways of doing things, but we also need to save the lessons of life from these culture and learn from their social structure. We obvioiusly can't apply everything we learn and some of it we may not want to, but some cultures can give us wonderful examples on how to deal with others and life.

So, instead of treating you to a video (which you can find here on TED.com), I will instead give you my critique of Sorenson's article. Yes, I'm lazy when it comes to repeating information, but my friends already know that.

CRITIQUE
A Doerr
April 3, 2008

Growing Up as a Fore Is to Be “In Touch” and Free (from Readings for Sociology)

The thesis of Richard Sorenson is that the reduction of cultural diversity may rob us of some very important knowledge and influences. He bases this on his observations of the Fore people in Papua New Guinea. It is obvious that he considers their original cultural to be a utopia of human interaction and child rearing. His downplaying of the fact these people have patterns of settling and then migrating when the land no longer can support them shows a willingness to overlook the fact that if the survival rate of the people improved, they would have eventually developed like many other ancient cultures who found that with success comes an increase in structure.

However, his point that we would do well to record these cultures before they become “corrupted” by Westernization, is a very valid one. Knowledge and skill can just as easily be lost as gained when a culture changes. Art professors have commented that their students no longer have the fine skills the artists of previous generations did because they no longer have to do as much by hand. By knowing what we have lost, it is possible to perhaps relearn it or at least modify it to work to our own cultural benefit. In the case of the Fore, the most precious knowledge would be that on how to raise confident and wise children with few emotional problems.

Sorenson’s article also shows how quickly a culture can be changed when it is naturally inquisitive and opened to ideas. Indeed, he states that this was the downfall of the Fore culture. Something as simple as a road can make a great deal of difference. But his article shows a lot more than just that. It shows how people in primitive cultures actually have comparable intelligence and mental sophistication to be able to adapt to a more industrial way of life if they are open to the concept, belying the ideas of inferior races. It shows how rushed cultural changes can “toss the baby out with the bath water”, suggesting that we would do well to revisit our own cultural pasts to see what we have left behind.

This article is worth keeping in any family counselor’s personal library. While the Fore culture can never be regained in this world, there is enough there that may help us sort out dysfunctions in our own family relationships. In the end, Sorenson’s point about learning about primitive cultures before they are lost, is more than aptly made.


I know, it would probably be more helpful if I directly quoted from the article. If you are really curious, you can read some of Sorenson's work here. It's not the same article I critiqued, but it covers some of the same data.

Art and Thinking

When I read some of the theories about how art began with humanity, I can't help but compare them to how drawing develops in children. There is such a strong connection between drawing development and cognitive development, as well as manual development, in children that it is hard to believe that "art" began as some dream state as some might claim. I'm not saying that it doesn't create an altered mental state, because it does. I'm just saying that art's beginning is entwined with the process of thought and the communication thereof. The existence of pictographs before writing also strongly points to a hand and hand relationship between art and communication. There is research that shows a connection between language and cognitative ability:

Neural correlates of Early Stone Age toolmaking: technology, language and cognition in human evolution.
Does Language Shape What We Think?

So it really shouldn't be that hard of a leap to connect drawing to the cognition process. Recently, I watched an older TED talk which showed this connection in a interesting way. I'll let Gever Tulley explain...



His observation that the act of decoration is part of the creative problem solving process, a method for letting the mind wander freely for a while, presents an possible insight into how our minds work. Tulley takes things a step further, introducing how manual development helps us mentally in this next talk.



I like the idea of his tinkering school. I like it even better that he can back his views up with anthropology and other science.

Trying to understand world views

Devdutt Pattanaik, Chief Belief Officer of The Future Group, explains how the mythos of the East and West affect their business plans, art, and world view. I love how he illustrates the difference between "my world" and "the world", because no matter how much we want to believe that we are seeing "the world", we are still seeing it through "my world". This is why I have investigated perception in this blog--more specifically the perception of our basic senses and how they actually work, which is just as much subjective as it is objective. The truth is that our own physical natures, our mental biology and physiology are built around the idea of what is useful to our individual organism. As such, we, as living beings, can never truly escape the subjective side of our nature.

In fact, it has been my observation that the more we try to deny our subjectivity, the more likely it is that we will become a victim to it. It's like having a broken step in our staircase of thought and refusing to believe it is there. If you believe it's not there, then there is no reason not to step into the area . . . and then falling into the hole of your own biases. If you accept that the step is broken, then you can step over it, or step lightly on it; thus avoiding becoming stuck in your own subjectivity.

In psychology, the phenomenon of denying one part of one's nature and over-emphasizing its opposite is called suppression. It's great for short-term crisises (all coping mechanisms exist for a reason), but it's probably one of the greatest causes of neuroticism. Joseph Zinker in his book Creative Process in Gestalt Therapy, gives vivid examples on how "owning" one's suppressed characteristics can actually improve the desired one. As he states, "if I don't allow myself to be unkind, I can never be genuinely kind." (p 202) I know of several people who are so caught up with the notion of having to be nice, that they are actually more cruel because of their rigid beliefs in what nice should be. Some of them go even to the point of being domineering and controlling of others, chaining them to situations or solutions to the point that person being "helped" by these beliefs of "niceness" could conceivedly find death a less painful experience.

As hard as it is to believe, there are many case examples of people becoming more of what they desired, by accepting what they disdain in themselves. This doesn't mean becoming Mr Hyde. As Zinker points out, a healthy person may not always approve of their darkness, but acknowledging it allows them more freedom to be more effective with their lightness. John Bradshaw, in his book Healing the Shame that Binds You, likens suppression to hungry wolves at the door. It takes a lot of energy to starve and block out your dark side. When you let it in and feed it appropriately, several things happen. First, you usually find out that your dark side isn't as bad as you feared. Second, you have better control over your dark side. In fact, if you treat it more as a tool in your toolbox, than a demon to be banished, you can use it to your benefit. Instead of "giving in to the dark side" and letting it take over, you are truly taking the reigns and giving your darkness direction. You are the one in control of your desires. Also, you have more energy. By making your "wolves" work for you, you can get more done. Bradshaw has a wonderful exercise in his book, called "Making peace with all of your villagers". In it, not only do you identify the parts of yourself you are suppressing, but you find out how those parts, properly used, can help you in healthy and acceptable ways.

If you want another way to look at it, consider Viktor Frankl's theory on paradoxical expectations. My son has used it for years to control some of his more anxious behaviors. I don't know why it strikes such a chord with him, but it works better for him than me. I guess I'm not so convincing to myself.

So, tying this back to Pattanaik's talk: to understand people, it helps to understand what you are prizing in your world view and what they prize in their world view. I believe that each encounter between individuals has a cultural clash involved, which may or may not create misunderstanding. I was going to use a book I recently start reading to explore this, but as I began to analyze the differences in my world view and the author's, I discovered that what we really had was a congruency clash, not a cultural clash. Books I have culture clashes with do take longer to read, but I usually walked away with a better understanding of people, even if it doesn't transform my world view. Books I have congruency clashes with are another matter. I can more or less read anything non-fictional as long as the writer is congruent in his or her views. I may still disagree with them, but I can stick with their idea development. However, if they can't stick to their own idea development, I start to become agitated. If they can't stick to their own idea development AND start writing in a defensively persuasive way, I had to push the book away. As someone who is very skilled in defensive persuasion herself, I can spot when someone is writing out of a fear-based agenda, even if they are claiming to have the objectivity of a computer.

Anyway, I could try to force myself to continue reading the book out of an attempt to be open-minded, but these types of books tend to make me more narrow-minded because of their combativeness. Reading it out of principle would subvert that principle. So, I am going to put this book aside and see if I can find a book on the same subject written by someone who is less defensive.

Brilliant!

Naming science as his chief inspiration, Mathieu Lehanneur shows a selection of his ingenious designs -- an interactive noise-neutralizing ball, an antibiotic course in one layered pill, asthma treatment that reminds kids to take it, a living air filter, a living-room fish farm and more.

And by science, he includes behavioral science too.



Unfortunately, this video is not on YouTube yet, so you might need to go here to see it.

Time

In his talk about compassion, Daniel Goleman mentions that the most important factor in determining whether or not someone will act like a good Samaritan is if whether or not they feel rushed. Along the same vein, Carl Honore's talks about the need to slow down in this world that is speeding towards the future:




But is slow always the answer? Too often people go from one extreme to another. Luckily, Philip Zimbardo gives us a healthy view on time:



The past gives us roots. The future gives us wings. The present gives us energy. The trick is to know which focus to use when.

Compassion from a Secular View

I may address compassion, using most of the TED talks from the Charter on Compassion, along with other sources in my religious journal during the holidays, but for now I'll just share these secular views of the evolution of compassion.


Couldn't find this video on YouTube. If you cannot see the embedded video, then go to http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/robert_wright_the_evolution_of_compassion.html

Covers the genetic reasons for the Golden Rule, Game Theory, and economic interdepencies. Also introduces the concept of "moral imagination", otherwise known as the age-old adage of putting yourself in another's shoes.


The next talk shares some of the science research dealing with the psychology of compassion. This is a very engaging talk and quite enjoyable.

(

It is interesting that the research Dr. Daniel Goleman shows that while we are all neurologically wired for compassion, what determines whether we will do a compassionate act or not is usually how hurried or pre-occupied we are.

I am also stuck by the fact that neurological studies show that the act of doing something for someone else, usually triggers the circuitry of compassion in the brain. I can give several quotes and truisms from my youth and religion, which attest to this phenomenon, that I have found to be very true myself. Likewise, he shares an insight gained from a serial killer, who once said, "If I had felt their distress, I could not have had done. I had to turn that part of me off."

To expand your vocabulary, Goleman shares the word "pizzled" - the emotion one experiences in that moment when someone suddenly answers their cell phone, iPhone, Blackberry, whatever, and acts as if the first person no longer exists.

While I agree that the act of noticing is a major step towards compassion, it takes more than just noticing to enact effective compassion. As they say, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." To give quality compassion, one needs to take a little more time to find the root cause and not just do bandage compassion all of the time. A bandaid in the wrong place can sometimes be worse than no bandage at all, but it doesn't need to happen if, along with noticing, you also listen. Then you will better know whether the bandage needs to be here or there, or if maybe you need to help the person get to a doctor instead.

When I was young, I thought I was a compassionate person, and in my defense, I did strive to be one. But as I experienced more of life's obstacles, I realized that some of the acts of my younger self were not really as compassionate as I thought they were. As Carl Rogers was fond of pointing out, the only person who really knows what is going on inside a person, is the person themselves. So, listen as well as see, and you will increase your changes of giving quality compassion.

How the Internet Enables Intimacy

Stefana Broadbent's research shows how when given (or taking) the opportunity to communicate with other people, we usually spend around 80% or our time in contact with 2 to 4 specific people.

I had sort of a disturbance within myself when she pointed out how separating work and intimacy was an artificial construct from the industrial revolution, because I really do not believe that your home and work worlds should intersect . . . to a point. But as I thought it over, I realized that the things I had the most problems with and had seen the most disruption form, were situations where someone tried to force an intimacy that wasn't already there. Especially when managers or supervisors are involved. I've seen supervisors try to set up employees to date their children. I've had one supervisor who was actually very offended with me because, while I WAS AWAY FROM WORK, I called my family, instead of her, for a personal problem. And people there wondered why I was so hestitant to share what happened to me outside of work.

Then I considered the research done on "job spouses" and other intimate relationships that develop in the work place because people spend more time there than with their own families. I thought about how the cost of broken homes finds its way into the work place, despite management's thinking that it can dictact how a person spends their mental time. It seems to me that this need for having intimate emotional contact is so basic to the human spirit, that if it isn't met in some constant way, it will be met in another.

I think we need a study comparing the family stability and rates of individual stress in work places were management tries to strictly prohibit employees from talking with those they are emotionally intimate with and companies that do not. I suspect that if we remove those few people who spend an exceeding amount of time on personal drama, that the data will show that people are usually more productive and healthy, when they can send little messages to friends and family every so often.

Of course, certain businesses, such as the one I currently work for, cannot allow cell phones in the work area for sercurity reasons. However, we are allowed to step away to certain areas so we can text family and friends.

As for the personal business abusers, in my personal experience, most of those who are bad about spending lots of time on personal issues, usually will find some way to be just as disruptive when they can't talk to people outside the office. The two worst coworkers I had in this area had the impulsive need to interrupt the rest of the people in the office. In fact, there was a time when I almost went to HR and asked them to take the restriction off of one of them, because she was interferring with MY productivity so much with her neurotic need for attention.