Monothons and Professional Curation

My son and I. The selfie was his idea.

Yesterday my son and I participated in the 2014 Monothon at [Press] at Untitled in Oklahoma City.  It's a yearly event that happens throughout the summer, where people can create pairs of monoprints.  The participants get to keep one print from each pair, while the other one becomes part of the Monothon.  In September, [Artspace] at Untitled will have the 2014 Monothon Exhibition, displaying prints created by those who attended.  Most of the participants are locals, but people are coming from Tulsa, OK, and Dallas, TX, to participate in this year's event.

"Catherine" a monoprint by yours truly. 

While we worked on our prints, we listened to probably one of the most eclectic mix of music I have ever heard, provided by [Artspace] at Untitled founder, print-maker, and professional curator, Laura Warriner. But as varied as the music was, collection flowed well together even on random play.  A few months ago, I created myself an Americana music playlist and I had to rearrange the order of the songs on it to keep from having jolts to the consciousness, but I don't have Laura's decades of experience of putting together exhibitions that feel coherent, while being full of variety.  Most of us don't pay enough attention to the harmony or flow of our environment to realize that it effects us, but it does.  While I'm not into feng-shui, I recognize the mental and sometimes physical friction caused from a disruption in my environment.  And I am very impressed when someone can create that flow, while still engaging and challenging my perceptions.

Some people think that they can put together elements based on solely what appeals to them and come up with something good, but I promise you there is a deep and rich difference between what an average person puts together as a collection and what a professional curator does.  A difference that can as profound as the difference between the glass animals at a carnival and the art of a professional glass-blower.

Qualitative and Quantitative research - ISO Audits

It occurred to me after my last post that many people might not know the difference between qualitative and quantitative research. In a nutshell:

Quantitative Research - research where the results are all distilled down to numeric quantities. It is usually recommended during the latter phases of a research project. Questions such as "how many people follow the procedure manual while doing this task?"; "how often is this store robbed?"; or "what is the percentage of improvement in depressed people while taking this medication versus a placebo?" are things answered through quantitative research.

Qualitative Research - is research where the results consist of words, descriptions, and images. It is usually recommended during earlier phases of research projects. Questions such as "what procedures are being used in production?"; "who is responsible for security?"; and "what are the side effects of this medication?" require qualitative answers.


The ISO compliance audit is a qualitative research process. Things like percent of damage returns or wasted man-hours are secondary concerns. What is important are things like:

Do the procedures documented in the process manuals accurately depict what is being used on the floor? Some companies create procedures that have little to no resemblance on how the worker actually does the job. Sometimes it's because the workers just don't care, but other times it is because the documented procedure is not adequate, whether it's out of date, an efficiency problem, or safety issue. It's hard to improve something if you aren't documenting what works and what doesn't.

How are data measured, recorded and analyzed? This is something you should ask yourself whenever you read a research document. All the number gathering in the world is meaningless if the numbers are not handled correctly.

Areas of responsibility and accountability. It's not enough to say "Yes, someone is accountable for this." An ISO auditor has to find out who is the person. Is it the QA manager or the production manager? Is it the financial department or procurement?

Feedback flows. How does the company get customer feedback? How can employees give feedback?

And so forth... The ISO system is developed to help companies not only prove their ability to produced quality products, but also put in place processes that help companies improve their performance and stay competitive in changing markets. It is qualitative in nature because you can't compare diverse companies through the use of quantitative data. It's been tried and it was ineffective. However, that's not to say that there is not a quantitative element in ISO certification. You still need a way to track how effective procedures are and what areas need the most work on.

Good researchers start with indepth qualitative research and then do the quantitative research. Anything else is not good research.

The Importance of Qualitative Research

For five years I worked as a Quality Assurance Technician/Specialist for a major corporation, before I took time off to be a stay at home mom. Most of my work revolved around routine quantitative tests and research at the national QA lab. However, I had the opportunity to work on some investigative research during that time. One nice thing about doing internal research for a major corporation is that you don't really have the option to put a spin on your test results. There is always an external bottom line that you are accountable to. While in the academic and sales world, some researchers can talk circles around their results and still retain their positions, in the quality assurance world, if your research is faulty, it shows in the product and in the accounting. Faulty quality research costs a company money and can get you fired.

During my time in the QA field, I learned several things about research. First off, it's extremely easy to end up measuring the wrong thing. I cannot emphasis that point enough. During my first year, I was the technician for a new engineer, and he and I found this out firsthand. We even had a strong disagreement over one test on this matter. I noticed that there was something weird going on with my test results and brought it to his attention. He wanted to wave it away, because my results were confirming his hypothesis. If there is one thing I hate doing, it's fudging data. So I told him flat out that it may prove his hypothesis, but as a technician, I was not going to stand by the results. He finally told me that I could repeat the test. I'm sure he was expecting me to back down because he knew I hated doing that particular test, especially for the number of repetition he was asking for. Instead I agreed and then after clarifying that I would be doing the test the same way as I had the first time, I asked if I could switch the order of the samples. He agreed and the next set of results showed that I was right. To the engineer's credit, he then accepted that he was mistaken, listened to my observations, and figured out what actually was going on - and was able to confirm it. A few years later, he borrowed me back from the manager I was then working with, because he had a $5 million bizarre problem to solve and he wanted a technician who would tell him if things were looking screwy.

Between those times I worked for that one engineer, I worked for a manager who had been a university professor at an engineering school before working for the company. I was given the task to compare two types of color measuring machines. (Since, to the best of my knowledge, no one reading this blog is in the flexible packaging field, I'll dispense with the technical names.) The newer one was developed for the auto industry and we needed to see if it could meet our needs. Before I could even begin to compare the two machines, I had to do a search of the literature before I could even have an idea what I was actually testing. I also talked to our R&D packaging scientist and the manufacturer's representatives. I even resorted to going through my mother's old books on painting with color, which provided me with a lot more on the subject than I originally expected.

In short, under the direction of my manager, I did qualitative research before I started anything quantitative. That's because it's the qualitative research that shows you what you should be measuring. Most people don't understand that. When I took the research methods class for my masters, I really had to bite my tongue not to go into an impassioned rant over the necessity of qualitative research as a precursor of decent quantitative research. The R&D scientist I worked with for the color project was brillant and a good deal of his brillance came from the fact that he did his qualitative research before he launched his quantitative research. In the quality assurance world, measuring the wrong thing costs money and jobs. There's no time for weak research based on "well, this sounds like this might be the cause." You need to have solid reasons for your choices before you can even start your tests and in the corporate world, those choices are challenged more stringently than what I've seen so far in the academic world. Of course, this may not be the case on the doctorate level. I hope that is the case when I go back to school for my doctorate, because through my quality assurance training I have developed an obsession with doing thorough background research before I develop a test procedure. This is the reason my capstone is basically a literary review, because I would rather do a thorough literary review than a half-thought out series of qualitative tests.

Actually, I'm not sure I can even bring myself to do testing before doing a literary review. You see, my last job with this company was manufacturing defects coordinator. I was transferred to a plant to help them reduce their packaging defects. The plant management was convinced that the suppliers were sending them inferior flexible packaging. I spent the first few months testing roll stock to confirm that this plant was getting the same quality of packaging that all the others were. The plant manager didn't take that very well and I was told that I had six months to find out what the problem was or my job would be eliminated. For the first two or three months, management kept giving me things they wanted me to test for them as possible causes for their high defect rate. Out of pure preservation, I began to study other possible contributing factors. I used my connections with the national lab to talk to the engineers who trained the trainers who taught the packaging machine operators how to do their jobs. These were also the same guys who followed up on the quality of the machine maintenance people. They assured me that the trainers and the plant maintenance people where I was at were top notched. I talked with the trainers in the plant and made friends with the maintenance guys. It was obvious from their dedication and knowledge that they were, indeed doing their part. It was also obvious through the observed quality of their work, which they gladly let me examine.

I knew we were all missing something, but I couldn't figure out what it was while doing all the tests to make management feel better. So, I took a stand and reminded them that they brought me there because I was a specialist and if they were going to make me accountable for this, then they needed to let me do the job I was brought in for. Again, the plant manager was not impressed, but I figured I was doomed anyway with the way things were going, so I stood my ground. He said he wanted me to do line audits. In the past, I had been doing warehouse audits because no one wanted me to interrupt their production flow. I told him that I would do it on the grounds that I created my own audit criteria. To make everyone happy, I put in every common packing flaw that could be seen by a non-destructive inspection. However, well aware that I still had no idea what the real problem was, I made sure I made a space on my audit forms for comments - just in case I stumbled across a clue or two.

Then I started my line inspections. I hadn't even finished my first bag inspection, when the packaging machine operator came up to me and asked in a surly voice if he was going to see my results right away or was he going to have to wait until his manager yelled at him about them. Dumbfounded, I said, "You don't get my reports?" After he confirmed that was the case, I asked him if he wanted me to make him a copy and bring it back to the line as soon as I finished with everyone. He agreed. During this time, a light went off in my head, as I reviewed the stories I knew about how my dad and maternal grandfather managed their employees. The packaging machine operators weren't getting enough feedback. And if they weren't getting enough feedback, then chances were, based on the first guy's comments, they weren't getting any positive feedback at all. So, in my "comment box" I mentioned specifically what was right about the bags I auditted.

I asked every machine operator if they wanted my reports directly from me. All of them said yes. I instituted what I called my positive feedback program. Sometimes, before I even started checking for flaws, I would write down what looked good on the bag. After a week of this, the machince operators started looking forward to my audits and asked for my opinion on some of their issues. During the third week, I came across a perfect bag. I asked the machine operator if I could display it in the lunchroom with his name attached to it. That bag was followed by others from other machine operators. Three months from the start of my audits and positive feedback, the manufacturing defects numbers had dropped 70%.

It wasn't the quantitative studies that found the issue. It was the qualitative investigation that did the job. The quantitative studies only backed it up. International Organization for Standardization has proceedures it dictates for those companies wishing to be ISO certified. I've actually taken classes on ISO certification a few years back and I can assure you that their quality standards take into account the qualitative aspects of processes too. I'm tempted to pull out my books and give examples, but I think I'll save that discussion for another post.

The Many Faces of Suicide

During my first two decades of life, I strongly held the belief that suicide was the ultimate act of failure - at least for myself. Looking back on the suicides that entered my life when I was younger, I don't remember ever feeling disdain for the victim, but I do remember feeling very confused by their acts. My views on suicide became a little less black and white when a friend of mine took a job in a toxicology lab at a local hospital. Her greatest surprise was finding out that many people who overdosed on their medicines or sleeping pills weren't actually trying to end their life. When questioned after being revived, most of them were operating on the misjudgment that if they could sleep a few days straight or just increase their dosage, their bodies and/or minds would be healed and they would be able to live productive lives again. As she put it, "These people could have killed themselves and have no idea of what they had done until they entered the hereafter."

Another loosening of my views on suicide came when I entered treatment for clinical depression. I insisted quite fervently to my psychologist that not only was I not suicidal, but I would never even considered taking my own life because "that would mean that I screwed up my life so badly that not even God could fix it." He looked at me for a moment and then asked me if I had ever had any self-destructive thoughts or acts. I burst into tears. Despite my beliefs, I had indeed had those thoughts - to the point where I could not leave sharp knives out in the open, because I would have visions of me cutting myself in ways that would have lead to my death, had I done them. It was something I guarded against diligently. Every time I used a knife, it was either washed right then and put back in the drawer, or went immediately into the dishwasher. If neither option was available at that moment, it went under a dishcloth. It had to be out of my sight. I even moved my sharp knives to a separate drawer, so I wouldn't see them while getting other utensils. This experience taught me that even people who believed strongly against suicide, could have those type of thoughts.

Sociologist Emile Durkheim studied the social factors of suicide back in the late 1800s. While we tend to think of suicide as a highly individualistic act, it occurs within a social framework that shapes those acts. His research proposed four types of suicidal acts:

Egotistic suicide - These are people who are not well-integrated into the social network around them. Without the social bonds to fall back on for support and guidance, they are left to face their problems alone. These people can be disaffected for a variety of reasons: they're part of undesirable social group; they're highly individualized people; or they have an illness or disorder that makes creating social bonds difficult.

Altruistic suicide - These are people who are overly integrated into the social network around them. This is the kamikaze pilot, the suicide bomber, and the self-martyr. These people kill themselves in the belief that it will save others.

Anomic suicide - This happens when someone loses their standing in their social network. They are no longer guided by the rules they had come to depend upon, because those rules are either no longer relevant or have completely failed them. These are the people who suddenly lost their jobs or social positions, due to things like financial downturns, divorce, or scandal. Not knowing where they now fit into society, they decide that they no longer have a place in it.

Fatalistic suicide - These people are overly controlled by society, whose only real "freedom" is killing themselves. These people include slaves, prisoners and those oppressed by a totalitarian regime.

But social networks are not the only factor in suicidal behavior. Age and level of development is also a great influence on how and why suicide is committed. While it is a difficult concept for even professionals to come to terms with, pre-adolescent children do commit suicide. It's rare, but it does happen in situations where the family bond is weak (strong families rarely tell each other they wish that other family members were dead), especially if the child knows of others who have committed suicide. Children are more likely to commit suicides that can be dismissed as accidents, such as running into traffic or falling from high places. That's not to say that every child that dies this way has committed suicide--far from it. Accidents still are a major reason for childhood deaths; however, for a child who wants to end his/her life, doing similar acts on purpose is the easiest way to achieve their goal.

Adolescents are one of the most likely groups for committing suicide. It is the second highest cause of death for those between the ages of 15 to 24. The lack of problem solving skills among adolescent suicide victims, as well as the lack of parental bonding and guidance probably explains the cut-off point around age 24, which is around the time that the frontal lobes in the brain have finished developing. So it's possible that even those who have an elevated risk will have improved judgment by then. Rick factors include: poor parental-attachment; deficient problem-solving skills; alcohol and drug use in the family; seeing themselves different than their parents; socio-ecomonic adversity; exposure to sexual abuse; high rates of neuroticism; novelty; depression; anxiety; and conduct disorder. There is also a social element involved. Adolescents are more susceptible to cluster suicides--suicides triggered by other who have committed suicide. The attention give to the first suicide victim after the fact can appear to be the type of validation the following victims hope for, though they fail to take in account that they won't actually benefit from it. For this reason, some psychologists are warning Cornell University to be careful how they memorialize the students who have recently comment suicide there.

Adults over 25 who commit suicide are another class, altogether. For one thing, they are less likely to state their suicidal intentions in direct ways. Instead they will talk about not being useful or not being able to stand their current situation anymore. While some, due to delayed development, will behave similar to the adolescent group, most suicidal people from ages 25 to 65 suffer from anomic stressors like job losses, financial and health problems, loss of a loved one, as well as drug use, depression, and hopelessness. Behavioral signs are very similar to clinical depression, with the exception of gettings one's affairs in order. They tend to withdraw from others and start having troubles with sleeping, concentrating, and eating.

Elderly people are largest group to commit suicide and that's not even including those who commit chronic or passive suicide by letting their illnesses have their way or just stop eating and drinking. The group most likely to commit overt suicide in the US are 85 year old white males. The elderly are the most successful at their attempts and the least likely to give any warning of their intentions. Unlike younger people, the elderly rarely use suicide as a threat. Their reasons are often more calculated than emotional. Lack of finances and increases in health care cost often figure prominently in their decision, though depression, isolation, and lack of activity can be major factors. They will often have everything in order to make things easier on their loved ones. During my gerontology studies, a classmate gave a presentation on senior suicides. I will never forget the story she shared of a couple in their 80s, who not only had a file near them containing all their important papers and instructions for their children, but even went as far as laying on trash bags to make the clean up easier. Even my death, dying, and bereavement textbook gives a similar example of elderly suicide.

One type of suicide risk not covered so far is one I'm not sure the mental health industry really has a proper name for - suicidal thoughts caused by medication. Granted, most of these people probably have other risk factors, but based on personal experience, this is not something to tack on just as a footnote. A few years ago, I was placed on blood pressure medication because while my blood pressure wasn't in the danger zone, it was high enough to cause concern with my other medical problems. The first medication I was put up seriously messed with my attention and memory. I stopped driving my car because twice I forgot how to drive. Luckily, both times were in parking lots, and after a few moments I could call up enough of my memory to get me back home. When it became obvious that this side effect was not going to go away, I was switched to another medication. Within a day, I started to have suicidal thoughts. As a precaution, I put my knives out of easy reach. I challenged the thoughts each time they surfaced. Two days later, I took myself off the medication because not only were the thoughts coming just minutes apart, but when I tried to supress them, I began to get suicidal images. Within sixteen hours, I was no longer having those persistant thoughts. I later brought my blood pressure down dramatically by severely limiting the time I spent with negative relatives.

If you experience something similar, it would probably be a good idea to follow the first aid guides at WebMD for suicidal thoughts and not follow my example too closely.

And a final note: Recent studies have shown that animals do commit suicide. While I expected there to be suicides along the lines as the passive suicide done by seniors, having seen a few beloved pets go through this, I had not expected the evidence of animals committing altruistic suicides to protect their population. I do appreciatiate the following statement: "The big difference is that in modern humans that calculation can go wrong. There are some acts of suicide that do save lives. But most of the millions or so human suicides each year worldwide benefit no one, [Thomas] Joiner explained. They are acts that perhaps used to serve a purpose in early human societies, he said, but have lost their function in the modern world."

Modern Artist Spotlight - Marwin Begaye

Marwin Begaye is a critically acclaimed Navajo artist, currently living in Oklahoma. He teaches at both the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma City University. His passion is educating Native Americans and non-Native Americans alike on the dangers of the modern diet, particularly diabetes. His prints are full of pop-icon, corporate brands, and macabre imagery, all meant to drive home visually what we are doing to ourselves in regards to our dependence on over-processed foods.

On a more personal note, he's the guy who taught me lithography. And I can assure you that he's a real character, as the pictures in this blog post of another print artist will attest to. He teases people a lot. Especially painting students for not being careful enough with their images. You'd never know by listening to his teases that his first accolades were for his works as a painter. He often uses humor to get his point across. As long as you don't take any of it personally, you'll have a great time learning from him, because he really does want to make his students the best printmakers they can be. He also requires his students to personally relate to their own art, to actually create things representative of them. He's the reason that my American Mutt series focused on all of my ancestry, instead of just a juxaposition of Lenape and Pennsylvania Dutch images.

He doesn't really have a website gallery, so here's a slideshow of images from Flicker of his works, taken by other people. In the center of the show is a hummingbird print that I actually have on a t-shirt, from his class. Of course, having not been worn regularly, the print in the slideshow looks a lot crisper than my beloved t-shirt.

Project Implicit®

While writing the previous post on the fly, I touched on the concept of preconceived notions and it reminded me a bit of Harvard's research on hidden biases:

Project Implicit®
Project Implicit blends basic research and educational outreach in a virtual laboratory at which visitors can examine their own hidden biases. Project Implicit is the product of research by three scientists whose work produced a new approach to understanding of attitudes, biases, and stereotypes.

It really is a fascinating site to visit. Several friends and I have compared our results with each other with interesting results. Not to mention insightful conversations on why we got the results we did. It's been a few years since I've done some of these tests. I might have to go back and try them again.

Interested in the research on Happiness?

I'm sure that like me, many people find the research on happiness fascinating. I've done a post or two (three?) related to it in the past. I was about to do another one dealing with the newer research when I realized I was actually recovering territory already covered better by another blogger - Sandy Gauntam, writer of The Mouse Trap. The blog is practically dedicated to the subject of happiness at the moment. She does cover other topics there, though, too.

Here are a few of her posts on happiness research:
Am happy, will be selfish; Am sad, will be fair. Oh Really?!?
Happiness opposed to despair/ennui; sadness to anger/irritability
Am Happy, will talk more and deep; am Sad, will make small talk
Am happy, will seek novelty; am sad, will stick with familiar
Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why do you persist?

Do I agree with all her conclusions? Of course not. I rarely, if ever, competely agree with someone's conclusions. I'm genetically onery and have a family tradition of being slightly rebellious to uphold. However, she does an excellent job presenting the research and to be honest, I haven't really made my mind up on the subject yet.

And for your additional perusal, more articles on the subject from other sites:

Happy, Enthusiastic People Less Likely To Develop Heart Disease
Emotions Interfere in Theory of Mind
The Proof’s in the Positive Thinking

Modern Artist Spotlight - Mike Larsen

The art of portraiture is alive and well in Oklahoma. The Chickasaw Nation has artist Mike Larsen among its members.



This painting and two of its subjects was part of the Mike Larsen Elders Exhibit for the Chickasaw nation.



This painting with its subject is part of the Mike Larsen Series II Elders installation. I wish I could give you more links to these series. Currently, there is a television spot showing some of the other paintings and it never fails to move me.

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.

Morals and Ethics Test Sites

YourMoral.org

This website is a collaboration among five social psychologists who study morality and politics. Our goal was to create a site that would be useful and interesting to users, particularly ethics classes and seminars, and that would also allow us to test a variety of theories about moral psychology. One of our main goals is to foster understanding across the political spectrum. Almost everyone cares about morality, and we want to understand --and to help others understand -- the many different ways that people care. - website's "About Us" page

My results for the Moral Foundations Questionnaire based on Haidt's research:
- On the harm avoidance scale, I'm higher than the average Liberal.
- On the fairness scale, I'm closer the to Liberal score than the Conservation one.
- On the loyalty sale, I'm between the two sides.
- On the authority scale, I'm closer to the Conservative one.
- On the purity scale, I'm higher than the average Conservative.

There are many other studies on the site you can participate in, each with the appropriate research disclosure statement at the start of them.



Ethical Personality Test

The concept for the test has been designed by Roger Steare, Visiting Professor of Organizational Ethics at Cass Business School. He is the author of the book “ethicability®” which describes a proven framework for making tough choices in life and work (www.ethicability.org). - website's "welcome" page

There is also this disclaimer: "The test results and report are for personal education purposes only. They are not designed to be relied on as a methodology for assessing the character of any individual and should not be used as such in any circumstances."

Unlike the other moral test above, the results are based on theory and not strict research. That is not to say that there isn't any research on the subject. It is baded on Kolhberg and Gillian's work and the author is more than willing to release a PDF of it if you contact him through the site. (Which I will do soon.) I would like to point out, however, that there are very valid critisms of Kolhberg's and Gilligan's work: the bias towards the researchers' own value systems and the focus on only the ethic of autonomy.


My results:

Judge
PRS Type Moral DNA

Judges believe that moral principle, or “virtue” is the most important ethical perspective. They ask “what would be the fair thing to do?” Then they’ll make sure that laws, rules and contracts have been complied with, although they’ll sometimes “interpret” a rule differently to be consistent with their principles. Finally they’ll consider the human dimension and the impact of their decisions on others. Judges are stubborn but good to have around when the going gets tough. About 17% of adults are Judges.

Strengths: Good at solving really challenging dilemmas.
Weaknesses: Could lack empathy with others in making tough decisions. May sometimes bend the rules if they believe a higher principle is at stake.


Other posts on this blog dealing with this subject:
http://cosmicsiren.blogspot.com/2009/10/theories-of-morality.html
http://cosmicsiren.blogspot.com/2005/02/kolhbergs-levels-of-morality.html
http://cosmicsiren.blogspot.com/2005/02/carol-gilligans-levels-of-moral.html

Hello, my name is _____ and I am a snarky person.

Like many people, I can be very snarky. Snarky to the point that I can get you long testimonials of my cutting "wit" and sarcasm without hardly any effort - assuming these people haven't blocked my email address. There are people who will swear that I am completely incapable of not being snarky and consider me the Devil Incarnate (or at the very least, "the monster who lurks under the bed"). There are other people who will swear that I am the sweetest person on the face of this Earth and completely incapable of hurting a single living being. These people usually know me outside the internet. There is one term that explains both phenomena - observational bias. I am neither extreme. But that's not the topic of this post.

The topic of this post is snark and using it with restraint.

If there is one thing I've learned as I've gotten older is that nothing makes a person more stupid than the overuse of snark. It narrows one's world view by disregarding possibilities. It subverts the brain's ability to comprehend what psychologists call a "theory of mind" or the ability to understand a situation from a view other than your own. My son used to love listening to some very snarky product review shows. While the technical information given on these shows is top rate, the subjective value judgments by the hosts/writers is so appalling ignorant in social and behavioral understanding that I would become nauseous holding back the urge to correct their comments with research. Stupid doesn't begin to cover the comments. Stupidity implies that they lack the mental ability to comprehend possibilities outside their own. No, this is quite beyond that. This is the suspension of the reality that they are not the center of the universe and its only truth. This is self-made idiocy. The kind researchers talk about when they write about IQ being like height to a basketball player. Height can give a basketball player an advantage, but only is he uses it. Research has shown that scoring a high IQ score does not mean that the person will actually use those reasoning skills on a regular basis. A good editorial article for laymen on the subject is: Clever fools: Why a high IQ doesn't mean you're smart.

But snark can be useful. Just like a crowbar. The trick is to recognized when a situation needs it and to apply it with some precision and care. If you're skilled enough with either, you can correct a sticky situation with minimal damage. Unfortunately, most of us are apes when it comes to both and tend to leave gapping holes, without budging the object of resistance.

It's also great for setting boundaries. While I showed some capacity for snark as a young person, I tried to avoid it because it "wasn't nice". Unfortunately, my nice boundaries were too encompassing, due to the fact that the people who drummed it into my head that I always needed to be nice were also the first to exploit my niceness. And as it is with all systems that get stretched beyond reasonable limits, I was forced eventually to compensate as a means of self-preservation. This meant that I had to take that snark crowbar that I kept locked up and learn how to use it. It also meant, with time, I had to also learn how not to use it.

I won't lie to you, it has taken years - and I started late. I've made my fair share of gapping holes. But at least I haven't gotten stuck in them and they're getting smaller with time. I figure in another decade, if my progress continues, I might even be skilled enough to use it effectively with minimal force - and not leave a scratch.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Private and public artistic exploration

I firmly believe that art is an effective means of personal exploration. Even if we do not gain great insight or find personal significance in doing artwork, our minds gain visual and kinetic experiences that help to fine tune our mental processes. I touch on this concept briefly my last post. The following film clip shows some representational examples of artists who explored their medium.


Warning: there is profanity in this clip. You probably don't have to watch it to understand my next points, so feel free to skip it if you wish.

The way I see it, the artists did gain a lot from the creation of their art. Their personal exploration probably did help them to reach a better understanding of their world. However, I do side with the established painter cohersed into juding that art show. It was the actual process and not the finished work that created that transformation, so the art itself said nothing because the context had passed.

All art is useful, but not all art is communicable. There is a difference between the act of making art and the finished work. Cultural art is something that should speak to observer. If it does not, then the conversation that should happen between masterpiece and observer is missing, and there is no enlightenment nor increased understanding.

Personal art needs only to speak to the artist. Under the right circumstances, a single line on a piece of paper can open the gate to passion, clarity, and wisdom--but it will only speak to that artist. It is the artist's conversation with the universe. Such a piece of work should rightly be treasured by the artist, but not necessarily enshrined for the rest of humanity. That would be telling people that this line has now been done, there is no need for more. Instead, the line should stay with the artist's heart and she should encourage others to find their own lines, to unlock their own passions and wisdom.

Which type of art is more valid? The very question itself is blasphemy in my opinion. Without cultural art, we lose our soul as a society. Without personal art, we can lose our very minds.

I must take a step back from my philosophical gushing and point out that even personal art needs to be shared to fulfill its purpose. In art therapy, this is known as "witnessing". Witnessing is when the artist shows the work to a supportive person, who lets the artist tell them what it means to them personally. There is no critique, no suggestions, just an act of listening to the sound of one person's soul being reveal.

At the same time, there is much to be gained by playing around with the art of others, as long as the original works are left physically untouched. It provides an interaction between the artwork and the audience, making the original piece more meaning ladened and important as the conversation continues. The following talk, though mostly meant to be humorous, is a prime example of entering into conversations with well-known artworks.



Granted, the conversations can become turbulent in some cases, but once you develop a personal relationship with a piece of work, it becomes alive and part of your mental fabric. Your brain now has a larger visual vocabulary to work with.

Here are a few sites online that will let you have your own conversation with art. Enjoy the process!





Shockwave needed.

Art as a means of true social change

I've decided to talk a short break from sharing my favorite TED talks to share something that hit me while studying for an art history test 3 years ago. I have it posted it elsewhere, but I think it's time to share it here.




Take a look at this picture. Do you know why it is so important?

If you're an art student, you would probably answer with something like this:

One of the most admired frescos from the Arena Chapel done by Giotto, known as the "Father of Picturial Painting". It shows real emotion and human suffering. Uses focal points instead of symmetry, overlapping figures and shading. Done in Italo-Byzantine style, it breaks from the stylistic other-worldness of the Byzantine style of the Dark Ages, with its introduction of naturalism.


However, if you take into the account of the cultural and religious significance of this piece, it becomes so much more than the epitome of a style of painting.

To appreciate Giotto's work, you need to understand that in the Dark Ages, artists painted figures to look other-worldly to reflect the supernatural and unfathomableness of Christ and the saints. These were not persons who could be related to in a normal fashion. These were impersonal beings, who only interacted with we unworthy and insignificant humans out of supernatural mercy.

To this end, the populace were treated to paintings like the one to the left here. Faces that showed no emotions. Images that showed not connection to the things of this world. During the Dark Ages, God was not Love, but Power.

Look again at the Byzantine representation of Christ. Is the image a welcoming one? Does this look like someone who emanates love? Someone who had a personal interest in your salvation?

It doesn't to me.

On the other hand, look again at Giotto's Christ. Is there any doubt that the man lying there had a connection to those around him on a personal level? That they felt his love for them in their life?

To the best of my knowledge, Giotto was the first person to paint Christ in a personal way. Perhaps herding sheep as a child made Giotto feel a special kinship with Jesus Christ. Perhaps being chosen by the master painter Cimabue as a humble lad from the country, Giotto saw more of God's love in the world around him, instead of the power plays of rulers and religious leaders.

Whatever the reason, so moving and innovated was Giotto's works, that he was in high demand and other artists began to follow suit. Soon, many who could not read, much less have access to the Holy Scriptures, had a different insight into the nature of Christ - where they actually meant something to the universe and their Creator.


A description of Giotto from http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/giotto/

Giotto was short and homely, and he was a great wit and practical joker. He was married and left six children at his death. Unlike many of his fellow artists, he saved his money and was accounted a rich man. He was on familiar terms with the pope, and King Robert of Naples called him a good friend.



Rereading what I wrote, I realized that I need to explain that the rediscovery of humanism started at the same time that Giotto began his work. And, frankly, I think that his work was a main factor for its re-emergence.

What happens in a prison-like environment

I really should have added this to the post on brain damage and the environment, after Dr. Pinker's talk on violence, but I had temporarily forgotten it. This video shows how quickly normally good people can turn into monsters if the conditions are right, even if they don't have a genetic predisposition to do so. I have one very morbid friend who thinks the experiment should have been continued; however, there is no need for that. All one has to do is read up on prisons, and especially prisoners of war, to see where it would have led. We've always had tons of data on that front. The data missing was what type of people were the guards before they fell into this mindset. Once the mindset was achieved, there was nothing new to gain by continuing the experiment. (And, of course, it would have been extremely unethical.)

I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in some groups that use hazing. The only difference is that once the initiate lives through the hazing period, they get to become part of the "guards".