Letting the Fellas have a Laugh

If you ask me something, and I say, "let me think about it for a second," the odds are that I'll look pensive. But I'm really just waiting around for a response from my own brain. Sure, certain modules are being accessed (things like my values, memories, and creativity), but I, the alleged agent of all this thinking, really have no idea what's going on. It just sort of happens.

It's pretty fast and it's not linear; it's parallel processing at its best. I definitely wouldn't call it "deliberation"; if anything, it's directional liberation. "Go for it, boys," I sort of say, "You think this through and I'll wait here 'til you're done."

This experience differs from other, more thoughtful, mental processing experiences--like following a recipe or doing a puzzle.

Chess is another example. When I think through a game of chess I am very deliberate. I say things to myself like, "If I move here, then she might do that--eeewwww, we don't want that."

Actually, that's why I enjoy chess. Directing attention in this way seems to settle down the fellas. I'm occupied and feeling in charge--while they're in there, feet up, playing cards or something, maybe smoking cigarettes, and having a laugh.

Happiness

Now we know the key to happiness. And it’s been proven.

Sound a little cynical? It's not intended; though perhaps a healthy skepticism is always appropriate.

For the longest time, scientists haven’t wanted to touch the topic of happiness. It was just too subjective, elusive, or soft a matter. But apparently over the last couple of decades, with the knowledge of which parts of the brain are responsible for the experience of happiness, and the ability to measure what goes on the head, and subjective information from enough people, the doorway to empirical study opened wide.

I can’t pretend to know much about the topic myself. Some have even called me “overly realistic”, so the notion of sustained good cheer goes right over my existential head. In fact, all I really understand about happiness in any technical sense is what I saw in a seemingly quite-credible, 2.5 hour documentary I watched a couple of nights ago.

Nowadays there is a whole lot of science on the topic. The video surveyed its breadth.

First the show looked at studies on the effects of things that we THINK will make us happy—things like money, education, travel, religion, meditation, drugs, self help. It turns out that they can help, but they don’t really make the difference in a sustained sort of way.

Then we saw the things that most of us would think would PREVENT the possibility of happiness—things like regular torture, solitary confinement, and suddenly becoming a quadriplegic. It turns out that when these things happen, they indeed set us back, but human resilience shines; even genuine victims can break out of their psychological shackles, and even if they are still physically bound by them.

So, the bad news is that the effects of the good stuff wear off, and the good news is that we usually get over the effects of the bad stuff (unless in some way we block ourselves from letting go—a whole other matter). Ultimately the human tendency to normalize things, to get used to them, tends to take us back to our natural, personal set point.

Yes, you have a natural, personal set point. Win the lottery and things get better, but only for a time. Get locked away, you’ll get used to it.

The bottom line: the only thing that can actually crank us up over our personal set point, the only thing that really works—is other people. Friendships. Just hangin’ out, playing around a bit, being together.

Goldilocks

Some corporate educators will feel vindicated when they learn what research psychologists (Amy Cuddy, et al) from Harvard, Princeton, and Lawrence have recently concluded.

The scientific word is out: we tend to judge people based on their warmth and their competence. We do it unconsciously and we do it quickly. And it’s NOT just a cultural thing; it’s a human thing.

“Warmth” is about seeing a person as friendly and well intentioned. “Competence” pertains to our sense that the person is able to deliver on those intentions. The idea is that in the back of our minds, when we’re getting to know someone—even at the very moment of introduction—we assess these two traits and judge the person as moments pass.

Interestingly, if we judge that the person has too much of one of these traits, then we probably judge that there is a deficit in the other trait. That is, if the person is TOO warm, we might predict incompetence. Similarly, if we perceive a person to be highly competent, it would not be unusual for us to predict that he or she is not very warm.

Of course, it’s quite possible that we are incorrect in these judgments we make of people—but that’s the way the species has learned to do it. Presumably, it’s helped us survive. It certainly saves time.

The upshot of this research? Aside from the fact that the tendency gets to the very ugly core of human prejudice, lot’s of things.

Got a new boss? Going for an interview? Meeting a customer? Want to behave as well as you can during business meetings? Then project balanced, high levels of warmth and competence.

Want to help someone get along with others? Then help them shore up in one of in these two areas.

To play with this a bit, to test it, think of someone you know. Bring to mind your assessment of that person’s warmth and competence. Does this combination of assessments seem to reflect your core opinion of this person?

And think of yourself. Do you project too much of one and not enough of the other? If you’re interested in fine tuning the image you project, you could self-correct accordingly. Why not compensate for the slip in judgment made by the people who judge you?

Core Temperature

Truth be told,

I like it so cold outside
My cheeks sting.

I prize a bitter wind
That steals my breath.

It’s that I’m warm inside
Under my layers,
Ready to overcome.