59 Seconds

I've finished the book finally (I skipped the chapter on Parenting). Provided you're willing to be suspicious of each individual recommendation (because psychological studies are often designed and interpreted in a sloppy manner), it's extremely useful and entertaining.

Personality

A 5 factor model of personality explains pretty well how people describe themselves (it's ridiculous to think that this captures all of how people really vary, but it's a start).

It's hard not to think of high or low levels of some of these as being desirable (for more happiness or success).

Openness represents the degree to which a person seeks and appreciates new, interesting, and unusual experiences.

high=good

Conscientiousness reflects the degree of organization, persistence, and self-discipline to achieve goals.

high=good

Extroversion reflects the need for stimulation from the outside world and other people.

perhaps the only reason I won't say high=good is because I've been low-extrovert in the past. probably high=good. maybe some types of creative art or intellectual accomplishment are most accessible to low-extroverts.

Agreeableness is the degree to which a person cares about others. High scorers are trustworthy, altruistic, kind, affectionate ...

high=good. although low=>conned less often

Neuroticism ... High scorers are far more prone to worry, have low self-esteem, set unrealistic aspirations, and frequently experience a range of negative emotions, including distress, hostility, and envy.

low=good

Of course, there are some great things that have been accomplished by tortured, unhappy people. So we may benefit from people who aren't in what I called the "good" direction.

Brain scans have revealed that people scoring low on extroversion have a high pre-set level of arousal. As a result, they avoid situations that further arouse their stimulated brains and are most comfortable when they are engaged in quiet, predictable activities. The exact opposite is true of those who score high on extroversion. Their brains have a much lower pre-set level of arousal, so they have a need for continuous stimulation. Because of this, they enjoy being with other people, risk taking, and impulsive behavior.

"as a result" - questionable. But, cool correlation.

levels of openness are determined, at least to some extent, by birth order.⁵ According to Sulloway’s theory, because younger children haven’t developed the abilities and skills that their older siblings have, they explore novel ways to get their parents’ love and attention, and this, in turn, causes them to develop into more open, creative, unconventional, adventurous, and rebellious people.

He studied biographies of famous people to "prove" his idea - confirmation bias abounds. I'm the oldest and was quite rebellious and creative. But it seems reasonable to me.

hold your right palm up in front of you and look at where your first finger joins the palm of your hand

(index finger)

There will be several creases at that point. Place the zero mark of the ruler on the middle of the bottom crease and measure to the tip of your finger (not your nail) in millimeters. Now repeat exactly the same procedure for your right third finger.

(ring finger)

Wikipedia has a picture that's be more instructive than the text above.

To find the 2D:4D ratio, divide the length of your first finger by the length of your third finger. Research shows that the average male ratio is about .98, and a ratio of about .94 would be regarded as especially masculine, while a ratio of 1.00 would be viewed as more feminine. For women, the average ratio is about 1.00, and a score of about .98 would be regarded as more masculine ...

I had a ratio of .94 in each hand; a female friend had a ratio of 1.02 in her left hand and 0.98 in her right. Different ratios across hands is relatively unusual, but it's characteristic of (a small sample of) famous comedians (although the trend is in the direction of a larger ratio for the right hand, not the left).

People describe their pets as having similar personalities to themselves. On average, people who owned fish self-described as happiest, dog owners as the most fun to be with (obviously they experience the joy of using their dog as an attention magic in public), cat owners as the most dependable and emotionally sensitive (most cat owners are female?), and reptile owners the most independent (?).

People with bumper stickers are aggressive tailgaters and likely road ragers.

If you lace your fingers together then put one thumb over the other, if your dominant hand's thumb goes on top, you're probably left-brain (verbal/analytical) dominant. (I normally am, although I happened to have the other thumb on top at the time I read this).

"Evening people" are more extroverted, noncomforming, intuitive, and impulsive. "Morning people" are more introverted, self-controlled, and eager to please. (as self-identified by when you say you feel best sleeping/waking with no external constraints). I think there are all sorts of confounds (what are you really learning when someone says they would choose to be a morning person? probably that they got used to waking up early for a 8:30-5:30pm job, which tells you a lot about them). In other words, the problems with these questionnaire studies is that you're learning something about their life, but not necessarily anything fundamental (if their circumstances change, but their fundamental personality doesn't, their answers will probably change a bit).

Recap of key advice:

Develop the Gratitude Attitude.

Having people list three things that they are grateful for in life or three events that have gone especially well over the past week can significantly increase their level of happiness for about a month. This, in turn, can cause them to be more optimistic about the future and can improve their physical health.

This worked for me.

Be a Giver.

People become much happier after even the smallest acts of kindness. Those who give a few dollars to the needy, buy a small surprise gift for a loved one, donate blood, or help a friend are inclined to experience a fast-acting and significant boost in happiness.

Acting in a way where you feel like you're taking care of people is rewarding.

Hang a Mirror in Your Kitchen.

Placing a mirror in front of people when they are presented with different food options results in a remarkable 32 percent reduction in their consumption of unhealthy food. Seeing their own reflection makes them more aware of their body and more likely to eat food that is good for them.

Didn't try this. I don't have a problem in that area if I don't buy "pleasure" foods that actually make me feel bad when I overindulge.

Buy a Potted Plant for the Office.

Adding plants to an office results in a 15 percent boost in the number of creative ideas reported by male employees and helps their female counterparts to produce more original solutions to problems. The plants help reduce stress and induce good moods, which, in turn, promote creativity.

I've had a plant for ages. I forgot to try adding more.

Touch People Lightly on The Upper Arm.

Lightly touching someone on their upper arm makes them far more likely to agree to a request because the touch is unconsciously perceived as a sign of high status. In one dating study, the touch produced a 20 percent increase in the number of people who accepted an invitation to dance in a nightclub and a 10 percent increase in those who would give their telephone number to a stranger on the street.

I feel good when I do this.

Write About Your Relationship.

Partners who spend a few moments each week committing their deepest thoughts and feelings about their relationship to paper boost the chances that they will stick together by more than 20 percent. Such “expressive writing” results in partners’ using more positive language when they speak to each other, leading to a healthier and happier relationship

If you commit any feelings or thoughts to paper it solidifies them in some way ("I'm the person who said they feel X" will make me feel X more. I've become closer to a friend after doing this, but we were already really close.

Deal with Potential Liars by Closing Your Eyes and Asking for an E-mail.

The most reliable cues to lying are in the words that people use, with liars tending to lack detail, use more “ums” and “ahs,” and avoid self-references (“me,” “mine,” “I”). In addition, people are about 20 percent less likely to lie in an e-mail than in a telephone call, because their words are on record and so are more likely to come back and haunt them.

Some people are excellent liars and are quite specific, fast-talking, and confident. I guess this is good for detecting mostly-honest people making an uncharacteristic fib. But I like the tip about email for suspected expert liars.

Praise Children’s Effort over Their Ability.

Praising a child’s effort rather than their ability (“Well done. You must have tried very hard”) encourages them to try regardless of the consequences, therefore sidestepping fear of failure. This, in turn, makes them especially likely to attempt challenging problems, find these problems enjoyable, and try to solve them on their own time.

I didn't read this chapter (I don't plan on being a parent any time soon), but that seems smart.

Visualize Yourself Doing, Not Achieving.

People who visualize themselves taking the practical steps needed to achieve their goals are far more likely to succeed than those who simply fantasize about their dreams becoming 

a reality. One especially effective technique involves adopting a third-person perspective: those who visualize themselves as others see them are about 20 percent more successful than those who adopt a first-person point of view.

Cool. I forgot to try this. My dad says he likes to think of himself as he's being perceived (physically) when he interacts with people. That's a special and unusual type of multitasking. Perhaps becoming comfortable with that leads to more confidence. I don't know whether this really helps with long term goals, but I guess this advice is backed by (sloppy and then loosely interpreted) actual studies.

Consider Your Legacy.

Asking people to spend just a minute imagining a close friend standing up at their funeral and reflecting on their personal and professional legacy helps them to identify their long-term goals and assess the degree to which they are progressing toward making those goals a reality.

This seems to be about having a relatively satisfied experience of dying slowly of some disease, assuming you haven't already lost brain function. I'm not sure that's what I want to optimize for, but I'll keep it in mind if I can't otherwise decide.

This reminds me of people reporting that they took some big risk, starting a company, because someone advised them "20 years from now will you look back and regret not taking that risk?" - but consider the downside: "20 years from now will you look back and wonder what you missed out on because you made that risky choice that ended up really costing you?".

Artist's conceit. He's (intentionally?) misunderstanding the sense in which we're supposed to weep alone in the conventional saying ("laugh, and the world laughs with you ..."). Also, I think we can understand what makes us feel pleasure and well-being, although of course the description of personal sensations is always fraught with uncertainty that the words and images have the same meaning in others.

A brand new paper, published in the Journal of Consumer Research, extends this link between self-control and anger, even as it complicates the ego-depletion model. In a series of clever studies, the Northwestern psychologists David Gal and Wendy Liu demonstrate that the exertion of self-control doesn’t just make it harder for us to contain our own anger – it also make us more interested in watching anger-themed movies, or thinking about anger-related information, or looking an angry facial expressions. In other words, acts of self-control haven’t just exhausted the ego – they actually seem to have pissed it off.

My favorite experiment involved movies. Two hundred and thirty nine subjects were given a choice between a virtuous apple and a hedonistic chocolate bar. (A slim majority chose the apple.) Then, they were offered a selection of movies to watch, from Anger Management (an anger themed film) to Billy Madison (a non-anger themed film.) Interestingly, students were significantly more likely to choose the angry films if they’d first chosen the apple. And it wasn’t just films: another experiment found that people who exercised financial restraint – they chose a gift certificate for groceries over one for spa services – were more interested in looking at angry faces.

What’s driving this effect? Gal and Liu argue that the preference for angry stuff is not simply a result of ego depletion. Instead, they speculate that self-control is inherently aggravating. Perhaps choosing the apple annoys us because our goals have been thwarted – we really wanted the candy bar – or maybe we’re pissed because we feel that our sense of autonomy has been diminished. (If we weren’t so constrained by societal norms and expectations, we would have gorged on chocolate.) The point is that the labor of self-control directly inspires our tendency towards anger, and not indirectly via a worn down prefrontal cortex.

paper

also, 2007 study

I've discussed evidence that self-control is weakly trainable, which is of similar quality. So I'm not inspired (yet) to live a life of soft indulgence alone.

Using data from the Framingham Heart Study, 5209 participants were followed up for 48 years from 1948. The current study however only included participants who were free from pre-existing diseases of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer. The research showed that for those who had a medium number of years lived with obesity (between five years and 14.9 years), the risk of mortality more than doubled than for those who had never been obese. The risk of mortality almost tripled for those with the longest duration of obesity (more than 15 years). Furthermore, the research showed for every additional two years lived with obesity, the risk of mortality increased by between six and seven per cent

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-03/mu-tlw032011.php

Of course this is correlation, but I'll weakly bet that it's causal. Even briefly being extremely fat means you're more likely to die (for the rest of your life). You have something like a permanent 100% increase in relative mortality risk (how likely you are to drop dead each day) if you're fat for 7 years (but then lose the weight). After that, it's more like 4% per year you stay fat. I don't know how quickly the risk concentrates in the first year of getting fat, but it's probably front-loaded. I also don't know if yo-yo fattening/defattening is worse.

You should never get fat. Another reason not to, is that fat cells are hormonally active, and don't retire when you lose weight; they just become less full of lipds (like an empty balloon). Supposedly an empty fat cell creates roughly as much hunger as a full one. (I don't remember the evidence for this, but I believe it).

Disclaimer: I don't mean stay model-skinny. Just don't get fat.

Let the Right One In was an excellent book, and a good foreign film. Matt Reeves rewrote it as Let Me In. It's been several months since I saw the foreign version, but this one seems significantly better constructed for the screen - I wasn't surprised to hear that the director is the same as the (re)writer.

Some cumbersome (for film) elements were pruned or reworked, but it's actually slightly longer due to some slow pacing. It's dark and beautiful. Both versions are worth watching, but the story does lose impact when you see everything coming. My first exposure, the book, was the most moving.

There's a little bit of awkwardly animated CG footage. Yes, strong little things can move quickly, but I didn't like the overall effect.

Alcohol fends off old-age dementia and Alzheimer's (maybe) - yet another piece of weak evidence for making alcohol part of your daily routine (I've discussed other evidence before).

I don't find the case strong enough for anything but old-age drinking, since there are definitely immediate harms (that I've personally noticed: short-term mental impairment, and reduced sleep quality).

If you're old and have fun people to hang out and get moderately drunk with, then go for it - even though there's no direct evidence that it will help, correlation suggests that it might (alternatively or additionally, you might see similar benefits from frequenting a coffee shop with people who are willing to chat).

I sleep plenty. 7-9 hours per night (I used to sleep more when I was younger, except for a disastrous 1.5 years plagued by Mormon seminary).

“Sleep spindles predict learning refreshment,” said Matthew Walker, associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at UC Berkeley. “A lot of that spindle-rich sleep is occurring the second half of the night, so if you sleep six hours or less, you are shortchanging yourself. You will have fewer spindles, and you might not be able to learn as much,” said Bryce Mander, a post-doctoral fellow in psychology at UC Berkeley and lead author of the study.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/as-we-sleep-speedy-brain-waves-boost-our-ability-to-learn

Maybe. Or if you sleep less, maybe the sleep spindles become more densely packed per hour of shut-eye, just like REM sleep. I do agree that you should expect to lose out in a big way on 6 hours/night of sleep, though (even for one night).

After a brief affair enabled by an RSS reader, I've been skipping news as much as possible, especially political news. I haven't missed it. I've even cut out blogs with quality thinking and writing if they mostly just react to current news stories.

I mention this because of a recent anti-news screed. It's full of unsourced assertions, but I sympathize: Avoid News.

A long-running study of ~1500 "gifted" (high IQ test) people suggests that a lot of what's believed about long-lived people is false. The Longevity Project: Surprising Discoveries for Health and Long Life from the Landmark Eight-Decade Study seems to be based on trustworthy data (even though the original researcher, now dead, was interested for reasons now-shameful eugenic hopes, he has a reputation for honest analysis of his data). Here's the press release "MYTHS EXPLODED!" summary of the book:

Myth No. 1. Thinking happy thoughts reduces stress and leads to a longer life.

Reality:In the study, children whose parents described them as "extraordinarily cheerful and optimistic," "never sees the dark side" or "never worries" were less likely to live to an old age. This is one of "the biggest bombshells of the project," the researchers write.

"We keep hearing this advice to cheer up and stay happy because it will keep you healthy," Friedman says. "We just disagree with that after seeing the results of the study."

The participants who lived long, happy lives "were not cynical rebels and loners" but accomplished people who were satisfied with their lives. Many knew that worrying is sometimes a good thing. The authors also looked at a study of Medicare patients that found that "neuroticism was health-protective."

People think this mostly because excessive stress is known to be extremely unhealthy. But moderate amounts of (reasonable) worry my have benefits that outweigh the health cost, or as far as I know, it could even be unhealthy to have too-low stress as well.

Myth No. 2. Gardening and walking aren't enough to keep you healthy.

The authors say the government's guidelines that recommend spending 30 minutes at least four times a week expending energy at a moderate to intense level is "good up-to-date medical advice but poor practical advice."

Reality:Being active in middle age was most important to health and longevity in the study. But rather than vow to do something to get in shape (like jogging) and then hate it and not stick with it, find something you like to do.

"We looked at those who stayed active," Friedman says. "It wasn't the kids on sports teams. It's the ones who had activities at one point and had the pattern of keeping them ... They were doing stuff that got them out of the chair ... whether it was gardening, walking the dog or going to museums."

I think they mean that a consistent habit of a little physical activity is sufficient for most of the benefits, and that a short-lived enthusiasm for ultra-marathons won't count for as much as the same work spread out over a larger time.

Myth No. 3. Lighten up; being serious is bad for you.

Reality:One of the best childhood personality predictors of longevity was conscientiousness — "qualities of a prudent, persistent, well-organized person, like a scientist or professor — somewhat obsessive and not at all carefree," the authors conclude. They say the most obvious reason "is that conscientious people do more things to protect their health and engage in fewer activities that are risky."

"What characterized the people who thrived is a combination of their own persistence and dependability and the help of other people," Friedman says. The young adults who were thrifty, persistent, detail-oriented and responsible lived the longest.

I agree with the obvious reason. You should be fun (it's attractive and satisfying), but also avoid real danger.

Myth No. 4. Take it easy and don't work so hard. You'll live longer.

Reality:Those with the most career success were the least likely to die young. Those who moved from job to job without a clear progression were less likely to have long lives than those with increasing responsibilities.

Among participants who were still working in their 70s, the "continually productive men and women lived much longer than the laid-back comrades. ... This production orientation mattered more than their social relationships or their sense of happiness or well-being."

"It wasn't the happiest or the most relaxed older participants who lived the longest," the authors write. "It was those who were most engaged in pursuing their goals."

I think it's by now accepted folk wisdom that people who feel like they have nothing to live for, don't live long. The dog in Where the Red Fern Grows who lays down and refuses to eat after her brother dies, etc.

Myth No. 5. Get married and you will live longer.

Reality:The authors looked at the remarried, steadily married (never divorced), divorced and steadily single and found many differences among the groups and between genders.

"We're able to say that a sexually satisfying and happy marriage is a very good indicator of future health and long life," but being single for a woman can be just as healthy as being in a marriage, especially if she has other fulfilling social relationships.

The married men in the study lived the longest. Single men outlived remarried men but didn't live as long as married men. Among women, the number who divorced their husbands and stayed single lived nearly as long as steadily married women.

"Being divorced was much less harmful to a women's health," the authors say.

Women live longer and function better at extreme age. So typically the old man is benefiting from the care of his more competent wife. If she leaves him, he's definitely worse off. I think it's as simple as that. But it's also my experience that men stay hurt for longer when a romantic relationship ends.

By the way, intelligence is correlated with health, for at least the reason that most things that damage your health also damage your intelligence. (Intelligence is the sum of very many small things, genetic and expressed, functioning properly).

More from the excellent 59 Seconds:

Excessive levels of stress are known to be extremely damaging (see the canonical survey: Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers).

Defusing anger

Acting on anger doesn't reduce anger (short term). It primes more anger. People were more cruel to innocents after being allowed to "vent" by wailing on a boxing bag with a picture of someone they hated.

Finding benefits ("silver lining") to misfortunes definitely makes people feel better. It also makes you more likely to forgive. As sad as it seems to engage in biased thinking, it might be worth it for the health benefits, if you don't have the will or way to exact revenge instead (I'm sure that's also satisfying, but you'll have a hard time finding psychologists wanting to show *that* in an experiment).

Example benefits - whatever you're fuming about may also have helped you:

• grow stronger or become aware of personal strengths that you didn’t realize you had?

• appreciate certain aspects of your life more than before?

• become a wiser person?

• enhance important relationships or end bad ones?

• become more skilled at communicating your feelings?

• bolster your confidence?

• develop into a more compassionate or forgiving person?

• repair and strengthen your relationship with a person who hurt you?

• identify any of your own shortcomings that may stand in the way of your happiness?

Stress-reduction

Praying for others (probably generalizes to spending time imagining/wanting good things for those you love) seems to defuse your own stress and worries. Probably by means of comparing your problems to others', but perhaps also by some general positive-mood boosting that comes from caring. Or it could always be the magical power of prayer, I suppose :)

Classical music (at least, baroque) decreases blood pressure where nothing, pop, and jazz don't.

If the weather is nice, spend 30 minutes outside in the sun. Mood and memory will improve. (because of walking, because of sun, because of seeing people, or because of scene? no idea why. probably sun.)

Use humor to cope with stress. Expose yourself to things that make you smile/laugh.

Dogs

When treated with dog ownership (i.e. intervention, not correlation), blood pressure decreases. Dogs are more effective than blood pressure drugs. People with a dog and spouse performed better in the presence of their dog than their spouse. Possible mechanisms: daily walking, emotional attachment, silent "listener", petting=happiness, socializing w/ people because your dog attracts them. Except for scary dogs, people will smile and chat more if you have one, than if you carry a teddy bear or plant.

Cats also made people less depressed but didn't give the same mood-boosting effect as dogs. This inclines me to believe that socializing with humans is one of the most likely mechanisms behind the dog treatment.

Correlation: cat owners are more likely to die in the year following a heart attack. Dog owners are more likely to live (maybe not causation).

Females sitting with a dog get more passerby-attention in a park than those blowing bubbles or watching TV.

Seniors in retirement homes with a robot toy dog (AIBO) had their loneliness treated as well as by a real dog.

Videos of cute animals help people relax.

Alcohol

I've noted before that many studies show that drinkers live longer, and that it may even be causal (many, but not all, alternate correlated causes have been controlled for). One of the strongest uncontrolled-for confounds is that people who drink more tend to socialize more, which is known to be extremely health-promoting.

Further, part of the stress, insecurity, and inhibition reduction behind drinking is pure placebo effect and priming. A control group given placebo alcoholic groups at a bar showed similar (negative) drunk-markers as those given real alcohol. Presumably some of the positive ones hold as well (it's well known that most uses of modern drugs are effective mainly as a placebo; the difference between traditional and modern medicine is that the modern procedure is sometimes actually necessary and effective beyond placebo).

Exercise

It helps if you believe exercise helps.

Hotel employees who clean rooms get a decent amount of exercise. Telling them how many calories various activities burned caused them to lose weight (without making them report exercising more outside of their job, or changing dietary/drug habits). This is somewhat mysterious, but for sure they identified (compared to the control group) with being people who had all sorts of healthy exercise in their life, which either boosted their spontaneous physical activity (at job or otherwise), or otherwise acted as a powerful placebo medication promoting weight loss and lowered blood pressure (often considered a proxy for stress). It probably made them feel slightly better about their job.

So, you can make a list of time spent on average in various calorie-burning everyday activities. That might help you feel better about your life, or somehow derive more actual exercise benefits in your usual routine. e.g. walking, biking, housework, shopping, reading, sitting (yes, this burns calories; even sleeping does), sex, driving, talking on the phone, showering, standing, playing, etc (all of these are in the range of 1-10 cal/minute)