Via Steve Sailer:

Steve Hsu has a fascinating post on a new paper by Nobel laureate economist/statistician James Heckman on the historic 1921 Terman Project tracking more than 600 California white males with 135+ IQs over seven decades.  You often hear about how this project shows that IQ doesn't matter because, say, none of Terman's Termites ever won the Nobel Prize.

Heckman writes:

The Effects of Education, Personality, and IQ on Earnings of High-Ability Men 

This paper estimates the internal rate of return (IRR) to education for men and women of the Terman sample, a 70-year long prospective cohort study of high-ability individuals. The Terman data is unique in that it not only provides full working-life earnings histories of the participants, but it also includes detailed profiles of each subject, including IQ and measures of latent personality traits. Having information on latent personality traits is significant as it allows us to measure the importance of personality on educational attainment and lifetime earnings.

Heckman explains:

4.1 The Total Effect of Personality and IQ on Lifetime Earnings 

We begin by analyzing how personality and IQ influence lifetime earnings. We use the sum of each individual's earnings from age 18 to age 75. ... With this simple regression, Conscientiousness and Extraversion are positively associated with earnings, while Agreeableness and Openness are negatively associated with earnings (although Openness fails to be statistically significant in this very simple exercise). Our measure of Neuroticism does not have a clear association with earnings. It is remarkable that even in this very high-IQ sample, where the range of observed IQs is clearly restricted, IQ still has a positive and statistically highly significant association with lifetime earnings.

This sounds about right from my long observations of highly successful entrepreneurs in a cognitively demanding field (market research): they were Intelligent (probably in the 125-160 range), Extraverted (good salesmen), Conscientious (i.e., hard-working), not too Neurotic (if they worried more about what could go wrong, they wouldn't start companies), and not too Agreeable (they could kick ass when necessary, and were very competitive -- raced yachts, drove imported Porsches that took six months to make street legal in the U.S.). They were probably more Open than average, although that has to do with them being entrepreneurs.

Heckman goes on. 

Finally, note that even when controlling for rich background variable [such as education], IQ maintains a statistically significant effect on lifetime earnings. Even though the effect is slightly diminished from the uncontrolled association of the first column, it is still sizeable. Malcolm Gladwell claims rather generally in his book "Outliers" that for the Terman men, IQ did not matter once family background and other observable personal characteristics were taken into account. While we do not want to argue that IQ has a larger role for the difference between 50 and 100, for example, than for the difference between 150 and 200, we do want to point out that even at the high end of the ability distribution, IQ has meaningful consequences.

In other words, people with 200 IQs will, on average, make more money than people with 150 IQs, all else being equal.

For these very smart termites, getting more education increases lifetime income.

One caveat about causality is in order... We partially follow this approach by using early measures of Openness and Extraversion. However, the other personality traits are measured at a time where the men are already in their working lives. Thus, these measures are more relevant to the observed earnings, but at the same time we cannot exclude the possibility that, for example, a high score on Neuroticism is a result of one's position in the workforce. 

In other words, Terman asked personality questions back in 1922 of the youths that map well onto today's Big 5 personality traits of Openness and Extraversion, but the project didn't get around for a decade or two to asking questions that map to the other three Big personality components: Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. For example, my dad spent 40 years as a stress engineer at Lockheed worrying about whether the wings would snap off planes. Did he get into that career to start with because he always was a worry wart, or is he a worry wart today because he spent 40 years worrying about how to keep planes from crashing?

You can read the whole study 

here.

I always thought that I'd make more money by skipping grad school. But here I am doing academic research for not as much money as finance or silicon valley would provide ... something is wrong. Either I love money, or I love academic research, or I'm happily lazy.

David Foster Wallace is a talented writer who killed himself.

I just think to look across the room and automatically assume that somebody else is less aware than me, or that somehow their interior life is less rich, and complicated, and acutely perceived than mine, makes me not as good a writer. Because that means I'm going to be performing for a faceless audience, instead of trying to have a conversation with a person.

He seems to have thought he could be happy if he were only less cynical.

My natural default setting is the certainty that situations like this are really all about me. About MY hungriness and MY fatigue and MY desire to just get home, and it's going to seem for all the world like everybody else is just in my way. And who are all these people in my way? And look at how repulsive most of them are, and how stupid and cow-like and dead-eyed and nonhuman they seem in the checkout line, or at how annoying and rude it is that people are talking loudly on cell phones in the middle of the line. And look at how deeply and personally unfair this is.

That's human nature. We're naturally geared to be effective, not happy. To really be empathetic requires either honest adherence to a "spiritual" belief system, or successful pleasure-guided experiments in perspective.

It surely costs to empathize too much. And I'd rather keep my own identity than become part of a same-feeling mob. But empathy is a fantastic tool.

If you're automatically sure that you know what reality is, and you are operating on your default setting, then you, like me, probably won't consider possibilities that aren't annoying and miserable. But if you really learn how to pay attention, then you will know there are other options. It will actually be within your power to experience a crowded, hot, slow, consumer-hell type situation as not only meaningful, but sacred, on fire with the same force that made the stars: love, fellowship, the mystical oneness of all things deep down.

Not that that mystical stuff is necessarily true. The only thing that's capital-T True is that you get to decide how you're gonna try to see it.

Whatever works. Of course there's no literal mystical oneness, but if that's how you describe your favorite feel-good perspective, I understand.

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?".

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)

As I've said before, I like 59 Seconds. I'm trusting the author to fairly summarize the research, even though I know he'll sometimes over-sell it.

Creativity

This chapter was a little less exciting for me. It mostly seems to be about people brainstorming in groups.

Unconscious mind

Distract your conscious mind when you're stuck. Or just put the task away and come back later (especially in a different environment). At the very least, this may allow you to let go of a fixed mental box. Track a dot as it moves across the monitor (the saccadic eye exercise in Brain Workshop might do, even though it's not continuous motion). Watch cars or birds as they move across your window.

Encourage analogy

Look for advice from similar situations. Think of how some other person does something like what you want to do. Change of perspective, or just useful clues? It should help, either way. Imagine what happens if you did the opposite of what you think will help.

Flowers and plants

These help encourage creativity and play. Why? Doesn't matter. Red is associated with danger, green with positivity and relaxation. Green ink -> 30% more anagrams solved than red ink (maybe red is harder to see, too). But on the other hand, pictures or video windows of nature scenes don't work well. Green paint might help.

Fresh Blood

In groups, rotating out a new collaborator helps on average. Maybe this is just because in the study, the transaction was to take 1 person out of each group and move them to the next, on the same task. So naturally this person would be stealing all the cool (types of) ideas from their previous group. But I still have a weak belief that this helps beyond that effect (or maybe the study did control for it by using different people or tasks).

Priming

Priming matters a lot in general. Our brain associates things with other things. Trigger one thing and it triggers associated things.

Put people in front of computer wallpaper showing dollar symbols, and they behave in a more selfish and unfriendly way, giving less money to charity and sitting farther away from others.¹⁷ Give interviewers a cup of iced coffee, and they unknowingly rate interviewees as colder and less pleasant.¹⁸ Add a faint smell of cleaning fluid to the air, and people tidy up more thoroughly.¹⁹ Put a briefcase on a table during a meeting, and people suddenly become more competitive.²⁰

So, expect to be inspired by watching or thinking about other great creators. Or, glance at a piece of art that suggests creativity. A picture with 12 identically colored crosses inspired less creativity than one with 1 of the 12 colored differently. Images like these are somehow "creative-priming" compared to the boring all-same versions:

Pull yourself toward your desk to increase creativity. Push down on the desk to decrease it (we have a long association of pushing away things we don't like).

If you're more stressed, you'll be less creative (more focused). All stress is physical, but there are different types, still. The brain uses blood. Different parts of the brain are boosted/suppressed by stress. People unscramble anagrams (10%) faster when lying down than when standing up - probably because of physical stress.

(from Seth Roberts: if you're walking on a treadmill, you'll enjoy studying more; standing up is no help. suggests walking/learning priming)

Attraction

Cookies taken from a nearly-empty jar taste better than cookies from a full jar (scarcity).

Researchers failed to produce any measurable "hard to get" attraction effect from first contacts in online dating. Since that failed, they tried enlisting prostitutes; also no effect.

However, if you appear to be GENERALLY hard to get but SPECIFICALLY easy for your mark, then they are more excited about you (because you probably won't reject or publicly humiliate them, but you won't embarrass them with your reputation of being easy; you're a more impressive prize).

For females: latex bra inserts. A cup: 13, faked B cup: 19, faked C cup: 44 (approaches by men in a nightclub), and 15%,18%,24% (hitchhiking success rate).

Touch the upper arm of someone you need help from. Brief touch = 20% more successful panhandling. I don't think this is all intimidation. This also makes women (and probably men) more receptive to cold approaches, even in public (physically attractive, confident young men apparently have a 20% success rate in getting a woman's number after an appearance-compliment and offer for drinks that night, but only 10% without touching).

Touching is high status and dominant, even if not intimidating to the recipient.

Succesful men and women in speed-dating get people talking about themselves, with fun/offbeat queries, probably because they're a refreshing change from the conventional interaction (and fun/playful/leading people are attractive).

“If you were on a hit show, who would you be?” “If you were a pizza topping, what would you be?”

Mimic someone (repeat exactly their words back to them, or just their body language), and they report feeling a closer emotional bond. Don't be too obvious and they won't notice.

People seem to be able to detect that you act interested in everyone (in a speed-dating environment, irrespective of whether they eavesdrop or are just perceptive of your progression with them implying a fixed agenda). They hate that. Maybe you'll be unfaithful, or maybe it means you're low status and grateful for anything you can get.

Women avoid (in planning on long-term commitment) men who seem too attractive AND too high status, probably figuring they won't be able to keep them.

Women claim kindness is what they're looking for. What they really want is bravery. For impressing women, rock climbing, skateboard/snowboard/bmx/etc, soccer, and hiking are attractive. Aerobic and golf aren't. For impressing men, aerobics, yoga, gym (but not bodybuilding).

Scary first date = they think they're excited about you.

Get them to disclose personal info. It will need to be reciprocal, and if it wasn't safe small-talk, you'll feel intimate. For example:

1. Imagine hosting the perfect dinner party. You can invite anyone who has ever lived. Whom would you ask?

2. When did you last talk to yourself?

3. Name two ways in which you consider yourself lucky.

4. Name something that you have always wanted to do and explain why you haven’t done it yet.

5. Imagine that your house or apartment catches fire. You can save only one object. What would it be?

6. Describe one of the happiest days of your life.

7. Imagine that you are going to become a close friend with your date. What is the most important thing for him or her to know about you?

8. Tell your date two things that you really like about him or her.

9. Describe one of the most embarrassing moments in your life.

10. Describe a personal problem, and ask your date’s advice on how best to handle it.

Get a tame woman to accompany you and dote on you, laughing at your jokes, etc. When she slips away, the other women will want you.

Act lukewarm at first (I'm generally hard to get) but warm, peaking toward the end (but I'm really into you).

Slow developing, real smiles. Tilt your head (note: I actually looked this study up. It's students scoring CG characters on a screen. But there's an indirect citation to Frey 1999 that actually talks about (laterally?) tilting your head toward either who you're looking at or talking to; unfortunately it's in German).

College students' first impressions: women want a man with 2 previous partners (but not more) and men want a woman with 4. 0 is bad.

Sustained eye contact => attraction. But people consider it hostile and will avoid it unless there's an excuse or a willingness to be attracted. (study used a fake "ESP study" scenario to bypass natural defensiveness)

Rather than chatting about topics that you both like, try talking about things you both dislike – people feel closer to each other when they agree about dislikes rather than likes.

I don't know if I believe this. It's normally risky to talk shit about others; people associate the shit with you. But maybe that doesn't apply given attraction, or given that they agree.

In relationships

Active listening almost never happens ("I understand the way you feel when you say XYZ ...") and so isn't useful in predicting breakups in real relationships. Maybe it would help if you could do it.

The female usually raises a difficult issue, presents an analysis of the problem, and suggests some possible solutions. Males who are able to accept some of these ideas, and therefore show a sense of power sharing with their partner, are far more likely to maintain a successful relationship. In contrast, couples in which the males react by stonewalling, or even showing contempt, are especially likely to break up.

Maybe. You could just as well say that reasonable demands from the female are necessary in order for the man to be able to please.

New joint activity involving physical contact. Dancing, if you haven't been.

Men estimate how pleased a woman will be by some stereotypical romantic gesture more pessimistically than women.

Identified as maximally romantic by some portion of women:

1. Cover her eyes and lead her to a lovely surprise—40 percent

2. Whisk her away somewhere exciting for the weekend—40 percent

3. Write a song or poem about her—28 percent

4. Tell her that she is the most wonderful woman that you have ever met—25 percent

5. Run her a relaxing bath after she has had a bad day at work—22 percent

6. Send her a romantic text or e-mail, or leave a note around the house—22 percent

7. Wake her up with breakfast in bed—22 percent

8. Offer her a coat when she is cold—18 percent

9. Send her a large bouquet of flowers or a box of chocolates at her workplace—16 percent

10. Make her a mix CD of her favorite music—12 percent

It's easy to remember negative emotions. Maybe 5 times easier.

Negative remarks are returned in kind more than positive ones.

Write (privately) about your feelings about the relationship. Then you'll tend to express more positive things to your partner.

Think about how others' relationships are worse than yours. This will make you happier with yours than if you only think of what's good about it in isolation.

If you have some real criticism of your partner, follow it with "but [a reason it somehow it makes me love them]".

Keep cool objects in the entertaining-room those that have a history with your partner (gift, shared purchase, vacation, etc.)

Thinking about your love for your partner should decrease your specific interest in sexy bodies.
 

 

59 Seconds is full of evidence-based self-help advice. I recommend it (on the basis of the first 3 chapters - I haven't finished). In some cases there may be a danger that findings of correlation lead to cargo-cult recommendations, but generally the causation of happiness and motivation is bidirectional (things that happen as a result of them also reinforce them).

Some amusing studies cited in the book:

The day before the 2004 American presidential election, more than a hundred voters were asked to imagine themselves going to the polling booth the following day. One group was told to carry out the visualization exercise from a first-person perspective (seeing the world through their own eyes), while another group was instructed to carry out the same task from a third-person perspective (seeing themselves as someone else would see them). Remarkably, 90 percent of those who imagined themselves from a third-person perspective went on to vote, compared with just more than 70 percent of those who employed first-person visualization. Although the explanation for the effect is uncertain, it could be that adopting a third-person perspective requires more mental effort than a first-person one and so results in more significant behavioral changes.

A more powerful explanation: imagining people seeing you makes activates the idea that people will see you, which makes you behave more like you want to be seen - a 'good citizen'. Just like making the lights less bright (via sunglasses, even) increases your cheating, because you'll imagine that people can't see you.

People were taken to the bottom of a hill and asked to estimate how steep it was and therefore how difficult it would be to climb. When they were accompanied by a friend, their estimates were about 15 percent lower than when they were on their own, and even just thinking about a friend when looking at the hill made it seem far more surmountable.

Obviously, people don't want to act weak in front of others. But I'll definitely try thinking of my friends when I'm alone and facing a challenge.

They were asked to form a clear image in their mind’s eye and imagine how great it would feel to make a high grade. ... Even though the daydreaming exercise lasted only a few minutes, it had a significant impact on the students’ behavior, causing them to study less and make lower grades on the exam.

I'm now going to paraphrase most of the points in the first 3 chapters that I agree with. When I say 'but ...', I mean that it's something I 'know' (have thought of, or read about elsewhere) that the book doesn't mention.

Positive thinking can lead to poor performance. Expecting a reward may also mean we're less interested in the actual reward (we use up some of the juice in advance, and are less motivated by it).

What's recommended instead of pure daydreaming: imagine all the nice things that go with success, and all the problems likely to block you. Then, alternate through those lists (fantasizing about enjoying a benefit after reaching the goal, contemplating what response could be employed against the obstacle). The alternation sounds like a decent idea. In any case, the procedure helped on the whole. It can be helpful to actually form concepts for each thing, which is easier if you can assign a short label. Generally, writing seems to help with this. There's a tendency for ideas mentally rehearsed to either get stuck or fade, which is avoided with diagrams or notes.

Diet tips

• start eating at normal speed, then slow down+savor for the remainder
• use tall glasses and small dishes/utensils
• store snacks out of sight (where you're not likely to remember them)
• just eat. combining food with another engaging activity leads to a 'popcorn movie' effect
• keep track of what you eat (mental or brief written notes)
• eat near a mirror. don't exercise near one.
• fidget more. move more vigorously in everyday life
• don't think eating 'diet' foods will result in less caloric intake, or excuse you from activity

Mood-boosting writing exercises

You can send these to a friend you're able to be honest with, or just write to yourself. I'm sure there's diminishing returns on effort, length, and comprehensiveness. These worked for me (I did one a day). The effects lingered.

• things you're currently grateful for
• an emotional high point from your past
• write about a fantasized-for future where you're completely happy with what you've become and achieved
• tell someone that they're valuable to you (that you love them), and why.
• some things that went better than expected for you in the last week (trivial things are fine), and why you think they happened

Charitable giving makes people happy (or maybe the other way around?). The thrill is greatest if you get to see up close people's lives improved by your giving (this is why professionals work in soup kitchens instead of more rationally working for extra money and paying others to work in the soup kitchen; this is also why charities that send you photos of the child you 'sponsored' do repeat business). But I imagine you could derive a more abstract thrill from being the kind of person who maximizes the leverage of their charitable dollar in *really* helping people, not just in seeing grateful faces up close, knowing you've helped them.

Also, it seems you should binge on 'being a good person' satisfaction. Spreading out small kindnesses one a day for a week gave less joy to people than lumping them all into a single-day extravaganza (small things like writing thank-you notes, giving blood, etc.). I guess it has to be sufficient so you're really convinced that you are a good person.

Doing fun things with your money (vacation, food, shows, etc.) apparently makes you happier than buying super-expensive goods. (But I read elsewhere that people surveyed during a vacation are on average pretty stressed and unhappy; but it's often a net gain because a few nice moments, blown up in stories/memories , that provide pleasant recollections and things to brag about over the coming years.)

If you starve someone for validation, then it's likely that they'll spend more money on the strategy of happiness by consumption.

Fake it until you make it, physically. Really smile, for a few seconds (at least 10). In order to do really do this, you should think of something that makes you smile. Similarly, sit up straight, don't slouch. For men (or confident women?), stick your chest out. Take an expansive pose. Move and talk like a happy person - swing your arms more, bounce more when walking, be more expressive in nonverbal communication (nod your head when you follow what someone is saying, smile, etc), all your voice to swing to higher pitch and speak faster (like you're excited), say emotionally positive things (express liking and approval), and shake hands firmly. Don't use first person pronouns so much. (I'm not sure if all of these can be abused for reverse-expected causation like smiling can, but for sure they're correlated with happiness).

Active habits that increase happiness may increase it permanently, as opposed to accidental windfalls (lottery winning) which make you happy only for a little while.

Persuasion

Small and random rewards work better than rewards large enough that people think they're doing something just because they're paid for it.

If you want a job, make them like you in the interview. Good eye contact, smile, talk about other things. Act interested in their org and their work, and ask questions. Give a real compliment. Ask what they're looking for in you. Act excited about the job. Open with confessions of weakness (provided your overall case is strong, people will like you more if you exhibit *some* weakness and are not all perfection; it also signals honesty) and close with your strongest bragging points (of course trying to pretend to modesty). The reverse order is worse. Remember always that there's a chance others don't notice your mistake (you certainly feel intensely ashamed of it, but remember that others don't know and notice everything you do). It's ok to acknowledge a mistake, and great to continue on as if you're unperturbed.

Sit toward the middle of a table (at least on 'The Weakest Link'). Use simpler language (applies to invented product/company names, too - and probably to human names).

Get people to do small favors that you act like you personally will greatly appreciate. This will make them see you as indebted to them, which is nice because they're likely to keep investing in you.

Familiarity breeds liking.

Anything you can do that increases the tendency of people to like you is valuable.

Carnegie: act interested in people. People love to feel like someone cares about them, and love to talk about themselves. Other tricks: match body language/speech, act modest, help people, give sincere compliments (all of this in a way that doesn't make them suspicious that you're trying to play them).

If you gossip about someone's negative behavior, people will unconsciously associate you with that behavior. (but in general gossip is widely used to enforce social norms; maybe not participating at all marks you as holier-than-thou or free-riding)

If people think highly of you already, a mistake that you'd think would be embarrassing will endear you more to them. If they think you're a loser, then they'll really turn away in disgust after that same mistake.

Get people to say something positive at all ("how are you feeling/doing?"), and then ask them to do something for you. This works better than just asking.

People like things more if they're paired with a (free?) meal or a drink. Caffeine makes you more persuadable (by new arguments, I imagine).

"If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit." Rhyme is actually persuasive. (In general things that are easier to understand/remember are more persuasive; people distrust the same words said in a thick foreign accent, for that reason among others).

If people think they're more like you (e.g. same name), they'll like you or help you more.

Crack a joke that gets them to smile, and they'll give you a better deal in negotiation.

If you need help, target a specific person and ask them directly; don't ask the group.

People will reciprocate. Do them small favors (of course, this may make you like them more).

Put a cute smiling baby photo in your wallet. Then it gets returned 1/3 the time instead of 1/8. (because they imagine they like you, and because babies are thrilling in a way other attractive things aren't).

Motivation

1. make a plan (write down or form a mental list of subtasks)
2. tell people you're working on the goal (this raises the stakes, at least, and the bigger a show you make, to more (important) people, about your promise to do something, the more worried you'd be at not doing it).
3. mentally link the steps of your plan with the good things you'll get when you finish it - be attracted to what you'll have when you succeed, not repulsed by what will happen if you fail. frequently remind yourself of the attraction
4. give yourself artificial rewards (as part of your plan or impromptu) for achieving subtasks, if they're not inherently rewarding
5. journal or chart plan progress or actions taken
6. actually get started. once you do this, you'll be nagging/worrying over it until you finish or give up. you'll want to work on it more. this is where most procrastination lies: in not starting.

Not very useful: worship and emulate people you admire for having done similar, think about the bad consequences of failure, consciously try to 'not think of an elephant' (e.g. sex/drugs/food you want to cut back on), expect to exert willpower (perseverance in the face of high expected chance of unrewarding outcomes), fantasize about your future life after you've got what you want (this was actually recommended as a general mood booster, but I think it leeches away some of the inherent reward for achieving steps toward your goal).

For each goal subtask, make yourself believe that you'll probably succeed (come up with a good reason). Then outline the concrete actions you'll take, and commit to a deadline and a reward that goes with that deadline (optional). List the benefits of winning the main goal (it's also motivating to think of how you'll be helping other people, not only yourself).

I'll probably continue as in this post later (for the remaining 7 chapters) as I read more.