Why Fire and Brimstone Works

Here's the study:

People’s desires to see themselves as moral actors can contribute to their striving for and achievement of a sense of self-completeness. The authors use self-completion theory to predict (and show) that recalling one’s own (im)moral behavior leads to compensatory rather than consistent moral action as a way of completing the moral self. In three studies, people who recalled their immoral behavior reported greater participation in moral activities (Study 1), reported stronger prosocial intentions (Study 2), and showed less cheating (Study 3) than people who recalled their moral behavior.

It recalibrates our moral math.

Human Capital or Capital, Comic Book Edition

I recently shared an article about how college debt has just outgrown credit card debt. My general response was that the average $24,000 in college debt doesn't seem that bad, especially if the average starting salary of a college graduate is $48,351. I also know what it's like to pay off school debt in similar income-to-debt proportion above.

But this got me thinking. What's better for an economy, smart people or effective machines? I came across a great thought experiment in this BBC article about Superman. Apparently the last son of Krypton is considering separating himself from the United States. So here's my question, who would be better for US economic growth, Superman (as capital) or his nemesis Lex Luthor (human capital).

In spite of my love for the Man of Steel, I think that Mr. Luthor would be better for long term economic growth. Here's why: Superman is a great asset to any economy. He's super strong, super fast, super everything. He could decrease crime easily. He could do construction is a fraction of the time. He could even help during natural disasters, which we seem to have plenty of recently.

But Superman dies. Although he ages very slowly, he does get older which mean he will eventually die. Lex Luther on the other hand can use his extreme intelligence to create a second Industrial Revolution bring us unimaginable prosperity. This is shown perfectly in my favorite comic book of all time Red Son.

It's a re-imagining of the Superman story as if he was born in Soviet Russia, not the United States. In this alternate storyline Lex Luther (though still power hungry) is the good guy protecting the American way. After Superman is "defeated" (I don't want to spoil too much), Luther goes on to lead America and Earth into great wealth. Whether in comic books or in life, human capital has more long term value than simple capital:

They found that intelligence made a difference in gross domestic product. For each one-point increase in a country's average IQ, the per capita GDP was $229 higher. It made an even bigger difference if the smartest 5 percent of the population got smarter; for every additional IQ point in that group, a country's per capita GDP was $468 higher.

Especially the smartest people:

researchers analyzed test scores from 90 countries and found that the intelligence of the people, particularly the smartest 5 percent, made a big contribution to the strength of their economies.

Why Men's Acheivements are More Public

An article I shared a while back discussed reasons why women are less likely to blog (mostly that women need/want less outside praise for their achievements). I wonder, does this apply to other parts of their life? This study suggests yes:

Two ecologically valid studies involving anticipated public performance offer insight into women's tendencies to avoid placing their abilities under a spotlight. First, in an experimental study, women felt less comfortable than did men and experienced more personal risk when they anticipated that their test scores would be public. Second, in a naturalistic observational setting, students taking an experiential forensic psychology course were required to perform intellectually challenging activities in public. Women displayed more concern about the course requirements than did men, and subsequently dropped the course in disproportionate numbers.

Could this also be why women are less likely to do speak up in my class, pursue leadership positions or do improv?

Difference Between Reality and Absurdity is Comedy

One of the benefits of teaching both adult improv classes (next starting May 16th) classes and children's improv camps (next starting June 20th) is seeing the strengths and weaknesses in both. The obvious difference is in energy. Kids can literally do improv games for 4 hours, run around for an hour at lunch, and be ready for another 4 hours afterward. It's tough to get a solid 3 hours of physical and mental effort out of adults. But below that difference is something deeper.

In a recent NPR story on what makes something funny, improviser Neil Casey from the renowned Death by Roo Roo discusses how patterns, what improvisers call "game", makes us laugh. But what kind of repeated patterns does our brain not only follow, but find amusing? The unexpected reality.

Children love to do absurd scenes. Give them the suggestion of kitchen and they'll be astronauts on sun trying to stop a bacon attack. Give that same suggestion to adults and they'll argue about whether there is too much flour in the cake. Adults love to do boring, often argumentative scenes. They like to play themselves. Where as kids like to play any but. Somewhere in the middle lies the ideal.

The title of this post is a quote from Bill Arnett, the director of the training center at Chicago's most famous improv theater, iO. In every scene we should establish a basic reality, but within that reality there should be a little absurdity. By my own calculation you need 99% real with 1% absurd. It isn't about astronauts fighting bacon. Or adults arguing about flour. But it can't be about married astronauts arguing about who's going to cook breakfast. A normal couple having a normal fight, just in space.

Here's an article the neuroscience behind it. Our brain is always trying to make sense about the present and the future. When those predictions are simultaneously affirmed and surprised, you have comedy. I know what an argument with my wife is like. Check. I don't know what space is like. Check. Let the comedy begin (tonight).

Worthwhile Sentences on Misconceptions

From Anthony Randazzo: "It means you're not going to buy a home, until you can afford to buy a home. During the housing bubble we didn't see home ownership rates rise. We just saw really cheap quasi-rental...they didn't really ever own that home."

From Larry Summers: "I was struck by the extent to which the U.S. bonds were a flight-to-quality asset even in a global financial crisis in which the United States was at the epicenter."

From Jimmy Kimmel: "I realize that I am ignorant when it comes to this sort of thing, but isn't conducting an orchestra basically air guitar for rich people?"

From Ross Douthat: "The problem is that this isn’t how the President has sold the board to the public: Instead, he’s promised that it will only reduce “unnecessary spending,” which is basically the equivalent of a Republican promising to keep the entitlement system solvent by reducing Medicare fraud."

From Sheldon Richman: "Schools, by their structure, are preparing kids for some sort of authoritarian lifestyle"

From Ladies' Home Journal in 1918: "The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl."

Only You Can Improve Your Relationships

We all have relationship problems. I've talked about a lack of dedication, giving too much (or too little),  focusing too much on the short-run, sharing too much (or too little), or fostering anger instead of resolving conflict. The pattern in all of those previous posts is what I can do, not what the other person can do. Here's why:

This research examined the consequences of targeting the self versus the partner when trying to improve intimate relationships. As predicted, when participants (N = 160) focused their relationship improvement attempts on changing the partner, individuals reported more negative improvement strategies, lower improvement success, and, in turn, more negative relationship evaluations. Self-focused improvement attempts and participants’ own self-regulation efforts, however, were not associated with more positive relationship evaluations or improvement. Instead, individuals reported more improvement and greater relationship quality when partners were perceived to be engaging in successful self-regulation efforts. The results suggest that targeting the partner may do more harm than good despite that relationship evaluations pivot on whether the partner produces change.

To clarify, trying to change your partner only makes it worse. Trying to change yourself doesn't improve it for you, but it does for your partner. So we should always focus on self improvement and find others who do the same. If you can understand each other, you can love each other.

Economics of Weight Gain

From research on American teenagers:

I found statistically significant estimates, indicating that females gain weight in weaker economic periods and males gain weight in stronger economic periods.

Perhaps male wieght gain is something to be earned and female weight gain is a stress response. Anyone got any other possible explanations?

Motivation as Intellegence

There are clearly different kinds of smart, but I may have missed the most obvious type, motivation. Here are two experiments using IQ tests. In the first they discovered that financial rewards (only $1-10) elicited on average 10 points on the IQ scale of 100. In the second experiment they showed that researchers could predict future success just by measuring how often students looked unmotivated (yawning, heads on the table, or looking around). The researchers suggest that motivation could account for 84% of the differences between years of schooling or ability to find a job. So, "IQ tests are measuring much more than just raw intelligence--they also measure how badly subjects want to succeed both on the test and later in life". Yet another reason to teach patience and motivation in schools.

Emptying the Bottle: Early-May '11 Links

Here is a list of the worthwhile sites I've Bookmarked recently:

• The government asked for information illegally, but make it illegal to report them.
• A marital Should-You-Bring-It-Up-O-Meter [graphic].
• Why we left the gold standard in the first place [audio] (earlier).
• The top reasons for Facebook un-friending?
• U.S. home prices, sung as an opera [audio].
• Why students who sit at the front of the class do better.
• Why poor people buy TV's and why others' choices seem irrational.
• President Theodore Roosevelt on limiting "degenerates to reproduce their kind".
• The way you shape your face affects how you respond and makes you more creative.
• President Obama and Seth Meyers burn Donald Trump [videos].

As always, feel free to email me anything interesting you come across.

Strength as a Entrepreneur

From a Q & A with young professional guidance counselor Penelope Trunk:

What advice would you have for people determined to start their own business despite your warnings?

I went to graduate school for creative writing, and on the first day of school, the professor came in and said, "If there is any other career you can do, you must do it. This is the worst career ever. You make no money, it's high risk, nobody gives you any good feedback, so anyone who can think of anything else to do should get up and leave." I think entrepreneurship is a lot like a career as a creative writer. Relying on supporting a family with your crazy, high-risk idea, and putting all your own money and time into it is insane. So only insane people do it.

Do you really think entrepreneurs are crazy?

There was a great article in the Harvard Business Review that describes how venture capitalists decide who to fund. Venture capitalists are looking for someone who is somewhat crazy—just on the right side of being a psychopath.

Perhaps it's the right thing for me.