A 'SMART' WAY TO THINK ABOUT STEREOTYPES

When you hear the word *stereotypes* for most people, a negative connotation ensue. It needn’t be so. They are useful heuristics that guide us through our decision making processus, only if used aptly.

Here are some simple rules that resonate with me:

ARE YOU STRESSED? THEN STICK WITH YOUR STEREOTYPE.

In a “high-stress” situation, you are better off sticking to your stereotypes:

Where the prize of being a ‘nice guy’ could be unbearable. When there is [even] a slight chance that a conviction you hold about a negative stereotype is wrong, but if the consequences you will face (if it happens to be right) is very high and not palatable, then you had probably stick to your stereotype. AND/OR when you have to take a Bugatti-Styled decision. When time is an enemy, you want to play it safe. A quintessential, still empirical example came to mind, but to avoid possible irked insinuations, I will trust your intellect for a befitting one.

On the other hand when you are in a “less-stressed” situation, think carefully (or at least think twice) about your stereotypes.

Here is a made-up-but-illustrative example:

WILL YOU MARRY A COSMOLOGIST?

Stereotype: Cosmologists make bad spouse. (Group 1)
Conclusion: Therefore I shouldn’t marry a Cosmologist.

For us to come to this outlandish conclusion. We need to [at least, think] about 3 more groups in the population.

Group 2. Cosmologists that make good spouse.

In a world where indeed cosmologists are stereotyped to make bad spouse, you will not hear [as often] about cosmologists that are good partners. This is a classic case of silent evidence. We refuse to take them into account readily because it doesn’t conform to our narrative and thus, doesn’t spike the outrage that primes us to propagate the news.

To clarify, assume you are an alien, on your first trip to earth, you got locked up in the room to listen to any random news –Any! By the time you are let loose, you will most likely conclude that all humans are violent. After all, you wouldn’t hear an iota of news about the peace loving folks. Those are the silent evidences. In other words, the peace makers that doesn’t make your 10 o’clock news are the cosmologists that make good spouse.

THE REMAINING [INCONSPICUOUS] TWO GROUPS

Group 3. Non-cosmologists that are good spouse.

Group 4. Non-cosmologists that are bad spouse.

For you to make good decision about a cosmologist marriage expertise, then you need a commensurate information about those who are not cosmologist i.e non-cosmologist. A very good illustration is stated in Ziva Kunda’s Social Cognition: “ ... some people argue that there is truth in astrology. They often support this claim by providing several examples of events that were predicted by their horoscope and then came true. To properly access [...], it is also necessary to know about events that were predicted by the horoscope and did not come true, [...] events that were not predicted by the horoscope but happened anyway and counterintuitive as it may seem, about events that were not predicted by the horoscope and never happened”   
[...]

In the end we come up with a 2X2 covariation table.

	Cosmologists	Non-cosmologists
Bad Spouse	Group 1	Group 3
Good Spouse	Group 2	Group 4

So at this point you may ask “what do I do with all these?”

Not much. Except to know that for you to confirm an association between cosmologists and bad performances in marriage you need to be sure that the ratio of cosmologists that make bad spouse (group 1) to cosmologists who do not (group 2) is greater than the same ratio among non-cosmologist (Group3:Group4)  

Okay! I know this is impossible to calculate, at least if you live in a real world. But the next time you get your self head-stucked with a stereotype and wouldn’t give in, thinking through this logica will probably make you reconsider your stance.

THE ILLUSION OF HAPPINESS

I am going to succinctly expatiate on 2 thesis:

Un, Happiness is a salutary evolutionary gadget

Deux, unfortunately, the very same gadget exemplifies an illusion (like chasing a ghost but believing it to be a ‘non-ghost’)

Let me introduce you to my 2 friends – Gray and Dr. Jon – and their so called ‘goals’

Gray. Wants to hit the million dollar status.

Dr. Jon (My most intellectual friend) After a medical degree and a PhD in Physics, he lamented “I feel my understanding of Physics is being limited by my knowledge in Philosophy. A PhD in Philosophy will just be apt”

There seems to be no overlap between these goals, but you need to be close to them (like me) to find out there is one. Only one. They claimed that they will be one of the happiest persons in the world if they hit the jackpot.

Both  guys are really intense and knew their onions. Soon enough they hit the jackpot.

But this is what they sounded like after settling into their new elevated status.

Gray: “Have you heard about the status syndrome? I heard billionaires live longer ...”

Dr. Jon: “I met a dude last night he had like 4 PhDs. Very vast! After speaking with him, I felt disappointed about what I don’t know, that I don’t know (i.e the unknown unknowns). I think ...”

You don’t have to be an augur to portend their next happiness goals.

In my opinion, life will be sterile (in fact, non-existent could be the right word to use) if we are not galvanized to achieve our goals. However, several systems have been put in place to preempt such sterility, and it turns out that happiness – among others – is responsible for the ‘non-sterility’ of life.

As we can see from the lessons of my 2 jolly friends. Happiness (or expected happiness) is an immense motivational factor.

Hence, the logic is clear, the evolutionary-gadget just has to be an illusion (unless if you have the puissance to hack the system.)

I got this simple equation from Drs Burnham and Phelan’s book, Mean genes.

Satisfaction = Performance – expectation

It explains so many things clearly. (Including our fleeting happiness) Here is what a revised happiness version could look like.

Absolute Happiness = Actual Happiness – Expected Happiness.

Let’s say you hit your jackpot today. Actual Happiness will be = Expected Happiness (for the most part).

However, the moment you settle into your new status (just like my 2 friends) actual happiness decreases. And because expected happiness remains constant, (unless if you can go back in time and change your expectation) you end up with a negative absolute happiness. Thus, the illusion sets in and the cycle goes on and on.

This is called the hedonic treadmill.

“The observed tendency of humans to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive [...] events [...]”

So, what’s the damn solution?

[After a short mental-cum-internet-search for a concrete solution, I was far from satisfied with my results. I thought they all lack the vigorous and staunch pragmatism I sought.

So I decided to ask my roommate. And he gave me an unexpected answer: “is it a problem?”

Immediately I had a re-think and found out that I could have been caught up in a very subtle bias.

I deleted my prior conclusion and I think this will be more ‘befitting’]:

The obvious ‘solution’ is to jump off the hedonic treadmill (for example showing gratitude; living in the present). Not only that, knowing when to jump off the treadmill [I think] is far more important. I am typing this on my blog and getting it across to tons of people via the internet because [I could argue that] the Tim Barner-Lee(s) and Edison(s) of this world achieved their goals by running on the very same treadmill.

THE GOOD AND THE BAD OF HERD MENTALITY




FreeImages.com/A Berg

As a rule, we reckon and conform to the behavior of the majority. Because, the default nature of human dictates that the correctness of a behavior is directly proportional to the degree at which other people engage in such behavior.

Here is an instance: doing my youth service I read about a research that shows that – more often than not – the louder an applause, (say after a performance) the more likely you are to join in, famously dubbed the clapping contagion. This apparently explains the reason for the canned laughter I see in Papa Ajasco and other comedy series when growing up.

In my opinion – and I think most evolutionary biologists will concur that – this wisdom of the populace play an imperative role in human survival and evolution. But is it always the right way to go? No no!  In some cases it could be salutary, in some other cases – menacing.

Think about it, in some part of the world, it is popular to choose a particular career, whether one is competent in the field or not. It reminds me of the trendy “science-class-art-class-proelior” in high school. Where the supposedly ‘smartest’ candidates SHOULD be in the science class – an epitome of pluralist ignorance!

Even the Yorubas will say “Ki Lamonrin se be eni, ija ni nda” (Demanding that such and such a person emulate one exactly leads to a fight). The point being – when we employ social proof, our idiosyncratic attributes should be at the hub of our decisions.

LOWBALLING: SOME IOWA ENERGY USERS, AND HOW MY DAD TRICKED ME INTO GETTING "As".



How can you influence and persuade others into doing the things that you want? This is a question pertinent to everyone – from politicians, to marketers, to managers, to students, to even parents raising a child. Here is one important overarching lesson I have learnt from my book of the month, “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” by Robert Cialdini: we commit better to our responsibilities in the absence – or in some cases, in just an iota – of extraneous strong pressures.

The book stated an impressive study carried out by some psychologists in 1980:

At the beginning of a winter season, a group of energy users in Iowa were trained on energy saving techniques; persuaded to save energy; and they all agreed to save energy. However, the researchers found that at the end of the winter, they failed to save energy.

The same study was carried out on a similar group, except for the addition of a public recognition reward for any household with substantial energy savings. As you might have presumed, there was a surge in energy savings. After the compliance, the reward was then intentionally withdrew by the researchers. Then, one will expect a drop in energy savings, on the contrary, they did not only maintained their present energy savings but it actually increased. So, what happened? In short terms, psychologists will say “their commitment grew their own legs”

 Here is the book:
 "...These people has been lowballed into a conservation commitment through a promise of newspaper publicity. Once made, that commitment started generating its own support: The homeowners began acquiring new energy habits, began feeling good about their public spirited efforts...began appreciating money saved on utility bills... with all these it is no wonder that the commitment remained firm even after...newspaper publicity  was kicked out"


As I was reading through this study, a similar personal experience came to memory.

Here is my story: My change was not over the winter, and has nothing to do with energy saving, it was during my transition from primary school to high school. In the earliest days of my primary school my academic performance was abysmal, but it got pretty good after my transition to high school and continue to soar ever since.
 
Just before the ‘transition’ I remembered my Dad promised me several gifts – most notable - a N1,000 note, only if I assume the first position in my class (it used to be a lot of money in those days. haha!) While I remembered achieving the feat on several occasions, I failed remembering my Dad giving me the N1,000 note (wittingly or otherwise, however, I will list towards the latter). Did that negatively affected my subsequent performances? NO! Why? Just like in the case of the energy users, my commitment grew its own legs.

How? I began to see myself as being ‘book smart’; friends began hailing me for my academic intelligence. This metamorphosed my self-image, and the consistency pressure began to form. The Yoruba proverb “Akin yago fun elesin ana” [One does not pave the way for the horse rider of yesterday] has definitely lured me into maintaining my performance, not the N1000 note which I did not receive in the first place.  
Social Psychologist called this compliance tactic – lowballing. In summary: One, make a promise to ensure compliance; two, the compliance may generate personal commitments; three, retract the promise; and four, observe the results.

Just like several other tactics, lowballing is not a panacea for compliance. An obvious pre-requisite for the success of this tactic would be that the compliant must have a propensity for the compliance task. The ‘trick’ wouldn’t have worked on me if the N1,000 note was promised and retracted for doing well in, uhmmm... say, a drama competition. Nah!