Book Report #5

                While completing How We Decide, it created me to think about how much of our mind many people probably do not even begin to understand.  In many ways actually, we have so many preconceptions, that what we think we “know”, is actually incorrect.  The chapter on “The Moral Mind” was a very strong example of this, and I found this to be very interesting and one of my favorites, certainly out of the last few chapters of the book. 

                Lehrer begins this chapter talking about a man named John Wayne Gacy.  Gacy was a successful and well-liked man.  He was “pillar of the community” and was voted one year as the Man of the Year by the local chamber of commerce.  He had a wife, and what seemed to be a normal, overall good life.  Sadly, his whole life was carefully crafted lies.  One day, Gacy’s wife noticed a putrid order coming from underneath their house.  Gacy tried to cover the smell with a 50-pound bag of lime and told her it must just be a dead rodent or a sewage leak.  The smell would not go away, and he then even went to the extent of filling the crawlspace under the house with cement.  The smell still was evident, and then finally became found to be rotting bodies.  “On March 12, 1980, John Wayne Gacy was convicted of murdering thirty-three boys” (Lehrer). 

                Gacy was a psychopath.  Psychopaths make terrible moral choices because of a specific brain malfunction.   Morality can be a very unclear concept, but simply, it is the choices made about how other people should be treated. Psychopaths cannot consider other people’s feelings; they can’t sympathize with their states of mind.  Their logic is perfect, but what causes this condition is the damage of their emotional brains.  This is what makes them dangerous.  They have what is seemed to be an “emotional emptiness” causing them to feel nothing.  Like Gacy, even after something as terrible as causing multiple murders, they feel no remorse or have anything on their conscious.  “They can lie with impunity” (Lehrer).  Whereas normal people would show symptoms of nervousness when lying, psychopaths are not even the slightest bit anxious.  A lot of them, instead of their blood pressure and pulse rate rising, they are actually calmed by acts of violence.

                Lehrer states that the absence of emotion makes the most basic moral concepts incomprehensible.  A quote from G.K. Chesterton, makes the concept clear, “The madman is not the man who has lost his reason.  The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason” (Lehrer).  This is exactly what Lehrer is trying to explain throughout the whole morality chapter, stating that moral decisions are supposed to rely on strictly logical and legal ideas, but these conceptions are based on a vital mistake.  Neuroscience has discovered that there is nothing rational about the substrate of moral decisions.   When you encounter an ethical problem, the unconscious automatically generates an emotional reaction, and within a few milliseconds, the brain has already made up its mind because you know what is right and what is wrong (Lehrer).  These moral instincts are not rational, yet they are essential from keeping people away from committing outrageous offenses.   After our emotions have made the moral decision, then the rational circuits in the prefrontal cortex are activated.  “People come up with persuasive reasons to justify their moral intuition.  When it comes to making ethical decisions, human rationality isn’t a scientist, it’s a lawyer” (Lehrer).

                I, probably along with many other people, never knew that morality had a stronger connection with emotions than that of rationality.  I never thought about it in the way Lehrer presented it, which has now created my accurate understanding.  Moral decisions are all about taking other people’s thoughts or emotions into account.  Sadly, psychopaths commit the crimes they do because their emotions never tell them otherwise.  Luckily, normal human beings all have this sense of moral distinction built into their brains, and it doesn’t matter what culture you grew up in or what religion you believe in.

                In the final chapter, four main ideas are stressed: “novel problems also require reason”, “embrace uncertainty”, “you know more than you know”, and “think about thinking”. Lehrer wraps the book up by stating how amazing the human brain is and how it can always improve itself.  “Tomorrow, we can make better decisions” (Lehrer).  The first step to doing this is seeing ourselves as we really are, by assessing our flaws and talents, and our strengths and shortcomings (Lehrer).   I found this book to be extremely fascinating and helpful, and I enjoyed reading it because I personally happen to be a terrible decision maker.  Lehrer continued to suggest throughout his entire book that we need to put the knowledge of our brain to work in order to successfully make decisions, and now I am hoping I can be able to use some of this book and information, to do exactly that. 

Rules for Radicals

I found this article very interesting because of the idea of the Haves and Have-nots. This truly applies to today's society and any time throughout history. The Haves are the ones who have control and it is vital for the have-nots to stand up for what they believe in. The right of revolution was even laid out in the Declaration of Independence. This form of protest has been completely acceptable since the beginning of our country; it is what our country was founded out, so how can it be so wrong? The Haves try to solidify their power through literature, but I feel that this is all interpretation. Words can sometimes be manipulated or misread to help support an argue. But of course anyone in power would want to make sure their power is recognized. The major time period that comes to mind while reading this is the 1960s. During this period many changes occurred from revolution, such as the Civil Rights Movement, Second Wave Feminism, and Gay and Lesbian Rights. Because of the people who protested, we as a nation were able to truly better equality. I mean all men are created equal right? All of these great changes sparked out of revolution and protest so how could this be such a bad thing for the have-nots? Even today there are many protests from small ones to larger ones like Occupy. The right to protest is vital in America because it helps us have a democracy that the people can have their voices heard. Without it where would we be? Great changes have come out of protest and revolutions in history, so I feel it is justified. 

Goate Bucks!

I thought the activity on Monday was very interesting, and although I still feel like I don't completely understand exactly what was going on...or at least what was suppose to happen...I think when Dr. Goates explains everything a bit more, it will all fall into place.  But here are some of my thoughts though without being completely  educated on the complete exercise, and my take on what we did.  I was in the Bottom Group.  We were instructed not to leave our own designated space unless we received permission from  a member of the Middle Group or Top Group to go elsewhere.  We were allowed to knock on the door of the Middle Group and request a meeting with that group, but we were not allowed to go straight to the Top Group.  These instructions already confused the Bottom Group, with some of us not leaving our areas like it instructed, and others disregarding that statement completely and leaving to find other groups immediately.  I'm not really sure if either of us were right or wrong.  Finally when the Middle Group came down and gave us our instructions for our slogans, we needed to rush and create as many as we could in 10 minutes.  When it came down to presenting the slogans to the company buying them, I felt as though it was mass confusion.  They had already given a lot of the money away, whether they knew what they were doing or not, there was much left to negotiate for our team.  I thought it was good active exercise, but I think I will be able to better appreciate it when I hear it better explained on Monday.

Book Report #4

When trying to escape a dangerous situation, the emotional brain can only be reliable to a certain point until you need to switch over to rationality.   Rational thought takes place in the prefrontal cortex, the outermost layer of the frontal lobes.   Some people are better at this than others are though, causing those some of the others to make unwise, or irrational, decisions.  “People who are more rational don’t perceive emotion less, they just regulate it better” (Lehrer).   All of Lehrer’s examples really portray how important each part of the brain is when it comes to decision making.  It depends on what the situation is, and how you respond to that, that then determines how you then are able to come up with a decision.

                A story of a crew of pilots keeping calm in the midst of their airplane’s system crashing was an amazing illustration.   The most remarkable thing about the performance of the pilots, Lehrer states, is that they managed to keep their emotions in check.  That would not be something easy to do while you know in your head that you have lost all control of your aircraft, and if you have no way of regaining it, you, your entire crew and hundreds of your passengers will crash into the ground.  “If the emotional brain is pointing you in the direction of a bad decision, you can choose to rely on your rational brain instead” (Lehrer).  This is exactly what Captain Al Haynes needed to do in this situation of his United Airlines Flight 232 taking a turn for the worse.  He never let his fear turn into panic, and he only was able to do this because he used his prefrontal cortex to manage his emotions.  He took what he knew, and even though he was faced with a situation that they were never trained for or no one specifically knew how to handle, Haynes made connections and thought carefully about everything minute detail he could act upon.  This activity is an exclusive strength of the prefrontal cortex.  This region of the brain is able to take an abstract principle and apply it to an unfamiliar situation to come up with an original solution.  What makes this possible is a specific kind of memory called our working memory.  It is able to determine if we know any information that can be relevant to the problem at hand.  Neurons in the prefrontal areas will fire in response to a stimulus and keep firing for several seconds even after the stimulus is gone.  This makes it possible for the brain to make connections and ideas overlap.  Those new ideas are simply several old thoughts that occur at the same time.  “The problem-solving abilities of working memory and the prefrontal cortex are a crucial aspect of human intelligence” (Lehrer).  In this situation alone, Haynes saved 184 passengers lives that day, along with his own and many of his flight crew.  He was only able to control the plane to a certain extent to land, but because he got it to crash on to the runaway expected, they were able to put out the fire immediately and medical attention was readily available.   “Although the rational talents of the prefrontal cortex kept Flight 232 from crashing into a cornfield, it’s important to realize that rationality isn’t an all-purpose solution” (Lehrer).  As much as one decision-making method can be the absolute best solution for one situation, it can lead to disaster for another. 

This book has caused to me to look at so many decisions differently because of all the examples and information Lehrer has presented through it.  Just as we were talking about rationality saving the day, the next chapter switched to begin talking about how sometimes thinking too much can create a problem and rationality can lead us astray.   Thinking too much is actually a mental mistake better known as choking.   We all know this feeling when we continually rehearse our speech repeatedly and we know we know every single word, but when we get up in front of the class or audience, not a word comes to mind.  This happens on an even bigger level, for example with opera superstar Renee Fleming.   She was used to singing one of the most beloved pieces from Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro, and killed the high notes every time with no problem, the one’s many other sopranos had trouble with.  All of a sudden in one of her routine performances, she started to worry about the most difficult part of the song as she approached it.   “She couldn’t stop thinking that she was about to make a mistake” (Lehrer).   She made it through the song, barely being able to breathe, and greatly shaken up by the end of it.  Sadly, Fleming’s performance problems became chronic.   The songs that used to be “second nature” to her became impossible for her to sing.  Her struggle was against anxiety; she had lost her confidence.   When you have a high skill in something, a lot of the time it becomes completely automated.  You don’t even need to think about what you’re doing.   A part of your brain in the prefrontal cortex that monitors behavior can interfere with this and those decisions that are normally made without thinking, causing one to “choke”.   This was just one of his examples showing that rational thought can backfire.   Along with many other points I have pulled out before, it can be added to the list of information that we need to be aware of, because even though reason can be a powerful cognitive tool, it is also dangerous to rely on exclusively. 

Penn State

So with Penn State's scandal and JoePa being the biggest news at the moment, when I was looking over my notes from the excerpts from The Prince, it seemed to make some connections.  It may be a stretch for some of them, but I feel like there are ideas that can very well relate.  For example, in the beginning it talks about good and bad behavior - virtues and vices.  The article states the opinion that what ever will increase your chances to stay in power is better, not what is "right".  Joe Paterno knew about the child molestation like 6 or 7 years ago.  He reported it to whatever higher official he needed too, in order to be legally right, but morally, he didn't do much about it. He did what he needed to and went on his way.  By laws of the university, he did what was expected, but if he wanted to really do what was right, which in my head, morally, would be more than just letting it go after telling someone that didn't do anything about it, he could have.  Because of his name, if he wanted an investigation 7 years ago, there would have been one, but instead he let it go, not causing any controversy with his job or institution, but not thinking about how other peoples lives could be jeopardized.  Another note that I had written down in class explaining the end of 18th chapter we read, is how it discussed that as long as you appear to be playing by the rules, that's all that matters.  No one will intrude if it looks like everything is going good.  This all has to do with image management.  I think that one of Penn State's biggest issues in general is image management, because they try to always portray a "WE ARE the best" image.... They didn't act on a life-changing problem, probably to save their image, when they found out, but it blew up in the faces now.  I don't know every detail about the whole scandal, and I am not saying that Joe Paterno should have been fired or not, because I am not educated on the whole situation enough.  All I was doing was connecting some points I found could be related, because all I do know is that Joe Paterno was aware of the situation, and morally, he should have done more about it.  Instead, he let it under the carpet for years, and more boys lives are jeopardized and possibly ruined.

Magic Cable

This case article was a good representation of Hurtsberg's motivator-hygiene theory of job satisfaction.  You could also see what the company's valued because of visible artifacts, which we had talked about with the layers of culture a week or two ago.  Tile-Elite obviously didn't have a very nice working environment or culture altogether.  It was dirty and dusty, and there was really no room for advancement, at least in Roberts case.  You could tell they valued the end result, not really caring how they got there, even if it meant putting their employees in jeopardy.  We then concluded in class on Monday, that Roberts is dissatisfied with Tile-Elite.  That is because of hygiene factors in the company.  In this case, it included working conditions, the quality of company policies and administration, and interpersonal relationships with supervision.  The place was dirty like already stated, he had been promised an advancement that he never got, and he didn't have a very good relationship with his boss as a result.  This made him motivated to get out of there.  Then when you first start reading about Magic Cable, it seems to put out a much nicer culture.  Indeed, it is cleaner and they may value their employees a little more or with greater significance, but when it comes down to it, they take away something promised to Roberts just like Tile-Elite did.  They said he would always have overtime on Saturdays, but then suddenly take this away.  Also, because he does the same mechanical work, he doesn't really have anything to "master" and everything comes easy, so this gives him no satisfaction.  This is classified as a motivator in Hurtsberg's Theory, and obviously it is not motivating Roberts.  Neither of these company's are the place for Robert, one giving him dissatisfaction and the other not satisfying, and we see at the end that he continues to move on to a different plant, hoping to get what he is looking for.

Motivation

In class, both on Monday and today, we talked about motivation.  Monday we talked a lot about Maslow's hierarchy of needs and all that entails.  The bottom of the pyramid starts off with physiological needs such as food, air, clothing, etc.  Next is the level of safety and security. This is one's structure and order in life.  Continuing up the pyramid comes loving and belonging. Friends, family, and group identity are all part of this level.  Next, second to the top, is esteem.  This is one's recognition, status, or acceptance.  It includes one's feelings of adequacy, competence and confidence, and where one's sense of self-efficacy.  All these levels just described are deficiency needs, but the top of the pyramid changes this, being a growth need.  This top level represents self-actualization.  Self-actualization is the instinctual need to make the most of unique abilities and strive to be the best you can be.  So after discussing this pyramid and ideas, we realize that this hierarchy doesn't really predict behaviors.  If we actually acted by what the pyramid tells us, we would be willing to sell our parents or children, whatever it might be, in order to eat or have shelter.  This is not realistic because most people would do anything just to make sure their children or family is safe and healthy.  The other two needs that I thought were interesting were the aesthetic and cognitive needs.  Cognitive being the need to acquire knowledge and be able to understand it.  Aesthetic being able to see the beauty and balance in anything.  I liked the example Dr. Goates gave for this about a school project.  When putting together a project, you want it to look "beautiful" in your opinion when it's finished.  I never thought about this as being an aesthetic need.  But this, just like all of these other ideas are all part of what makes us motivated each and every day.  I think we look past this, not taking time out to realize what motivates each of our steps or decisions.

Five Reasons to Stop Saying "Good Job!"

We haven't discussed this article in class, and I'm not sure if we are going to because it is not on the syllabus, but it was on D2L and I thought I would read it because it sounded interesting.  I have to say, as I was reading it, I found it very... rough, for lack of a better word.  I'm not sure how to explain how this article came across but I didn't like it at first.  It talks about how when parents, or anyone, tells a child "good job", they are only saying that for their own convenience, not for the child's emotional needs.  I personally think this statement is just plain stupid.  They start off by saying that the words "good job", manipulate a child, create a praise junkie, steal's a child's pleasure, makes a child lose interest in what they are commended for, and reduces a child's achievement.  There are some minor truths within these, but I feel like they exaggerate these issues to an absurd extent at first.  As they go on to explain there are better things that could be said to children, I did see valid points and arguments to their statements then.  You don't always want to praise a child for every single one of their accomplishments because then they will always expect it.  Also, a simple evaluation-free statement can be better because you still are acknowledging them, but it lets them take on the pride in what they did.  The last thing the article says is a more useful way to express positive reinforcement to a child is asking more than talking.  Questions are even better then descriptions.  If you ask the child their favorite part about what they did or accomplished, it shows that their opinion matters.  I liked the way they ended the article, saying that not all compliments, thank-you's and expressions of delight are bad, but we just need to know how to better express them.  I felt the last sentence is a very good in closing when it says, "you don't have to evaluate in order to encourage".