The Dark Side

Several years ago, I worked as a project manager for a regional cell phone company. I was in charge of building their new cell sites in the Northeast US. It was an ideal job. Company truck. Freedom. As long as the site went up on time and under budget, no one cared where I was. My office was the front seat of that truck and with my cellular modem, I was always online. (This was the day before wi-fi McDonalds). If I needed something, I got it. I loved that job… heck, they even paid me to do it! Alas, like all good things though, it came to an end. My company was bought out by one of the biggies (who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty) and they had their own project managers. Being a training guy, I found another job that I thought would be equally ideal for me.

My new job was in customer service with a company that does HR consulting. The president was a charismatic kind of guy. I'll call him Jack. Jack could make you think he was an expert at just about anything. He could talk about anything and sound knowledgeable, or he could manipulate the discussion to things he did know. He could make promises and when they failed, easily could shift the blame, or he would move on to another scheme and leave someone else cleaning up the mess. As time wore on, however, the reality of it was that he was actually a sick fellow with a penchant toward pathological lying yet in the short term, he could impress the socks off most people.

In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell tells the story of Warren Harding. Harding was a newspaper editor and lackluster politician when he met Harry Daugherty. Daugherty was a lawyer and lobbyist. He was a behind the scenes political opportunist. Daugherty was stunned by the features of the 35 year old Harding. He said that he looked like a senator. Daugherty knew that Harding had potential despite the fact that his speeches were described as "an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea." With Daugherty and Harding's wife pushing behind him, he quickly rose in Ohio politics. He was tall, dark and had just enough gray hair to make him look experienced. He looked forceful and presidential. Harding died after just two years as president and most historians agree that he was one of the worst presidents ever.

It is our biases that make people vote for a guy like Harding or initially support guys like Jack. They impress us with short appearances of brilliance, yet disappoint us with their true mediocrity. Sometimes, this bias isn't even conscious. Gladwell tells of a test called the Implicit Association Test (IAT). The IAT provides the taker with a list of information like common names, for example. The objective is to go through the list as quickly as possible, assigning them to one of two lists, in this case, Male names or Female names. That is usually easy, until our biases come into play. Change the list to include jobs now. Make the categories Male and Career, and Female and Family. We generally still find it easy to slide words such as Entrepreneur and Capitalist to the Male/Career list and words such as Laundry and siblings to the Female/Family side. The real twist comes when we change the categories. Make the one Male & Family and the other Female and Career. Our biases are such that there is a difference in timing. It takes longer to categorize words. It may only be a few milliseconds, but we do have to stop to think. The harder we try to resist the bias, the more the delay. The key to making the best of thin-slicing is understanding our biases and being aware of how they can effect our decision making.

So, how do we overcome these biases? Gladwell suggests our first impressions and our biases are a product of our environment. He believes that if we alter our environment, we can alter our biases. He tells the story of one student who took the IAT day after day trying to improve his scores. This was a racial IAT and not that the student was particularly prejudiced against blacks, but he tried and tried to change his scores. One day, there was a dramatic difference. Assessing his environment, the student realized that just before he took the IAT, he had been watching the Olympic Track and Field events where black athletes had been presented in a very positive light. The unconscious associations that we all have, had been altered. We can change our biases by altering our environment.

Did Barack Obama repeat the Harding victory? Did he understand this dark side of thin-slicing and exploit it? With sound bites and spreading news through "Tweets" is our society more or less susceptible to the dark side?

Can we alter our biases as Gladwell suggests?

In an educational environment, how does this effect the way we teach? How does it effect the way we learn?

The Locked Door

"You want fries with that?" I have worked in fast food and suggestive selling is an art. Chris is a master of the art. I never heard him ask that question, nor even anything like it. He talks to the customer. He engages them and converses with them. He's their friend in a matter of seconds and suddenly he says, "You know what is great with that sandwich?" and the customer is begging for his recommendations. "Ahhh! It's a hot day and ya gotta have a sweet tea to wash that down with!" Rarely does Chris ask if you want to buy something. He pays attention to the customers and suggests things they are unconsciously saying they want. To the lady who is complaining about her diet and eating a grilled chicken sandwich instead of fried, he tells her how good the side salads are and suddenly she needs one….(for a buck-fifty!) and while you're at it, how about some lettuce and tomato on that sandwich… it's guilt free! (and $.45!) To the guy who is tired of shopping with his wife all day, he "rewards" him with a piece of cheesecake (for $1.89!). He primes them and his check average is consistently 10-15% higher than anyone else's.

Priming can help us touch the adaptive unconscious. Glad well tells of an experiment conducted by Norman R.F. Maier. In the experiment, he hung two ropes from the ceiling of a large room. They were too far apart for a person to hold one and still reach the other. The room was also filled with other objects such as furniture, tools, etc. The objective for the subjects was to figure the four ways to get the ends of the rope close enough to tie together. Three solutions generally came quickly. One was to extend one rope with another rope or extension cord. One was to pull one rope as far as it would go, then anchor it while you went and got the other. The third option was to hold one rope and reach for the other with some type of extension of your arm such as a rake or pole. Only a few figured out the fourth option – to swing one rope like a pendulum, then grab the other rope. Maier would let them think for ten minutes or so, then casually walk across the room and "accidently" brush against one rope setting it in motion. Suddenly, the fourth answer came to people. When asked how they finally figured out that last elusive solution, only one could say that it was because he hit the rope. According to Gladwell, one psychology professor said that he imagined monkeys swinging in the trees and "The imagery appeared simultaneously with the solution. The idea appeared complete." (Gladwell, 2005, p. 70). The fact that Maier gave him a hint didn't eve occur to him. To the rest, it just suddenly came to them as some sort of revelation. "Were these people lying?" Gladwell asks. The thing is that Maier touched them in the unconscious level. He just reached through the locked door subtly enough that they were not even aware that he gave them a hint. He primed them.

Gladwell also tells of another very interesting experiment. Two experimenters took 20 questions from the GRE and tested several black college students. The group who was asked to identify their race on the pre-exam questionnaire (and that was the only difference) scored about half as well as those who were not asked the race question. The simple act of identifying their race was subtle enough to stir up the negative stereotypes. Two Dutch experimenters gave 42 Trivial Pursuit questions to two groups of students. One group was asked to think of what it might be like to be a professor at the university. The other group was asked to think about soccer hooligans. The professor group got 55.6% of the questions right while the soccer hooligans only scored 42.6%. It is simply the frame of mind.

The results of these experiments are, as Gladwell points out, quite disturbing. So what do they show us about the unconscious aspects of our thoughts? That we are open to priming and outside influences? Perhaps, but Gladwell sees something else; and that is that our unconscious can act very independently. It is constantly helping us make decisions while our conscious thought is busy with the affairs of life. Asking if you want fries makes it a conscious decision and generally people will say "no". Chris touches the unconscious thoughts and lets them make the decision there. Gladwell calls the unconscious mind a "mental valet" that takes care of the minor mental details. He concludes that "Sometimes we are better off if the mind behind the locked door makes our decisions for us." In the Maier experiment, Gladwell notes, the people weren't stupid. Their conscious mind was blocked, but the unconscious was busy solving the problem. All it took was a little prompting for the valet to guide them to the solution.

Hmmm… My conscious mind has been busy thinking about Blink! I finally got this done and yet, for some reason, I think I deserve a piece of cheesecake. Maybe I can find a couple bucks in the cushions of the couch. Dang! Where's Chris? He's at it again!!

The Theory of Thin Slices

My son moved out this week.  He has just been back from his Air Force training for about a week and a half.  He said one morning that he wanted to move out and by that evening, had decided upon a place to rent and was packing his things. It’s nothing personal.  He’s 22 years old and wants his freedom.  I understand that.  What I can’t understand is how he decided to do it and actually found a place in one day.  I would have taken weeks analyzing the pros and cons of each prospect.  

Malcolm Gladwell has an explanation.  He calls it the theory of thin slices.  In Chapter One, Gladwell lays a solid foundation for his theory.  He relates how in one study at the University of Iowa, subjects were given four decks of cards: two red and two blue.  As the subject turns a card over, they either add money to their pool, or lose money.  Of course the objective is to win as much money as you can.  The twist is that although the rewards are occasionally high, the losses in the red decks are very high.  You can only win by selecting cards from the blue decks.  They discovered that after 50 cards, most people start to develop a hunch.  They can’t define it yet, but they prefer the blue decks.  Most people have it figured out and can articulate it at about eighty cards.  That is the learning curve.

The scientists at Iowa also hooked the subjects to instruments that measured the activity in the sweat glands in the palms of their hands.  That is where they realized something very interesting.  They found that the subjects generated stress responses to the red decks by the tenth card.  Gladwell goes on to lay a very convincing argument for what he calls the “adaptive unconscious”.  He believes that we make unconscious (not sub-conscious) decisions based on small bits of information, while consciously we clamor for more information to make a decision.  

Gladwell argues that we can cut through the chase by focusing on certain bits of information that he calls “thin slices”.  Gladwell tells the story of John Gottman at the University of Washington who, by studying thousands of couples can predict with a very high level of accuracy, those couples who will end in divorce.  He watches just a few video taped moments of seeming innocuous dialog.  I won’t divulge the method (go buy the book!) but it is quite interesting.

I teased my wife about her low fat/low carb bread.  I said, “It only has less fat and carbs, because it is thinner slices.”  She shot back that there is just enough bread to do the job.  I can’t argue.  Why do we need more?  My son decided where to move very quickly.  Yes, it could turn out that he is rash and prone to hasty decisions, but in reality, he is usually right.  Is it possible that we can learn to make decisions by focusing on “thin slices” of data?  Can it be that, like my wife’s bread, thinner slices are just enough to do the job?  If so, how do we determine what are the correct slices to focus in on?  

If it is true, how did we get stuck on making conscious decisions based on a glut of information?

Just something to think about… and while you do, I think I’ll go make a sandwich.  Hmmmm!?  Thin or thick slices of bread?  I think thin is just enough…

In the beginning…

 

I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work, the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no ‘brief candle’ to me. It is sort of a splendid torch which I have a hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it over to future generations.

- George Bernard Shaw

They say that all good things must come to an end, but before they end, they have to start somewhere.  This is where my blog starts.  Yes, I am doing this because I have to for a class, but I think it is also a good idea, so somewhere inside me, I really want to do this.  Of course, my first thought is why would anyone want to read my thoughts?  I believe that we all have something to offer and I hope that you, dear reader find something of use in my thoughts.  I am not sure, here at the outset, where this will go.  I like to write and hope that someone finds usefulness in my ramblings.  I tend to think out loud and find my thoughts and theories gelling as I write.  Of course, my first goal is to get an A in EDAE 692 by posting my thoughts on Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, but in the end, I hope to pass on the torch…

Why this book?  Why now?  I was looking for several of the books on the reading list, and striking out at the local Barnes & Nobel.  I was drawn to the Psychology section of the bookstore because, as an adult educator, I am really intrigued by the psychology of learning and as a leader, I am intrigued by the psychology of the organization.  There, a little paperback called What the Dog Saw caught my eye.  In the Preface, Gladwell wrote, "You don't start at the top if you want to find the story. You start in the middle, because it's the people in the middle who do the actual work in the world."  That thought resonated with me.  I have always believed in “the Middle”.  I checked the list and that book wasn’t there, but 3 others by Gladwell were.  Excited, I picked up The Tipping Point.  I perused it and found it as compelling as Dog.  Next, I picked up Blink.

The back cover talked about how Gladwell redefined the way we understand the world around us in The Tipping Point.  “In Blink, he revolutionizes the way we understand the world within.”  In the back of the book is a Reader’s Guide, a notion that in and of itself I think is brilliant, but in that guide Gladwell says that Blink is about “two seconds”.  Two seconds in which we draw conclusions. Two seconds to decide.  He talks about intuition, but says Blink is more about rational thinking as opposed to intuition. 

I am at a point in my life where those two seconds are crucial.  I don't have time to waste and need to focus on the quick decisions.  I want... nay, need to understand the "world within."  

As I read this book over the next few weeks, I hope you’ll join me on the journey and hopefully somewhere along the way we’ll light some torches in this dark world.

Dave

References

Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink. New York: Little, Brown and Company

Gladwell, M. (2009). What the dog saw. New York: Little, Brown and Company