Remember when you were a kid, say around junior high age, because that is really the age for the behavior Im about to describe. You'de be sitting in the lunch room, or at a social gathering of some kind, feeling perhaps unsure about yourself, because lets face it who didn't back then. Whether you were a boy or girl time you always took the time to make sure that you looked just right so that you would fit in. Fitting in was important back then. Safety in numbers phase of life.
Then, just when you are probably feeling your most insecure, you wore the wrong jeans, your hair didn't turn out right, or horror of horrors you got a zit, someone, usually the kid percieved as most popular, leans over to another kid, usually the little boy or girl you have a crush on, and whispers something. They both look at you and laugh then proceed to spread the secret. What is that old line? Secrets don't make friends?
Time passess, we all grow up, and for the most part now have learned and know better. We may look at our boss who has the HUGE mole on his nose and think," holy cow dude get that thing burned off!" But we most certainly don't say it out loud, or even let him know, to the best of our ability, that, that is what we are thinking. We learn with age to consider other peoples feelings. Or do we?
I previously wrote a blog on an encounter I had at a gathering where just that took place. (not the mole thing the secret thing.) This gave me little thought, because, as I mention often, I am always shocked by bad manners, and injustices. Then it hit me one day, Ive seen this behavior before! Ive seen it among my friends, and even in myself from time to time. Ill be sitting in class when a classmate will pass me a piece of paper with an OMG on it; after listening to someone in class go on and on about how a personal matter relates to what we are learning. (and not in an interesting, thank you for sharing that with us, kinda way.) Why do we do this?
This is what I think. When we are entering adolescence we are learning some crucial social skills, and critical thinking skills, that help us adapt and survive in the real world. That world, which until up to that time, we have been mostly shielded by, by our caregivers. (Yes some caregivers are better at it then others.) The first time that a kid uses this, lets call it, "secret" behavior they realize that their is a certain amount of power behind it. (and for the record they probably have been watching this behavior at home for a very long time.) They have controlled someone elses behavior; and considering that human nature leans towards the negative, well a monster has been born. Some of us grow out of it and are able to distinguish the difference between a secret that will hurt, and one that doesn't. Although, technically, I don't believe that most secrets don't hurt in one way or another. Usually secrets are made, and kept from someone, and as soon as that someone finds out, and they always do, they are hurt and/or angry. So why do adults, who are supposedly suppose to know better, still do this?
I know two people, one a man by the way, who at almost every social gathering sit by each other and whisper things in each others ears. Really? (throwing my hands up in the air while saying really) I mean why? The female was, and still is, married to someone else, everyone knows these two people are close friends; so it is acutally no secret to any of us that they probably share personal things with each other that they don't with others. Regardlessof all this understanding they still feel the need to use this behavior. What they succeed in doing is making everyone, and I mean everyone, in the room uncomfortable. Ah ha! There it is, and here come the deffinitions.
Uncomfortable means causing discomfort or distress; uneasy, conscious of stress or strain. Secret is done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others; hidden,, or concealed. Well they totally blew the secret portion out of the water, it was not concealed from anyone; but it sure as shit caused stress and discomfort. When I understood this it was suddenly easy to feel empathy towards them, and others who have engaged in this same behavior, and shame in myself. The act of whispering to each other showed how uncomfortable they were in that social situation; so they uncounsciously set about makeing everyone else in the same room feel the same way. These people are the same people who will, and have, engaged in gossip, another ploy to make themselves feel more in control in situations where they are not.
Here's the pith of the matter. I have no real answer's for how to deal with these kinds of people. I am still dealing with a confusion, and lets face it hurt, over some of it myself. I think that the trick is to not be intimidated by them. Feeling hurt is ok, because it is an appropriate feeling in these types of situations. Respond, don't react, reacting in anger always seems to make them think they have some how won, its like smelling fear, and their sense of smell seems to be very well tuned, like dogs. (sorry couldn't help that) Have confidence in yourself; and this last final thought.
Secrets are not the same as privacy. Privacy is the state of being free from intusion or disturbance in one's private affairs; EVERYONE has this right. When someone gossips that right has been stolen from someone; when someone uses "secret" behavior, the right to privacy has been disrespected. I think I have also figured something else out about human nature. Most people, when they don't understand something, or someone, will start abusing it. (Take the dog sentance for instance.) Different cultures abuse each other, different religions, etc. etc. It is so easy to abuse something we don't understand then try to find out about it. If you add in that someone wants privacy, and doesn't share aspects of their life, usually for a good reason, then that abusive "secret" behavior is easy, and perhaps almost necessary, for some, to use.
So what have I learned? When I find myself engageing in "secret" behavior I always stop myself now and ask,"what is making me so uncomfortable about this?" Then I usually find myself getting to know someone better, or immersing myself in an unfamiliar environment, until I feel comfortable. The point being, Im not perfect, none of us are, perhaps it is human nature, a defense mechanism, to do some of these things for our own protection. It does not make it right however! For some it is a bad habit that we want to change; for others it is a life style. The next time you find yourself in this situation don't storm out of the room screaming, "SECRETS DON"T MAKE FRIENDS!" and then immedialtely call someone who will listen to your "secret" behavior. Instead, stand up quietly, smile at them, turn your back decisivly on the bad behavior, and close the door quietly as you hold your head up high while leaving the room. (Then go home and blog about it where they whole world can benefit from your experience. :P (hopefully)
"To be nobody but myself-in a world which is doing its best...to make you everybody else-means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight, and never stop fighting." -E.E. Cummings
The dragon thunders in the sky with the sound of compassion that awakens us from delusion and increases what we can know through hearing. Dragons have the power of complete communication. Just as we do not see sound, we do not see dragons-at least not usually. Displaying a dragon banner is said to protect one from slander and enhances one's reputation. Associations: main quality is power, dominance over the sea, and water element.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Get Your Drugs Here
I heard a surpriseing and disturbing statistic the other day. Florida supplies 85% of all illegal pills in the United States. Congratulations fellow Floridians we are the number one drug pushers of pills in the United States! To tell you the truth Im not sure how accurate this number is, but it seems to be out there, and people are talking about it and giving us a bad name. Although I think we personally deserve it.
I don't know too much about the statistics, but I am familiar with how pills have effected my life. I use to be a Support Worker for a more well known and reputable Social Service agency. (until budget cuts...thank you Obama) My job was to go into homes and help parents be better parents. Many times the children had been removed from the home due to a variety of obvious reasons which are obvious and I don't think I need to write about. Surprised you will not be when I do tell you that many of these clients had addictions. The majority of them were not addicted to alcohol, or the high end drugs like heroine. The two biggy's were crack and pills. Pills were number one. Every single pill that these people had lost their children over, had their familys destroyed and their world turned upside down, had to be prescribed by a doctor. Who the hell is the doctor(s) writing out these prescirptions for gods sake? I thought these people were suppose to be looking out for our best interest and health?
Oh I know people can put on a good act. Chronic back pain, surgical issues that never have seemed to clear up, gall stones, kidney stones, arthritis, the list goes on and on. I personally know people, who still have custody of their children and are holding down good jobs who have been taking pain medications, in one form or another for over four years. Now I understand the concept of pain maintenance by use of medications and the benefits of it, and beleive their are people who genuinly need it. But some of these peoples pain does not fall under that catagory and it is those people who are giving Florida a bad name.
Once again I need to ask. WHEN did we become a nation of people who seem to be unable to cope? And which generation started all this bullshit? 85% is pretty horrifying. Our children, you know the generation that will take care of us in our old age, is growing up with that number. They are being raised by people who encourage and support that number.
There is some startling information out there on study's done on placebos. People in these study's were given sugar pills, told they were a variety of things (depending on the study) any where from pain meds, to anti anxiety meds, anti depressants, sexual enhancement drugs, etc. etc. In EVERY study the effects of the placebo were GREATER and more positive than the actual medication. We have become a nation of drug dependant people. If I were another nation I would be keeping my eye on that, it could prove to be useful in some way.
Time for us to take a stand and speak up. From what I understand Florida legislature has been attempting to reign in some of this out of control and irresponsible pill usage, but our great and wonderful Govenor, for what ever reason, has been vetoing it? WTF!! Florida is not full of retired people who need pain medications, and the doctors seem to be unable to keep track of what they are prescribeing to whom when.
I have included an interesting websites on the topic. Check them out.
http://www.gwenolsen.com/?page_id=391
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/health/os-prescription-drugs-whats-next-20110614,0,7129783.story
I don't know too much about the statistics, but I am familiar with how pills have effected my life. I use to be a Support Worker for a more well known and reputable Social Service agency. (until budget cuts...thank you Obama) My job was to go into homes and help parents be better parents. Many times the children had been removed from the home due to a variety of obvious reasons which are obvious and I don't think I need to write about. Surprised you will not be when I do tell you that many of these clients had addictions. The majority of them were not addicted to alcohol, or the high end drugs like heroine. The two biggy's were crack and pills. Pills were number one. Every single pill that these people had lost their children over, had their familys destroyed and their world turned upside down, had to be prescribed by a doctor. Who the hell is the doctor(s) writing out these prescirptions for gods sake? I thought these people were suppose to be looking out for our best interest and health?
Oh I know people can put on a good act. Chronic back pain, surgical issues that never have seemed to clear up, gall stones, kidney stones, arthritis, the list goes on and on. I personally know people, who still have custody of their children and are holding down good jobs who have been taking pain medications, in one form or another for over four years. Now I understand the concept of pain maintenance by use of medications and the benefits of it, and beleive their are people who genuinly need it. But some of these peoples pain does not fall under that catagory and it is those people who are giving Florida a bad name.
Once again I need to ask. WHEN did we become a nation of people who seem to be unable to cope? And which generation started all this bullshit? 85% is pretty horrifying. Our children, you know the generation that will take care of us in our old age, is growing up with that number. They are being raised by people who encourage and support that number.
There is some startling information out there on study's done on placebos. People in these study's were given sugar pills, told they were a variety of things (depending on the study) any where from pain meds, to anti anxiety meds, anti depressants, sexual enhancement drugs, etc. etc. In EVERY study the effects of the placebo were GREATER and more positive than the actual medication. We have become a nation of drug dependant people. If I were another nation I would be keeping my eye on that, it could prove to be useful in some way.
Time for us to take a stand and speak up. From what I understand Florida legislature has been attempting to reign in some of this out of control and irresponsible pill usage, but our great and wonderful Govenor, for what ever reason, has been vetoing it? WTF!! Florida is not full of retired people who need pain medications, and the doctors seem to be unable to keep track of what they are prescribeing to whom when.
I have included an interesting websites on the topic. Check them out.
http://www.gwenolsen.com/?page_id=391
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/health/os-prescription-drugs-whats-next-20110614,0,7129783.story
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The Chico Marx Paradox
"Such a set of tittle tattle, prittle prattle visitants!..."
I recently was invited to an aquaintances house for a girls day. This person said to me, when she called with the invitation, "Im having some people over and really want you to be there." That was it...no details about what we would be doing, even when asked. When some one presents you with an invitation of this kind be wary, their is a hidden agenda. I was excited, even though the invitation was vague. I havn't socialized with this person in months. So with happy anticipation I cleared my calander and made arrangements to drive, with another friend who was invited, 30 miles to this persons home. Upon arrival, surprise surprise, I was greeted with not one, but two people setting up for demonstations to sell things. I was disappointed, and probably should have left immediateley, but decided to make the best of the day. Free food and drink, new people to meet, it would be fine. All in all, dispite the distortion of what would actually be taking place that day, I had a good time and did meet a couple of interesting people who inhanced my life and I had a learning opportunity. On top of this person misleading me, I was also confronted with another social situation which got me to thinking.
While sitting in the kitchen and listening to a very nice woman talk about some great coffee I heard someone ask my aquaintance, while looking directly at me, "who is that?" This aquaintance started off politely saying my name. Then the woman asking whispered something, which they both laughed at, in a less than humorous way. Blah...While it doesn't bother me that they were more than likely saying somehting less than complimentary it does bother me that people seem to feel the need to behave this way? I mean why? What is the purpose? So, once again, I set out to answer my questons.
Gossip is to talk idly, especially about the affairs of others; to go about tattling. It is also light, familiar talk or writing; or a rumor. Tattle is to let out secrets. Secrets are done without the knowledge of others and should be kept by people who are considered to be faithful, or cautious, in keeping confidential matters. Finally, idle is not spent or filled with activity, it is doing nothing. Reading these deffinitions gossip should technically not be considered to be as damageing as it can be. It is practiced by people with nothing better to do and who are supposedly saying nothing of any real importance. So where does it go wrong?
It goes wrong when judgement is involved. Judgement is the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action; good sense; and/or discretion. Aha! What if the gossiper has none of these? Better yet, what if the person on the recieving end of the gossip has none of these? Then the information being shared is percieved as biased and prejudiced. Someone has related information that is to cause partiality or favortism. The persons goal is to influence, selfishly and especially unfairly. They have perceived a difference. Perception is different from observation. Perception involves the senses. The senses can by altered and depending on what is altering them can become unreliable. Observation is watching someone or something. I don't think that either of these can work alone. Observation alone takes out individuality; and perception alone ends up not being factual.
I observed someone say my name, a whisper, than laughter of an unhumorous kind. The perception I held was that, for what ever reason, this stranger felt the need to say something derogratory about me. I sensed that, some how, I was a threat. I observed the looks on their faces, the rolling of eyes and the smirks. I could have reacted, I choose not to. I did not percieve this as a threat, only a nuisance. It gave me no feelings of anger or anxiety, only sorrow and pity. This party crasher did not and still doesn't know me. Because of my perception and observation the chances of myself having her get to know me, in the future, is slim to none. Worse yet, and saddly so, because of my aquaintances interaction in the whole thing she will never be anything more than an aquaintance.
The following is an article written on gossip that I think explains what I am trying to get across.
Until now, I was firmly pro-gossip. I welcomed the theory that gossip was the reason language developed. I cheered on researchers who believed gossip was the great evolutionary leap that enabled human apes to live peacefully in large groups, develop moral codes, build civilizations and, eventually, sell supermarket tabloids.
The researchers set out to test the power of gossip, which has been exalted by theorists in recent decades. Language, according to the anthropologist Robin Dunbar, evolved because gossip is a more efficient version of the “social grooming” essential for animals to live in groups.
Apes and other creatures solidify their social bonds by cleaning and stroking one another, but the size of the group is limited because there’s not enough time in the day to groom a large number of animals.
Speech enabled humans to bond with lots of people while going about their hunting and gathering. Instead of spending hours untangling hair, they could bond with friendly conversation (“Your hair looks so unmatted today!”) or by picking apart someone else’s behavior (“Yeah, he was supposed to share the wildebeest, but I heard he kept both haunches”).
Gossip also told people whom to trust, and the prospect of a bad reputation discouraged them from acting selfishly, so large groups could peacefully cooperate. At least, that was the theory: gossip promoted the “indirect reciprocity” that made human society possible.
To test it, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology and the University of Vienna gave 10 Euros apiece to 126 students and had them play a game that put them in a dilemma. On each turn, the players would be paired off, and one of them was offered a chance to give 1.25 Euros to the other. If he agreed, the researchers added a bonus of .75 Euro so that the recipient ended up gaining 2 Euros.
If the first player refused to give the money, he’d save 1.25 Euros, but if others found out about his miserliness they might later withhold money from him. As the game progressed, with the players changing partners frequently and alternating between the donor and recipient roles, the players were given information about their partners’ past decisions.
Sometimes the donor was shown a record of what the partner had done previously while playing the donor role. The more generous this partner had earlier been toward other players, the more likely the donor was to give him something.
Sometimes the donor was shown gossip about the partner from another player. When the partner was paid a compliment like “spendabler spieler!” — generous player! — the donor was more likely to give money. But the donor turned stingy when he saw gossip like “übler geizkragen” — nasty miser.
So far, so good. As predicted, gossip promoted indirect reciprocity. The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed that most people passed on accurate gossip and used it for the common good. They rewarded cooperative behavior even when they themselves weren’t directly affected by the behavior.
If a cooperation game like this was played without consequences for the players’ reputations — as has been done in other experiments — most players would be miserly, and cooperation would collapse. In this experiment they were generous most of the time, and on average ended up with twice as much money as they had at the beginning of the game.
But here’s the disconcerting news from the experiment. In a couple of rounds, each donor was given both hard facts and gossip. He was given a record of how his partner had behaved previously as well as some gossip — positive gossip in one round, negative in another.
The donor was told that the source of the gossip didn’t have any extra information beyond what the donor could already see for himself. Yet the gossip, whether positive or negative, still had a big influence on the donors’ decisions, and it didn’t even matter if the source of the gossip had a good reputation himself. On average, cooperation increased by about 20 percent if the gossip was good, and fell by 20 percent if the gossip was negative.
Now, you might think the gossip mattered just in borderline cases — when the partner had a mixed record of generosity, and the donor welcomed outside guidance in making a tough decision. But the gossip had an impact in other situations, too. Even when a player saw that his partner had a record of consistent meanness, he could be swayed by positive gossip to reward the partner anyway. Or withhold help from a perfectly nice partner just on the basis of malicious buzz.
This result may come as no shock to fans of “Gossip Girl,” or to publicists trying to plant items in Page Six about the charitable works of despicable clients. But it seemed surprising to the researchers, according to the lead author, Ralf D. Sommerfeld of the Max Planck Institute.
“If you know you already have the full information about someone,” he said, “rationally you shouldn’t care so much what someone else says.”
So why do we? “It could be,” he suggested, “that we are just more adapted to listen to other information than to observe people, because most of the time we’re not able to observe how other people are behaving. Thus we might believe we have missed something.”
This makes a certain sense, but I still wonder if evolution has taken a Chico Marxist turn here. In “Duck Soup,” Chico tries to pass himself off as Groucho’s character, complete with moustache and cigar, but encounters a skeptical Margaret Dumont, who protests that she just saw Groucho leave the room.
“Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” Chico asks.
Now, at last, we know the answer.
I could go into detail now about the many different cultures, faiths, and races attending this gathering. But the pith of the matter is that once upon a time a gathering of this sorts would never have taken place and how much progress we have actually made as a society and culture. I am always shocked and saddened when I am confronted with someone who carry's around anger, hostility, and disregard for other humans. I think it shows a basic disrespect for themselves and a underlying lack of self confidence. I am also going to restate by usual rant. How much better life would be if we all tried just a little bit harder to say nice things to each other.
Being kind to people has been proven to reduce stress. Being optimistic has been proven to reduce stress. Being non-judgemental; but more importantly not feeling judged, has been proven to reduce stress. Perhaps we should, along with being more kind to ourselves and each other, should also take time to observe each other. I go to the library twice a week. On one of these visits a young, heavy set man came up and started talking to me about movies. What kind did I like? What did I mean by old and how old? At first my normal reaction was to be cautious and standoffish. But then I stopped myself. I looked at this young man closly and looked him right in the eyes. I remembered that he had been talking to many library patrons. He usually hangs out by the movies. He never met my eyes, he was shy, but was kind. When I did look in his eyes, at the structure of his face, and payed closer attention to his speech and words; it was clear that his developmental age was not the same as his chronological age. I spent a half hour talking with this young man and he helped me pick out some great movies, including the Green Hornet series, which I would not have found if it had not been for him. I left the library feeling very destressed and I hoped he did too. Judgement, perception, observation.
Now, "who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"
I recently was invited to an aquaintances house for a girls day. This person said to me, when she called with the invitation, "Im having some people over and really want you to be there." That was it...no details about what we would be doing, even when asked. When some one presents you with an invitation of this kind be wary, their is a hidden agenda. I was excited, even though the invitation was vague. I havn't socialized with this person in months. So with happy anticipation I cleared my calander and made arrangements to drive, with another friend who was invited, 30 miles to this persons home. Upon arrival, surprise surprise, I was greeted with not one, but two people setting up for demonstations to sell things. I was disappointed, and probably should have left immediateley, but decided to make the best of the day. Free food and drink, new people to meet, it would be fine. All in all, dispite the distortion of what would actually be taking place that day, I had a good time and did meet a couple of interesting people who inhanced my life and I had a learning opportunity. On top of this person misleading me, I was also confronted with another social situation which got me to thinking.
While sitting in the kitchen and listening to a very nice woman talk about some great coffee I heard someone ask my aquaintance, while looking directly at me, "who is that?" This aquaintance started off politely saying my name. Then the woman asking whispered something, which they both laughed at, in a less than humorous way. Blah...While it doesn't bother me that they were more than likely saying somehting less than complimentary it does bother me that people seem to feel the need to behave this way? I mean why? What is the purpose? So, once again, I set out to answer my questons.
Gossip is to talk idly, especially about the affairs of others; to go about tattling. It is also light, familiar talk or writing; or a rumor. Tattle is to let out secrets. Secrets are done without the knowledge of others and should be kept by people who are considered to be faithful, or cautious, in keeping confidential matters. Finally, idle is not spent or filled with activity, it is doing nothing. Reading these deffinitions gossip should technically not be considered to be as damageing as it can be. It is practiced by people with nothing better to do and who are supposedly saying nothing of any real importance. So where does it go wrong?
It goes wrong when judgement is involved. Judgement is the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action; good sense; and/or discretion. Aha! What if the gossiper has none of these? Better yet, what if the person on the recieving end of the gossip has none of these? Then the information being shared is percieved as biased and prejudiced. Someone has related information that is to cause partiality or favortism. The persons goal is to influence, selfishly and especially unfairly. They have perceived a difference. Perception is different from observation. Perception involves the senses. The senses can by altered and depending on what is altering them can become unreliable. Observation is watching someone or something. I don't think that either of these can work alone. Observation alone takes out individuality; and perception alone ends up not being factual.
I observed someone say my name, a whisper, than laughter of an unhumorous kind. The perception I held was that, for what ever reason, this stranger felt the need to say something derogratory about me. I sensed that, some how, I was a threat. I observed the looks on their faces, the rolling of eyes and the smirks. I could have reacted, I choose not to. I did not percieve this as a threat, only a nuisance. It gave me no feelings of anger or anxiety, only sorrow and pity. This party crasher did not and still doesn't know me. Because of my perception and observation the chances of myself having her get to know me, in the future, is slim to none. Worse yet, and saddly so, because of my aquaintances interaction in the whole thing she will never be anything more than an aquaintance.
The following is an article written on gossip that I think explains what I am trying to get across.
Facts Prove No Match for Gossip, It Seems
But now I wonder if we’ve leaped too far, and it’s not because I’ve been watching “Gossip Girl.” In a paper on gossip published yesterday, evolutionary biologists in Germany and Austria have identified a vulnerability that might be called the Chico Marx Paradox, for reasons that will be clear once you hear about this experiment.
The researchers set out to test the power of gossip, which has been exalted by theorists in recent decades. Language, according to the anthropologist Robin Dunbar, evolved because gossip is a more efficient version of the “social grooming” essential for animals to live in groups.
Apes and other creatures solidify their social bonds by cleaning and stroking one another, but the size of the group is limited because there’s not enough time in the day to groom a large number of animals.
Speech enabled humans to bond with lots of people while going about their hunting and gathering. Instead of spending hours untangling hair, they could bond with friendly conversation (“Your hair looks so unmatted today!”) or by picking apart someone else’s behavior (“Yeah, he was supposed to share the wildebeest, but I heard he kept both haunches”).
Gossip also told people whom to trust, and the prospect of a bad reputation discouraged them from acting selfishly, so large groups could peacefully cooperate. At least, that was the theory: gossip promoted the “indirect reciprocity” that made human society possible.
To test it, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology and the University of Vienna gave 10 Euros apiece to 126 students and had them play a game that put them in a dilemma. On each turn, the players would be paired off, and one of them was offered a chance to give 1.25 Euros to the other. If he agreed, the researchers added a bonus of .75 Euro so that the recipient ended up gaining 2 Euros.
If the first player refused to give the money, he’d save 1.25 Euros, but if others found out about his miserliness they might later withhold money from him. As the game progressed, with the players changing partners frequently and alternating between the donor and recipient roles, the players were given information about their partners’ past decisions.
Sometimes the donor was shown a record of what the partner had done previously while playing the donor role. The more generous this partner had earlier been toward other players, the more likely the donor was to give him something.
Sometimes the donor was shown gossip about the partner from another player. When the partner was paid a compliment like “spendabler spieler!” — generous player! — the donor was more likely to give money. But the donor turned stingy when he saw gossip like “übler geizkragen” — nasty miser.
So far, so good. As predicted, gossip promoted indirect reciprocity. The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed that most people passed on accurate gossip and used it for the common good. They rewarded cooperative behavior even when they themselves weren’t directly affected by the behavior.
If a cooperation game like this was played without consequences for the players’ reputations — as has been done in other experiments — most players would be miserly, and cooperation would collapse. In this experiment they were generous most of the time, and on average ended up with twice as much money as they had at the beginning of the game.
But here’s the disconcerting news from the experiment. In a couple of rounds, each donor was given both hard facts and gossip. He was given a record of how his partner had behaved previously as well as some gossip — positive gossip in one round, negative in another.
The donor was told that the source of the gossip didn’t have any extra information beyond what the donor could already see for himself. Yet the gossip, whether positive or negative, still had a big influence on the donors’ decisions, and it didn’t even matter if the source of the gossip had a good reputation himself. On average, cooperation increased by about 20 percent if the gossip was good, and fell by 20 percent if the gossip was negative.
Now, you might think the gossip mattered just in borderline cases — when the partner had a mixed record of generosity, and the donor welcomed outside guidance in making a tough decision. But the gossip had an impact in other situations, too. Even when a player saw that his partner had a record of consistent meanness, he could be swayed by positive gossip to reward the partner anyway. Or withhold help from a perfectly nice partner just on the basis of malicious buzz.
This result may come as no shock to fans of “Gossip Girl,” or to publicists trying to plant items in Page Six about the charitable works of despicable clients. But it seemed surprising to the researchers, according to the lead author, Ralf D. Sommerfeld of the Max Planck Institute.
“If you know you already have the full information about someone,” he said, “rationally you shouldn’t care so much what someone else says.”
So why do we? “It could be,” he suggested, “that we are just more adapted to listen to other information than to observe people, because most of the time we’re not able to observe how other people are behaving. Thus we might believe we have missed something.”
This makes a certain sense, but I still wonder if evolution has taken a Chico Marxist turn here. In “Duck Soup,” Chico tries to pass himself off as Groucho’s character, complete with moustache and cigar, but encounters a skeptical Margaret Dumont, who protests that she just saw Groucho leave the room.
“Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” Chico asks.
Now, at last, we know the answer.
I could go into detail now about the many different cultures, faiths, and races attending this gathering. But the pith of the matter is that once upon a time a gathering of this sorts would never have taken place and how much progress we have actually made as a society and culture. I am always shocked and saddened when I am confronted with someone who carry's around anger, hostility, and disregard for other humans. I think it shows a basic disrespect for themselves and a underlying lack of self confidence. I am also going to restate by usual rant. How much better life would be if we all tried just a little bit harder to say nice things to each other.
Being kind to people has been proven to reduce stress. Being optimistic has been proven to reduce stress. Being non-judgemental; but more importantly not feeling judged, has been proven to reduce stress. Perhaps we should, along with being more kind to ourselves and each other, should also take time to observe each other. I go to the library twice a week. On one of these visits a young, heavy set man came up and started talking to me about movies. What kind did I like? What did I mean by old and how old? At first my normal reaction was to be cautious and standoffish. But then I stopped myself. I looked at this young man closly and looked him right in the eyes. I remembered that he had been talking to many library patrons. He usually hangs out by the movies. He never met my eyes, he was shy, but was kind. When I did look in his eyes, at the structure of his face, and payed closer attention to his speech and words; it was clear that his developmental age was not the same as his chronological age. I spent a half hour talking with this young man and he helped me pick out some great movies, including the Green Hornet series, which I would not have found if it had not been for him. I left the library feeling very destressed and I hoped he did too. Judgement, perception, observation.
Now, "who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)