Map of Emotional Manifestations in the Body

 

Across cultures, people feel increased activity in different parts of the body as their mental state changes. 

"A new study by Finnish researchers published today [Dec 30, 2013] in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, suggests that our emotions do indeed tend to influence our bodies in consistent ways."

"It's worth noting that the bodily sensations weren't blood flow, heat, or anything else that could be measured objectively—they were based solely on physical twinges subjects said they experienced."

Excerpts are from an article by Olga Khazan which was published in The Atlantic on December 30, 2013 and accessed January 29, 2021 from https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/mapping-how-emotions-manifest-in-the-body/282713/. 

I spotted the colorful graphic in the Facebook Story of a friend and fellow veteran who shares my interest in a range of health issues. Searching for the original source, I saw that it had already been re-shared multiple times--and rightly so. Hat Tip to Keith Toy, aka Buzz Lightyear. 

The 10 Happiest Cities in America

Erik Gordon, the owner of Carabiner Coffee, serves climbers from a vintage Volkswagen van at Castle Rock, just a 20-minute drive from Boulder. Happiness for many of the city’s residents arises from its small-town character and its close proximity to nearby mountains. PHOTOGRAPH BY MATTHIEU PALEY for NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

According to new research by Dan Buettner and National Geographic, the 10 happiest cities in America are:

1. Boulder, Colorado
2. Santa Cruz, California
3. Charlottesville, Virginia
4. Fort Collins, Colorado
5. San Luis Obispo, California
6. San Jose, California 
7. Provo, Utah
8. Bridgeport, Connecticut
9. Barnstable Town, Massachusetts
10. Anchorage, Alaska

(You can find the list at NationalGeographic.com and in the cover story of the November issue of National Geographic magazine.)

I find "Happiness Research" fascinating. This blog is full of evidence of my interest in this topic. One thing I like about Buettner's approach is the distinction he draws between Positive Psychology (think mindfulness and gratitude journals), and more of a metrics-based approach.

Buettner, whose previous research has focused on longevity, admits that happiness is hard to define, let alone measure. One can, however, measure three things:

• life satisfaction, or how you evaluate your life as a whole; 
• positive affect, or your day-to-day, moment-to-moment happiness; and 
• purpose, or whether you feel you have meaning in your life.

Buettner calls these metrics Pride, Pleasure, and Purpose, and he says enduring happiness occurs when these three strands are braided together.

Read more about the happiest cities in America, according to new research, HERE 

The Pink Freud Matter: Today's Lesson in Critical Thinking

Have you seen this quote circulating on any of your social media sites?

Quote attributed to Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) 

Odds are good that you have seen this quote at least once. It showed up in my news feed again recently. This particular image has 1.2 million shares on just one Facebook site (Fb / The Idealist, as in "idea list"). There may be countless other individuals and groups circulating this same image via Facebook. It's on Twitter, too. And Pinterest. In short--it's everywhere.

Furthermore, plenty of creative people have entered their own versions of the meme into circulation. A simple Google search reveals a multitude of variations.

Not only have you probably seen this exact poster--or one very similar to it--but you may have even shared it with your friends and contributed to its popularity. Oh, we love the sardonic and heartfelt wisdom in the remark. And we'd love to ascribe such earthy wisdom to someone whose reputation validates our instinctive trust. Confirmation bias (the tendency to believe statements because they reinforce our previous understanding) makes it easy for us to accept the attribution to Freud without question--as millions of others have done.

However, the famous psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud is most certainly not the author of that quote. That's right, we've all been duped! Because ...

Freud never said those words!

Freud was a prolific writer. Many great quotes are legitimately attributed to him. The following links feature quotes gleaned from his writings. At best case, they are properly cited. As you read through them you will notice certain tonal qualities to them that reveal the context and content of Freud's thoughts. Yet no where will you find the "quote of the day."

• Notable Quotes
• WikiQuote
• GoodReads
• BrainyQuote
• A-Z Quotes

In Freud's day (the early 20th century), few educated people used offensive gutter terms like "assholes" in serious conversation. Apparently many others have questioned the language of this quote, because a simple search of the Internet turns up many variations of the quote of the day in which the offending term is replaced with something else.

• I found an "arseholes" version. (Born and educated in eastern Europe, Freud died in London. This term is common vernacular in England today, but was it used by an Austrian ex-pat in 1920?)
• There are many versions, still attributed to Freud, where the offending word is replaced with benign synonyms: "idiots," "bunch of jerks," or "mean people." 
• In one version, the offending word is not replaced but boldly over-written with "idiots." This edited version makes it clear that the person circulating the quote did not approve of "Dr. Freud's" language and wanted to substitute a more suitable term without breaking attribution. 
• Many of the modified quotes are shared anonymously, without attribution of any kind. 
• Perhaps my "favorite" version is the one published by Board of Wisdom (www.boardofwisdom.com) and credited to someone supposedly named Laura Rose. Neither the Board of Wisdom nor Laura Rose understand plagiarism.  

Nice try, Laura Rose! (If that is your real name.)

Laura Rose: Altering is not authoring!

So far, we've seen how the popular quote has been attributed to Freud without a shred of evidence and despite the inconsistency with his other, properly attributed quotes. We've seen how the language of the quote has been edited by a number of others, and even co-opted by at least one more would-be author. Turns out, Freud is not the only person people want to believe uttered these words. The quote has also been misattributed to  the award-winning science fiction author, William Gibson.

William Gibson (1948-present) did not say these words, either

Compare the Freud and Gibson versions and note the subtle difference in the last phrase: "...just surrounded by assholes," versus "...just surrounding yourself with assholes." The former is passive, and the latter is active. Unlike our friend Laura Rose, Gibson did not change a couple of words and pass the quote off as his own idea. Gibson merely re-tweeted--initially without attribution--something he saw and enjoyed. Others, seeing the Gibson imprimatur, were all too quick to ascribe his authorship and create posters such as the one above. But the fact is that Gibson not only did not write the quote, he has actively attempted to give credit to the (less famous) person he re-tweeted. Yet the misattribution to the more well-known writer persists.

The question of who authored the quote was put to Quote Investigator (http://quoteinvestigator.com) and researchers there scoured the Internet and written records for clues. They actually searched Freud's papers and contacted people such as William Gibson and asked questions. They found a tweet by @debihope published in 2010. When contacted, she said she just wrote what she felt after a bad breakup. The researchers failed to turn up any prior citations.

Based on current evidence, we conclude that Debbie Hope (Twitter handle @debihope) should be credited with composing this saying. The attribution to William Gibson (Twitter handle @GreatDismal) was based on a misunderstanding because he re-tweeted the remark. Gibson himself never tried to take credit for the quote, and attempted to credit Steven Winterburn (Twitter handle @5tevenW) from whom Gibson had re-tweeted the quote. Interestingly, Winterburn has claimed to be the originator, but his first use (May 24, 2011) was 16 months after that of Debbie Hope (Jan 24, 2010). The ascription to Freud has no substantive support.

Note how easy it is to believe that Freud said these words. The words make sense and we want to believe them. We may even want to share them so that we can be affiliated with the wisdom contained in them. But when it comes to credibility, with which person do we prefer to align our opinions? Sigmund Freud? Impressive! Or William Gibson? Popular! How about Steve Winterburn? Debbie Hope? Anonymous? Or maybe we follow the Laura Rose example and put our own name on it?

From evidence, we conclude the attribution to Freud is incorrect. Gibson vigorously denied authoring the statement. Both Winterburn and Laura Rose claimed attribution in error. That leaves Hope, the person who claims the quote. So far, no previous version has been documented.

So the matter is settled. Or, is it? Why do so many people persist in attaching the quote to Gibson or Freud?  

Pink Freud to the rescue! 

Fixed it! Or, did I? Who is Pink Freud?

So, what is the point of all this? Several lessons can be drawn.

• Don't believe every poster or meme--they are easy to make. Deb Hope is not the meme artist known as Pink Freud even though I spent all of 5 minutes making the above poster.
• Think critically about the information that is pouring into your ears and eyes. Don't be so quick to trust the attribution given by someone else.
• Avoid confirmation bias by asking challenging questions about what you know versus what you want to believe.
• Always test what you know and check sources. Don't make up a source or accept an unverified source
• Give credit where it's due. Do not plagiarize or take credit for someone else's idea.

Thanks for reading PhilosFX. Check out these related links!

• Quote Investigator http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/10/25/diagnose/
• Plagarism? Or "attribution decay"? http://hellogiggles.com/internet-steals-words-get-back/2/
• Books by William Gibson http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/books/books.asp
• This exchange is illuminating! https://rfilkov.com/2012/09/22/siegmund-freud-on-depression/

Finger Length and Personality, Part 3: Q&A

I must admit, I have been smitten with curiosity about the so-called 2D:4D ratio. I find its implications for improved self-awareness and appreciation of diversity to be compelling. This is the third post on the subject, the previous ones having to do with the Higher Perspective article and then my attempt to more accurately measure the 2D:4D ratio. 

I also dedicated a whole edition of L.I.N.K.S. to the subject, and I published a related inquiry on facial symmetry--a feature that, like ring finger length, tends to increase in response to pre-natal androgen exposure. 

That is a lot of exploration and investigation already. But, being the curious sort, I feel one really good question usually inspires two or three dozen more. And so I have prepared for you a list of additional questions (and some preliminary answers). It's my hope that this Q&A monologue will engage readers and inspire something more like a dialog. If you share my interest in this topic and would like to advance the conversation, please feel free to chime in--via comments.

Here we go!

• Does it matter if you measure the ratio on your left hand or your right hand? If the measurements are different, which one is more accurate? 

Higher Perspective said simply to look at the back of your left hand. Most scientific studies I have seen cited have used calipers to accurately measure the digit lengths on the palm side. The copy machine works well enough for practical purposes as any errors are proportional. Some studies specify the right hand for increased accuracy, though I have yet to see why that should be the case. I suspect it's because "most people" are right-hand dominant. I suggest either using the hand with the greatest variation, or, having measured both, averaging the two.

• If your instincts are hardwired, how much choice do you really have in the heat of the moment? Are people with low 2D:4D ratios more likely to be aggressive drivers? 

Studies have shown a positive correlation between longer ring fingers and increased risky behavior. Obviously, behavior can be learned (or unlearned) through training, but it is interesting to note that a certain amount of aggressiveness is apparently innate. Studies have shown, for example, positive correlation between longer ring fingers and aggressive driving. 

• Is there a correlation between finger length ratio and other measures of personality, such as the MBTI profile? Are certain ratios disproportionately represented among Es or Is, for example? 

Low 2D:4D ratios are correlated with increased confidence, risk preference, search persistence, and vigilance. However, these traits are not unique to introverts or extroverts, so there does not appear to be a strong positive correlation between finger length ratios and personality type indicators such as the Jungian Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). It's worth noting that behavior and preference are different. 

• Is there a correlation between finger length ratio and a person's sex (male, female, or intersex), sexual orientation (i.e., gender identity, e.g., male, female, trans, queer), or sexual preference (asexual, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual)?

The sex difference in digit ratios is unrelated to the Y-chromosome. Estrogen in utero does not produce larger ratios. The presence or absence of testosterone explains all the difference. 

• What are the ranges of ratios that have been measured?

Bailey and Hurd (March 2005) has a sample of 134 people. The distribution of men's finger length ratios has a mean of 0.947 and a standard deviation of 0.029. For women, the statistics are 0.965 and 0.026. 

• Are there any published studies correlating the effects of pre-natal androgens? For example, to what degree are finger length ratios and facial symmetry correlated?

There must be a study correlating finger length ratio and facial symmetry, but I have not found it yet. I did find a study that found a positive correlation between finger length ratio and penile length. Apparently, the researchers took measurements of male subjects while they were under general anesthesia 

• To what extent should finger length ratio influence your choice of  a potential mate? Should the ratio matter more or less than, say, a zodiac sign? In other words, is the finger length ratio merely a persistent but meaningless bit of pop psychology, or is it a window into serious insight?

No, those jeans fit you perfectly! 

• What, if anything, do these topics have in common? How are they related if at all? 
• Numerology
• Tarot
• Astrology (signs of the zodiac)
• Parapsychology (hypnosis, extra-sensory perception, telepathy, etc.)  
• Phrenology (reading the bumps on a person's skull for insights into brain structure and function)
• Chiromancy (reading the proportions of a persons hands and fingers for predictions of future health and well-being)
• Finger Length Ratio
• Positive Psychology
• Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
• Abnormal Psychology

You are looking at a list of 10 topics ranging from parapsychology to pop psychology to main stream psychology. They are listed in order of my estimation of their relative seriousness, beginning with topics that require the most skepticism and progressing to the topics that are relatively more sound. I conclude the Q&A with this point to show that I think the finger length ratio is more useful and more reliable than most of the other topics, but still less accepted in academic circles.

Send or post your responses to the questions posed, your additional questions, more links as you find them, and your own answers as you think of them.

My LOTR Character? Merry the Visionary

Which LOTR character are you? Merry the Visionary suits me to a "T"

The original LOTR-Personality-Chart is HERE

Do we really get wiser with age?

This wry comment from a younger colleague sent me into philosopher mode:

"Although we are getting older, I would like to think we are continually getting wiser which is a fair trade-off ... I think.  So enjoy that old age, old man, but do it wisely."

Ahem. My friend was plainly implying that I was indeed older, yet perhaps not as wise as might be expected for my advanced years.

Do we really get wiser with age? I found this proposition interesting. As I thought about the proposition more, what occurred to me is that aging is neither necessary nor sufficient for obtaining wisdom. Plenty of people get old and never seem wise to others. Likewise, some young people seem to have unusual gifts of integrity, character, and vision. So aging is not a continual, linear trade between decreasing physical ability and increasing mental, spiritual, and emotional ability. Age merely provides us with more opportunities to struggle and learn. Age opens us up, makes us pliable, and makes us more resilient (if not physically stronger).

Psychoanalyst Erik Erikson created an eight-stage theory of the human life cycle. In each stage, a person faces an internal struggle that develops different aspects of personality. For example, an infant's struggle is the battle between trust and mistrust; when infants feel they can trust those around them, they develop a sense of hope. In maturity, this virtue of hope manifests in an appreciation for interdependence and relatedness. Erikson's last stage, old age, people grapple with the balance between their personal sense of integrity, and defeat in the face of death and physical disintegration. If integrity wins out, then the result, according to Erikson, is wisdom.  

Accessed Sep 12, 2013 from http://www.intropsych.com/ch11_personality/eriksons_psychosocial_stages.html

I like Erickson's Stage Theory because it seems to explain things well, and because it can serve as a solid framework for questions around character, maturity, and acquired wisdom. The dialogue between my younger colleague and I proceeded thusly:

We all have our struggles and our stories, and according to Erikson, we develop at different rates depending on how we respond to struggle. I know very little about your story, and you probably don't know a whole lot about mine. Our opinions of each other are based solely on our brief interactions over the last few years. 

Your words imply that you do not think much of my wisdom and that you feel yours is superior. I would like to point our that I have not come to you seeking your advice on the matter. If you want to challenge me or teach me or help me to grow in wisdom and grace, I will listen, because I am far from complete and I am sure you can teach me many things. 

However, before you start something with me, please think about where you are coming from and what you hope to achieve. I know myself very well--the good, the bad, and the ugly. What do you see that motivates you to tell me to "enjoy that old age old man but do it wisely"? 

I have learned that criticism is always about the critic. For anyone to see a flaw in me, (a) I must be doing something; (b) they must be able to recognize the flaw first in themselves; and (c) they must have a motive for bringing this flaw to my attention. The playground rejoinder applies: "It takes one to know one." I wanted to know more about the issue that motivated my colleague's unsolicited advice. I suggested a we let Erikson's model serve as a common framework for advancing the discussion.

This willingness to listen without becoming defensive is not easy for most people, myself included. The idea of a common framework like Erikson's helps to keep the discussion objective. Another thing that helps is setting a common purpose, like helping each other grow. In this light, difficult conversations can be offered and accepted in the form of constructive criticism.

So I offered the framework and the purpose as a baseline from which to build, and continued:

If this baseline works for you, I am willing to learn why you felt the need to jack me up. I will listen without arguing or attempting to defend myself until you have made your point.

I wish I could say that the ensuing conversation was productive and mutually satisfying. Unfortunately I think my somewhat indignant tone belied my willingness to listen. I am still wondering, still aware that my character is not fully perfected, and still waiting.

Questions:

1. How do you handle criticism, especially unsolicited criticism?
2. When do you decide to offer criticism?
3. What if anything would you have done differently from me in the scenario I described?
4. Are you aware of a human life cycle theory that is better than Erikson's?




For readers who are curious about the relationship between age and wisdom, here is a link to some additional resources:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/wiser-with-age3.htm