Friday, May 31, 2013

Timothy D. Wilson:

When economists think about how to solve a problem such as closing the achievement gap in education, or reducing teenage pregnancy, their inclination is to use incentives. What if we pay people to do well in school, give kids money to study and to get good grades? Or what if we take girls who are at-risk for becoming pregnant and pay them a dollar for each day they are not pregnant?

To a social psychologist, it is a little naïve to think that adding external incentives is all you have to do. Not to say that incentives can't work, but they can sometimes backfire if you look at it through the eyes of the person who is getting that incentive. There's some research in social psychology suggesting that external incentives can undermine intrinsic interest in an activity because people begin to think that the only reason they're doing it is for the money. That erodes any interest in that activity there was to start with.

Human Foibles

Telling people facts does not usually help them:
Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
Being aware of cognitive biases does not protect against them.  People just project and deny that they are subject to them.  The smarter you are, the more vulnerable you are to it.
When considering the irrational choices of a stranger, for instance, we are forced to rely on behavioral information; we see their biases from the outside, which allows us to glimpse their systematic thinking errors. However, when assessing our own bad choices, we tend to engage in elaborate introspection. We scrutinize our motivations and search for relevant reasons; we lament our mistakes to therapists and ruminate on the beliefs that led us astray.
The problem with this introspective approach is that the driving forces behind biases—the root causes of our irrationality—are largely unconscious, which means they remain invisible to self-analysis and impermeable to intelligence. In fact, introspection can actually compound the error, blinding us to those primal processes responsible for many of our everyday failings. We spin eloquent stories, but these stories miss the point. The more we attempt to know ourselves, the less we actually understand.
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/frontal-cortex/2012/06/daniel-kahneman-bias-studies.html#ixzz2Jj9gHZWl
No Such Thing as Character:

So what to make of this?  Well, the fact that for most people facts don’t change their minds, they are self-deceptive and lack consistent morals should not detract from the fact that there are folks that do not match the trend.  In other words, there are always outliers.
Also, I would imagine that there are circumstantial variables that could be introduced in order to help people respond more rationally to facts, to be less defensive, to look at their own behavior in a more clearsighted way, and to act in a more consistently admirable way.  I think that is the trick of our trade.  Priming our clients for honesty and goodness, to embrace the good, the true and the beautiful, for sweetness and light, and the best the human race has produced.  After all, there is something in man that inclines him to greek, there is something in him that inclines him to philosophy – there is something in him that admires truth and beauty – else many of the great works of art and science would have never been created, discovered or appreciated throughout the ages.  But they do and they have, and so there is still hope for the human race.
Theoretical Contributions:
  • The importance of identifying one's own motivations in achieving success - and the realization that many people are avoidant or unable to say what their motivations are.  Hence the importance of focusing on the concrete details of the person's life, and of the here and now in helping the client to realize this and then to take advantage of this self-knowledge.
  • Importance of "secure base" from which to explore careers and people, and (Adler) importance of encouragement from family/friends
  • Addressing inner conflict with making career choices
  • Importance of early childhood experiences
  • Jungian "God" in helping direct self towards work they love

Psychiatry vs. Psychology

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2006/10/psychology_vs_psychiatry.html

If I was a good clinical psychologist– PhD helpful but not necessary, master’s is fine– I would find two or three good psychiatrists and set up a group…  I would find the nearest academic institution with a “residents’ clinic.”  That’s a gold mine.  There are a lot of private insurance patients there, who need short term therapy.   These academic clinics almost never have enough therapists, because the ones that are on staff are not really incentivized to see extra patients; they’re on salary.  So there is a massive number of patients who could benefit from therapy, but are on a waiting list…  “Hi, I’m a therapist, send me patients” is very different than, “Hi, I specialize in Grief Counseling, short and long term, so if you have any patients…” … Try to meet psychiatrists wherever you can, but the best place I know is through drug reps.  Go to one of the “drug dinners” and meet the psychiatrists who attend.  Find a psychiatrist-parent– hell, any kind of doctor– in your kid’s school, meet them, let them know you’re open for business.  Meet the guidance counselor, tell them you specialize in adolescent issues. (Obviously, make sure you actually do specialize in adolescent issues.)  Or Family Systems model.  Or divorcing parents.  Etc.  Remember: it’s not “why refer to me?” It’s, “who else are they going to refer to?”  A doctor who has any sort of emotional connection to you (i.e. met you once) will more likely refer to you than anyone else.