Finally, Incontrovertible Evidence that Women are Nuts

My latest read is a good one, and you should read it, too. It's called Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, who has one of the indisputably coolest jobs in America: he thinks about things, talks to cool people, and writes about it for the New Yorker. Well, I guess it depends on your idea of cool, but to a geek like me, that's pretty much the top.

Blink is about the unconscious mind. It's about the part of our brain that can take in information from the environment, analyze it, and whisper intuitions in our ears--all without us being consciously aware that this is taking place. How does this prove that women are nuts? One of the studies that Gladwell writes about in Blink was done on a group of young men and women engaged in speed-dating.

To grossly simplify: the researchers ask a woman, prior to the experiment, what she's looking for in a man. She gives a reply, say, that she's after an intelligent, caring guy who will treat her well and be dependable. Okay, fine. Now on to the dating! The woman is paired with a number of men and she has chemistry with one of them. They exchange numbers, and so forth. Turns out this guy is tall and handsome, wealthy, and very self-confident. In the exit interview, the researchers ask the woman what she's looking for in a relationship once again, except now she says, "I'm really looking for a man who's tall, handsome, and very sure of himself. And it would really help if he was well off." Hmmm. And here's the kicker: they followed up with her several months later and asked the same question a third time. What do you think she responded? "I'm looking for a man who is intelligent, caring, and will treat me well."

That's not a fair representation of the study, but it captures the basic idea: that we (it's not just women) don't really consciously know what will attract us to another person. If we're asked to give a verbal accounting of our attraction, it's likely to be wrong. It's also likely to unstable and to be greatly affected by the current circumstance (e.g. if we've just had a connection with someone, that person's characteristics are likely to be cited as attractive). We're unlikely to learn from our experience.

What do we take away from all of this nonsense? Well, clearly women are nuts. But I guess men are nuts, too. So if you happen to stumble your way into a decent relationship, in spite of your ignorance of what you actually want, you better realize you've got a good thing going.

Everyone Loves a Good Psych Post

Due to the overwhelming interest in my last offering, I've decided to indulge in another psychology-related post. This one has to do with reading books. Books, on the whole, are not of great use to me because I tend to forget nearly everything that I read. Yet I keep on reading. Why?

One theory is that I feel guilty not reading because it's what smart people do. If I don't do it, I guess that means I'm not smart. If I don't like it, I guess that means I'm not an intellectual.

Another theory is that I really don't forget everything. Maybe I remember a thing of two, and maybe the things I do remember are the really important ones. Maybe.

So the latest book is a trade psychology book written by Control-Mastery oriented therapists. The title's Imaginary Crimes. Yes, cheesy--I know. It's not really all that great. The clinical examples are boring and not particularly memorable. But he did drop one thought in there that's really stuck with me. It's simple.

You ready?

The best thing we can do for our children is to lead happy lives.

You see? Simple. And I remembered it!