I have, in the last few months, read a lot about reading body language and hence learnt a lot. A book fully dedicated to such techniques is arriving in a few days - I'm going to have you pegged. All of you. Ha!
*please read body language responsibly*
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Quotes
The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress and grow
Thomas Paine
We have it in out power to begin the world over again
Thomas Paine
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Statistical “sexism”
Yesterday, the idea of cheaper car insurance for women was brought up at work. It does seem to be sexist – women will get cheaper car insurance than men, if everything else is equal (especially true in the 18-25 age range). It seems to be socially acceptable, perhaps based on a purely mathematical thing, or that the reasoning is obvious and seemingly within the experience of many people – men, especially young ones, tend to drive a lot faster and more aggressively, so their accidents tend to be a lot worse (more expensive) than women's.
At the other end of the scale, in terms of legality when talking about stats, is that it would be illegal to not give a job to an equally or more qualified woman than a man because she is more likely to become pregnant and take the 36 weeks maternity leave she has available in law. And although that could be a purely statistical decision, it would not only be illegal but also would seem to be viewed as quite immoral.
So it got me thinking about other examples of sexism that seem to be mostly or purely statistical, and for the examples I can come up with, it doesn't seem to be illegal most of the time. Going back to insurance and linking in with pregnancy, women will have higher health insurance costs because of the risks associated with pregnancy, which is interesting because it seems roughly equivalent to the job thing but more minor. Women get lower incomes from their pension schemes because in general they live longer than men. There are more male fire-fighters in the UK than women and I think I'm right in saying that's an active selection process – women have, in general, lower lung capacities than men, and therefore would find it more problematic in smoke-filled environments. The whole women not allowed in many positions in the army because they are, generally, less physically strong than men*. There is also the whole thing about women and men having separate sports competitions because, similarly to the army situation, men generally have stronger muscles than women.
So it does seem that in the examples I can think of “sexism” (or to use a less loaded term but with more words, selection based on sex) for purely statistical reasons isn't viewed as something immoral or that ought to be any other way. I does make me think a bit about what we mean when we say sexist, though; it seems more subtle today than yesterday morning.
At the other end of the scale, in terms of legality when talking about stats, is that it would be illegal to not give a job to an equally or more qualified woman than a man because she is more likely to become pregnant and take the 36 weeks maternity leave she has available in law. And although that could be a purely statistical decision, it would not only be illegal but also would seem to be viewed as quite immoral.
So it got me thinking about other examples of sexism that seem to be mostly or purely statistical, and for the examples I can come up with, it doesn't seem to be illegal most of the time. Going back to insurance and linking in with pregnancy, women will have higher health insurance costs because of the risks associated with pregnancy, which is interesting because it seems roughly equivalent to the job thing but more minor. Women get lower incomes from their pension schemes because in general they live longer than men. There are more male fire-fighters in the UK than women and I think I'm right in saying that's an active selection process – women have, in general, lower lung capacities than men, and therefore would find it more problematic in smoke-filled environments. The whole women not allowed in many positions in the army because they are, generally, less physically strong than men*. There is also the whole thing about women and men having separate sports competitions because, similarly to the army situation, men generally have stronger muscles than women.
So it does seem that in the examples I can think of “sexism” (or to use a less loaded term but with more words, selection based on sex) for purely statistical reasons isn't viewed as something immoral or that ought to be any other way. I does make me think a bit about what we mean when we say sexist, though; it seems more subtle today than yesterday morning.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Conversation about hypnosis
So I was chatting to a friend of mine who gets dead nervous about presentations, and I, mostly joking, said I could hypnotise that out of him. He responded in a very interesting way, which I'd not thought about before - he expressed the opinion that hypnosis was along similar lines to drinking to relax before presentations.
Expressing hypnosis as a parallel to drinking, or more generally equivalent to mind altering drugs, is never a way I've thought about it. Truth be told, I've never really thought about it much before, the only time it ever really came up was in an Evangelical religious context - it involves deamons and such and is evil and should be avoided. Fair, enough, I guess, but those ideas aren't really predictive and such loose points in the "any sort of use" field of play. Outside of that context, it's been a cool thing done by tv show guys, something that seems to help people get thin, and at the moment it feels very much like refined normal living; we use body language, suggestion, relaxed states, all the time when dealing with people, and it just seems to be creating a reliable way of doing that time and time again for fixed results, though that's something else to talk about.
I suppose what I'm getting at is that I view it as part of the internal process of the human mind, or at least the inter-personal processes of the human mind. Whereas I view controlled chemical changes very much as something outside of the mind coming in and altering the states. Which isn't always a bad thing - anti-depressants rock for many folk, opiates are probably okay even recreationally if people don't use them too much, lots of alcohol is good for evening once in a while, that sort of thing.
But I just can't really view hypnosis as in that sort of spectrum. On the outside, a little, perhaps - you have an issue, fear, you apply solution, either hypnosis or alcohol, and then you function with said issue being less of an issue for a short time. But then you could draw a parallel between alcohol and breathing exercises before performance, or between alcohol and having a lucky handkerchief, to exactly the same effect. Which most people, I think, would call unfair.
I didn't get to finish the conversation, I really must try, as he had more important things to do than indulge my desire for other people's opinions on odd subjects. But it did get me thinking.
Expressing hypnosis as a parallel to drinking, or more generally equivalent to mind altering drugs, is never a way I've thought about it. Truth be told, I've never really thought about it much before, the only time it ever really came up was in an Evangelical religious context - it involves deamons and such and is evil and should be avoided. Fair, enough, I guess, but those ideas aren't really predictive and such loose points in the "any sort of use" field of play. Outside of that context, it's been a cool thing done by tv show guys, something that seems to help people get thin, and at the moment it feels very much like refined normal living; we use body language, suggestion, relaxed states, all the time when dealing with people, and it just seems to be creating a reliable way of doing that time and time again for fixed results, though that's something else to talk about.
I suppose what I'm getting at is that I view it as part of the internal process of the human mind, or at least the inter-personal processes of the human mind. Whereas I view controlled chemical changes very much as something outside of the mind coming in and altering the states. Which isn't always a bad thing - anti-depressants rock for many folk, opiates are probably okay even recreationally if people don't use them too much, lots of alcohol is good for evening once in a while, that sort of thing.
But I just can't really view hypnosis as in that sort of spectrum. On the outside, a little, perhaps - you have an issue, fear, you apply solution, either hypnosis or alcohol, and then you function with said issue being less of an issue for a short time. But then you could draw a parallel between alcohol and breathing exercises before performance, or between alcohol and having a lucky handkerchief, to exactly the same effect. Which most people, I think, would call unfair.
I didn't get to finish the conversation, I really must try, as he had more important things to do than indulge my desire for other people's opinions on odd subjects. But it did get me thinking.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Odd thing
So wandering my way through this guided tour of all things hynosis, I've come across an interesting point. I used to be dead religious, and I could, reasonably easily, enter a meditative state and stick there for half an hour, hour at a time. I can't do that anymore - a couple of reasons, not least being totally out of practice. But I can still get there, even if I can only hold it for 5 or 10 minutes at best.
Now this isn't, per-se, the interesting thing. Turns out that if I go to that place, with only 20 seconds or so of prep, and to get into it properly it takes much longer, I can hold my breath for over twice as long as I usually can. I'm not really sure what use it is, but when I was doing that I realised that when I can't sleep, it's a very similar thing I do to force myself to sleep.
More often than not works, if I'm having difficulty sleeping.
So hey, even when I'm ill and I'm not properly studying, I still learn things. Been learning more things, but I left my notepad somewhere else, so I've not been writing them up. Will correct in a couple of days, hopefully. Also, my first attempt at hypnosis this weekend, I think :D Nothing too audacious, but you never know, I might be hypnotising people to be stuck to bars in no time.
Now this isn't, per-se, the interesting thing. Turns out that if I go to that place, with only 20 seconds or so of prep, and to get into it properly it takes much longer, I can hold my breath for over twice as long as I usually can. I'm not really sure what use it is, but when I was doing that I realised that when I can't sleep, it's a very similar thing I do to force myself to sleep.
More often than not works, if I'm having difficulty sleeping.
So hey, even when I'm ill and I'm not properly studying, I still learn things. Been learning more things, but I left my notepad somewhere else, so I've not been writing them up. Will correct in a couple of days, hopefully. Also, my first attempt at hypnosis this weekend, I think :D Nothing too audacious, but you never know, I might be hypnotising people to be stuck to bars in no time.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Conversations about DB
So I was explaining to someone I know about Derren Brown and why he's so very fascinating to me. I was going into some detail about the ventriloquist act - how Derren, over the course of a few days, gradually pushes the idea that his subject is a ventriloquists' dummy, culminating in a ventriloquist show where he started being the dummy, in a very strange sort of way. It was truely bizarre, a little bit freaky and all in all, dead fun.
She said to me that she wouldn't ever let anyone have that sort of control over her.
Which struck me as a very strange thing to say. All day, every day, we let people have control over us, our thoughts, and our actions. What we choose to listen to on the radio, figures of authority in our lives, but most of all our friends and family. For most of us, and she's no exception, our own well being, internal thought lives, our behaviours depend massively on those around us. While it's not control, mostly, in the sense of the other party making deliberate choices, and mostly it's a reciprocal arrangements, there is a huge level of influence and I'm not certain people are willing to choose to ignore it many cases, and mostly, it probably wouldn't be sensible to move away from influence.
But regardless of all of that, her behaviours and internal life is massively influenced by the people around her. It's not quite the same as deliberate hypnosis, but this idea that she's in control is quite probably an illusion.
She said to me that she wouldn't ever let anyone have that sort of control over her.
Which struck me as a very strange thing to say. All day, every day, we let people have control over us, our thoughts, and our actions. What we choose to listen to on the radio, figures of authority in our lives, but most of all our friends and family. For most of us, and she's no exception, our own well being, internal thought lives, our behaviours depend massively on those around us. While it's not control, mostly, in the sense of the other party making deliberate choices, and mostly it's a reciprocal arrangements, there is a huge level of influence and I'm not certain people are willing to choose to ignore it many cases, and mostly, it probably wouldn't be sensible to move away from influence.
But regardless of all of that, her behaviours and internal life is massively influenced by the people around her. It's not quite the same as deliberate hypnosis, but this idea that she's in control is quite probably an illusion.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Mr Brown, I presume (no, not THAT one)
If you're reading this on facebook, I've probably said a lot more that didn't get RSSed through. Clickty on the link to go to the main place.
I adore watching Derren Brown. I'm currently watching his "Trick of the Mind" show; so far, he's hypnotised someone, then, in their unconcious state, shipped them out of the UK and put them in Morocco, he's convinced someone else they're a ventriloquists dummy; not through outright hypnosis, but a series of prompts throughout the days prior. This latest one he taught an OAP to out play a whole bunch of professional poker players, seriously good ones.
His shows are amazing, every time I watch them it's as if a rug has been pulled from under my feet - the idea of human ability, personality, confidence, they're all so massively fluid if the right things are said in the right way, the right buttons are pushed. It's good, though, because he reforms these ideas into much more interesting things - that the whole process can be controlled, can be regulated, and it... well, it's a rule changer. Instead of playing within the standard constraints of social rules, they are understood and manipulated.
I'm not talking about straight up hypnotising people. He does that a lot. But he helps people themselves behave and react in much more effective manner, unlocking and expanding on things people could do already, but didn't know about.
There seems to be an important distinction - the act of improving ones own memory, or making them more confident or more able to read body language, and then actively and deliberatly altering someone elses state to get an advantage over them. Because the hypnosis tricks could be used for either, really, but somehow, changing ones own behaviour to get people to react differently is more acceptable, to me at least, than directly chaning the behaviour of the other people. Which is odd, because it's very close to being the same thing, but one feels more ethical than the other.
So yeah, I've been reading quite a bit of pop psychology recently, and am looking at books on hypnosis. I've not done any practice yet, though I have been employing memory techniques Derren Brown explained in his book, Tricks of the Mind. It's strange, the techniques themselves are very useful (I've been using them with reasonable sucess to memorise things) but even the act of thinking about how I remember things seems to be improving how I remember things. Maybe I should try hypnotising myself, to motivate myself to read more about hypnosis ;)
So these are my first impressions, if I continue down this little road of psychological curiosities, I'll share some more stuff here. Definatly going to write down if I start hypnotising people, that's something to look forwards to right there :)
For those of you UK-side, the channel 4 website has a whole ton of his shows, so you can share the love. Otherwise, he has a whole load of amazing stuff on youtube (in the proper use of amazing).
I adore watching Derren Brown. I'm currently watching his "Trick of the Mind" show; so far, he's hypnotised someone, then, in their unconcious state, shipped them out of the UK and put them in Morocco, he's convinced someone else they're a ventriloquists dummy; not through outright hypnosis, but a series of prompts throughout the days prior. This latest one he taught an OAP to out play a whole bunch of professional poker players, seriously good ones.
His shows are amazing, every time I watch them it's as if a rug has been pulled from under my feet - the idea of human ability, personality, confidence, they're all so massively fluid if the right things are said in the right way, the right buttons are pushed. It's good, though, because he reforms these ideas into much more interesting things - that the whole process can be controlled, can be regulated, and it... well, it's a rule changer. Instead of playing within the standard constraints of social rules, they are understood and manipulated.
I'm not talking about straight up hypnotising people. He does that a lot. But he helps people themselves behave and react in much more effective manner, unlocking and expanding on things people could do already, but didn't know about.
There seems to be an important distinction - the act of improving ones own memory, or making them more confident or more able to read body language, and then actively and deliberatly altering someone elses state to get an advantage over them. Because the hypnosis tricks could be used for either, really, but somehow, changing ones own behaviour to get people to react differently is more acceptable, to me at least, than directly chaning the behaviour of the other people. Which is odd, because it's very close to being the same thing, but one feels more ethical than the other.
So yeah, I've been reading quite a bit of pop psychology recently, and am looking at books on hypnosis. I've not done any practice yet, though I have been employing memory techniques Derren Brown explained in his book, Tricks of the Mind. It's strange, the techniques themselves are very useful (I've been using them with reasonable sucess to memorise things) but even the act of thinking about how I remember things seems to be improving how I remember things. Maybe I should try hypnotising myself, to motivate myself to read more about hypnosis ;)
So these are my first impressions, if I continue down this little road of psychological curiosities, I'll share some more stuff here. Definatly going to write down if I start hypnotising people, that's something to look forwards to right there :)
For those of you UK-side, the channel 4 website has a whole ton of his shows, so you can share the love. Otherwise, he has a whole load of amazing stuff on youtube (in the proper use of amazing).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
