13. November 2010 by John Schinnerer.

From Ken Pope’s listserv…

Subject: recommended: *Science*: “A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind” by Matthew Killingsworth & Dan Gilbert at Harvard University

Today’s new issue of the American association for the Advancement of Science’s journal *Science* (Vol. 330. no. 6006) includes an article: “A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind.”

The authors are Matthew A. Killingsworth and Daniel T. Gilbert.

Here are some excerpts:

Many philosophical and religious traditions teach that happiness is to be found by living in the moment, and practitioners are trained to resist mind wandering and “to be here now.”

These traditions suggest that a wandering mind is an unhappy mind.

Are they right?

Laboratory experiments have revealed a great deal about the cognitive and neural bases of mind wandering (3-7), but little about its emotional consequences in everyday life.

The most reliable method for investigating real-world emotion is experience sampling, which involves contacting people as they engage in their everyday activities and asking them to report their thoughts, feelings, and actions at that moment.

<snip>

We solved this problem by developing a Web application for the iPhone (Apple Incorporated, Cupertino, California), which we used to create an unusually large database of real-time reports of thoughts, feelings, and actions of a broad range of people as they went about their daily activities.

The application contacts participants through their iPhones at random moments during their waking hours, presents them with questions, and records their answers to a database at www.trackyourhappiness.org.

The database currently contains nearly a quarter of a million samples from about 5000 people from 83 different countries who range in age from 18 to 88 and who collectively represent every one of 86 major occupational categories.

To find out how often people’s minds wander, what topics they wander to, and how those wanderings affect their happiness, we analyzed samples from 2250 adults (58.8% male, 73.9% residing in the United States, mean age of 34 years) who were randomly assigned to answer a happiness question (”How are you feeling right now?”) answered on a continuous sliding scale from very bad (0) to very good (100), an activity question (”What are you doing right

now?”) answered by endorsing one or more of 22 activities adapted from the day reconstruction method (10, 11), and a mind-wandering question (”Are you thinking about something other than what you’re currently doing?”) answered with one of four options: no; yes, something pleasant; yes, something neutral; or yes, something unpleasant.

Our analyses revealed three facts.

First, people’s minds wandered frequently, regardless of what they were doing.

Mind wandering occurred in 46.9% of the samples and in at least 30% of the samples taken during every activity except making love.

The frequency of mind wandering in our real-world sample was considerably higher than is typically seen in laboratory experiments.

<snip>

Second, multilevel regression revealed that people were less happy when their minds were wandering than when they were not [slope (b) = -8.79, P < 0.001], and this was true during all activities, including the least enjoyable.

Although people’s minds were more likely to wander to pleasant topics (42.5% of samples) than to unpleasant topics (26.5% of samples) or neutral topics (31% of samples), people were no happier when thinking about pleasant topics than about their current activity (b = -0.52, not

significant) and were considerably unhappier when thinking about neutral topics (b = -7.2, P < 0.001) or unpleasant topics (b = -23.9, P < 0.001) than about their current activity (Fig. 1, bottom).

Although negative moods are known to cause mind wandering (13), time-lag analyses strongly suggested that mind wandering in our sample was generally the cause, and not merely the consequence, of unhappiness (12).

Third, what people were thinking was a better predictor of their happiness than was what they were doing.

The nature of people’s activities explained 4.6% of the within-person variance in happiness and 3.2% of the between-person variance in happiness, but mind wandering explained 10.8% of within-person variance in happiness and 17.7% of between-person variance in happiness.

The variance explained by mind wandering was largely independent of the variance explained by the nature of activities, suggesting that the two were independent influences on happiness.

In conclusion, a human mind is a wandering mind, and a wandering mind is an unhappy mind.

[end excerpts]

The author note provides the following contact info:

<mkilling@fas.harvard.edu>.

Ken Pope

To life, love and laughter,

John Schinnerer, Ph.D.

Founder of Guide to Self

P.S. For a free PDF copy of John’s award-winning self-help book on ways to focus the mind, turn down negative emotions, and turn up positive emotions simply visit http://www.GuideToSelf.com, click on the yellow book icon on the left side of the page, and enter your email and name. You will be granted instant access to 216 pages of life-improving scientifically-proven tools to focus your mind!

Posted in Executive coach, Danville CA, Mindfulness, Consciousness, Optimal Human Functioning, San Francisco Bay Area, Managing anger, keys to happiness, Executive leadership, Well-being, Managing Sadness, Managing Anxiety, Emotional IQ, Dr. John Schinnerer, Managing stress, Business & psych, Staying calm, Tips to help anxiety, Emotional management, Emotional mind, Depression, Happiness, Positive Psychology | Print | No Comments »

10. November 2010 by John Schinnerer.

There is a battle going on in your mind. There are two factions in your mind. Sometimes these two get along and sometimes they are in conflict. At times, the two cooperate. At times, they act in direct opposition to one another.

The two factions are your rational, thinking mind and your automatic, emotional, subconscious mind. Here is the latest study to examine the differences between the two sides…

ScienceDaily (Nov. 8, 2010) — Expert typists are able to zoom across the keyboard without ever thinking about which fingers are pressing the keys. New research from Vanderbilt University reveals that this skill is managed by an autopilot, one that is able to catch errors that can fool our conscious brain.

The research was published in the Oct. 29 issue of Science.

“We all know we do some things on autopilot, from walking to doing familiar tasks like making coffee and, in this study, typing. What we don’t know as scientists is how people are able to control their autopilots,” Gordon Logan, Centennial Professor of Psychology and lead author of the new research, said. “The remarkable thing we found is that these processes are disassociated. The hands know when the hands make an error, even when the mind does not.”

For  a free PDF copy of the award-winning book Guide To Self: The Beginner’s Guide to  Managing Emotion and Thought, visit http://www.GuideToSelf.com and enter your name and email address. This book outlines the latest proven tools for optimal human functioning - tools to manage your negative emotions (anger, anxiety, sadness and stress) and turn up the volume on your positive emotions (gratitude, curiosity, awe, love,  joy, pride, hope, happiness and passion). It also helps you become more aware of your automatic mind and the shortcuts it takes without your consent.

To determine the relationship between the autopilot and the conscious brain, or pilot, and the role of each in detecting errors, Logan and co-author Matthew Crump designed a series of experiments to break the normal connection between what we see on the screen and what our fingers feel as they type.

In the first experiment, Logan and Crump had skilled typists type in words that appeared on the screen and then report whether or not they had made any errors. Using a computer program they created, the researchers either randomly inserted errors that the user had not made or corrected errors the user had made. They also timed the typists’ typing speed, looking for the slowdown that is known to occur when one hits the wrong key. They then asked the typists to evaluate their overall performance.

The researchers found the typists generally took the blame for the errors the program had inserted and took the credit for mistakes the computer had corrected. They were fooled by the program. However, their fingers, as managed by the autopilot, were not — the typists slowed down when they actually made an error, as expected, and did not slow down when a false error appeared on the screen.

In two additional experiments, the researchers set out to probe awareness more deeply. In the second experiment, they had the typists immediately judge their performance after typing each word. In the third, they told typists that the computer might insert or correct errors and again asked them to report on their performance.

The typists still took credit for corrected errors and blame for false errors in the second experiment, and still slowed down after real errors but not after false ones. In the third experiment, the typists were fairly accurate in detecting when the computer inserted an error, but still tended to take credit for corrections the computer had made. As with the other two experiments, the typists slowed down after real but not after false errors.

The research is the first to offer evidence of the different and separate roles of conscious and unconscious processing in detecting errors.

“This suggests that error detection can occur on a voluntary and involuntary basis,” Crump, a postdoctoral fellow in psychology, said. “An important feature of our research is to show that people can compensate for their mistakes even when they are not aware of their errors. And, we have developed a new research tool that allows us to separately investigate the role of awareness in error detection, and the role of more automatic processes involved in error detection. The tool will also allow a better understanding of how these different processes work together.”

The research was supported with funding from the National Science Foundation.

1. Gordon D. Logan, and Matthew J. C. Crump. Cognitive Illusions of Authorship Reveal Hierarchical Error Detection in Skilled Typists. Science, 29 October 2010: Vol. 330. no. 6004, pp. 683 - 686 DOI: 10.1126/science.1190483

To life, love and laughter,

John Schinnerer Ph.D.

Founder Guide to Self, Inc.

http://www.GuideToSelf.com

Posted in Unsconscious mind, Optimal Human Functioning, Alamo CA, San Ramon CA, Subliminal messages, Emotion & learning, Danville CA, Emotion & productivity, San Francisco Bay Area, Well-being, Free self-help book, Inspirational stories, Automatic mind, Managing anger, keys to happiness, Self-help book, Self-improvement book, National speakers, Overcoming failure, Guide To Self Beginners Guide To Managing Emotion, Rational mind, Emotional mind, Happiness, Emotional IQ, Managing stress, Dr. John Schinnerer, Emotional management, Managing Anxiety, Hope, Awareness, Curiosity, The human brain, Subconscious mind, Managing Sadness, Consciousness, Positive Psychology | Print | No Comments »

3. August 2010 by John Schinnerer.

July 30, 2010

Imagine technology that allows you to get inside the mind of a terrorist to know how, when and where the next attack will occur.

That’s not nearly as far-fetched as it seems, according to a new Northwestern University study.
Say, for purposes of illustration, that the chatter about an imminent terrorist attack is mounting, and specifics about the plan emerge, about weapons that will be used, the date of such a dreaded event and its location.

If the new test used by the Northwestern researchers had been used in such a real-world situation with the same type of outcome that occurred in the lab, the study suggests, culpability extracted from the chatter could be confirmed.

In other words, if the test conducted in the Northwestern lab ultimately is employed for such real-world scenarios, the research suggests, law enforcement officials ultimately may be able to confirm details about an attack - date, location, weapon — that emerges from terrorist chatter.

In the Northwestern study, when researchers knew in advance specifics of the planned attacks by the make-believe “terrorists,” they were able to correlate P300 brain waves to guilty knowledge with 100 percent accuracy in the lab, said J. Peter Rosenfeld, professor of psychology in Northwestern’s Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences.

For the first time, the Northwestern researchers used the P300 testing in a mock terrorism scenario in which the subjects are planning, rather than perpetrating, a crime. The P300 brain waves were measured by electrodes attached to the scalp of the make-believe “persons of interest” in the lab.

The most intriguing part of the study in terms of real-word implications, Rosenfeld said, is that even when the researchers had no advance details about mock terrorism plans, the technology was still accurate in identifying critical concealed information.
 

“Without any prior knowledge of the planned crime in our mock terrorism scenarios, we were able to identify 10 out of 12 terrorists and, among them, 20 out of 30 crime- related details,” Rosenfeld said. “The test was 83 percent accurate in predicting concealed knowledge, suggesting that our complex protocol could identify future terrorist activity.”

Rosenfeld is a leading scholar in the study of P300 testing to reveal concealed information. Basically, electrodes are attached to the scalp to record P300 brain activity — or brief electrical patterns in the cortex — that occur, according to the research, when meaningful information is presented to a person with “guilty knowledge.”

Research on the P300 testing emerged in the 1980s as a handful of scientists looked for an alternative to polygraph tests for lie detection. Since it was invented in the 1920s, polygraphy has been under fire, especially by academics, with critics insisting that such testing measures emotion rather than knowledge.

Rosenfeld and Northwestern graduate student John B. Meixner are co-investigators of the study, outlined in a paper titled “A Mock Terrorism Application of the P300-based Concealed Information Test,” published recently in the journal Psychophysiology.

Study participants (29 Northwestern students) planned a mock attack based on information they were given about bombs and other deadly weapons. They then had to write a letter detailing the rationale of their plan to encode the information in memory.

Then, with electrodes attached to their scalps, they looked at a computer display monitor that presented names of stimuli. The names of Boston, Houston, New York, Chicago and Phoenix, for example, were shuffled and presented at random. The city that study participants chose for the major terrorist attack evoked the largest P300 brainwave responses.

The test includes four classes of stimuli known as targets, non-targets, probes and irrelevants. Targets are sights, sounds or other stimuli the person being questioned already knows or is taught to recognize before the test. Probes are stimuli only a guilty suspect would be likely to know. And irrelevants are stimuli unlikely to be recognized.

“Since 9/11 preventing terrorism is a priority,” Rosenfeld said. “Sometimes you catch suspicious people entering a building. You suspect that they’re terrorists, and you have some leads from the chatter. You’ve heard they’re going to attack one city or another in one fashion or another on one date or another. Our hope is that our new complex protocol - different from the first P300 technology developed in the 1980s - will one day confirm such chatter in the real world.”

In the laboratory setting, study participants only had about 30 minutes to learn about the attack and to detail their plans. Thus, Rosenfeld said, encoding of guilty knowledge was relatively shallow. It is assumed that real terrorists rehearse details central to a planned attack repeatedly, leading to deeper encoding of related memories, he said. “We suspect if our test was employed in the real world the deeper encoding of planned crime-related knowledge could further boost detection of terrorist intentions.”

Provided by Northwestern University

The implications of this are far-reaching, disturbing and reassuring simultaneously.

Disturbing since this same procedure, when perfected, can be used with any of us (which is fine along as you’re staying away from involvement in destructive activities, OR activities which arouse guilt in you!).

Reassuring as it will provide a better means of discovering solid leads on imminent attacks by domestic threats. 

Far-reaching because this technology can and likely will be extended far beyond the scope of hunting terrorists. Easy rationalizations can be made to use it to fight drug trafficking and other major clear cut illegal operations. But where does the line get drawn once we get into lesser, gray areas?

Obviously, it will be many years before the technology is accessible and affordable enough to use ubiquitously. However, what about if the IRS uses it around issues of tax evasion? Or the courts use it in child custody evaluations? At what point do our civil liberties get breached?

This will be an ongoing issue as we head into the next decade because, like it or not, it’s coming!

Best,

John Schinnerer, Ph.D.

Positive Psychology Coach

Author of the award-winning Guide To Self: The Beginner’s Guide To Managing Emotion & Thought

Guide To Self, Inc.

913 San Ramon Valley Blvd. #280

Danville CA 94526

GuideToSelf.com - Web site

DrJohnBlog.GuideToSelf.com -  Awarded Top3 Blog in Positive Psychology by PostRank, Top 100 Blog by Daily Reviewer

Follow me on Twitter at http://www.Twitter.com/@johnschin  

Follow my YouTube channel at http://www.YouTube.com/jschinnerer

Posted in Emotion recognition software, Danville CA, Neuropsychology, Psychology and technology, Values and ethics, Reading terrorists minds, Guilt, Emotion and technology, Curiosity, Guide to Self, Dr. John Schinnerer, Emotional mind, Emotional management, Subconscious mind, Consciousness, Measuring emotions | Print | No Comments »

22. July 2010 by John Schinnerer.

Hi! My name is John Schinnerer, Ph.D. I have spent the past 20 years seeking the best, proven tools to turn UP the volume on happiness along with ways to turn DOWN the volume on negative emotions. All this leads to greater happiness and much more success.Studies have shown that success follows happiness, NOT the other way around. People LIKE to be around folks who are happy. They flock to them. Then, happy people are provided with more opportunities - in business, in relationships, and in wealth.

If you would like to be happier, I’m offering my award-winning book on happiness “Guide to Self” for FREE in pdf format. Just visit my site at Guidetoself.com. In exchange for your name and email, I will grant you instant access to the eBook! No catch. No obligation.Take the plunge! You’ll be happy you did!

John Schinnerer, Ph.D. is in private practice teaching men anger management & the latest ways to deal with destructive negative emotions. He also helps men discover happier, more meaningful lives. His Ph.D. is from U.C. Berkeley. John is Founder of Guide To Self, a company that coaches men to happiness and success. He wrote the award-winning, “Guide To Self: The Beginner’s Guide To Managing Emotion and Thought” and his blog, Shrunken Mind, was named top 3 in positive psychology (http://drjohnblog.guidetoself.com).Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/@johnschin
Check out my new video blog on Real Men, Real Happiness at http://drjohnsblog.wordpress.com!
YouTube Channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/jschinnerer

Posted in Emotion & productivity, International Wellbeing Study, Executive coach, Danville CA, Emotion & learning, Curiosity, National speakers, Optimal Human Functioning, Emotion & Athletics, Self-improvement book, Happiness and Income, keys to happiness, Self-help book, Men's feelings, San Francisco Bay Area, Well-being, Gratitude, Awareness, Creativity, Guide to Self, Emotional IQ, Dr. John Schinnerer, Realistic optimism, Positive Psychology, Forgiveness, Happiness, Positive mood music, Altruism, Mindfulness, Resiliency, Consciousness, Morals and values, Parenting, Sports Psychology | Print | No Comments »

27. June 2010 by John Schinnerer.

‘I have become comfortably numb.’  - Pink Floyd

‘The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.’  - Henry David Thoreau

‘And I just can’t keep living this way
So starting today, I’m breaking out of this cage
I’m standing up, Imma face my demons
I’m manning up, Imma hold my ground
I’ve had enough, now I’m so fed up
Time to put my life back together right now’  - Eminem

Do you live life by running away from pain? By running away from conflict? By fleeing internal dis-ease?

Or do you live life by seeking meaning? The tireless pursuit of purpose?

Purpose is made possible by positive emotions. Without the feeling of curiosity or interest or passion or love, you may miss meaning.

So here’s a quick tip…turn one negative into a positive - shift negating nervousness into energizing excitement.

From the inside, nervousness is the same as excitement.

Both elevate the heart rate.

Both cause a sensation of butterflies in the stomach.

Both get the blood going more quickly in the body.

The only difference is HOW you interpret the bodily sensations in your mind.

So the next time you begin to get nervous, tell yourself, ‘Alright, I’m getting excited now!’

This will help reframe the situation as one in which you are growing comfortable in your discomfort.

And this is critical. It is essential that you get comfortable in your own discomfort. Because that is HOW you begin to get healthy - psychologically, emotionally, physically, financially.

You must take a risk. You must step outside your comfort zone if you want to succeed.

Pursue your purpose in life. Make a mark on meaning.

This one step will change your life.

So take the first step - tell yourself ‘I am excited now.’ 

And remember, avoiding disease is NOT the same as pursuing health.

Have a great weekend!

John

John Schinnerer, Ph.D.

Positive psychology coach

Author, speaker, trainer, bald white guy

http://drjohnsblog.wordpress.com

Posted in Meaning-making, Danville CA, Curiosity, Optimal Human Functioning, Well-being, Pursuing Purpose, Executive leadership, Gratitude, Hope, Creativity, Dr. John Schinnerer, Realistic optimism, Happiness, Emotional management, Assertiveness, Consciousness, Positive Psychology | Print | No Comments »