59 Seconds_ Think A Little, Change A Lot Part 9

In the next stage of the experiment, the researchers told the children that they could choose to try one of two tasks. One of the tasks would be quite difficult and so they might not succeed, but they would be challenged and learn even if they failed. In contrast, the other task was much easier, and so they were likely to do well but learn little. About 65 percent of the children who had been told they were intelligent opted for the easy task, compared to just 45 percent of those who had not been praised. The children who had been told they were intelligent were far more likely to avoid challenging situations, and instead stick to the easy stuff. This is not exactly good news for the "praise be" approach to parenting. However, worse was yet to come.

In the next phase of the experiment, the researchers gave the children some more puzzles. This time the puzzles were much harder than the first set, and so most of the children did not perform especially well. Afterward, all of the children were asked how much they had enjoyed the puzzles and whether they would continue working on them at home. Dramatic differences between the groups emerged. The children who had received just a single sentence praising their intelligence found the difficult puzzles far less enjoyable than their cla.s.smates did, and so they were far less likely to work on them on their own time.

Even more bad news for the advocates of praise emerged in the third and final part of the study. After the children had struggled on the difficult puzzles, the experimenters asked them to try one final test. This last set of puzzles was just as easy as the one that the children had encountered at the start of the study. Even though the two groups of children had obtained roughly the same scores at the beginning of the experiment, their performances on the final test were very different. The pattern of results was exactly the opposite of that predicted by many self-help gurus. The children who had been told they were intelligent obtained far lower scores than the others.

Why should praise have counterintuitive and counterproductive effects? According to Mueller and Dweck, several factors are at work. Telling a child that they are intelligent might make them feel good, but it can also induce a fear of failure, causing the child to avoid challenging situations because they might look bad if they are not successful. In addition, telling a child that they are intelligent suggests that they do not need to work hard to perform well. Because of this, children may be less motivated to make the required effort, and so be more likely to fail. Unfortunately, if they subsequently obtain a low mark, it is also more likely that their motivation will collapse and a sense of helplessness will set in. After all, low marks suggest that they are not as bright as they were told and that there is nothing they can do about it. The psychological impact of poor results should not be underestimated. At one point in the Mueller and Dweck studies, all of the children were asked to tell their cla.s.smates how well they had performed on the test involving the difficult puzzles. Almost 40 percent of the children who had been praised lied about their grade, compared to about 10 percent of those who had not been praised.

Does this mean that all praise is bad praise? So far, I have described only the results from two of the three groups of children involved in the Mueller and Dweck experiment. After getting their initial "Well done, you made 80 percent" feedback, a third group also received a single sentence of praise. However, this time the experimenters praised effort, not ability, noting that they must have tried really hard to have achieved such a high mark. These children behaved very differently from those in the two other groups. When it came to choosing between a challenging task and an easy one, only about 10 percent of them selected the easy option. Compared to the children who had been told that they were intelligent or who received no praise at all, those in the "You must have tried very hard" group found the hard problems more enjoyable and were more likely to try to solve them on their own time. Finally, when given another set of easy problems at the end of the experiment, those in this third group solved significantly more than they did the first time around.

The results clearly showed that being praised for effort was very different from being praised for ability. According to Mueller and Dweck, the children praised for effort were encouraged to try regardless of the consequences, therefore sidestepping any fear of failure. As a result, the possibility for learning outweighed the fear of obtaining a low mark, and they preferred taking the challenging task to the easy option. Also, by definition, these children were more motivated to try hard on future tests, and so were more likely to succeed. And even if they did fail in the future, they could easily attribute their low marks to not trying hard enough, which avoided the sense of helplessness that could set in when poor results were seen as an indication of an innate inability to think.

Although the Mueller and Dweck studies were conducted in middle schools, other research has obtained the same type of findings among younger children and high school students.15 The consensus is that all praise is not created equal. Some praise can have devastating effects on a child's motivation, and other praise can help the child achieve the very best. Telling children that they possess a certain trait, such as being bright or talented, is not good for their psychological health because it encourages them to avoid challenging situations, not to try so hard, and quickly to become demotivated when the going gets tough. In contrast, praising effort encourages people to stretch themselves, work hard, and persist in the face of difficulties. The consensus is that all praise is not created equal. Some praise can have devastating effects on a child's motivation, and other praise can help the child achieve the very best. Telling children that they possess a certain trait, such as being bright or talented, is not good for their psychological health because it encourages them to avoid challenging situations, not to try so hard, and quickly to become demotivated when the going gets tough. In contrast, praising effort encourages people to stretch themselves, work hard, and persist in the face of difficulties.

IN 59 SECONDS.

It is easy to fall into the trap of trying to make children feel good by praising their abilities and talents. However, research shows that such compliments can have a detrimental effect and that it is far better to focus on the children's effort, concentration, and organizational skills. So, for example, when your daughter gets a good exam grade, recognize how hard she must have studied, how well she organized her homework time, and how good she must have been at performing under pressure. Similarly, when your son wins a place on the school football team, praise his ability to train hard and work well with others. This kind of praise encourages effort, resilience, and persistence in the face of failure. To help children focus further, consider asking reflective questions about the techniques and strategies that they used ("What parts of that did you enjoy the most?" or "How did you deal with any problems that came up?"), and try to make the praise as specific as possible ("You played well at football today," rather than "You are good at football").16 THE SECRET SCIENCE OF SELF-DISCIPLINE.

Let's start with a quick thought experiment. Imagine that you have decided to spend an hour or so in an upmarket coffee shop. You walk in and are presented with a long and tempting list of cakes and pastries. The portions are very small, but the quality is incredible. In your mind's eye, look down the list and choose your favorite item-perhaps a wonderful cheesecake, an amazing cookie, or a tasty piece of pie. Next, imagine giving your order and the waiter bringing a tiny but perfectly formed portion of your dream dessert. Visualize the dessert sitting in front of you right now, looking irresistibly mouthwatering. Then, just as you are about to dig in, the waiter explains that today the coffee shop is running a special offer. You can eat a single portion of the dessert right now, or you can wait thirty minutes and have a double portion for the same price. What would you do? Could you wait and get more, or would you demolish the dessert before the waiter even finishes describing the offer?

In the late 1960s Stanford University psychologist Walter Mischel carried out an amazing experiment involving a real-life version of the imagery scenario described above.17 Mischel and his team armed themselves with a large bag of marshmallows and a bell, went to a local school, and presented four-year-old children with a dilemma. An experimenter invited the children into a room one at a time and showed them to a table on which were a single marshmallow, a bell, and then two more marshmallows. It was explained to the child that the experimenter had to go out of the room for a few minutes, but that if the child could keep their hands off all the goodies on the table until the experimenter came back, he or she could eat the two marshmallows. The experimenter also explained that the child could ring the bell at any point and the experimenter would return, but that if this happened the child would be allowed to eat only the single marshmallow. Mischel and his team armed themselves with a large bag of marshmallows and a bell, went to a local school, and presented four-year-old children with a dilemma. An experimenter invited the children into a room one at a time and showed them to a table on which were a single marshmallow, a bell, and then two more marshmallows. It was explained to the child that the experimenter had to go out of the room for a few minutes, but that if the child could keep their hands off all the goodies on the table until the experimenter came back, he or she could eat the two marshmallows. The experimenter also explained that the child could ring the bell at any point and the experimenter would return, but that if this happened the child would be allowed to eat only the single marshmallow.

Each child was presented with a slightly less-glamorous version of the dessert-based dilemma that you faced a few moments ago. Ring the bell early and get a single marshmallow, or wait a while and get twice the prize. This deceptively simple test provided an accurate measure of each child's level of self-discipline. About one-third of the children grabbed the single marshmallow right away, another third took a little longer before ringing the bell, and a final third waited for the experimenter to return and therefore enjoyed two marshmallows.

However, Mischel was not interested only in discovering the percentage of children who were able to resist temptation. Instead, just like the children who obtained the two marsh-mallows by waiting, he was eager to carry out a truly impressive piece of work by thinking long-term. Ten years later, Mischel contacted the parents of as many of the children as possible. He asked about their children, who by then were adolescents. How well were they coping with life? Did they usually plan ahead? Was there a tendency for them to give up when the going got tough? The few moments spent in the company of three marshmallows and a bell many years before proved to be amazingly predictive. The children who had waited for the experimenter to return before eating their two marshmallows tended to develop into self-motivating and organized adults who were good at coping with difficulties and persisted in the face of failure. In contrast, those who immediately grabbed the single marshmallow grew up to be easily distracted, less motivated, and highly disorganized. Mischel's results also suggest that this ability is formed early in life and continues unchanged into adulthood, as well as that a very large percentage of children prefer to gobble down one marshmallow right away, rather than two in a few minutes' time, and so they struggle to get what they want out of life.

Whereas the marshmallow test measures impulsiveness, other researchers have focused on the kind of self-discipline that children need in order to listen to instructions, pay attention, and do what is required of them rather than the first thing that comes into their head. Some of this work, conducted by Megan McClelland at Oregon State University and her colleagues, has involved asking hundreds of children, between four and five years of age, to play a game called "head to toes."18 During the game, the experimenter says the phrase "Touch your head" or "Touch your toes." The children have to touch their toes when they hear "Touch your head" and touch their head when they hear "Touch your toes." In the same way that the marshmallow test predicts some aspects of long-term success, so the "head to toes" game provides a good indicator of the level of self-discipline needed for achieving important aims and ambitions. Research shows, for example, that school pupils' level of self-discipline provides a better predictor of their future academic success than their scores on intelligence tests. During the game, the experimenter says the phrase "Touch your head" or "Touch your toes." The children have to touch their toes when they hear "Touch your head" and touch their head when they hear "Touch your toes." In the same way that the marshmallow test predicts some aspects of long-term success, so the "head to toes" game provides a good indicator of the level of self-discipline needed for achieving important aims and ambitions. Research shows, for example, that school pupils' level of self-discipline provides a better predictor of their future academic success than their scores on intelligence tests.19 Outside the cla.s.sroom, dieters who are able to resist that mouthwatering slice of cake quickly lose weight, students who endure the hards.h.i.+p of homework achieve better exam grades, and athletes who are prepared to spend hours training win more medals. Outside the cla.s.sroom, dieters who are able to resist that mouthwatering slice of cake quickly lose weight, students who endure the hards.h.i.+p of homework achieve better exam grades, and athletes who are prepared to spend hours training win more medals.

If you happen to find yourself in the company of a child who is struggling with such skills, what is the best way of helping them control their impulses and behave themselves? Is it better, for example, to play good cop ("Would you be a little darling and please spend only thirty minutes on the computer?") or to adopt a more threatening approach ("If you don't get off the computer now, that optical mouse is going right up your USB port"). In the mid-1960s, Jonathan Freedman from Stanford University conducted an experiment on this issue.20 His study involved a group of about forty boys, between seven and ten years of age, who were attending one of two local schools in California. One at a time, the boys were invited into a room and asked to rate the degree to which they liked five toys by a.s.signing each one a number between 0 ("very, very bad toy") and 100 ("very, very good toy"). Four of the toys were fairly mundane: a cheap plastic submarine, a child's baseball glove, a toy tractor, and a d.i.c.k Tracy toy rifle. In contrast, the fifth toy was far more expensive and exciting. This was a toy among toys, a battery-controlled robot that represented the very height of 1960s technological wonder.

After the boy completed the ratings, the researcher explained that he had an errand to run and so would have to leave the room for a few minutes. He told the boy that he was free to play with four of the toys but was not to touch the robot. Half of the boys were clearly told that bad things would happen if they disobeyed the experimenter ("If you play with the robot, I'll be very angry and will have to do something about it"), while the other half were subjected to a more "softly, softly" approach ("Do not play with the robot. It is wrong to play with the robot"). The experimenter then left, leaving the boy staring longingly at the robot and its "come and play with me" flas.h.i.+ng eyes. About five minutes later, the experimenter returned, thanked the boy for taking part, and allowed him to leave.

Did the boys succ.u.mb to temptation? To find out, the researchers had fitted the robot with a secret device that measured whether the toy had been turned on. The data revealed that only two of the boys had the self-control to leave the robot alone. One of the boys came from the group that had been given stern instructions not to play with the robot, while the other was from the group that had been subjected to the "softly, softly" approach. When the experimenter was not present to enforce the instruction not to play with the robot, both approaches proved equally ineffective.

However, Freedman hadn't expected any real difference in the short term. He was far more interested in differences that might emerge over a long period of time. About six weeks later, he sent a female experimenter back to the schools, apparently to conduct a different study with the same boys. Each boy was invited into the room and asked to make a drawing. Exactly the same collection of toys had been placed in the corner of the room, and when the children had finished their drawings, the experimenter explained that they could now spend a few minutes playing with any of the toys. This time, none of the toys were designated out of bounds, and so all of them were up for grabs. A big difference emerged between the two groups. Of those in the "I'll be really angry and will have to do something about it" group, 77 percent played with the robot, compared to just 33 percent of those in the "softly, softly" group. Remarkably, just a slight change from the experimenter's instructions of several weeks earlier had had a significant impact on the boys' subsequent behavior, with the softer wording producing far more compliance.

Why the big difference? There are several possible explanations. According to some researchers, it has to do with people's response to threats. Normally, people need to be threatened only when someone does not want them to do something that they want to do. And the more they want to do something, the bigger the threat needs to be to prevent them from doing it. According to this approach, the children who heard the stronger threats would have unconsciously thought, "Wow, people only give out big threats like that when I really want to do something that they don't want me to do, so I must really want to play with the robot." Using the same logic, a quiet request to the other boys that they not play with the robot resulted in their convincing themselves that they didn't really want to play with the toy.

Other researchers argue that the threat instantly elevated the robot to the status of forbidden fruit and elicited the age-old tendency to want to do something because it is not permitted. Although academic arguments rage about whether this tendency is driven by a sense of curiosity, stubbornness, or rebellion, everyone agrees that the effect is powerful and reliable, and explains why attempts to ban teenage smoking, drinking, and fast driving frequently backfire.21 In the secret science of self-discipline, the truth is that some children have an almost innate ability to control their impulses, whereas others find it difficult to resist instant gratification. And to instill self-discipline in those who grab the single marshmallow rather than waiting for two later, it's clear that the smaller the threat you make, the bigger the impact.

IN 59 SECONDS.

The Marshmallow Test It is easy to do the marshmallow test with your own children and friends. Find a food that they like and offer them the option of a small portion now or a larger portion if they sit and wait for about ten minutes. If you are going to do this quick and fun a.s.sessment, make sure that your guinea pigs can see the small and large portions of food throughout the test. Mischel's research suggests that the experiment is most effective when people are continuously tempted by the sight of their favorite food!

Heads and Toes During this game, children have to touch their toes when they hear the phrase "Touch your head," and touch their head when they hear the phrase "Touch your toes." To play, explain the rules to your child and give them a couple of practice sessions. Then randomly say the phrase "Touch your head" or "Touch your toes" and award 2 points if the child makes the correct response without hesitation, 1 point when they start to make the incorrect response and then correct themselves, and 0 points for an incorrect response. Try a list of ten commands and see how they score. On average, three-year-old children tend to obtain 3 points, four-year-olds score about 10, and five-year-olds get about 14 correct. If your child does not score within this range, don't panic! It is perfectly normal for children to get a range of scores, but a low score may indicate that he or she could benefit from some of the games described below.

Focusing on Focus Studies suggest that playing certain types of games can help children learn to pay attention, follow directions, and develop self-control.22 In the "freeze game," tell your child to dance to music and then freeze when the music stops. In the first part of the game, your child has to dance slowly to slow songs and quickly to fast songs. However, once they have mastered this stage, ask them to do the opposite, dancing quickly to the slow songs and slowly to the fast songs. In a similar exercise, called "conducting the orchestra," give your child any musical instrument and conduct their music using a makes.h.i.+ft baton. In the first part of the game, ask them to play when you wave the baton but stop when you put it down. Next, ask them to play quickly when you move the baton quickly and slowly when you move the baton slowly. Finally, ask your child to do the opposite, playing quickly when you put the baton down and slowly when you wave it around. In the "freeze game," tell your child to dance to music and then freeze when the music stops. In the first part of the game, your child has to dance slowly to slow songs and quickly to fast songs. However, once they have mastered this stage, ask them to do the opposite, dancing quickly to the slow songs and slowly to the fast songs. In a similar exercise, called "conducting the orchestra," give your child any musical instrument and conduct their music using a makes.h.i.+ft baton. In the first part of the game, ask them to play when you wave the baton but stop when you put it down. Next, ask them to play quickly when you move the baton quickly and slowly when you move the baton slowly. Finally, ask your child to do the opposite, playing quickly when you put the baton down and slowly when you wave it around.

There are several other techniques that can help children understand, value, and develop the power of self-discipline. Have them write their name with their nondominant hand, repeat the months of the year or days of the week in reverse order, or name as many objects in a certain category (e.g., vegetables, pets, countries) as they can in thirty seconds. Also, when you see your child concentrating very hard on something, encourage them to reflect on their behavior by, for example, asking them how long they thought they'd been concentrating (point out that time flies when you are focused) or how it felt when someone interrupted them (point out the value of being able to get back into a task after someone interrupts you).

Avoiding Threats Threats work well in the short term but can actually prove counterproductive over longer periods of time. By pointing out all of the terrible things that will happen if your child follows a course of action, you may be making that activity more attractive in their minds. Instead, try the "softly, softly" approach used in the toy robot experiment. State that you do not want them to do something and leave it there. If they really do insist on knowing why you are stopping them, try to get them to identify some possible reasons themselves.

personality Why not to trust graphology graphology, how to gain an apparently magical insight insight into other people's other people's personality personality from their fingers fingers and and thumbs thumbs, their pets pets, and the time they go to bed

IN 2005 WORLD LEADERS gathered at a major economic forum in Switzerland to discuss some of the biggest problems facing Planet Earth. From poverty to privatization, and capitalism to climate change, nothing escaped their eagle eyes and influential minds. Despite the enormity of the issues, however, much of the media coverage of the event focused on a single sheet of paper that had been carelessly left by one of the attendees at a press conference. gathered at a major economic forum in Switzerland to discuss some of the biggest problems facing Planet Earth. From poverty to privatization, and capitalism to climate change, nothing escaped their eagle eyes and influential minds. Despite the enormity of the issues, however, much of the media coverage of the event focused on a single sheet of paper that had been carelessly left by one of the attendees at a press conference.

The newspapers had managed to get hold of a page of scribbled notes and doodles apparently made by Tony Blair during the event. They asked various graphologists to make a psychological a.s.sessment of the British prime minister on the basis of his handwriting and drawings. The graphologists quickly rose to the challenge, noting how, for example, his disconnected letters, right-sloping writing, and strange way of writing d d showed the "Blair flair at work" and revealed that he was struggling to keep control of a confusing world, was a day-dreamer hoping for the best, was unable to complete tasks, and possessed an unconscious death wish toward his political career. showed the "Blair flair at work" and revealed that he was struggling to keep control of a confusing world, was a day-dreamer hoping for the best, was unable to complete tasks, and possessed an unconscious death wish toward his political career.

At the time, Blair was trying to deal with various political problems and scandals, including a forthcoming election with the smallest of majorities, and so the observations seemed to present an accurate insight into his personality. However, a few days later things did not look so rosy: Downing Street pointed out that the page did not belong to Blair but had instead been produced by fellow attendee Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft and one of the world's most successful businessmen.

According to the proponents of graphology, the Blair-Gates mix-up is just a small blot on their copybook. In general, they say, a person's handwriting can reveal amazingly accurate insight into their personality, intelligence, health, and even criminal intent. These claims are taken seriously by many personnel departments, with surveys revealing that between 5 percent and 10 percent of U.S. and UK businesses regularly use graphology to eliminate unsuitable candidates in their recruitment procedures.1 But is there really anything to it, or is graphology just another mind myth? Researcher Geoffrey Dean has devoted a great deal of time to examining the topic, gathering hundreds of scientific studies and using them to examine the claims made by the proponents of this ancient art form. The results make for chilling reading.

In one a.n.a.lysis, Dean collated the findings from sixteen academic papers that had examined graphology in the workplace. He compared graphologists' predictions of employee performance with supervisors' ratings of success during job training. The results revealed that there was little relations.h.i.+p between graphologists' predictions and the ratings of job success. In fact, the graphologists were about as accurate as a control group of untrained laypeople who had no experience in graphology at all.

In another a.n.a.lysis, Dean examined studies in which researchers had compared graphologists' attempts to determine a person's character with that person's scores on scientifically validated personality tests. Dean collected the journal articles (this time fifty-three of them) and a.n.a.lyzed the results. Not only was the graphologists' accuracy poor, but control groups of people with absolutely no training or background in a.s.sessing personality from handwriting scored just as well as the so-called experts.

When it comes to obtaining a graphology-based insight into the personality of others, the writing is on the wall. The Blair-Gates slipup does not represent a momentary slip of the pen but is symbolic of the findings of scientific studies that have investigated graphology. Contrary to the claims made by proponents, research suggests that graphology does not provide an amazingly accurate and reliable insight into personality and should not be seen as a useful way to predict employee performance.

So if you cannot understand someone's personality on the basis of their handwriting, how can you gain insight into their real character? The answer involves a concept known as the "Big Five," the eighteenth-century womanizer Giacomo Casanova, and the b.u.mper stickers that people place on their cars.

THE BIG FIVE.

Some of the world's greatest thinkers have attempted to understand the complexities of human personality. Freud believed that people were best categorized according to the bodily orifice from which they derived the greatest pleasure, maverick Victorian scientist Sir Francis Galton examined b.u.mps on the skull, and Jung was convinced that personalities were determined by the position of the stars at the moment of birth.

Other scientists, such as Gordon Allport and Hans Eysenck, pursued a more levelheaded, and ultimately productive, approach.2 These researchers believed that the secret structure of the human psyche was buried deep within language. They speculated that the words people use to describe themselves and others were created because they accurately reflect fundamental dimensions of personality. They thought that if this was the case, it should be possible to discover the fundamental structure of personality by carefully collecting and collating all of the words that could be used to describe a person. These researchers believed that the secret structure of the human psyche was buried deep within language. They speculated that the words people use to describe themselves and others were created because they accurately reflect fundamental dimensions of personality. They thought that if this was the case, it should be possible to discover the fundamental structure of personality by carefully collecting and collating all of the words that could be used to describe a person.

The enterprise began in the 1930s, with a group of dedicated researchers carefully poring over each page of an unabridged dictionary. They selected each and every word that could be used to describe personality. From "amusing" to "abhorrent," "benign" to "belligerent," the team eventually compiled a list of more than eighteen thousand words. They then worked through the list and identified four thousand words that described relatively stable and central traits. In the 1940s another group of researchers continued the effort and subjected this shortened list to an early form of computerized a.n.a.lysis that reduced it to a set of about two hundred words. Over the next forty years or so, thousands of people were asked to rate themselves and others on various subsets of these adjectives, and researchers employed increasingly sophisticated statistical techniques to a.n.a.lyze the data in an attempt to identify the key dimensions on which people differed. Consensus finally emerged in the early 1990s, when several large-scale studies from many different countries and cultures confirmed the existence of five fundamental dimensions of personality.3 Together these factors, collectively referred to as the "Big Five," represent the holy grail of personality research. The five dimensions have been given different labels over the years, but are commonly referred to as openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (easily remembered by using the acronym OCEAN). Each dimension is seen as a continuum that runs from high to low, and everyone can be described by five scores that indicate where they sit on each scale. Additional work has shown that the dimensions are determined by a combination of genes and childhood experiences and they tend to remain unchanged throughout a person's life, and thus influence almost every aspect of behavior including relations.h.i.+ps, performance in the workplace, leisure activities, consumer choice, religious and political beliefs, creativity, sense of humor, and health.

So what lies at the heart of these five dimensions, and what does it mean to obtain a high or low score on each of them?

Openness represents the degree to which a person seeks and appreciates new, interesting, and unusual experiences. High scorers are curious and broad-minded. They get bored easily, but are especially good at tolerating ambiguity and so are skilled at seeing situations and problems from many different perspectives. They are creative, original, wise, funny, imaginative, and unconventional. They have a rich inner life, like new ideas, tend to remember their dreams, and make good hypnotic subjects. In contrast, low scorers tend to be more conventional, down-to-earth, and better able to focus on the practical side of things. They are more comfortable with familiar places and food, and tend to work through problems on a step-by-step basis. represents the degree to which a person seeks and appreciates new, interesting, and unusual experiences. High scorers are curious and broad-minded. They get bored easily, but are especially good at tolerating ambiguity and so are skilled at seeing situations and problems from many different perspectives. They are creative, original, wise, funny, imaginative, and unconventional. They have a rich inner life, like new ideas, tend to remember their dreams, and make good hypnotic subjects. In contrast, low scorers tend to be more conventional, down-to-earth, and better able to focus on the practical side of things. They are more comfortable with familiar places and food, and tend to work through problems on a step-by-step basis.

Conscientiousness reflects the degree of organization, persistence, and self-discipline to achieve goals. High scorers are very organized, reliable, hardworking, persevering, and able to forgo short-term rewards for long-term success. They tend to do especially well in the workplace, keep their New Year's resolutions, and be highly punctual. They also tend to live significantly longer than others because they don't usually engage in high-risk behaviors, such as reckless driving, and are far more likely to exercise, eat a balanced diet, and have regular medical checkups. Low scorers tend to be less reliable and more easygoing and hedonistic. They are harder to motivate and more easily distracted, but can show greater flexibility in the face of changing circ.u.mstances. reflects the degree of organization, persistence, and self-discipline to achieve goals. High scorers are very organized, reliable, hardworking, persevering, and able to forgo short-term rewards for long-term success. They tend to do especially well in the workplace, keep their New Year's resolutions, and be highly punctual. They also tend to live significantly longer than others because they don't usually engage in high-risk behaviors, such as reckless driving, and are far more likely to exercise, eat a balanced diet, and have regular medical checkups. Low scorers tend to be less reliable and more easygoing and hedonistic. They are harder to motivate and more easily distracted, but can show greater flexibility in the face of changing circ.u.mstances.

Extroversion reflects the need for stimulation from the outside world and other people. Those who obtain high scores on this dimension are fun to be with, impulsive, optimistic, happy, enjoy the company of others, and have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances. They prefer to lead rather than follow, enjoy aggressive and s.e.xually explicit humor, drink more, are skilled at mult.i.tasking, strive for instant gratification, have more s.e.xual partners than others, and are more likely to cheat on their partner. Low scorers tend to be far more considered, controlled, and reserved. Their social life revolves around a relatively small number of very close friends, and they prefer reading a good book to a night out on the town. They are more sensitive to pain, good at focusing on a single task, prefer more intellectual forms of humor, such as puns, and like to work in closed offices with few distractions. reflects the need for stimulation from the outside world and other people. Those who obtain high scores on this dimension are fun to be with, impulsive, optimistic, happy, enjoy the company of others, and have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances. They prefer to lead rather than follow, enjoy aggressive and s.e.xually explicit humor, drink more, are skilled at mult.i.tasking, strive for instant gratification, have more s.e.xual partners than others, and are more likely to cheat on their partner. Low scorers tend to be far more considered, controlled, and reserved. Their social life revolves around a relatively small number of very close friends, and they prefer reading a good book to a night out on the town. They are more sensitive to pain, good at focusing on a single task, prefer more intellectual forms of humor, such as puns, and like to work in closed offices with few distractions.

Agreeableness is the degree to which a person cares about others. High scorers are trustworthy, altruistic, kind, affectionate, and, perhaps most important of all, likeable. They are less likely to divorce, are perceived much more favorably in job interviews, and are more likely to be promoted at work. Low scorers tend to be far more aggressive, hostile, and uncooperative. They tend to see things from their own point of view, value being right over caring about other people's thoughts and feelings, perform better in situations that require tough-mindedness, and are less likely to be taken advantage of by others. is the degree to which a person cares about others. High scorers are trustworthy, altruistic, kind, affectionate, and, perhaps most important of all, likeable. They are less likely to divorce, are perceived much more favorably in job interviews, and are more likely to be promoted at work. Low scorers tend to be far more aggressive, hostile, and uncooperative. They tend to see things from their own point of view, value being right over caring about other people's thoughts and feelings, perform better in situations that require tough-mindedness, and are less likely to be taken advantage of by others.

The fifth and final dimension, Neuroticism Neuroticism, reflects the degree to which a person is emotionally stable and able to cope with potentially stressful situations. High scorers are far more p.r.o.ne to worry, have low self-esteem, set unrealistic aspirations, and frequently experience a range of negative emotions, including distress, hostility, and envy. Their strong need to be loved, coupled with low self-esteem, can lead to forming overly possessive and dependent relations.h.i.+ps. Low scorers tend to be calm, relaxed, resilient in the face of failure, and emotionally secure. They are unfazed by negative life events, skilled at using humor to reduce anxiety in themselves and others, able to cope well with misfortune, and sometimes even thrive on stress.

Most psychologists now believe that the apparent complexity of human personality is an illusion. In reality, people vary on just five fundamental dimensions. Understand these dimensions and you gain important insights into your behavior and thinking. Likewise, being able to quickly understand the personality of those around you will help you to understand their actions and how best to communicate with them. Modern-day research suggests that Freud, Galton, and Jung were wrong and that the secret to understanding personality lies in the five fundamental factors that are embedded deep within our language and lives.

IN 59 SECONDS.

Psychologists have created several questionnaires to carefully measure people's responses on each of the Big Five dimensions. Unfortunately, they tend to involve a large number of questions, and so take a considerable amount of time to complete. However, some researchers have created a quick and easy version that will help you discover your position on each of the five main dimensions.4 It does not provide a perfect description but is a useful guide to the fundamental forces that make up your personality. It does not provide a perfect description but is a useful guide to the fundamental forces that make up your personality.

To complete the questionnaire, please use the rating scale that follows and check a box to describe how accurately each statement describes you you. Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know who are the same s.e.x as you are and roughly your age. At this point, ignore the numbers in the top-right corner of each box.

[image]

SCORING.

Look at the numbers in the top-right corner of the boxes that you have checked in statements 5 ("having excellent ideas") and 10 ("having difficulty understanding abstract ideas"). Add these two numbers to find your score on the Openness dimension. If your score is 10 or less, then you should see yourself as a low scorer, whereas if your score is above 10, you should see yourself as a high scorer. Write your total on the line below, and check either the Low or the High score line.

OPENNESS.

Total of statements 5 and 10:--- ---Low (10 and below)---High (above 10) Now repeat this process for the remaining four dimensions: CONSCIENTIOUSNESS.

Total of statements 3 and 8:--- ---Low (11 and below)---High (above 11) EXTROVERSION.

Total of statements 1 and 6:--- ---Low (9 and below)---High (above 9) AGREEABLENESS.

Total of statements 2 and 7:--- ---Low (10 and below)---High (above 10) NEUROTICISM.

Total of statements 4 and 9:--- ---Low (9 and below)---High (above 9) A Quick a.n.a.lysis, and a Few Handy Hints, Based on Your Scores Openness. High scorers tend to be imaginative and creative but also p.r.o.ne to boredom, and so strive to continually feed their mind with new ideas and experiences. Low scorers are more down-to-earth, and so tend to seek out situations in which they have to turn an existing idea into reality, take small steps rather than initiate radical change, and follow well-established patterns and rules.

Conscientiousness. High scorers are methodical, well organized, and dutiful, and perform best in highly structured and predictable environments where there is a place for everything and everything is in its place. Low scorers are far more laid-back and find it easy to enjoy life, but may well need a helping hand when it comes to self-discipline.

Extroversion. High scorers are energized by the company of others, are evening types, and are motivated more by carrots than sticks. In contrast, low scorers tend to be happiest working alone and in quiet surroundings, are most alert in the morning, and are motivated more by fear of punishment than promise of rewards.

Agreeableness. High scorers tend to be trusting, friendly, and cooperative, but have to be careful to avoid situations in which others might take advantage of their overly giving nature. Low scorers tend to be more aggressive and compet.i.tive, and bloom in situations that require tough thinking and straight talking.

Neuroticism. High scorers are p.r.o.ne to insecurity and emotional distress, and avoid situations that they find upsetting because those negative feelings take some time to fade away. Low scorers tend to be more relaxed, less emotional and less p.r.o.ne to distress, and they operate well in situations that others find stressful.

BEHIND THE BIG FIVEDifferences in brain function and upbringing may account for differences in the fundamental dimensions of personality.For example, a relations.h.i.+p exists between extroversion and brain activation. If you open the top of someone's skull and look in, you will see the wrinkled ma.s.s of tissue that is their cortex. This large lump of meat makes up about 80 percent of the weight of a brain and contains an amazing 100 billion neurons. Every cortex has a different pre-set level of arousal. Brain scans have revealed that people scoring low on extroversion have a high pre-set level of arousal. As a result, they avoid situations that further arouse their stimulated brains and are most comfortable when they are engaged in quiet, predictable activities. The exact opposite is true of those who score high on extroversion. Their brains have a much lower pre-set level of arousal, so they have a need for continuous stimulation. Because of this, they enjoy being with other people, risk taking, and impulsive behavior.Other work has focused more on the relations.h.i.+p between personality and upbringing. For example, University of California psychologist Frank Sulloway believes that levels of openness are determined, at least to some extent, by birth order.5 According to Sulloway's theory, because younger children haven't developed the abilities and skills that their older siblings have, they explore novel ways to get their parents' love and attention, and this, in turn, causes them to develop into more open, creative, unconventional, adventurous, and rebellious people. To test his theory, Sulloway a.n.a.lyzed the biographies of more than six thousand well-known people from many different walks of life, and he claims that the evidence is overwhelming. He notes that the vast majority of American presidents (including Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton) were firstborns, whereas leaders of revolutions, such as Jefferson, Marx, and Castro, were later in their families' birth order. Likewise, when it comes to science, Sulloway argues that firstborns tend to be members of the scientific establishment, whereas younger siblings, such as Darwin and Copernicus, are the ones who propose radically new ideas. It is a controversial idea, According to Sulloway's theory, because younger children haven't developed the abilities and skills that their older siblings have, they explore novel ways to get their parents' love and attention, and this, in turn, causes them to develop into more open, creative, unconventional, adventurous, and rebellious people. To test his theory, Sulloway a.n.a.lyzed the biographies of more than six thousand well-known people from many different walks of life, and he claims that the evidence is overwhelming. He notes that the vast majority of American presidents (including Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton) were firstborns, whereas leaders of revolutions, such as Jefferson, Marx, and Castro, were later in their families' birth order. Likewise, when it comes to science, Sulloway argues that firstborns tend to be members of the scientific establishment, whereas younger siblings, such as Darwin and Copernicus, are the ones who propose radically new ideas. It is a controversial idea,6 but if correct, it provides a striking ill.u.s.tration of how subtle differences in childhood experience may have a surprisingly dramatic effect on personality. but if correct, it provides a striking ill.u.s.tration of how subtle differences in childhood experience may have a surprisingly dramatic effect on personality.

THE CASANOVA EFFECT.

Imagine deciding to quit your job and embark on a new career as a professional palmist. You invest in the requisite purple caftan, set up a small booth on the busy promenade in the nearest seaside town, and nervously await your first customer. A few moments later, a man walks in, sits down, and crosses your palm with silver. You carefully look at the stranger's hand and try to spot any telltale clues that might give you a magical insight into his life. Is his soft skin a sign of office work? Do his chewed nails signal a recent job loss? Is his calloused palm suggestive of too much time at the gym-or does it reflect a strong need to find a love interest? According to some psychologists, you would be much better off ignoring his soft skin, chewed nails, and calloused palm, instead s.h.i.+fting your attention to the length of his index and ring fingers. Their argument is a curious one, which links the famous eighteenth-century womanizer Giacomo Casanova with some of Britain's most famous soccer players.

According to his colorful autobiography, Casanova enjoyed the company of many European kings, cardinals, poets, and artists.7 At one point he describes how he spent time with the eminent German painter Anton Raphael Mengs. After a while, they started to argue, with Mengs berating Casanova for not observing his religious duties and Casanova accusing Mengs of being a child-beating alcoholic. As the situation moved from bad to worse, Casanova took it upon himself to criticize one of Mengs's paintings. He pointed out that the index finger of a princ.i.p.al male character was longer than the ring finger and was therefore anatomically incorrect, as men's ring fingers were longer than their index fingers. Mengs defended his work by showing that his own index finger was longer than his ring finger. Casanova stuck to his argument, showing that his ring finger was longer than his index finger, claiming that this was true of most men and arguing that his hands were thus "like that of all the children descended from Adam." Affronted, Mengs asked Casanova, "Then from whom do you suppose I am descended?" Casanova replied, "I have no idea; but it is certain that you are not of my species." As the argument escalated, they raised a bet of one hundred pistoles on the issue and promptly rounded up the painter's servants to discover who was right. A quick perusal of the servants' hands revealed that Casanova was correct, but Mengs quickly saved face by rejoicing in the fact that he could now boast of being unique in something. At one point he describes how he spent time with the eminent German painter Anton Raphael Mengs. After a while, they started to argue, with Mengs berating Casanova for not observing his religious duties and Casanova accusing Mengs of being a child-beating alcoholic. As the situation moved from bad to worse, Casanova took it upon himself to criticize one of Mengs's paintings. He pointed out that the index finger of a princ.i.p.al male character was longer than the ring finger and was therefore anatomically incorrect, as men's ring fingers were longer than their index fingers. Mengs defended his work by showing that his own index finger was longer than his ring finger. Casanova stuck to his argument, showing that his ring finger was longer than his index finger, claiming that this was true of most men and arguing that his hands were thus "like that of all the children descended from Adam." Affronted, Mengs asked Casanova, "Then from whom do you suppose I am descended?" Casanova replied, "I have no idea; but it is certain that you are not of my species." As the argument escalated, they raised a bet of one hundred pistoles on the issue and promptly rounded up the painter's servants to discover who was right. A quick perusal of the servants' hands revealed that Casanova was correct, but Mengs quickly saved face by rejoicing in the fact that he could now boast of being unique in something.

Evolutionary psychologist John Manning, at the University of Central Lancas.h.i.+re, has dedicated much of his professional life to studying the differences in finger lengths described by Casanova. He argues that they reveal an important insight into the human psyche.8 Manning and his colleagues measure the length of people's index and ring fingers, and then divide the first length by the second to obtain what is commonly referred to as the "2D:4D" (second digit to fourth digit) ratio. If the ring and index fingers are exactly the same length, then the 2D:4D ratio will be 1.00. If, however, the ring finger is longer than the index finger, then the 2D:4D ratio will be less than 1.00, and conversely, if the index finger is longer than the ring finger, then the 2D:4D ratio will be greater than 1.00. Manning and his colleagues measure the length of people's index and ring fingers, and then divide the first length by the second to obtain what is commonly referred to as the "2D:4D" (second digit to fourth digit) ratio. If the ring and index fingers are exactly the same length, then the 2D:4D ratio will be 1.00. If, however, the ring finger is longer than the index finger, then the 2D:4D ratio will be less than 1.00, and conversely, if the index finger is longer than the ring finger, then the 2D:4D ratio will be greater than 1.00.

The research has conclusively revealed that the finger-length pattern described by Casanova tends to be a.s.sociated far more with men than with women, with the average 2D:4D ratio for men being about .98, while the corresponding figure for women hovers around 1.00. In short, men's ring fingers tend to be longer than their index fingers, whereas women's fingers tend to be about the same length.

Why should this be the case? According to Manning, the explanation dates back to the very start of a person's life and is closely linked to testosterone levels in the womb. After about six weeks or so, the level of testosterone in the womb changes, and those fetuses that are exposed to large amounts of the hormone develop more male characteristics, while those exposed to much smaller levels develop more female attributes. Manning argues that testosterone also plays a key role in determining the length of a person's index and ring fingers, with high levels resulting in a relatively long ring finger. If Manning's theory is right, a person's 2D:4D ratio is related to the amount of testosterone that they were exposed to in the womb and should provide a good indication of the degree to which they possess psychological and physical traits commonly a.s.sociated with either masculinity or femininity. According to this theory, people with low 2D:4D ratios will be more likely than others to exhibit masculine characteristics, while those with high 2D:4D ratios will be significantly more likely to be in touch with their feminine side.

It is a controversial idea and one that has attracted its fair share of criticism.9 However, proponents argue that a large body of research now supports the theory, including work examining physical strength and sporting success. In one study, a group of men had their finger lengths measured and were then asked to complete various strength tests, including shoulder, overhead, and bench presses. However, proponents argue that a large body of research now supports the theory, including work examining physical strength and sporting success. In one study, a group of men had their finger lengths measured and were then asked to complete various strength tests, including shoulder, overhead, and bench presses.10 The results revealed the expected relations.h.i.+ps. Men who had lower 2D:4D ratios were able to lift heavier weights than those with higher ratios. Often the differences were far from trivial. For example, for overhead presses, those with 2D:4D ratios of .91 lifted twenty-four pounds more than those with ratios of more than 1.00. In another study, researchers turned their attention to student sprinters and found that their times in the 100-meter, 800-meter, and 1,500-meter races were all related to 2D:4D ratios, with the faster runners having lower ratios. The results revealed the expected relations.h.i.+ps. Men who had lower 2D:4D ratios were able to lift heavier weights than those with higher ratios. Often the differences were far from trivial. For example, for overhead presses, those with 2D:4D ratios of .91 lifted twenty-four pounds more than those with ratios of more than 1.00. In another study, researchers turned their attention to student sprinters and found that their times in the 100-meter, 800-meter, and 1,500-meter races were all related to 2D:4D ratios, with the faster runners having lower ratios.11 In another experiment, Manning and his team managed to measure the finger lengths of some of the best-known and most highly skilled soccer players in Britain. In another experiment, Manning and his team managed to measure the finger lengths of some of the best-known and most highly skilled soccer players in Britain.12 Attending a centenary celebration designed to mark the end of the 100th English League Champions.h.i.+p, the researchers persuaded more than three hundred players to have their hands photocopied, and then compared their finger lengths to those of a control group of more than five hundred men who had never ventured onto a soccer field. The 2D:4D ratio of the players was significantly lower than that of the controls. Strong differences also emerged among the different groups of players, with high-performing "legends" and those who had played at an international level having especially low ratios. Attending a centenary celebration designed to mark the end of the 100th English League Champions.h.i.+p, the researchers persuaded more than three hundred players to have their hands photocopied, and then compared their finger lengths to those of a control group of more than five hundred men who had never ventured onto a soccer field. The 2D:4D ratio of the players was significantly lower than that of the controls. Strong differences also emerged among the different groups of players, with high-performing "legends" and those who had played at an international level having especially low ratios.

Other work suggests that the 2D:4D effect may also extend to certain psychological traits. A great deal of research has shown that men tend to outperform women in tests that involve the mental manipulation of spatial information (perhaps explaining the alleged fondness of women for turning maps around when navigating). In line with this finding, Manning believes that his research suggests that men with low 2D:4D ratios (who therefore, according to his theory, possess more "masculine" brains) tend to outperform others on these tasks.13 Similarly, he cites other work suggesting that when it comes to personality, women with lower 2D:4D ratios tend to exhibit traits that the researchers believe to be more male-oriented, including being more a.s.sertive and risk taking. Similarly, he cites other work suggesting that when it comes to personality, women with lower 2D:4D ratios tend to exhibit traits that the researchers believe to be more male-oriented, including being more a.s.sertive and risk taking.14 According to Manning, the effect even extends to making music. Noting that there are about ten times as many male professional musicians as females, Manning argues that musical ability is a.s.sociated more with a masculine brain than a feminine brain and that therefore highly skilled performers should have an especially low 2D:4D ratio. To test this idea, he measured the 2D:4D ratio of fifty-four male members of a well-known British symphony orchestra. Several sections of the orchestra were organized in a hierarchical way, with more highly skilled musicians taking key positions. Manning discovered that performers in these key positions did indeed have significantly lower 2D:4D ratios than their fellow musicians.15 In order to obtain a mysterious insight into yourself and others, it may well be better to forget traditional palmistry and instead focus your attention on the apparently important relative lengths of the index finger and the ring finger.

IN 59 SECONDS.

Some researchers believe that the relative length of your first and third fingers provides considerable insight into your psychological and physical abilities. To quickly a.s.sess yourself, hold your left hand palm up in front of you and look at the length of your first (index) and third (ring) fingers.

[image]

Your first finger may be slightly longer than your third finger, and so your hand will tend to resemble the ill.u.s.tration below.

[image]

Alternatively, your third finger may be slightly longer than your first finger, and so your hand would be more like the ill.u.s.tration below.

[image]

According to the theory, a relatively long third finger is indicative of a more "masculine" brain and body and is a.s.sociated with, for example, high levels of performance in sports, greater a.s.sertiveness, increased emotional stability, and enhanced musical ability.

To carry out a slightly more accurate version of the exercise, hold your right palm up in front of you and look at where your first finger joins the palm of your hand. There will be several creases at that point. Place the zero mark of the ruler on the middle of the bottom crease and measure to the tip of your finger (not your nail) in millimeters. Now repeat exactly the same procedure for your right third finger. To find the 2D:4D ratio, divide the length of your first finger by the length of your third finger. Research shows that the average male ratio is about .98, and a ratio of about .94 would be regarded as especially masculine, while a ratio of 1.00 would be viewed as more feminine. For women, the average ratio is about 1.00, and a score of about .98 would be regarded as more masculine while a ratio of 102 would be viewed as more feminine.

CELEBRITY FINGERSWhen I first came across research suggesting that the 2D:4D ratio predicted athletic and musical excellence, I wondered whether the same effect might emerge among people who had made a name for themselves in other occupations. However, as measuring the finger lengths of the rich and famous seemed rather problematic, I filed the idea in the somewhat cramped mental box marked "Probably Never Going to Happen." Then, some time ago, I was watching a television program doc.u.menting a road trip across America and suddenly had an idea. One of the scenes was filmed in Los Angeles and involved chatting with people walking along Hollywood Boulevard. In the background I could see the world-famous Grauman's Chinese Theatre, and suddenly the penny dropped.Since the 1920s many of the world's most famous celebrities have had their signatures, footprints, and handprints set in concrete blocks at the entrance of the theater. Was it possible, I wondered, to accurately measure finger lengths from the casts and thus discover the 2D:4D ratios of some of the best-known figures in show business? My mind started to race. Would leading men have especially high levels of testosterone and therefore especially low 2D:4D ratios? What about comedians? Their success often rests on being verbally skilled and creative rather than having rugged good looks-would that be reflected in a high 2D:4D ratio?There was just one small problem-I was in London and the casts were in Los Angeles. Never one to let a few thousand miles get in the way of research, I contacted a colleague named Jim Underdown. Jim is a former stand-up comedian from Chicago who now works for the Center for Inquiry, an American organization that promotes the skeptical and scientific investigation of alleged paranormal phenomena. He heads a branch of the organization based in Los Angeles and has been involved in all sorts of strange projects, including examining sightings of alleged UFOs and testing people who claim to have psychic powers.I e-mailed Jim and asked whether he might be able to help out. More specifically, could he obtain some digital calipers and arrange for a colleague (who was unaware of the 2D:4D theory) to measure as many of the concrete handprints as possible? Jim accepted the challenge. A few weeks later he e-mailed me to say that calipers had been purchased and that he had teamed up with another researcher named Spencer Marks and spent several days avoiding puddles and security guards, eventually collecting initial data from thirty-seven of the best-known leading men and nine comedians.The list of leading men read like a who's who of the film industry, including Paul Newman, Bruce Willis, Johnny Depp, John Travolta, Warren Beatty, and Jack Nicholson. Previous work suggested that the average male 2D:4D ratio tends to be about .98. The average ratios for the leading men's left and right hands were both about .96, suggesting that they are an especially testosterone-fueled bunch. The