Psychology and relationships

Discrete choice and correlated error terms To be or not to be? An economist would compare the utility of “to be” and the utility of “not to be” and pick the choice yielding the highest utility. When predicting the choices of others, decompose the utility into an observed component and an unobserved component. The former depends on a choice’s attributes and the sensitivities of a person’s utility to these attributes—both can be quantified. The unobserved component captures the unquantifiable qualities and tastes. Well, if you know nothing about something, you might as well call it the error term that will—keeping the choice attributes and sensitivities to those fixed—push some people to choose “to be” more often and others—“not to be.” It gets interesting—and realistic—if the error terms persist over time. In other words, the same person would lean in the same direction when faced with a similar choice—even if observable characteristics change a bit. It gets even more interesting—and more realistic—when we acknowledge that how you do anything is how you do everything. This is just a catchy way of conveying a simple idea—Individual errors terms in a discrete choice model are correlated not only in the time series but also in the cross-section of choices. Scratch a lie, find a thief? Choosing to lie is consistent with a person’s error term for lying being, say, sufficiently positive—contributing to the person’s decision to lie. If the error terms for lying and stealing are positively correlated, which they likely are, then yes—a liar may be hiding some stolen skeletons in the closet.

Nature versus Nurture In 1970, Klara and László Polgár (Wiki) started an unusual experiment “with a simple premise: that any child has the innate capacity to become a genius in any chosen field.” They decided to turn their future children into chess prodigies. And they succeeded. Sofia Polgar is an International Master, while Susan and Judit are Grandmasters—with Judit Polgar (Wiki) being one of the best chess players in the world (No. 8 in July 2004). The Polgar experiment is a subject of deep discussion in, among other books, “Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else” (Amazon) by Geoff Colvin. It appears that László must have been onto something with the conjecture that “Geniuses are made, not born.” However, the Polgar experiment provides only anecdotal evidence. No scientific conclusion hinges upon just one data point. As such, here’s another data point: The Gracie family (Wiki). The Gracies set out to turn their future children into fighting prodigies. And they succeeded. The number of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu black belts in the family is unbelievable. Plus, the Gracies have dominated Vale Tudo and the Ultimate Fighting Challenge (UFC) events. The Gracie experiment, though, is not as clean as the Polgar story. Hélio Gracie adapted some of the Japanese Jujutsu techniques and effectively created a new martial art, which for decades was called Gracie Jiu-Jitsu. Only after within-family squabbles about naming rights did they choose to rename Gracie Jiu-Jitsu into Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Hence, one could argue that the Gracies had access to valuable private information that enabled them to mold their children into fighting prodigies. The Polgars were on a level playing field with others because they did not invent chess. However, one could say that the Polgars developed an effective novel method of teaching chess? Interestingly, many see similarities between chess and jiu-jitsu—both activities involve strategy, tactics, improving one’s position, avoiding blunders, etc. In chess, the goal is to checkmate the opponent’s king on a board. In jiu-jitsu, the goal is to submit the opponent on a mat. The name of one Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu academy is Checkmat. Clever. I wonder if there’s Stalemat out there?

Is winning the Noble Prize hereditary? Everybody knows that insanity is hereditary—you get it from your children. I’m curious if winning the Nobel Prize is hereditary, too. Do you also get it from your children? Josh Angrist (MIT) co-won the 2021 Nobel Prize in Economics (like we talked about here). Here’s what his son Noam has been up to: — “Noam Angrist is the Executive Director and co-founder of Young 1ove, one of the largest youth-led NGOs dedicated to scaling-up programs backed by rigorous randomized trial evidence that enable youth to thrive. The organization, headquartered in Botswana, has reached over 100,000 youth across ten countries and has run randomized trials in partnership with J-PAL, solidified multi-year partnerships with UNICEF, USAID and the Brookings Institution, and signed an MOU with the Botswana government to scale-up evidence-based programs nationally.” (Source) Well. Frankly, it does look like winning the Nobel Prize has a hereditary component. (In the past, we also talked about speaking and eating habits of Nobel Prize winners.) Not every Nobel Prize winner has a book out there explaining their work in simple terms. Angrist does. If you’re curious, explore “Mastering Metrics: The Path from Cause to Effect” (Amazon). Econometrics, after all, is the original data science.

Happy new year :)

📍Pedophilia; Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children. It is considered a paraphilia, a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about and engaging in sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme. Pedophiles are more often men and can be attracted to either or both sexes. How well they relate to adults of the same or opposite sex varies. Pedophilic disorder can be diagnosed in people who are willing to disclose this paraphilia, as well as in people who deny any sexual attraction to children but demonstrate objective evidence of pedophilia. For the condition to be diagnosed, an individual must either act on their sexual urges or experience significant distress or interpersonal difficulty as a result of their urges or fantasies. Without these two criteria, a person may have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder.  Instagram: https://instagram.com/psychologynews44?igshid=osxnsfopewvp @psychologynews44

Help us get back on top of being the best telegram channel for psychology!🙂 consider rating the channel: https://t.me/dailychannelsbot?start=psychologynews44

📍How do humans perceive depth? Humans are binocular beings, hence the utilization of both of their eyes help perceive depth, but this is not enough. Hence, they also use the mechanisms of detecting depth with monocular vision. These mechanisms include: 1) relative size of the object at hand (If an image contains an array of similar objects that differ in size, the viewer interprets the smaller object as being farther away. 2) Interposition; If one object is positioned so that it obstructs the view of the other, the viewer perceives the overlapping object as being nearer. 3) Relative height; Among similar objects, those that appear closer to the horizon are perceived as being farther away. 4) Perspective; When parallel lines in a scene appear to converge in the image, they are perceived as vanishing in the distance. 5) Shading and shadows. and 6) motion. Instagram: https://instagram.com/psychologynews44?igshid=osxnsfopewvp @psychologynews44

❗️What is Gestalt psychology? Was an approach to psychology that began in Germany early in the twentieth century. The Gestalt psychologist emphasized the importance of perceiving whole objects or forms, and proposed a number of principles to explain how we organize objects. As used in Gestalt psychology, the German word gestalt is interpreted as "pattern" or "configuration". These theories went on to explain our distinction from figure and the background, grouping of objects and the perception of distance. Instagram; https://instagram.com/psychologynews44?igshid=osxnsfopewvp @psychologynews44

A word or two about blaming people. @psychologynews44

⭕️ ten tips to avoid burn outs @psychologynews44

@psychologynews44 Source: psychology today

⭕️ What to do during mental health awareness month (specially with the pandemic at hand!) There are a variety of ways to raise mental health awareness this month. Share relevant articles and posts through social media, and if you’re comfortable doing so, share your own mental health story with others. Stopping stigma means reducing shame, and when even one person is open about their experience, others may realize they are not alone and that there is no shame in seeking help. Or follow our Instagram to always stay informed of these events; https://instagram.com/psychologynews44?igshid=3x801qky1k4j @psychologynews44

May is mental health awareness month. Take care of yourself and people around you ❤️ @psychologynews44

If someone were to tell you that the above image was what was known as beauty back in the Persian Qajar days, would you believe it? And what if someone were to tell you that Marilyn Monroe, the popular sex symbol of the 1950’s, would not be a sex symbol today, since she wouldn’t be as slim as she needs to be? All these discussions bottle neck to one subject and that is the study of ‘body image’. @psychologynews44

❗️The first thing psychology students learn is that there are different lenses by which you can perceive the world of human behaviors. Psychology is a complex field where reductionist approaches don’t represent the real outcome, but to simplify things for better understanding, compartmentalization of things in parts can help. There are five main perspectives in psychology, which you can think of as the lenses. These perspectives include; Biological perspective; giving the biological background for a certain action. psychoanalytical perspective; Based on the theory that behaviour stems from the unconscious precesses of the person. (beliefs, desires and fears) subjective perspective; suggesting that the human behaviour is in control by an individual perception of the world. cognitive perspective; considering mental processes such as thinking, perceiving, problem solving and memory. behavioral perspective; Observing stimuli and response. The response is the behaviour. @psycholologynews44

The monster study! @psychologynews44

The house of revenge I wish I tracked how many times I deliberately walked past this house. As a financial economist, I often think about observable and unobservable characteristics. Using day-to-day observational data to shed light on something unobservable is both an art and a science. Josh Angrist (MIT), Guido Imbens (Stanford), and David Card (Berkeley) got the 2021 Nobel Prize in Economics for this. Other people’s thoughts are unobservable; their actions (at least some of them) are observable. I’m wondering what the active choice to daily see the sign “The best revenge is living well” says about a person’s thoughts. And in what other actions do these thoughts manifest themselves? Well, one other action is observable in the photo. Notice the “No trespassing” sign! Somehow, I’m not surprised that in the neighborhood—super quiet and peaceful—this is the only house with such a warning. Remember Discrete choice and correlated error terms? Error terms do seem correlated over here, don’t they?

Recommendation #2 — Cal Newport I’ve already mentioned the work of Cal Newport here, here, and here. However, I cannot help but post a separate entry about him in this recommendation thread. Why? Well. Recommendation #1 was on Matt Levine’s financial newsletter “Money Stuff.” And, in one of his recent posts, Cal Newport referenced a story from “Money Stuff.” The appeal of building up recommendations in this linked-list nature is too strong for me to resist. I hope someone whose work I follow will talk about Cal Newport. Then, I’ll get to keep playing this game of tag. In the meantime, consider subscribing to Cal Newport’s blog—it offers a good return on attention.

When language fails A picture worth a thousand words is a boring picture. No words can describe a truly worthwhile picture. That’s one of the many ideas explored in the life-changing book “The Inner Game of Tennis” (Amazon). A verbal explanation can only represent an idea of how to perform a stroke—it is distinct from the precise concept and, more often than not, falls short of elucidating the subtlety and complexity of a stroke. It’s crucial to form a mental image of a good stroke and be mindful of what the body feels like when you execute it. Learning tennis this way is far more effective than memorizing a step-by-step verbal list of actions and seeking to reproduce it every stroke. The author, W. Timothy Gallwey, must have stumbled on universal principles, for he also wrote about The Inner Game of Golf, Music, Work, Skiing, and Stress.

The Paper Chase (1973) | Prime Video | Wiki Director: James Bridges If you want to see the Socratic method in action, watch The Paper Chase (1973), based on a 1971 novel written by John Hay Osborn Jr. Osborn wrote the novel when he was a third-year student at Harvard Law. As such, he had tasted the Socratic method and other dynamics at highly competitive schools. But the movie is about so much more than just lecturing-without-lecturing. Even the title itself, The Paper Chase, contains a ton of meaning. People are great at chasing things. We are fortunate to have sweat glands that regulate our body temperatures and prevent us from succumbing to hyperthermia. Persistence hunters (Wiki) chase prey until it collapses from fatigue and overheating. Even though chasing comes naturally to us, it matters what you chase and why you chase it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS49gJ2eKrY

Citizen Gates — Part 1 In 2019 (see this Inc. article), Bill Gates said that “his level of happiness is much higher at 63 than at 25 because he chooses to do these 4 things”: 1. Follow through on your commitments 2. Have a mindset of giving 3. Treat your body like a sacred temple 4. Put family first My favorite part about this list is that “putting family first” comes fourth in the list. “Oh yeah, the family totally comes first; it’s just there’re three other things before it. But other than that, the family is totally first.” Or maybe Gates is so cool that his array indices start from not even 0 but -2?

The next time you watch one of the predator-prey nature shows on public television or one of the wildlife channels, watch the chase scenes carefully. There are always one or two in which the lion or the cheetah is not successful, and each time the scenario is the same: The predator gets closer to the prey … closer … closer, then slips back slightly—and immediately gives up. On the spot. When the distance to the prey begins to widen, the hunter quits. She (the females do most of the hunting) will never waste energy on a losing cause. She saunters off, because it doesn’t matter. There are other wildebeests, other gazelles. Likewise, the trained negotiator has no needs, because it just doesn’t matter. There are other deals. Turn the page on this one. Let it go. Start with No: The Negotiating Tools that the Pros Don't Want You to Know | Jim Camp

Source: psychology today @psychologynews44 Follow our Instagram: https://instagram.com/psychologynews44?igshid=osxnsfopewvp