The Corner of Efficiency and Laziness

If you consistently seek out the path or least resistance, you will inevitably find yourself at the bottom. 

Nielsen Norman Group is a research and consulting firm that was founded by Jakob Nielsen and Don Norman in 1998.  On their website, they have a list of clients that they have worked with since that time including companies like Google, Visa, National Geographic and The Smithsonian. In 2006, Nielsen published an article based on study of eye tracking patterns in which he introduced the "F-Shaped Pattern of Reading the Web." In essence, the F-shape is the result of reading the headline at the top of the page, skimming the left hand side with horizontal movements down the page at points of interest.

Imagine yourself reading the headline first then skimming the first few words of each paragraph, and stopping briefly on the ones that seem most relevant or interesting.   In his article, he implied that readers will not fully read a text, but focus on the the first two paragraphs and sub-headings and bullet point information. Instead of reading for depth, or to gain as much information as possible, readers are usually only looking for a few key ideas and then moving on, usually to post a comment about how much they agreed or disagreed with it.

The F-Shaped pattern of skimming a text is not the only time-saving method that is used when accessing information online.  There are several others, including the layer-cake pattern, spotted pattern, bypassing pattern an others, each designed to help the reader minimize interaction cost, the sum of efforts required to attain a goal. The driving force behind these patterns is to maximize the potential rewards while expending the least amount of time and energy to do so. It is only the commitment pattern in which an individual exert energy to fixate on all the content and read all of the material presented.

Henry David Thoreau wrote "the cost of a thing is the amount of what I call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run."  Usually, even this quote is ironically truncated into "the price of anything is the amount of life you pay for it." And most, if not all living creatures on this earth are usually trying to minimize this interaction cost, trying to get as much as they can for as little as possible, whether it be time, effort, work, money, or energy.

This is the principle of least effort, and it is a principle of life at almost every level.

When certain cells move through the body, such as white blood cells or metastatic cancer cells, they choose the path of least resistance through the tissue.  Researchers have proven this by placing these mobile cells in a "maze" of different size pours. These cells would test each pour size and then follow the largest of the choices, which would be the easiest to travel through. Researches studying how E. coli adapts to treatment through ampicillin has found that it will evolve and mutate in different ways depending on the concentration of the antibiotic, effectively choosing the one that requires the least amount of "cost" to the cell to make adaptations to survive.

If something is too complex or has too little reward it is not worth the effort. 

-I'm not even going to try to make an origami swan

In the animal kingdom, several animals typify the principal of least effort as a way to survive and thrive in a harsh world. The principle of least effort is about conserving energy or being as efficient as possible.  Examples include spotted turtles who spend winters near the bottoms of ponds and rivers and shunt their blood flow to vital organs, allowing them survive for five months without eating or breathing, penguins who waddle because walking requires too much of the energy that is required to stay warm in freezing temperatures, or birds and marine animals which use an undulating pattern allowing them to spend large amounts of time coasting downward with little or no effort.  These animals are being as efficient as possible with their energy expenditure.

This idea of being as efficient as possible, is not without its danger.  Whether viewed as the principal of least effort, or simply being as efficient as possible, this parsimony also removes the benefits of having to adapt through effort.  Anthropologists studying the evolution of two different human ancestors and the development of jaw muscle and tooth structure found that despite having different diets, both developed similar musculature and teeth.  The development was sub-optimal for the species, but workable for their diets because it required less adaptation.  It wasn't suited for the diet, but good enough without going through the rigors of adaptation.

Similar adaptations, or lack of adaptations have occurred with much more drastic results.  These include the vestigulation of certain traits, structures, or behaviors over time when they are not used.  This might include the loss of eyes in certain species of fish through epigenetic adaptation.  Simply put, because they did not use their eyes, they eventually disappeared from the species. Another example include flightless birds who at one point in history were capable of flying, but lost the ability simply because they no longer needed to do it.

When an activity lacks enough challenge, when it crosses the line from engaging to boring, the value that is attached to the reward also also diminishes and the skills or attributes required to accomplish it atrophy.  This is why as human beings develop, we usually find less enjoyment in activities that once kept us entertained as children.  In video games, once a level is mastered we seek for something more challenging, when we are able to ride a bike with training wheels, we quickly desire to take them off.  Yet, when we consistently are faced with activities that require no effort, are too easy, we lose desire to continue with it, even leaving rewards behind. In addition, and even more of a detriment to ourselves, we can also lose the necessary skills or knowledge we gained to become proficient in that specific area.  The term commonly used is "rusty."

If something is too easy, we do not feel a sense of accomplishment and are quick to drop it.

-Folding a piece of paper in half is boring so why even practice?

The question of whether these changes are overall net losses, or overall net gains depends on how you assess what is valuable and what is not. For human beings living in today's world, it goes simply beyond a calculation of work versus reward. Optimal happiness, feelings of success, motivational factors and personal choice all play a role in the decision about how much work someone is willing to do for a given result, but never before in history has a species been capable of getting so much "reward" at the expense out of so little work, and we might not fully understand the negative effects.

In 1949,  Harvard linguist George Kingsley Zipf proposed the principle of least effort as it pertained to human language.  He posited that language was evolving to become more efficient, using words such as math in place of mathematics or plane in lieu of airplane.  Language requires a certain level of complexity to convey the breadth of human thought, but once an abbreviation is understood, it is generally acceptable as a reasonable substitute.  Hi, gonna, sup, wanna, etc.  The question is at what cost comes this convenience?

In the October 2018 edition of Trends of Cognitive Science, authors Inzlicht, Shenhave and Olivola published "The Effort Paradox: Effort is Both Costly and Valued." The manuscript broke down, defined and examined the relationship between effort, motivation, rewards and satisfaction in human behavior.   The paradox comes in the acknowledgement that effort is difficult and most are averse to it.  When given a choice between exerting effort and not exerting effort for a similar reward, any reasonable person would choose not to put forth any effort.  But, effort in and of itself, adds to the reward of an item or process, or sometimes, is the reward itself.  

When given a choice between doing nothing and making $100 dollars, and putting forth great effort to make $100 dollars, most would choose to do nothing. But what if it was $100 for nothing, or $120 for something difficult? According to the manuscript, people are often willing to accept fewer rewards to avoid additional effort. Yet ironically, if someone worked for, or did something challenging for that same $100 dollars, they value it much more than the person who did nothing to earn it.  

This has been proven by studies in what has become known as the "IKEA Effect," which is that an individual, when required to work to put something together, values it much more than something that was simply given to them, even the free item has a higher financial cost. The more time and effort someone puts into something, the more they feel accomplished or a sense of self-satisfaction upon completion.  This is the basis of why the some of the greatest feelings of accomplishment come not from an event, but in the effort it took to make it to the event.  For example, physically standing on a mountain top is not the most rewarding aspect of mountain climbing, it is the effort it took to get there.  Had the person flown in a helicopter and landed on the peak, there would be little value beyond the impressive view.  

If significant time is put into something, the sense of reward is increased beyond the outcome.

-I'm keeping this origami swan forever because it took me a long time to make

Learned industriousness is the increase of motivation when a reward is increased by the effort it took to achieve.  It increases motivation for later and more challenging endeavors.  Entitlement is the unreasonable expectation of reward without effort, and it decreases future motivation for more challenging endeavors.

Motivation increases as difficulty and complexity increase, while apathy increases without stimuli forcing change.  Worse yet, when indifference is rewarded, it strengthens the aversion towards future activity-- and we live in a world where the effort to achieve has diminished to the point of worthlessness.  By making something easier, by giving more reward for less work, we are literally killing any future motivation to work towards greater goals, which is the root cause of entitlement.

If a reward is given for no effort, eventually the reward is seen as worthless.

-I'm just going to throw these origami swans away because I can get another one whenever I want

As technology increases around us, it takes on more of the responsibilities of human survival; things like farming, transportation, manufacturing and other professions. Through automation we will see a diminished need for expending any effort to acquire not only the basics of survival, but the comforts of prosperity as well.  It will take less and less effort to maintain a high standard of living, and the value placed on it will depreciate as well. Ready prepared meals delivered to your door, guaranteed incomes, lower standards of excellence, mitigated risks, instant gratification and amusements, or any program or convenience which pushes the boundaries between efficiency of indolence is more likely an unseen expense disguised as a free ride to nowhere. Contentment may soon be wither in the shadow of luxury. Like a fish with no eyes, we may find ourselves blinded by our own progress.

Unlike white blood cells, turtles, or flightless birds, human beings need to do more than "just survive" in order to maintain their overall health and well being.  Part of that survival is also a sense of accomplishment, value, contentment and contribution.  And, whether we like it or not, those feelings are the result of work put in, of effort, of struggle and facing failure.  Understanding that the greatest values of our efforts are not in the getting, but in the earning is hard lesson to learn.  It is difficult because like most things in life, the reward can only be found after the price has been paid in full, and taking a short cut only limits the journey.   

The Anatomy of Advantages

In the 1960's, Walther Mischel developed a simple experiment to help gauge self-control.  In the experiment, preschoolers were placed in a room with a single researcher and given a marshmallow.  The researcher would then leave the room for a period of time, but before leaving, they would tell the children they could either eat the marshmallow while they were gone, or wait to eat it and receive a second marshmallow when they returned.  

It was a pretty simple choice.  One treat now, or two treats later.

Some of the children quickly ate the marshmallow, unable to wait any amount of time for another reward.  Others, fought the urge to eat the first marshmallow and were rewarded with a second.  Researches documented which of the children were able to delay gratification, and which succumbed to the tasty temptation.  

In later studies, Mischel and his group revisited the children as teenagers to measure different areas of their lives and compare them with their results from the Marshmallow test.  What they found is that the children who were able to wait for the second marshmallow were more cognitive and socially competent, performed better academically, and coped better with stress and frustration.  Additionally, they were less likely to suffer from substance abuse, obesity, and were overall heather and more successful.

Even later still, another group of researchers from the University of Washington tracked down a portion of the original participants as adults and administered another series of tests measuring self-control.  They found that the results of the now adults were very similar to their results as preschoolers with most of them still performing along the same lines as their preschool selves years earlier.  Additionally, they also participated in an MRI scan to measure brain activity and structure.  What was discovered was that the adults who exhibited higher levels of self-control displayed more activity in the prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain which controls executive functions such as impulse control, time management, planning and decision making.  The participants who showed less self-control had increased activity in the ventral striatum, a region thought to help process desires and rewards.

According to these results, it would appear that some individuals are neurologically inclined to seek out immediate rewards while other are programmed to delay gratification in search of greater opportunities.  Similar to how some individuals are taller and better suited for basketball, or have a more efficient cardiovascular system and make better swimmers.  This also extends beyond physical attributes and into mental and psychological areas as well as some might be more likely to suffer from clinical depression or have a better ear for music.

With the massive complexity of brain matter and diverse physiological factors, it is true that some individuals are born with advantages in certain areas. Some children simply struggle to control the impulse to eat the first marshmallow more than their peers.  Some people have advantages that help them learn a second language, play the guitar or shoot a basketball, others struggle with fine motor skills or memorization which makes these skills much more difficult to master.  

This implies that some individuals are better wired for success from a young age. 

But none of these strengths and weaknesses are set in stone.  It may be more difficult for someone to learn to play an instrument, but not impossible.  It simply takes more time and effort to adapt.  Nor does it mean that the individual who is a has a natural talent for swinging a baseball bat will become a professional ball player.  What is needed in both cases is time and effort to hone their skills, and that requires self-control.

The key to this development is differentiating between the process and the product.  When making a decision, it is important to separate these two ideas.  If you have a goal of maintaining a certain weight, there is a process and a product.

Eating a quart of ice cream every night after dinner is a process.

Gaining 5 pounds in a week is the product.

Running three miles every morning is a process.

Losing five pounds is the product.

Delayed gratification is the ability to choose a more beneficial product over a less enjoyable process.  It is choosing between what we want to do and what we want to get.  There are two primary difficulties faced when making this choice: ease and immediacy.

Eating ice cream every night is easier than running every morning.  It gives more immediate positive results.  Eating ice cream now is better than running now.  Gaining five pounds is less desirable than losing five pounds, and not immediately noticed.  The contradiction of choice is apparent, but in the moment it is difficult not to make the a decision based on immediacy and ease.

In psychology, the Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance is based on how we view time and our relationship with it.  One area of the theory revolves around motivation, and how levels of motivations increase with the decrease of distance in space and time.  In layman's terms, the closer something is, or the sooner it is, the more important it is.  This is the framework of procrastination.  Human beings are more motivated by something that gets immediate results or is in response to an immediate need.  One marshmallow now is better than two marshmallows later. According to this model, it is not the one or two which is the deciding factor, it is the now or later. It is how we are wired from birth. 

The ability to manage time, weigh out risks, delay gratification are all processes that are controlled in the prefrontal cortex and fall under the umbrella of executive functions of the brain. It is what creates our ability to weigh out and place values on the one and the two in conjunction with the now and the later as opposed to being superseded by it.  Self-discipline is facilitated by an increase in brain matter and usage within the prefrontal cortex and is partially influenced by its structural size.  It has a naturally occurring development over time, as well as a genetic predisposition that makes it easier for some individuals to make decisions based on the product instead of the process, to choose long term goals over short term pleasures, and it comes more naturally to some than others. 

The danger is assuming that these are inescapable facets that cannot be overcome, developed, or increased over time, that this a structural or genetic identity which is permanent and not something that can change.  This concept of growth mindset has been championed over recent years by Carol Dweck and explained in depth in her book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.  This idea of improving intelligence, skill, or capability from a learner's standpoint as been a shift in the ideology that many people hold about a single person's ability to change, the belief that our skills, intelligence or even beliefs are static.  

Taking this a growth a step further, it is not just about mindset or belief, but it is a physical growth that occurs within the brain itself.  Neural Plasticity, the capacity for the brain to modify itself functionally and structurally has also been gaining support and attention the areas of science, education, and psychology.  One of the more stunning pieces of evidence to support this idea is contained within the brain's of London's taxi cab drivers.

In order to become a licensed cabby in London, a driver must pass a knowledge test of the roughly 25,000 streets, avenues and alleys, as well as 20,000 landmarks, businesses, clubs, hospitals, and points of interest where someone might want to go.  what makes it even more challenging is the nature of the streets, directions and placements of roads in London as it has been growing organically over hundreds of years and not built on a planned geometrical grid system with easy to follow patterns.  It is a sprawling mess on interconnected veins that make up the beating heart of England.  It takes most candidates two to four years to study for and pass the test, and only about one if five who attempt the test actually pass it, despite the fact that it can be taken as many times as you like.  

In a series of studies performed by neuroscientists, it was discovered that London taxi cab drivers had more gray matter in their posterior hippocampi, an area associated with spatial awareness.  It would seem that those who passed the test already had brain structures better suited for memorizing locations. But, in later studies performed on applicants preparing for the tests, it was shown that brain development occurred while they were working towards memorization.  MRI scans showed definite growth in the hippocampus that was not present before they began the process of preparation for the test. Additional tests showed that those who experienced this development also performed better on memory tests no associated with the streets of London than those who had not prepared for this test.  Not only did they knowledge base increase, but their cognitive functions as well.

This type of growth and development can be seen in other areas as well.  Jugglers demonstrate growth in the parietal lobe which helps process information involving how we track objects and move. Piano players show increases in areas required for auditory processing and motor skills.  Science supports the theory that our brain adapts structurally to meet the requirements of the work we choose to do.  That is the neurological principal of learning and growth. Improved cognitive function is a product; practice, work and repetition are the process. 

Metaphorically, someone who is six feet tall can quickly reach an item on an upper shelf, because they have a physical advantage to complete that task.  Someone who is five feet tall takes more time, as they have to change the structure and take the time and effort to locate and introduce a step ladder.  Some children cannot resist the urge to eat the first marshmallow because it actually is more difficult for them. That does not mean that they will always make that choice nor does it mean they are destined for failure, but, they will have to work harder for that second marshmallow.  

Killed by the Silver Spoon

Historic vikings have gained a reputation as one of the most violent and durable people in history.  Often synonymous with pillaging and warfare, there is both fact and fiction that supports this reputation.  From their documented exploration of North America to tales of Berserkers with super-human strength and uncontrollable rage, the legendary prowess of the Nordic people from antiquity persists into modern culture today.

Norsemen spread across the north Atlantic, colonizing areas across regions such as Iceland, Greenland, and exploring north America.  For hundreds of years, viking settlers scratched out a living on these difficult terrains, a testament to their hardened lives.  Ultimately though, the settlements in Greenland failed as the vikings were unable to survive the harsh climate and conditions.  Yet, another group survived the same conditions, in the same region at the same time.  The Inuit.  In his book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed*, Jared Diamond explains why the lesser known Inuit survived, while the infamous Vikings perished.

One of the contributing factors why the Inuit succeeded while the Vikings failed was not a difference in skills, but a difference of priorities.  After converting to Christianity around A.D. 1000, Norse settlers (notably the ruling class and resident bishops) wanted to maintain a similar hierarchy and lifestyle to those they enjoyed in Europe.  This included a taste for beef over seal meat, large church bells over steel tools and equipment, and stained glass windows over food supplies and other goods necessary to survive.

Because of the poor soil conditions in Greenland, cattle destroyed grazing lands and left it depleted and unsuitable for grazing or farming. Steel was in short supply and had to be imported, and because of the difficulty and length of the voyage, cargo weight was a premium. Religious artifacts often took the place of tools and equipment that would have been used for survival. Harsh winters often created food shortages leading to starvation and without imported food supplies, there was often too little to keep their communities alive, yet valuable trade goods were used to purchase stained glass windows instead of food.

Living so close to the edge in such an inhospitable regions forces individuals to prioritize in a way that others would not find necessary.  The upper class vikings simply would not compromise, effectively choosing non-necessary items instead of survival.  They effectively slit their own throats with luxury.

Their are similar examples of this repeated throughout history, and compared to an economic principle made popular by Garret Hardin which he referred to as "The Tragedy of the Commons"  in a 1968 article in Science. While Hardin's article brought the term into the mainstream, it was not new to the world itself. It had been written about in 1832 by Oxford economist William Forster Lloyd while discussing the degradation of land in common grazing areas throughout England.  Prior to that, Aristotle wrote "for that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest" (Politics 2.3).

The Tragedy of the Commons works like this:

A single person will most likely do what is in their best interest.

What is in a single person's best interest is not in the best interest of all people.

Because it is not in the best interest of ALL people, it is not in the best interest of a SINGLE person

For example, over fishing is good for a single person on a single day, but is not sustainable over time, especially when compounded by many individuals acting in a similar fashion.  Eventually, the fish supply will collapse and there will be no fish left for any single person.

In this sense, the ecclesiastic leaders and wealthy class of Norse settlers in Greenland were doing what was best for them and their comfort but not what was in the best interest of the colony.  What harmed the colony, harmed it's leaders despite their appearance of wealth.  What was a profitable situation for a few became a net loss for the whole.  Eventually, the bottom line caught up with each individual, regardless of status.

In his 1961 inaugural address, President John. F. Kennedy famously said "ask now what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."  Reinterpreted, he said, "do what is best for all, because that is ultimately best for you." It is a call to action to prioritize the greater good and interest of all people, which in turn, benefits every single person. Had the bishop of Greenland focused on good of all people, he would have increased his own chance for survival at the cost of some individual luxuries.

Similar to the vikings, it was another group of historical warriors that personified this belief.  The Spartans of ancient Greece were known not only for their fierceness in battle, but the undying allegiance of each member of the state to Sparta itself.  From a young age, Spartan boys were trained and educated in the Agoge, a program that not only trained them for battle, but emphasized loyalty to state over any self-interest.

The epitome of this mentality was the battle of Thermopylae, where a small force of Spartans held off the much larger Persian army for several days, with each Spartan warrior fighting to the death.  This battle has become the standard of a group that sacrifices their own lives for the greater good of their nation.  While it is debatable whether the small Spartan force drastically altered the course of the war, they have become immortalized in history for willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of their country.

The term spartan today means going without luxury or comforts.  It is emblematic of self-discipline in the name of a larger interest. Spartan values were a shifting of priorities away from the excess of a few to meet the needs of the many. It was an answer to the Tragedy of the Commons, a lower standard of luxury for the individual but a positive net gain for the group, which is a more profitable long-term situation for the individuals contained.  It is the difference between a spartan success and a luxurious disaster. 


*Diamond, Jared. Collapse: How Societies Choose To Fail Or Succeed. Viking Penguin. 2005.

Morning

The sun has not yet risen and morning is slowly awakening the landscape.  A dull grey is beginning to emerge as outlines become visible and shadows retreat back into their daytime hiding places.  The sky to the west is dark with a few resilient stars protesting the approaching dawn.  To the east, the horizon is melting from black to blue high in sky, and from blue to orange along the horizon.

The world is still stretching and waking up and lazily approaches the coming day.  Movements are not unified into motion.  Unique movements of animals appear separate, each unique and lonely.  Isolated actions that stand out so much in the stillness that they demand individual attention.  There are no pairs or partnerships in the dawning of the day, only solitary things, each a detached fragment separate from the whole.

The pregnancy of the day is approaching its birth and it feels as if the day is holding it's breath in an expectant pause waiting for the sun to break free of the horizon.

Some are more equal than others

I once filled a recurring substitute position teaching elementary level P.E. The teacher had left out detailed instructions for different games and activities for each of the  different age groups, from kindergarten through sixth grade.

The younger grades, the kindergartners, first and second graders I discovered were relatively easy to keep occupied and engaged, but somewhat more difficult to maintain any sort of order, so I eventually gave up.  In time, I resigned myself to the path of least resistance--scatter a few balls and other items around the gym floor, open the doors, and get out of the way.  The next twenty-five minutes was a healthy mixture of screaming, running around in circles and general chaos.

The upper grades, third through sixth grades, took meticulous planning and constant revision throughout each activity.  Common phrases that I heard repeatedly throughout different games included:  "That isn't fair," "She stepped on the line,"  "He touched the ball last," "Those two can't be on the same team," and more than a few times, crying.


With the younger grades, it was twenty-five minutes of play, an opportunity to run, jump, spin, bounce, dance, wiggle, all without restraint from any authority figure.  For the upper grades, it became a practice in equity and fairness, of rules and regulations, a system that needed structure and guidelines with black and white statutes that could be easily identified and understood.

It was exhausting.

What I discovered from this experience, is that developmentally, the early adolescent years is when children become very concerned with a world of rules and fairness.  While still rudimentary, it was very clear that the idea of thing being "fair" was paramount.  As their awareness of the world around them developed, along with it came the need for comparison with others, competition, and a keen insight into the hierarchy of power and justice. 

I'm just not sure if this need for fairness was about being fair, or about not being on the losing side, as the complaints usually came from the team that was weaker, or the individual that would benefit the most from the absolute fidelity to whichever rule was in play.  In fact, many times, the desire for something to be fair was overlooked if it was advantageous to an individual, and not noticed by the whole.  So, I do not think that it was necessarily about the righteous nature of the rules, or the need for equity, it was about establishing a system that could be taken advantage of when needed in order to further one's owns goals.

In On Household God's and Goblins, G.K. Chesterton writes, "For children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy."  This growth from childhood to adulthood is often marked with a transition from a world view that is purely black and white, good and evil, or right and wrong, to a world view that consists of several shades of gray, levels of righteousness, and a spectrum of morality that is constantly in fluctuation and often subject to relative circumstances or scenarios.

This is not uncommon at any age, but the games become much more complex and usually entail higher stakes.  A driver who complains about getting pulled over and remarks "it's not fair, other people were speeding too" is also likely to wish for a driver that speeds past them the following day to be ticketed.  It is easy to justify a desire for someone else to get caught and face the consequences of their actions in the name of justice, yet difficult not to rationalize and make excuses for ourselves when we are the ones breaking the rules.  What is worse, is when we create something pernicious masked as something virtuous.

This ability to advocate for an action or process which for one reason, but under the guise of another is a dangerous process of thinking.  In its most harmless form, it allows a person to acquire personal gain with the appearance of helping another.  When we were kids, my parents would tell us that our ice cream cones were dripping and the only way to prevent that was for them to eat a portion of it to prevent it from making a mess. At it's most malicious, it can carry out ruthless practices which are protected by the shroud of morality.  Extreme examples include Jim Crow Laws and the Law for Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases.

I wonder if we are always honest with ourselves when it comes to our own motivations, or if we are sometimes so frightened by our own selfishness or ill intent that we must masquerade them as something upright and righteous?  Are we at times so painfully aware that the blatant nature of our own avarice or malice will be so repugnant to another person that we plead its merit based on a shroud of ethical priority? Sometimes, sound reasoning can be the best disguise for ill intentions, even from the person who is creating them.

Human beings are complex creatures capable of a wide variety of actions, based on a wide variety of values and paradigms of thoughts, some of which are obscured even to the mind of the person behind the actions. We just need to make sure that we actually think what we believe.

A Jealousy of Stars

That star, the first one out, sitting haughtily on the horizon is not a star at all.  It's a planet.  It's Mars.  In Roman mythology, Mars was the god of war and second only to the god Jupiter, king of the gods.  Perhaps that is why Mars arrives so early in the night sky.  He is an impostor, a poser and a thief attempting to swell his own importance by greedily collecting the wishes of the lonely and desperate who come to him in error.

Unfortunately for those dreamers, their wishes fall on deaf ears, and in the time that it has taken those sad and forgotten few to voice their desires, the first star has appeared somewhere near the zenith, anxiously awaiting those hopes and dreams to be spoken, sadly disappointed to be overlooked.

If the planets were gods then surely, the stars must be something else.  Something above the gods, imbued with power to fulfill the dream of a troubled planet, yet angry at the stolen hopes wasted on a deceiving impostor.

Soon, the second star, followed by a third and fourth.  A handful will arrive followed by an army of stars that riot across the night sky.  Cloudless, endless patterns emerge where the many take the place of the few.  Eventually, the dream star, the wishing star, is nothing more than an unrecognizable dot amidst the ocean of light, lost to those desperate dreamers.

I knew when she walked in the room

A love story in the brain

Most people on the planet can relate to the experience of standing in a crowded room full of dozens of intermingling conversations and suddenly becoming acutely aware of their name being said out loud or the sound of a familiar voice. Or of knowing when that special someone walked through the door as if cupid was tapping you on the shoulder.  

What is it that makes us notice that person, or our name, or to become overly conscious of anyone wearing a hat or t-shirt of our favorite sports team or band? Of all the thousands of individual stimuli that enter the brain on any given moment, why do some of them go unnoticed while others draw our attention immediately?  

The answer lies in the Reticiular Activation System (RAS) or Reticular Formation, a series of interconnected regions in the brain, located primarily in the brain stem that regulates the brain's level of arousal.  In other words, it helps the brain to decide what to pay attention to, and what to ignore.  This is the reason why we can fall asleep listening to music but wake up when we hear the front door open.  It is designed to focus our attention on potential threats, items of value, or people of particular interest.  

The RAS is constantly sifting through information and stimuli that passes through our senses into our brain, weighing out what requires our immediate attention and focus, and what does not.  It acts as the gatekeeper of our consciousness.

In Jewish lore, there are several references to a creature called a Golem.  Golems are creatures that were created out of inanimate matter and then magically imbued with life.  In one such version, there is a village that is surrounded by forest.  The villagers, afraid of unknown creatures that might be lurking in the wilderness, create a Golem to protect themselves from various dangers.  The Golem, tasked with protecting the villages, goes to work patrolling the forest.

Unfortunately for the Golem, and for the village, there were no real dangers to speak of, and the Golem, bored and without purpose, began to cause problems around the village until it became the very danger that it was created to protect the village from.

The villagers so desperately wanted there to be unseen problems, that they unwittingly created them; they believed their reality into existence. While this is myth demonstrates a principal of a self-fulfilling prophecy, the potential for this type of genesis is not without scientific basis.

In the 1960's a now famous series of studies were conducted and published by Robert Rosenthal, a psychology professor at Harvard University.  The basis of his work was the principal of self-fulfilling prophecies, or what was termed expectancy effects.  In one study, researchers gave an  IQ test to an elementary school class and reported the results to the teacher.  Twenty percent of the students were chosen at random and it was reported they had "unusual potential for intellectual growth."  At the end of the year, the students were tested again and it was found that those who were labeled as more intelligent showed significant improvement over their peers.

The teacher, expecting those students to be more capable, treated them differently than the rest of the students in the class.  Whether it was more encouraging words, higher expectations, more one-on-one instruction, or a myriad of other potential causes, the teacher's expectation of the students had a marked difference on their growth as a student.  Like the Golem, because they were focusing on a specific outcome, they in turn created it.

This principal became known as the Pygmalion Effect, based on the play by George Bernard Shaw which he titled after the Greek tale of a character of the same name. In the story, Pygmalion was a famous sculpture from Cyprus who had grown weary of the base nature of the women around him, many of whom were prostitutes. In his disgust, he set out to form the perfect woman.

The master sculpture went to work intentionally crafting her form, chiseling and polishing his work to perfection.  When it was completed, he named her Galatea and fell madly in love with his creation. Pygmalion would bring her gifts, kiss and caress her form, doting ardently upon her form.

The goddess Aphrodite, impressed by the depth and extent of his affection, took pity on the sculptor.  Upon returning to his home from the temple of Aphrodite, he found Galatea had been transformed from a form of cold marble, to warm flesh.  The hardness of her features had softened to the touch and she stood before him as human as the man who had tenderly brought her forth from stone.

In the instance of the Golem, those who sought after troubles, found them; while in the story of Pygmalion, the search for something greater was rewarded by the heights of love and joy.  In each case, the characters found what they searched for, because that is WHAT they were searching for.

For individuals, when the RAS is programmed to search out specific stimuli, for instance, confirmation that a student is incapable, it begins to filter out anything that does not fit that narrative, mistakes are viewed as proof that a child can not learn and less effort is put into teaching them. When the RAS is looking for evidence of a student's capability to learn, even mistakes are seen anomalies of thinking or even divergent thought or creative thoughts and be praised, encouraging the student to work harder. These opposing thoughts, over time, will create minor changes in the way the teacher works with their students and the way the students see themselves.

Students who have negative views of themselves will see criticism as proof of ignorance instead of corrective actions, while students seeking confirmation of their intelligence will see a teacher's rebuke as proof that they are held to higher standards. Over time, these minor difference can create significant differences in growth and development in the classroom.

The human brain is responsible for interpreting, evaluation, and filtering thousands upon thousands of pieces of information every single day.  It weighs out what is important and what is not, what is true and what is false, and what we should accept and what we should not. It will help us to find what we are desperately searching for, whether it be that special someone or confirmation of our darkest fears.  In a sense, reality is dictated by the filters of our consciousness.  We human beings will see the world as we choose to see it, and that will in turn, shape the world we live in, for better or for worse.