​ A Woman Is the Best Wingman: The Science of Fish Mating...and Modern Dating?  
By Heath Shive

When I was back in high school, there was a short list of ladies that all the guys thought were "hot."

I remember that - a few years later - I was looking at the same old high school yearbook and thought...differently. 

How could I find a woman desirable in one context, but - a relatively short time later - find the same woman remarkably less attractive. 

There are whole episodes of TV dedicated to this premise - most notably by Barney Stinson's "cheerleader effect" used in How I Met Your Mother (Season 4, episode 7).    

Of course, there is a science to this too.  

Sound fishy?  It will.  

To the science!  

The Birds and the Bees…and Fish?

There is not a one-to-one correlation in the behavior between humans and animals.  For example, animals lack our abstract conceptions, like morality, music, honor, or sympathy. 

But the amazing (or disconcerting) thing is how similarly humans and animals do act - especially in primal activities, like mating.

In 1992, the biologists Lee Dugatkin and Jean Godin made a study – which is pretty well-known in academia – involving the mating behavior of guppies.  They discovered that small females by themselves will choose mates based on their instincts. 

But in a group, something else happens. 

Large female guppies have rank in the group.  Large size is a sign of longevity, and therefore a sign of evolutionary success.  Small females will likely abandon their first mating choice – to pursue the males that large females pursue. 

Dugatkin and Godin believed that a female’s choice of mate wasn’t just driven by individual genetics, but also by cultural cues. 

In 2002, two biological researchers named Klaudia Witte and Michael Ryan performed another similar study using sailfin molly fish.  In this study, they discovered that a male fish will choose a female who is already accompanied by a male, rather than pursue a lone female.  And a female molly fish will choose a male fish who is already accompanied by a female. 

The fish only pursued mates that others were pursuing!

Your reference group determines your social value, and therefore it determines your options.   
 
How Does This Help Me?

It is easier to look at animal studies and stay objective.  I have found that it is when we mention human studies that listeners can become defensive.  So...just so you know, I will be using human studies on this same subject soon.  I am trying to warm you up to the idea. 

But the idea is obvious.  You are judged by others around you.  Some (and only some, not all) of those judgments carry weight - but the only important and personal judgments are those made by your own reference group, your culture. 

There are many cultures and sub-cultures in humanity.  But the key here is your culture. 

Your reference group (culture) determines your social value.  Whoever has rank in your reference group will determine your own social value…and influence your mate selection.  That’s why there are generalized dating sites (e.g. Match.com), but there are also dating sites geared specifically towards specific sub-groupings – e.g., Jewish, Christian, rural, professional, racial, etc. 

But the studies show us something more too: We want what others have! 

So, ladies, you can bring male dates to weddings, office parties, and bars that you have no romantic/sexual interest in.  The male escort not only gives you external validation, it improves your perceived social value and can cultivate new male interest, even jealousy.  Next time you flirt, your attention will have more social value.  Next time you ask a man out, your regard will have more power.   

Guys, next time do not go out with your male buddies.  Find a woman to go out with you instead - not as a romantic target per se, but as a way to enhance your social value. If she’s just a friend, that’s fine.  Her presence still enhances your value.  The more attractive this woman is, the more other women will notice – and increase your social value. 

That’s why this is a frequent trope in TV and movies.  It’s based on reality – our culture and system of social values. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources: 

Strauss, Neil.  The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pick-Up Artists.  Regan Books, 2005.

Dugatkin, L. A. & Godin, J.-G. J. 1992. Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 249, 179–184

 Witte, Klaudia and Michael J. Ryan.  2002.  Mate choice copying in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna in the wild. Animal Behaviour, 2002, 63, 943–949

Mom Lied!  Looks Do Matter! The Science of Superficial Judgments
By Heath Shive

The great entrepreneur Helena Rubinstein once said, “There are no ugly women, only lazy ones.”

Rubinstein’s words apply to men as well. 

Not all of us are born with the DNA of a bikini model or Adonis, but all of us can work at improving our appearance.

Because all of us will be judged on our appearance.   

I read Rubinstein’s quote in a book by Neil Strauss, author of the best-seller The Game – a book about the world of pick-up artists.    

Originally, Strauss had been a short, out of shape guy with thinning hair and bad clothes.  But Strauss exercised, lost weight, shaved his head for a bolder look, grew a beard to hide his weak chin, and bought trendier clothes. 

And his love life improved.

Why?

To the science of superficial judgments!

The Great Fudge-Poo Experiment of 1986?

Back in 1986, psychologists Paul Rozin, Linda Millman, and Carol Nemeroff published a hilarious series of experiments on the laws of contagion and laws of similarity. 

In one experiment, subjects were offered a piece of high-quality square-shaped fudge. The subjects ate the piece and rated their desire to eat another piece. Then two additional pieces of the same fudge were presented – one fudge piece was shaped like a muffin and the other shaped like dog poop.

The experimenter truthfully told the subjects that the fudge was exactly the same.  The subjects rated their desire to eat more of each shape (muffin-shape first, then dog feces), indicated the one they preferred, and were then asked to take a bite from the preferred piece.

The subjects rated their preference on a 200-point scale.  A -100 was to describe the worst possible experience, 0 was neutral, and +100 was highest (most pleasurable) rating.

The subjects rated the poop-shaped fudge as 47 points worse than the original square fudge…even though it was the same fudge!

There were more experiments in this study – which should be used in every Psych 101 course – but Rozin, Millman, and Nemeroff made their point. 

Humans have an instinct to judge everything based on appearances. 

Can any of us change our instincts?

Conclusion

My previous blog – The Science of a Young Black Man in a Suit – discussed the amazing power of a business suit to enhance the social prestige of young black men on the streets of Chicago.

In another blog – The Science of Cars and Sex Appeal – a scientific study demonstrated how a sports car can enhance a man’s sex appeal to women. 

Appearances matter. 

Appearances do not change your morality, your ability, your kindness, or your work ethic. 

Appearances do change how people treat you.

That’s just reality. 

And since we live on world surrounded by 7 billion other people – all of whom will judge us at first based on what we look like – it behooves us to take our appearance seriously.

We may not be able to change our instincts.  However, we could try to master them to our advantage.   

LIKE SCHOLAFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Rozin, Paul & Millman, Linda & Nemeroff, Carol. (1986). Operation of the Laws of Sympathetic Magic in Disgust and Other Domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  50 (4), 703-712. 

The Science of a Young Black Man in a Suit: The Primary Prejudice Is About Money?
By Heath Shive

In 2012, Trayvon Martin – a young black man – was wearing a hoodie as he walked home.  George Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious, so he accosted, fought, and fatally shot Martin. 

Would Martin be alive today if…he had worn a suit? 

In 2014, Eric Garner was strangled fatally when police arrested him for allegedly selling “loosies” on the street.  Would Garner still be alive if he had been wearing a suit? 

Both of these cases made national headlines with a media spotlight on race relations in America.

But was racism the real prejudice?

Justine Damond was shot and killed by a rookie police officer in Minneapolis in 2017. 
But, she was white, a woman, unarmed, and in an affluent neighborhood! 

Damond was wearing pajamas at the time of her shooting.  Would she be alive today if…she had been wearing a pantsuit?

To the science of a young black man in a suit!

The Chicago Study

In Chicago, researchers Uri Gneezy, John List, and Michael K. Price created an experiment.  In the experiment, a tester (working for the scientists) would walk around in Chicago and ask people for directions to a local landmark.  The study would measure 2 things: whether the people responded to the question, and how long they talked to the tester. 

There were 40 testers consisting of 8 groups of 5 each, divided by race (white and black), age (20 and 50), and gender (male and female). 

There were a total of 3,000 respondents and here are the results.

• 20-yr old black female: 60% of strangers responded for an average of 20 seconds  
• 20-yr old white female: 75% responded; average of 24 seconds  
• 20-yr old black male: 31% responded; average of 13 seconds  
• 20-yr old white male: 52% responded; average of 16 seconds  
• 50-yr old black female: 63% responded; average of 20 seconds
• 50-yr old white female: 63% responded; average of 24 seconds  
• 50-yr old black male: 61% responded; average of 20 seconds  
• 50-yr old white male: 59% responded; average of 20 seconds

A 20-year old white female had the highest response rate and response time.

A 20-year old black male had the lowest response rate and time.

True to stereotype, right?

But did you notice something non-stereotypical?

• A 20-year old white male had a lower response rate and time than a 20-year black female, 50-year old black female, and a 50-year old black male
• A 50-year old black male had a higher response rate and time than a 50-year old white male.
• And 50-year old white women and black women had the same response rates.

The prejudice in action was not simply about race. 

So the researchers went one step farther.

The Science of a Young Black Man in a Suit

The researchers sent the 20-year black male testers back into the streets for another test run. 

But this time, they didn’t wear hoodies.  The young black men wore…business suits.

The results?

In the words of Uri Gneezy and John List in their book The Why Axis: “Indeed, this time, the young black men were treated quite well and received the same quality information the young women had received.”

The young black men’s response rates and times roughly equaled the highest rates of the entire study!

All it took was a business suit!

Conclusion

Uri Gneezy and John List include this study – among many others – in their incredible book The Why Axis.  The book is about discrimination in all its economic aspects.  And some of their findings are not only relevant, but surprising as well.

Really, what is a suit?  A suit means a "successful" job at a "successful" wage.  It means money.  A suit carries a prejudice - it creates a standard appearance for success.  Without a suit, how important can you be?    

We talk about race a lot in this country, but do we dare to ask: what were they wearing?  Is the primary prejudice in this country an economic one? 

Clothes don’t make the man.  But clothes do change our perception.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Gneezy, Uri, & John List. The Why Axis: Hidden Motives and the Undiscovered Economics of Everyday Life. PublicAffairs, 2013.       
 
 
 

How Weird Is Winter?  The Science of Cold and Ice 
By Heath Shive 

As House Stark would say: Winter is coming.  Or, depending on where you live, winter is already there.  So it might help to “know thine enemy.”

The Weird Stuff About Winter

1. Ice and snow are technically minerals, just like rubies or emeralds.  They fit the official geological definition.  And just like other minerals…
2. Ice and snow come in a variety of colors!  The color depends on the impurities.  Volcanic particulates of the Tambora Eruption of 1815 produced blue, brown and red snows in Maryland; and red and yellow snow in Taranto, Italy.  In 2010, the Stavropol region of southern Russia experienced a light purple snow, attributed to Saharan dust.  There has even been…
3. Pink snow!  Pink snow is regularly found in the Sierra Nevada and is called “Watermelon Snow” due to its pink color.  It even smells like watermelon - though you shouldn’t eat it!  The color is the result of Chlamydomonas nivalis, a species of cold-loving green algae that has a secondary red carotenoid pigment (astaxanthin).  But the true color of pure ice and snow is…
4. Blue!  Pure ice is blue, for the same reason the sky and oceans are blue.  Water absorbs more light from the red spectrum and reflects more blue.  However, snow looks white because trapped air reflect back all light.  If an ice cube doesn’t look blue, it’s because large quantities are required to make the effect obvious…and beautiful.  But you don’t want too much ice or otherwise we could have another…
5. Ice Age! Starting about 2.5 million years ago (the Pleistocene Epoch) glaciers grew rapidly and spread across the world.  At their peak, glaciers covered as much as 30% of Earth’s current land area.  Summer temperatures were 10ºC (18ºF) colder than present.  Sea levels dropped by more than 90 meters (250 feet), resulting in an extra eighteen percent increase in dry land, in turn creating land bridges across the Bering Strait, the English Channel, and Indonesia.  The last Ice Age ended 15 thousand years ago, and the Pleistocene ended almost 12 thousand years ago.  But to this day, no one is really sure…
6. Why the Ice Age began in the first place!  Theories abound.  The foremost theory involves the Milankovitch cycles, a term for how the Earth’s “wobble” (precession), axial tilt (obliquity), and planetary orbit (eccentricity) all vary with a regular cycle of every 20 thousand, 40 thousand and 100 thousand years respectively.  Those variations affect how the Earth is exposed to the Sun’s heat.  Milankovitch cycles have operated since the Earth was turning, but the Ice Age was a geologically recent event, only in the last couple million years.  For the majority of Earth’s history, the planet has been considerably warmer. 
7. So, what else could have cooled the planet?  Did the erosion of the newborn Himalayas absorb and remove vast quantities of carbon dioxide, an important greenhouse gas?  Did the connection of the North and South American continents provide the catalyst?  When the two continents joined, the Gulf Stream now carried much warmer and wetter waters farther north.  This would increase precipitation (snow), and so increase glacier growth.  Other scientists say that continental drift plays a factor, as Ice Ages don’t really occur until there were large ice caps on the North and South Poles (which only occur when large landmasses are near the Poles to serve as climatic “anchors”).  No one is certain how the Ice Ages were born, or when they’ll return again.  But what is known for sure is...
8. The coldest spot in the universe is here on planet Earth!  In 2003, MIT scientists led by Wolfgang Ketterle were able to come within 810 trillionths of a degree of absolute zero (-273.15 Celsius).  Absolute zero is the coldest temperature known to science - so cold that even atoms stop moving.  But this super-cold spot was only a thousandth of an inch across.  In 2018, Italian physicists were able to bring an entire cubic meter to a temperature of 6 milliKelvin - or -273.144 degrees Celsius!  This is still colder than anywhere else in the known universe!  ​

Conclusion
​
Winters come and go.  But humans have tackled winters - and worse - and we still survive.  We have fought every crisis that Mother Nature brings to us.  And we have what it takes to overcome…or move to Florida.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!
 
Sources:
"Southern Russia overwhelmed with purple snow 09/03/2010." YouTube. Uploaded by czesio95, 8 Jul. 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty8kWGhWyYU. Accessed 22 January 2017

Armstrong, W.P. "Watermelon Snow." Environment Southwest. Number 517, 1987, pp. 20-23.

Officer, Charles & Jake Page. Tales of the Earth: Paroxyms and Pertubations of the Blue Planet. New York City: Oxford University Press, 1993.
​
Fagan, Brian, ed. The Complete Ice Age: How Climate Change Shaped the World. New York City: Thames & Hudson, 2009.

Rafferty, John P, ed. The Cenozoic Era: Age of Mammals. New York City: Britannica Educational Publishing, 2011.

Doughnuts, Dishonesty, and What Makes a Holiday Disappointing
By Heath Shive

Holidays started out as “holy days” – a time for rest.  But there’s no rest for the wicked - and apparently the wicked steal doughnuts and bagels!

That's how you can judge a holiday.

And people steal more doughnuts around Christmas than any other time of year!

Don’t believe me?

To the science!

The Bagel Man and His Magic Math

Paul Feldman was an economic analyst for years.  He then retired and started a bagel/doughnut delivery business.  After a few years, he was delivering over 8,000 bagels a week to over 140 companies.  Because Feldman used to be an economic analyst, his records are immaculate…and filled to the brim with data to scrutinize.

In an 8-year period, he delivered 1.375 million bagels and over 648 thousand doughnuts. 

How often are people honest?  Paul Feldman knows the answer.  People are honest – on the average – 89% of the time. 

What Do Bagels Have To Do With a Bad Holiday? 
 
Because of his mountainous data, Feldman could see all kinds of trends, such as: 

• People are more likely to steal in companies with a large number of employees compared to smaller companies
• People are more likely to steal when the weather turns bad, but people will be more generous when the weather is unexpectedly pleasant
• When unemployment is high, people are more likely to steal

And holidays?

People are more likely to steal bagels and doughnuts during Christmas time than any other holiday! 

Overall payment rates drop 2 percent (from an 89% honesty rate to 87%) during the week of Christmas.  This boost in dishonesty represents an 15% increase in theft! 

Thanksgiving is almost as bad.  St. Valentine’s Day is “lousy” and so is the week of Tax Day (April 15th).

Here’s another surprise.  People were more honest during July 4th, Labor Day, and Columbus Day.

But Why?

You would think that Christmas would the time of maximum honesty and goodwill.   So why the extra bad instead of extra good?

In the acclaimed best-selling book Freakonomics, authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner reviewed this case of bagel theft in the very first chapter of their book. 

They compared the holidays.  Why are Christmas and St. Valentine’s Day so different from Labor Day and even Columbus Day?

Because holidays like Christmas (and Thanksgiving and St. Valentine’s) represent a major financial setback and an overwhelming increase in anxiety.  In contrast, holidays like Labor Day and Columbus Day are basically just a day off of work. 

Conclusion

What makes a holiday good – or any day of any week, for that matter – is how much stress and anxiety it creates. 

But since Christmas and St. Valentine’s Day are not likely to get any easier to bear in the future, things will look bleak for honesty (and doughnut sales) come the holidays.   
So remember, when a high-spending holiday looms, keep an eye on your valuables.  People are more willing to steal.  ‘Tis the season. 

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Levitt, Steven D. and Stephen J. Dubner.  Freakonomics:  A Rogue Economist Explores The Hidden Side of Everything.  William Morrow (HarperCollins imprint), 2005.

Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt (June 6, 2004). "What The Bagel Man Saw". The New York Times.

Gift Giving Psychology (Part 3): Family Is A Better Investment Than Friendship 
By Heath Shive

We've seen that there's a psychology to gift giving.  First, we looked at the norm of reciprocity.  Then we looked at the "foot-in-the-door" technique.  

Today, we look at the science behind the adage, "Blood is thicker than water."  Or - as I say it - family is a better investment than friendship.

There’s the old Biblical proverb, “It’s better to give than receive" (Acts 20:35). 

But kids will tell you something different – it is way more fun to receive gifts!  

There’s a scientific way to maximize your gift-receiving selfishness!

To the science of family and friends!

Gift Giving Psychology

In 2003, psychologists Gad Saad and Tripat Gill performed a study on young adults to determine how much they spent on gifts and also who received the most expensive gifts. 

Specifically, Saad and Gill were predicting that the gift's price would correlate with genetic relatedness. In their paper, genetic relation was measured as the value r, where r equaled the amount of shared genetic material. 

For example, your parents would have an r value of 0.50, because you share 50% of your DNA with each parent.  Siblings would also have an r value of 0.50.  Grandparents (r=0.25), aunts/uncles (r=0.25), half-siblings (r=0.25), cousins (r=0.125), step-relations (r=0), and friends (r=0) were also included.

As Saad and Gill predicted, the study results showed that the closer the genetic relation, the greater the gift. Close family (r = 0.50) received $73.12 on mean average.  Moderately close family (r = 0.25) and distant family (r = 0.125) received $19.03 and $18.56 respectively.      

How Does This Help Me?

Now you know who to invite into your life!  If you have to choose between your aunts and high-school friends, it’s better to involve your aunts.  If you have to choose between your favorite sibling and your best friend for your maid-of-honor/best man, choose your sibling.

Saad & Gill’s study showed other patterns too:

• Children spend a little more money on their mother than on their father
• On average, brothers spend more money on their siblings than sisters
• Women spend as much money on close friends as they do on siblings, but men spend more money on siblings than friends
• Males spend more money on step-relations than females
• When it comes to grandparents, grandsons spend more money on grandpa, but granddaughters spend more money on grandma

Conclusion

Saad and Gill’s study is far from exhaustive – it was one study of one group from one city.  There are bound to be cultural and individual differences.  But compare the results above with your own experience.  Pretty close, right? 

Who spends more money on your wedding: your parents or college buddies?  Who will donate a kidney: your family or your friends?

In “The Dukes of Hazzard,” Boss Hogg once said, “Blood is thicker than water, but money is thicker than blood.”

Scientifically, money is not thicker than blood.  Family is always a good investment. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources: 
Saad, Gad and Tripat Gill, “An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective on Gift-Giving among Young Adults,” Psychology & Marketing 20 (2003): 765-84. 

Gift Giving Psychology (Part 2): The Door-In-The-Face Technique
By Heath Shive

In the last blog we talked about the norm of reciprocity – a societal rule that says: you have to give me something if I give you something.  

This next mind trick is a variation of the norm of reciprocity.

This mind trick is called the door-in-the-face technique – or in other words, when you reject my first ridiculous offer, you will be more likely to agree to my second offer.

Sound impossible?  To the science!

The Science

In 1976, psychologists Robert Cialdini and Karen Ascani performed a study at the University of Arizona. 

They asked people to donate blood as part of a blood drive, but they were asked in 2 different ways: (1) one group would be asked if they would donate blood sometime tomorrow, but…(2) a second group would be asked to donate once every 2 months for 3 years! 

Okay, here's the twist.  If people in the second group refused to donate blood every 2 months for 3 years, only then would the researchers ask them to donate just once sometime tomorrow. 

The results showed that more people agreed to give blood (and actually gave blood) when they received the more extreme request first! 

When people reject the first proposal (“shut the door in your face”), they are more likely to agree to the second (lesser) request.  

Door-in-the-face technique!

How It Works

The door-in-the-face technique makes use of 2 basic psychological processes.
 
First, the large request sets up a contrast effect – for example, contrast the one time blood request to a blood donation over 3 years! 

Second, the immediate concession by the requester invokes the norm of reciprocity.  The requester implicitly says, “Hey!  I’m giving a little; now you give a little.”

And many people do!

Car dealers often artificially inflate the asking price for a car.  During negotiation, the seller “graciously” will concede a little on the car price.  But now it is your “turn” to raise your buying price!

Have you ever had a sales agent say something like: “So can I write your name for a $100 donation?” or “…for a 2-year lease?” or “…for 20 boxes of units?” 

They ask high to set an artificially high standard – so that you will settle (or reciprocate) at a higher number than normally.

Conclusion

As explained in the great persuasion manual, Age of Propaganda: “The norm of reciprocity is successful as a persuasion device because it directs our thoughts and carries its own motivation to act on those thoughts.  We are directed to think “How can I repay my obligation?” as opposed to “Is this a good deal?”

So this Christmas, if your daughter asks for a pony…beware.  She knows you will say no.  It is the second gift on her list that she really wants. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!
 
Sources: 
Cialdini, R. B., & Ascani, K. (1976). Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral, and further compliance with a request to give blood.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 295-300. 

Pratkanis, Anthony, & Elliot Aronson.  Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and abuse of Persuasion.  W.H. Freeman and Company, 1991. 
​

Gift Giving Psychology: The Norm of Reciprocity
by Heath Shive

In the 1970s, the Hare Krishna were experts at collecting donations.  They looked strange, would chant in airports, and had a tendency to "weird" people out.  So, how did they do it?   

They used the psychology of the norm of reciprocity.  

So this Christmas, how can you protect yourself from this psychological trick?

Let's find out.

To the science of gift giving!

The Norm of Reciprocity: Society’s Guilt Trip

The Hare Krishna were a very visible religious movement in the 1970s, especially in airports.  When it comes to the art of persuasion, you wouldn’t expect a chanting, orange-clad, stubble-headed pagan to be an expert - but their organization made millions!

It was the famous psychologist Robert Cialdini who discovered that they used a powerful technique called the norm of reciprocity.

But first, what is a "norm"?  As described in the fascinating book Age of Propaganda, a norm is a specific guide to conduct.  A norm is how society tells you to act normally – like tipping 15% at a restaurant, sneezing into your elbow, or not cutting in line. 

The norm of reciprocity is simply this: If I give you something, you are obligated to give me something in return.  The norm of reciprocity regulates exchange in a culture.

The Power of Flowers

Psychologist Robert Cialdini – who spent hours at the airport observing Krishnas in action – discovered that the sect used the norm of reciprocity to “guilt trip” people into giving money. 

How?

They would simply give you a flower.

The Krishna member would spy a “victim,” who would suddenly find a flower pressed into his or her hand.  If the target attempted to give it back, the Krishna would refuse by saying, “It is our gift to you.” Only then did they request a donation.

The gift of a flower established a feeling of obligation.  The targeted “victim” would feel compelled to donate – thus fulfilling the norm of reciprocity. 

The Power of a Free Coke

In fact – even if you dislike someone – the norm of reciprocity can work. A study by Dennis Regan published 1971 illustrates this.  In his experiment, two male students were surveyed for their “aesthetic judgments.”  However one of the students was an accomplice who intentionally either made himself likable or unlikable. 

After five minutes, sometimes the accomplice would leave and come back with two Cokes…offering the other Coke to the other student.  At the end of the study, the accomplice asked the real student if he would like to buy some raffle tickets. 

The results showed that when the accomplice gave the other student a Coke, he sold nearly twice as many tickets compared with no Coke – whether the accomplice was likable or not!

Conclusion

So beware of gifts!  Those “free” cheese samples at the grocery, those “free” mailing labels from a nonprofit, and that “free” drink from someone in a bar.  Beware that invitation to a distant cousin’s or college friend’s wedding.  Beware of those “free” pill samples given by a pharmaceutical rep.

Because every gift gives twice - it gives a gift...and an obligation.     

The norm of reciprocity is supposed to establish a fair exchange for a better society.  Ironically, the norm of reciprocity can be used to cheat people too. 

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:

Cialdini, Robert.  Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.  Rev.ed. Collins, 2007. 
  
Pratkanis, Anthony, & Elliot Aronson.  Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion.  W.H. Freeman and Company, 1991. 

Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 627-639. ​

30 Days Hath November: The Ancient Magic (and Modern Math) of 60
By Heath Shive

“Thirty days hath September/April, June, and November/All the rest have thirty-one/Except February.”

As a poem, this stinks.  As a way to remember numbers, it’s helpful.

Math doesn’t have to be profound, poetic, or even comprehensible.  Math only needs to be helpful. 

As science author Brian Clegg writes in his book Are Numbers Real?: “Math, in the end, provides nothing more or less than a set of rules that are used to get from a starting point to an outcome.”

And if we have problems with numbers today, imagine what it was like for humanity in the Bronze Age?!

How did the ancients get along with numbers?

They used the magic of the number 60!  And we still do today, sometimes.

To the math!

The Magic of 60

The modern metric system is brilliantly based on the number 10.  And yet in Bronze Age Babylon, the base number used was 60.  Why?  The number 10 makes sense (10 fingers, 10 toes, etc), right? 

But 10 is awful for fractions.  In the year 2000 B.C., you do not need fractions.  Fractions are so abstract, and the real world uses whole numbers.  Ancient merchants didn’t sell 1/3 of a camel or 2/7 of a jug of wine. 

And yet they still needed to be able to divide things up.    

So they used 60.  The number 10 is divisible only by 1, 2, 5, and 10.  But the number 60 can be divided by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60.  So 60 is just so much more useful!

And ancient Babylon did use it.  Twelve months to a year.  Each month has 30 days.  A total of 360 days. 

Hey, you say, there are 364.25 days in a year!

That’s right!  That is why ancient calendars threw in extra days with intercalation (or epagomenal days in Ancient Egypt).

Where Is the 60?

We see 60-base numbers pop up in strange ways: ancient pantheons had 12 gods, 12 signs to a zodiac, 12 tribes in Ancient Israel, 12 apostles, 12 months a year, 30 days a month, 4 seasons, 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes an hour, etc.

But you say: Hey, I see more 12 than 60!

That’s right. You would almost believe that the number system was based on 12.  But no.  The number 12 is just the most common (and most accessible for the illiterate) factor of 60!

The ancient world used 60 in other ways, especially with money.  The talent was a large denomination of money used by Babylonians, Sumerians, and Hebrews.  Originally, a talent was divided into 60 minas, and each mina was divided into 60 shekels.  Jesus was betrayed by Judas for “30 pieces of silver,” or 30 shekels. 

And of course, November still has 30 days.
   
Conclusion

No one ever invented geometry, algebra, or calculus for fun.  Math in all its forms and numeric glory must - in the end - serve a purpose.

And after a while, 60 wasn’t useful anymore and was left behind.  Ten is the new base number for our society. 

But back when there was no such thing as a calculator, abacus, slide rule, algebra, or geometry – not even a public school system to teach fundamentals – the number 60 was the world’s math teacher.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Source:
Clegg, Brian.  Are Numbers Real? The Uncanny Relationship of Mathematics and the Physical World.  St. Martin’s Press, 2016. 
 
  
         
 

How to Brainwash Turkeys…and Maybe Humans Too?  
By Heath Shive

Robert Cialdini wrote what is quite possibly the most influential book in modern psychology, entitled Influence.  In its first chapter, Cialdini describes an experiment made by the pioneering ethologist M.W. Fox. 

Fox noticed that mother turkeys can either care for their young - or they can ignore them. 

A turkey’s mothering is triggered by the “cheep-cheep” sound of chicks. 

The more “cheep-cheep,” the more love.

Fox used a stuffed weasel (or European polecat) in an experiment.  Turkeys and weasels are natural enemies.  But Fox found that if a stuffed polecat played the “cheep-cheep” sounds of baby turkeys, then the turkey not only approached a stuffed weasel, but even gathered the stuffed weasel beneath her! 

When the “cheep-cheep” sound ended, then the mother turkey would attack!

We might think it’s inferior that a turkey is so simply programmed. 

But are humans any different?  Do we honestly “think” about all of our actions?

To the science!

The Norm of Reciprocity

If I give you a gift, you feel compelled to give me something in return.  
 
A study by Dennis Regan published 1971 illustrates this. Two male students were surveyed for their “aesthetic judgments.”  However one of the students was an accomplice - who intentionally either made himself likable or unlikable.

After five minutes, sometimes the accomplice would leave and come back with two Cokes…offering the other Coke to the other student.  At the end of the study, the accomplice asked the real student if he would like to buy some raffle tickets.

The results showed that when the accomplice gave the other student a Coke, he sold nearly twice as many tickets compared with no Coke – whether the accomplice was likable or not!

The Endowment Effect

You automatically ascribe more value to anything  you perceive as “yours.”  

It’s called the endowment effect. 

In a 1989 paper, economist Jack Knetsch asked one group of students to choose between a coffee mug and a chocolate bar. Of these students, 44 percent wanted the chocolate bar, 56 percent wanted mug.  In other words, the items were roughly equal in perceived value.

Knetsch gave a second group only coffee mugs, but they could exchange for chocolate bars later if they wanted.  He gave a third group only chocolate bars, but they could exchange for mugs later.

About half of the students should have traded the items, right?  No!  Only 11 percent of the mug-owning students wanted to trade, and only 10 percent of chocolate bar-owning students wanted to exchange for mugs. The vast majority of students didn’t want to part with what they had now that they had (“owned”) it!

The Peak-End Rule

We judge an experience based on how it ends!

Barry Schwartz – author of the fantastic book The Paradox of Choice - cites a lab study where participants were asked to listen to two terribly loud noises.  The first noise was awful, but lasted only 8 seconds.  The second noise was the same as the first and also lasted 8 seconds…but it was followed by another 8 seconds of unpleasant noise that wasn’t as loud.

The vast majority of the participants chose the second noise – despite the fact that it had all the noise of the first, and was twice as long (16 seconds vs. 8 seconds).

Conclusion

Your mom always told you to think before you act.  But “thinking” is a long and deliberate process.  Our brain is guided primarily by instincts (shortcuts to decision-making) that are written on our DNA. 

Whoever knows your instincts knows the “buttons” in your mind.  Much of modern advertising and political propaganda is trying to bypass our thinking to control us by instinct.

But knowing that there’s a trap is the first step in avoiding it.  Mind your thoughts!

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!  

Sources:
Cialdini, Robert.  Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.  Rev.ed. Collins, 2007. 

Knetsch, Jack L., "The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves," American Economic Review, 1989, 79, 1277-1284.

Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 627-639. 

Schwartz, Barry.  The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less.  New York: Harper Perennial, 2004.  
​