Posts Tagged ‘david weiner’

HOW WE ATTACH TO PEOPLE AND THINGS

Tuesday, July 5th, 2011

Studies by neuroresearchers in the academic field of “attachment theory,” have been picking up steam.

In a nutshell, the theory maintains that we have an “attachment mechanism” in our brains, a series of circuits that work to create the relationships we have with others, as well as the preferences we have for things.

Human attachments are broken down into compartments that include:

* Romantic

* Parents

* Kin

* Friends

* Pets

* Strangers

These compartments can be subdivided to the point that we can be more attached to a pet than a sibling or even a parent.  Or, we might feel comfortable in large groups of relatives and/or friends, but avoid strangers. Details of these compartments can be found in my book, “Battling the Inner Dummy.”

It appears that the same “attachment mechanism” with modified circuitry also shapes our preferences for things; from our favorite breakfast cereal to the automobile model we desire the most.  The point is that attachment is all physical.  It may vary in strength for people or things during time intervals, but usually reverts to a base line for each, which can be measured. Any significant and permanent change in strength usually requires a traumatic event or a series of them.

MSI has now developed a proprietary research process called the “Brand Attachment Index,” which helps us measure consumer attachment to branded products on a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 reflecting little or no strength and 6 reflecting passionate strength.  The stronger the attachment index among category shoppers is for a specific branded product, the more difficult it is for a retailer to replace it with something else.

Interestingly enough, the romantic attachment mechanism has been labeled by researchers in the field as the “Biosocial Romantic Attachment Mechanism.” How on target has yours been?  Don’t ask about mine.

Our Bundle of Biases

Friday, May 22nd, 2009

Did you ever wonder why two people with identical I.Q. education and upbringing can have totally different opinions about so many things?

 

About three years ago, I helped sponsor a symposium on prejudice and discrimination at the University of Wisconsin. The keynote speaker was Mahzarin R. Banaji, a professor of psychology at Harvard University, who is an expert on human thinking and feeling that operate unconsciously in our mind with some emphasis on biases…to put her credentials in a nutshell. She maintains a web site called Project Implicit, which measures our biases in a number of areas, including gender, religion, skin tone, age, weight, etc.  More than 6 million persons have completed the tests on the web site.  In her speech, Professor Banaji claimed that all of us are afflicted with biases.

 

I had dinner with her that evening and asked if even Indian gurus had biases.  After all, some of them spend years in a cave or other isolation meditating and staring at a wall, or whatever to clear their minds to be totally in the here and now.  She replied that she had actually tested a number of gurus in India and all of them had at least two biases: one against the lower caste systems, the other against Pakistan.

 

So much for spending a lot of time in a cave.

 

Biases, as Professor Banaji pointed out, are not always bad and they may be conscious as well as unconscious.  For example, we may have a conscience bias for healthy foods or for dogs as pets. We are well aware of our conscience biases for the most part.  An unconscious bias might be a racial bias. Even though we think we may have grown beyond such biases, in many instances what we really have done is learn to “manage” them, the key to working with our own irrational drives and feelings. And racial biases are grossly irrational, particularly since we’ve learned that our human DNA is not much different from a geranium’s.

 

There may be a genetic basis to our biases.  The Minnesota Study of Identical Twins Reared Apart shows that about 50% of our mental characteristics are inherited.  The study, among other things, has found identical twins who never knew each other and were interviewed  as adults have such similarities as both chew gum,  are liberals, alcoholics, divorced, gave their pets the same name, and on and on. This doesn’t mean we are stuck with our biases.  If they are negative and we become aware of them and want to change, then change is possible.

 

Biases can also vary considerably in strength—the weaker ones are easier to change, naturally—and they can apply to a wide bandwidth of our attitudes, including our perception of brands.  More about this next time.

 

That Was So Five Minutes Ago

Tuesday, March 17th, 2009

With the avalanche of change that has infected our lifestyles “That was so five minutes ago,” has apparently become the new statement of status among the earliest of early adopters.

This was told to me by MSI’s social media team led by Maureen Brennan, which is quickly changing the face of MSI and energizing us with a new zeal to be in the vanguard. (I am now on Facebook and Twitter, and am blogging. Hello?)

If you think of 70 years as one generation (it has been attainable throughout recorded history…Cicero’s wife lived to 103 after he divorced her) then only three such generations ago, nothing much had changed from the previous 4,000 years.

caesar-georgeCaesar when he was in a great rush could travel 50 miles a day, sometimes a little more, and George Washington almost 18 centuries later rarely did as well.   It wasn’t until the high pressure steam engine emerged in the early 1800s that living conditions for the average person really began to change, starting with travel.  And that change accelerated with all the new things that followed including electricity, the telegraph, flight, industrialization, radio, television, new medicines and the computer, to name a few. But that took place over a period of about 150 years.

Now it seems that every month, or even every week we are jolted with something new, and some of us can adapt to it better than others.

It appears that like all human characteristics, our ability to accept change can be placed on a simple scale of one to ten.  The ones of the world will only change their lifestyles on the threat of death…and that might not be enough. The tens have anxiety attacks if they can’t get the very next thing right now.  Most of us are somewhere in the middle of the scale, with the younger demographic, I suspect, well above the six level.

There is an evolutionary theory that helps explain this.  Those who are low on the scale who fight change bank their status on what they know.  If they give into change they believe they lose status because now they are following the crowd.    Those high on the scale bank their status on being the earliest of early adopters. They can’t wait to tell you what they are doing that’s new. And believe me, they’ll tell you.

This is definitely not the time to be near the bottom of the scale if we want to engage life as it is becoming.

pintofbeerview1What’s really mind boggling is trying to conjecture what activity in the year 2050 might be described as that was so five minutes ago.  If you are ever sitting alone in a bar staring at your drink, this is a good subject to ponder.

 

 

 

 

A Snapshot of my Conversation with Richie Davidson About Fixing Serious Flaws In Our Personalities

Friday, February 13th, 2009

Welcome to the MSI Blog.

We are asking our bloggers to write about any subject of interest to them, in addition to items of interest pertaining to our business.  So I am taking advantage of that freedom for this, our first blog.

 

My full time job is CEO of MSI.  In my spare time I write psychology books with support from the psychology department of the University of Wisconsin.

 

My specialty: The biology of human irrationality.  In a nutshell, when we act irrationally, it’s usually our brain’s limbic system acting out, capturing our intellect, so to speak.  That capturing might be for an hour or for years.  And by the way, we share that system with chimpanzees, et al.

 

I thought you might be interested in a conversation I had with Richie Davidson, who was named by Time Magazine in 2006 as one of the top 100 thinkers in the nation. He is a psychologist, psychiatrist and neuroscientist and a co-founder of the Health/Emotions Researcher Institute (I’m on its externalboard of advisers…very external), among other credentials.

 

I asked Richie how he thought we would get rid of our greatest mental flaws twenty five or fifty years from now.  For example, the flaws of an extreme paranoid - who is afraid to cross the street.  Or a psychopath who can feel little or no guilt, remorse, embarrassment or empathy, while having an abundance of aggression and egomania.  It turns out that about 1% of the world’s population is psychopathic, and probably an additional 12% or so are downright mean and ruthless. If we could fix them, look at the peace and quiet the rest of us might have.

 

All of our emotions, more than 200 of them are controlled by brain circuits or specific organs.  Fear, for example is controlled by the amygdala, about the size of a walnut.  These circuits and organs usually lie dormant until they are triggered by a sighting or a thought.  They are like third parties in our brains, ready to make us happy or drive us nuts, or make us too cautious, or a nuisance or a danger to others.

 

Since they are all biologically based, eventually we may be able to adjust the most wayward of them physically, sort of like fixing a hernia. When I was writing a book about power freaks, I attended a seminar and sat next to Mary Ellen Oliveri, then chief of the Behavioral Science Research Branch of the National Institute of Mental Health. I told her I was surprised at the lack of research on the topic.  She said that if they did the research and came up with a pill for power freaks, psychopaths, et al, who would take it?  In other words, she was suggesting, the Adolph Hitlers of the world were not about to take a pill.   People like that think the rest of us aren’t thinking straight.

 

Richie surmised that the answer way off in the future might lie in a genetic missile, introduced in our bloodstream that would somehow be directed to the specific brain circuitry involved. For psychopaths it might be the circuits controlling guilt, remorse, nurturance, and empathy which may not be operating at all.  The missile would attack the DNA in the cells of the circuitry involved and turn them on.  Boom, you’d have a psychopath who wants to hug you rather than kill you. 

A lot more would be involved in this including the questions of ethics, morality, judgment and so forth, but thought you’d appreciate the snapshot, if at this point you haven’t wandered off.