Welcome to the first of a regular feature where I get to share with you eight of the things I have encountered this week that fascinated me.

Button 1: Richard Rocks!

As I mentioned on Monday’s Salsa Cookies post, I have just finished reading Richard Wiseman’s book, 59 Seconds: Think a little, Change a lot, in which he debunks a few of the self-help theories that most of us have accepted for a long time, and also introduces some new ideas that can make positive changes to your life in a very short time and with little effort.

I’ve encorporated many of the ideas that Richard introduces into my day-to-day life, such as looking at puppies daily to increase happiness (who knew?), putting a baby picture in my wallet to increase the chances of it being returned if I lose it (the wallet, not the baby), and increasing my chances of attracting the opposite sex using a few very easy techniques.

I know, of course, that some of you would argue I don’t need to be any more attractive… and who am I to disagree?

Richard is also on Twitter: @RichardWiseman

Button 2: And So Does His Blog

Richard also has a fantastic blog, where he shares his ideas. If you’re into the quirkier side of psychology (of course you are, that’s why you’re here…) then you’ll love his blog.

Button 3: Puppies!

Of the animal kind! I know what you were thinking!

I challenge you not to smile (at least inside) when you see these adorable creatures.

Button 4: What is Success?

Alain de Botton talks on TED, where he examines our ideas of success and failure – and questions the assumptions underlying these two judgments. Is success always earned? Is failure? He makes an eloquent, witty case to move beyond snobbery to find true pleasure in our work.

I, for one, found this very interesting.

Alain is also on Twitter: @alaindebotton

Button 5: Insomnia Myths

Our culture is obsessed with sleep, and the lack of it, yet many of us don’t know some basic facts. This article from Newsweek sorts that out.

Button 6: Freedom to Criticize

If you haven’t heard, Simon Singh is being sued for criticizing the British Chiropractic Association whilst debunking the theories supporting chiropractic therapy. To my pleasant surprise, hoards of media representatives, bloggers and medical professionals all began to stand behind him. Long live free speech!

Get the full story here.

Button 7: Oh Yes You Are (Creative)!

Do you believe that creativity is a quality that only ‘creative people’ possess? OK, so you may not be the most creative person in the world ever but can you honestly say that you have zero creativity? This doesn’t necessarily mean artistic skill; it’s about imagination. Are you an imaginative person?

Dr Gary Wood seems to think so. And I agree.

Gary is also on Twitter: @drgarywood

Button 8: Priobiotics? Huh!

Over on Derren Brown’s blog, Phillis Dorris posted an eye-opening article about just how useful probiotics are, or maybe aren’t.

A good read if, like me, you care about what goes in your gob.

Derren (and his team) is also on Twitter: @BrownTowers

Fastened a Ninth Button?

You should come and share it with me on Twitter here. If it’s awesome, I’ll retweet and may even feature it on the blog!

(Note that comments are not available at this time, but will be enabled once you start bringing your friends along. Presupposition intended… Grin)

Have a truly fantastic weekend and if, like me, you are in the UK then I hope the weather is considerably better for you than it has been lately!

*****
If you found this post useful, you may also like to read the following items:

• Why I Became an Agnostic (And Why Witches Are Welcome In My House)
• Salsa Cookies? Do My Ears Deceive Me?
• Place Your Bets on the Wheel of Fallacy

Whilst reading through the archives, I came upon some delightful examples of auditory illusions. There are also some visual illusions that I found fascinating too, which might lead me to find further examples and publish them here.

Anyway, I decided to share with you one example of an auditory illusion that you might enjoy. Feel free to share with me your thoughts on this, or let me know of any other examples on twitter here.

Richard’s article: Great audio illusion

*****
If you found this post useful, you may also like to read the following items:

• 9-Button Friday #1
• Why I Became an Agnostic (And Why Witches Are Welcome In My House)
• Anchoring: Why First Impressions Really Do Count

Below, I have identified, for you – you fortunate reader, you – some of the most common ways in which astute marketers across the world, online and offline, attempt to confuse our zombie-like minds into making purchasing decisions that benefit their pockets. And in this economy, who can blame them?

Here are some of the clever marketing tactics I have spotted over the years. If you have other suggestions to add, please help your fellow man and do so in the comments section underneath.

1 – Presupposition

Cleverly worded marketing presupposes that a condition is true, and in doing so renders you powerless to question whether or not it is fact. This is usually achieved by placing a statement that is to be accepted without question at the beginning of a sentence, and then finishing the sentence with the bit you are meant to be paying attention to.

Example – “After your tiring day at work, why not relax with a nice foot spa?” It is pre-supposed that your day at work has been tiring (and, indeed, that you go to work!)

Another sneakier example – “While you’re deciding which of our products is right for you, take advantage of our free chess club membership.” Oh, so I’ve already made the decision to buy from you, and now I’m deciding which product to buy? When did that happen?

2 – Causality

This is often used by savvy marketers to imply that when you buy something from them, you will achieve a desirable outcome. More often than not, the benefit is implied by the clever wording, or even by the actions of the questionably over-joyous characters on your TV or computer screen.

Example – “Make your friends jealous, when you purchase a swimming pool from our new range.” Here, it is made quite explicit that buying one of their swimming pools will make your friends jealous. They can say this, whether it’s true or not. More likely, your friends will be sniggering behind your back that you were daft enough to be suckered into paying decent money for a tiny water-pit.

Another random example – Images of girls swooning at the feet of an unlikely suitor, moments after spraying some pungent deodorant about his person. Ah! Now you get it…

3 – Implied Evidence

This is a technique that is used to imply some kind of authority or science behind a product, which you are to unwittingly accept as proof of its effectiveness.

Example – “Experts agree that washing with Skankfree reduces the appearance of a second head.” Ok, very well, but the fact that they agreed on the matter with a nod over a nice cup of tea doesn’t mean that any effective testing or experimentation has taken place. Who were the “experts” that were questioned? It’s all too wishy-washy to be accepted as any kind of evidence, yet we seem to unconsciously accept statements like this as being authoritative.

Another example – “Nine out of ten dogs preferred GnashRabbit!” Preferred it to what? Manure?

4 – Re-ordering Priorities

It’s sometimes in the seller’s best interest to distract your attention away from the things that really matter to you in an attempt to favour lashing out on their latest bit of sparkle. To do this, they may need to make whatever they are offering feel very important to you, and “play down” something which, up to this point, has been more important to you.

Example – “Lack of money getting you down? Our holidays are the cheapest you will find meaning you can finally take a break from your worries!” Oh drat! I was going to put all my extra earnings into savings and set up a strict spending budget, but since you put it like that…

5 – Complex Equivalents

I’ve left this one until last in the hope that if you remember just one of these tips, this will be the one. This is possibly the most frequently used technique I have seen where clever marketers lead your mind down the garden path and have you collecting their juicy frogspawn. It involves you taking for granted that because A has happened, that means B must also be true.

Example – “Kids running around, causing havoc and breaking your ornaments? Learn to better your parenting skills with our new 3-page guide!” Hmm. And how does having kids being predictably child-like mean that I’m a bad parent? That’s certainly news to me.

So, now that you know the patterns you should be looking out for as you are bombarded with hundreds of marketing messages every day, hopefully you will be in a better position to take a step back and question those messages. Are they based on fact, or fantasy?

Take advertisements at face value and you can be sure to join the droves of hapless zombies whose hard-earned money is being extracted from them like taking well-presented confectionary from an unquestioning neonate.

*****
If you found this post useful, you may also like to read the following items:

• Place Your Bets on the Wheel of Fallacy
• Anchoring: Why First Impressions Really Do Count
• Swap the Box, You Loon!

I haven’t been into a casino for some years, but from time to time I do like to have a bit of a gamble on Pogo.com. Never for money, of course. No, this is gambling for virtual tokens, and I do it mainly for the game-play and not for the winnings (although it is, naturally, exciting to hear the word “WINNER” when I’ve hit the elusive “moonshot”). This is one of my favourites of the many games on that site, called Big Shot Roulette which, as the more attentive of my readers might have guessed, is the game of roulette.

But I wouldn’t play on a real roulette wheel (well, I have in the past but not anymore) because it’s just not possible to have any influence over the outcome.

At this point, it’s possible you may be reading this and shaking your head in the knowledge that there are systems and methods for tracking numbers and making an educated guess regarding the next number. You may have even used them yourself in the past with varying levels of success.

They don’t work.

Yes, given an infinite number of spins of the wheel you would expect that every number will turn up in equal amounts, and should be the same number of red numbers as black numbers. Does this mean, then, that if a black number has turned up 5 times in a row, that the next number is almost certain to be a red?

Absolutely not!

Over a very large number of spins, you could reasonably expect the ratio of black to red to be somewhat even, but by no means does this apply over a short sequence of spins. This is a mistake of reasoning that we all seem to make when we are not thinking rationally about it. Not you, obviously. But other people.

I flipped a coin six times a moment ago. Only one of these three combinations is the true sequence. Which do you think it was?

• HHHHHH
• HTHHTT
• TTTTTT

By now you’re probably getting the idea, and if you decided that any one of those could possibly be the true sequence, you are right. Each has an equal chance of being true, but it seems counter-intuitive to accept that I could end up with six heads, or six tails, in a row. The coin has no memory, and so each flip of the coin has a 50/50 chance of being a head or a tail, regardless of what came before it.

But WHY?

We tend to think of the more typical events as being the more probable. It’s this flawed logic that keeps casinos in-pocket and hopeful but misguided gamblers out-of-pocket. It’s much easier for the brain to formulate logic based on our memory of our experiences (we’ve hardly ever, if at all seen anyone flip six tails in a row) rather than objectively arriving at the true probability using proper mathematics. A mental shortcut, if you like, and yet another area where our emotion rules over reason.

Hopefully now, you will be able to examine your own behaviour and habits and spot any likely areas where you might be applying this flawed thinking in your own life. Personally, I’m staying well clear of roulette tables unless they happen to be electronic representations where there is no danger of me losing my hard-earned money.

*****
If you found this post useful, you may also like to read the following items:

• Swap the Box, You Loon!
• Anchoring: Why First Impressions Really Do Count
• Why I Became an Agnostic (And Why Witches Are Welcome In My House)

In your head, perform the following calculation. Take no time over this, but instead merely make a best estimate of a rough figure within 5 seconds.

2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8

Got a rough estimate?

Great, now try this one, again allowing about 5 seconds for the working out:

8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2

Got a rough figure? Excellent.

Now, those readers that are perhaps more mathematically astute than the average might have spotted that the rule of commutation applies (the product is the same regardless of the order of the factors). Typically though, you might have instead estimated that the latter product was not only different, but in fact greater than the first. Of course, if you knew the rule and you still estimated different products, then shame on you. You might like to consider a course of self-flagellation in penance.

Try these speedy calculations out on a group of friends, who perhaps have nothing more pressing on their plates than removing lint from rather inconspicuous orifices about their person. You’ll likewise get an average product for the second sequence greater than the first.

This mistake in calculation is a classic example of anchoring, up to its naughty tricks in our little potato-shaped heads.

By anchoring, I mean we take an initial number (like taking the first 3 factors, 2 x 3 x 4 and coming up with about 20) and then we build on that number but remain so drawn to the initial estimate that we don’t go far enough. When we take the second sequence, we gather 8 x 7 x 6 to be around 400 and then we build on that number, but again we don’t deviate far enough from that initial estimate.

This explains why the estimates given are consistently lower than the actual product, and why the second estimate is consistently greater than the first. It’s how our lovely minds work.

Don’t Believe The Hype

Or propaganda, for that matter.

The same anchoring effect has repeatedly been used during the reporting of casualties of war by savvy propagandists. In fact, it was used quite famously during the Gulf war when reports of an air raid would describe the loss of a few or even a dozen Iraqi civilians. The more cynical of news-watchers may have suspected that the figures were somewhat under-estimated, but their own estimated figure still becomes anchored to the original quote. Perhaps we can add on another 20 to the count and be more in tune with reality? Try many tens of thousands of victims, as was revealed many months after the campaign.

Can you imagine the uproar that would have ensued if we had ever imagined that such was the case? Instead our own conservative estimates remained firmly anchored to those original reports.

Sized Up

When we are forced to make a spur-of-the-moment decision, we tend to use a kind of self-anchoring. We will bring forward our memories and experiences of the past to formulate an opinion on something and then compare that with what we are experiencing at the present moment. From this point forward, we can never fully remove ourselves from that original opinion that we formed. Revising the judgement at a later time will never fully undo the effects of the original judgement.

It is due to this kind of lop-sided thinking that you don’t much like the guy who, when you first met him, reminded you instantly of the guy who killed your cat when you were 6. He might be the most pleasant guy in the world, but there’s just something about him you don’t like.

What a nasty horrible thought, don’t you think?

Getting Your Own Back

It’s not all doom and gloom of course. Knowing how effective anchoring is gives you a valuable tool in your mental box.

You now understand just how important it is that someone’s first impression of you should be the greatest impression you could possibly present. Once they have formed an opinion of you, it will deviate little from that first impression over time. This works in your advantage, providing your first impression is a thoroughly positive one.

So, cast a very critical eye over your online social profiles, including your Facebook profile, Twitter profile, MySpace profile, etc. Make sure that you make any necessary tweaks so that what you are presenting is your very, very best, and that way any new visitors or friends that you make will forever hold you in great esteem.

Even if you do happen to list your favourite reading as The Daily Mail or your favourite TV program as Kilroy.

*****
If you found this post useful, you may also like to read the following items:

• Swap the Box, You Loon!
• 5 Ways We Are Duped by Clever Marketing
• Why I Became an Agnostic (And Why Witches Are Welcome In My House)

I read today something that reminded me of why I became an agnostic. Those of you who know me well know that I like to read a lot. Like, a lot. I was re-reading one of my favourite books regarding the power of the mind and its inevitable failures, Derren Brown’s Tricks of the Mind, and I wanted to share my experience with you because the argument put forward was a great one with overwhelming logic.

What most of you might not know is that before turning agnostic, I also went through a stage of Wicca. Some of the principles of what I learned during this time I still adhere to today.

Prove It, or I Walk

As pointed out to me by Derren Brown, referring to Bertrand Russell, it is up to the believer to provide evidence for his (or her) claims, not the non-believer to provide proof that the believer is wrong. I cannot prove conclusively that there isn’t a teapot orbiting the Earth, and I shouldn’t have to just because you say there is one.

And so I think it’s fair to maintain a healthy scepticism about all religion on the basis that I’ve yet to discover for myself that any single religion provides evidence for all of its claims. That’s not to say, however, that some useful and proven ideas have come from my study into some religions. Quite often, science has managed to explain the power of various techniques and rituals used by religions, which maintain their power even when the ooky-kookiness has been taken away from them.

Hence my fascination with things such as NLP. Which I think I’ll leave until another time.

This is not me rubbishing religion. There’s plenty of time for that some other time. My point is the conformity behind the robot-like following of its advocates without consideration (or requirement) for any kind of evidence. Yes, I’ll gladly follow a practice or carry out a ritual, having discovered for myself that it works, or having seen scientific evidence that what you are preaching is true. If those rituals and beliefs should, by chance, collectively fall into a defined religion, then slap me on a label and I’ll sing the same hymns (or chants?).

Until then, I’m proud to be an agnostic for these reasons. I’ll use what works, scientifically, for me and dump the rest.

Science Vs. Alternative

To reassure you that my argument is not about religion, per se, but rather about the logic behind the beliefs, I’ll explain how similar logic applies to scientific medicine and alternative medicine.

The thing that makes religion much like alternative medicine is that something can be easily recorded as fact due to a one-time correlation, and is supported by a group of individuals who seek to find evidence that supports this new idea. Every time I see a crow, my head is turned to the left (it isn’t). Therefore crows make your head turn to the left (they don’t). I know this to be true (I don’t), because all my friends have reported similar events (they haven’t). This happens almost every time one of us sees a crow (it doesn’t).

Ridiculous example, of course, but still it shows you exactly what I mean.

The scientific method, on the other hand, seeks to disprove that the idea is true. This is the very opposite of the “alternative” way of thinking. A scientist sets out with the hypothesis that A causes B. Rather than look for all the evidence to support this idea, they will instead perform rigorous tests to try and prove that in fact A does not cause B. If after much testing and consultation with like-minded colleagues the theory cannot be disproven then it is deemed that A does cause B and the research is published accordingly.

Scientists make mistakes of course. They are after all (I’m assured) just human. When this happens, it is rarely malicious, just bad medicine. (Cue the Bon Jovi song that’s going to be rattling round in my head all evening…) There might be occasions of bias, but still nowhere near the bias of the alternative camp, who are none-too-keen to point out the times when things don’t work as they assure us they do.

Best of Both?

Anyway, to bring me back to my point. I like to be at the point where science meets alternative. If alternative medicine goes through the rigorous testing of a scientist and comes out smelling of roses ylang-ylang then it is no longer alternative medicine, it is simply medicine.

I like to try out all kinds of methods, rituals, medicines, therapies, etc., and if they work on a consistent basis each and every time, then I’m sold.

Maybe I’m one of the very odd few, or maybe you join me in that opinion. Either way, feel free to let me know.

*****
If you found this post useful, you may also like to read the following items:

• 5 Ways We Are Duped by Clever Marketing
• Place Your Bets on the Wheel of Fallacy
• Anchoring: Why First Impressions Really Do Count

After all, it’s only a game show.

I’m talking about the infuriatingly addictive game show, Deal or No Deal. (Well, infuriatingly addictive the first ten times you watch it, and infuriatingly predictable thereafter.)

As always, the ever-seductive “what-if” scenario was suggested. You must know the one? Surely you’ve been asked it before? It’s the one that goes, “Oh my God! What would you do if you were left with the 1p box and the £250,000 box still in play and the banker offered you the swap?”

Well, simple. Obviously…

Take the Swap

Why am I so adamant? Ok, I’ll give you my explanation. I am prepared, however, to receive a flood of comments disputing this explanation. That’s fine. I’m a big boy. I can handle it.

Here goes…

At the start of the show you’re offered a choice of one of the 22 boxes sealed by independent adjudicators, one of which contains the value of £250,000. So on making your random choice, the odds of you having chosen the box with the jackpot value in it are 1 in 22. With me so far? So, we’re agreed.

Now, regardless of what plays out between now and the final “reveal”, given that the big one isn’t revealed before this point, the odds of you having chosen the jackpot box are always going to be 1/22. Still agreed?

Knowing that this is the case (and it’s also the case that each of the remaining boxes also has 1/22 chance of containing the jackpot value), the total probability of the jackpot being in any other box is 21/22. This fact will also remain true until the final reveal, given that the jackpot isn’t revealed in the meantime (which is the scenario we are using).

During the course of the game, in order to reach the “nightmare” scenario of having the 1p box and the £250,000 box left in the game, you will have revealed randomly, and by pure chance, all but those two values.

The Final Reveal

Now here’s the important thing to take in. I assure you it’s absolutely true. Just because you have systematically removed twenty boxes from the game, the fact that your own box had (and has) a 1/22 chance of containing £250,000 hasn’t changed. And, for that matter, the fact that it has a 21/22 chance of not containing the £250,000 hasn’t changed. So where is the remaining probability?

It’s in the remaining box!

So, swap or no swap? Stick with the probability that the box you have has a 1/22 chance of the big prize? Or swap it for the box that has a 21/22 probability of containing the £250,000 prize?

Dur! No-brainer!

If you’re just not convinced, then you might like to check out the original Monty Hall problem.

Innocent Teaser

All very well, you say. Nice little teaser and something to argue endlessly with your friends and family about. But not really a big problem is it?

What’s clear from the resistance that this perfectly rational explanation receives is that our human tendency to stick to what we know, what feels right or, more technically, what we are anchored to, compels us to use our emotional rationalisation over our logical thinking.

Probably fine if you’re a poet, or an artist, or an international playboy. Less useful, perhaps, if you’re a juror, a scientist, or an international diplomat.

*****
If you found this post useful, you may also like to read the following items:

• Place Your Bets on the Wheel of Fallacy
• Anchoring: Why First Impressions Really Do Count
• Why I Became an Agnostic (And Why Witches Are Welcome In My House)