Strategy. Innovation. Brand.

Interpersonal Communication

Disgustology

dont t a cold in yoru pocketMy mother used to say that good manners are like oil in an engine. If you have them, everything runs more smoothly.

But is that all that manners are good for? Valerie Curtis, who might be called the Doyenne of Disgust, writes that manners evolved because we’re so… well, disgusting.

Curtis argues that one of the benefits of being a human is that we’re a very cooperative bunch. By collaborating with each other, we can accomplish great things. But only if we don’t die first. Curtis describes us as a “walking bag of microbes”. My microbes are probably not good for you and vice-versa. So we need to learn to keep our distance.

Curtis writes that manners are fundamental to human nature and evolved from two related systems. The first is the “disgust system, which motivates us to recognise and avoid potential pathogen hot zones.” The second is “the ability to feel shame.” Curtis surmises that feeling “shame if someone looks at us with a disgusted expression” is simply nature’s way of moderating our behavior to keep us from infecting one another.

Manners may have evolved to help us avoid diseases but they also helped us develop complex social systems. Curtis writes, “Humans became adept at looking for clues as to who was likely to cooperate and who was not. Manners provided an indicator. Those who were careful with hygiene were good candidates, as were those who put … the interests of others before themselves.”

While Curtis has a new book out on disgustology, the field has been growing for the past several decades. Other contributors include Daniel Fessler, Jonathan Haidt, Rachel Herz, Daniel Kelly, Paul Rozin, and Joshua Tybur Here are some key discoveries form their work:

It’s not all oral – different researchers proposed different typologies of disgust. Some suggest that there are nine different domains of disgust; others identify only seven. We might immediately identify disgusting smells and tastes. But we’re also disgusted by fleas and immoral behavior.  The world is disgusting in many ways.

Liberals and conservatives view disgust differently – research suggests that liberals and conservatives are similar when it comes to the disgust of disease avoidance and immoral behavior. But conservatives are more disgusted by sexual topics.

Pregnant women are more sensitive to disgust – researchers found that, as progesterone levels increase, so does sensitivity to disgust. This seems particularly true in the first trimester, when the immune system is weakened. Apparently, our bodies protect us from low immunity by increasing our sensitivity to disgust.

It works in advertising — though it hasn’t been studied formally, I can attest that disgust can create powerful advertising and branding campaigns. The Little Lulu illustration above is from a famous campaign that changed our behavior. Prior to Little Lulu’s warning – Don’t Put A Cold In Your Pocket — people often carried cloth handkerchiefs. They sneezed into them and then returned the handkerchief to their pocket. Ewww! If you don’t carry a cloth handkerchief today, you can thank Little Lulu.

Apparently, some of our campaigns have come full circle. Little Lulu changed our handkerchief behavior. Valerie Curtis aims to change out bathroom behavior — and wash our hands more often — with a campaign build around the slogan, Don’t Bring the Toilet With You.  If it works as well as Little Lulu, we could all be cleaner and healthier.

(The Little Lulu ad comes from the Gallery of Graphic Design).

 

Brain Networks – Part 2

Everything is networked.

Everything is networked.

Yesterday (and in earlier articles here and here), we talked about two brain networks – default and reward – and their implications for organizational behavior. Today, let’s take on two more networks – affect and control – and see how they work in the office. Again, I’ll draw on a recent HBR article by Adam Waytz and Malia Mason.

The affect network activates when people experience emotions. You might think that we consciously recognize something and then feel some emotion about it. That’s true sometimes but often it’s the other way round, with the affect network leading the way. You see a snake and your pulse quickens. Your brain interprets this as fear. Your body – not your brain — reacts to the external stimulus. Your brain reacts to your body’s reaction. (Conceptually, this is similar to System 1 vs. System 2, and thinking with your body).

How does this effect behavior at the office? Well, did your gut ever tell you something? As Waytz and Mason point out, “A hunch is not some mystical sixth sense. It’s a real neurological response that manifests itself physically”. In other words, your affect network is telling you something based on what your body is telling the affect network.

I used to think that I should rationally analyze every key decision and generally ignore my gut feel. Gut feel was irrational and emotional; better to use logic and reason. But Waytz and Mason point out that, “…a mounting body of neurological evidence suggests that emotional impulses should not be ignored. The affect network fast-tracks decision making and helps us process information that may include too many variables.” It’s not obvious how your gut feel reaches your conscious mind, but it often gets there for a good reason. Don’t ignore it.

Finally, there’s the control network that helps people focus their attention and rationally consider long-term decisions. As I understand it, it seems very similar to what Daniel Kahneman calls System 2. The control network “… aligns our brain activity and our behavior with our goals.”

The control network is at the opposite end of the spectrum from the default network. Where the default network activates when you unhook, the control network hooks in and manages all the other networks. The more your have of one, the less you have of the other – similar to focus and creativity.

The control network is rational and also helps us ration our resources. In particular, it rations our attention and helps us focus on those things that are most important to achieving our goals. If you’re like most people, there’s a lot of stuff competing for your attention. As Waytz and Mason put it the control network has “…a tricky attention-management challenge…. On one hand, it needs to prevent distractions from every shiny object thrown in front of us. On the other hand, it needs to let us respond when one of those shiny objects is an opportunity or an important demand”.

The control network has a tough job and can easily get overloaded if there are too many bright shiny objects. This reinforces some traditional wisdom: to execute effectively, organizations should limit their goals to a “manageable few”.  It also suggests that we should beware of multitasking. Pursuing multiple tasks at once simply overloads the control network and makes effective rationing impossible. As the authors point out, “Success as a leader requires, first and foremost, creating just a few clear priorities and gathering the courage to eliminate or outsource less important tasks and goals”.

What does all this mean? Well, it’s goes back to what your mother taught you. First, when your emotions tell you something, there’s usually a reason. Second, do only a few things but do them well. It’s nice the neuroscience backs up dear old Mom.

Will Social Media Make You Crazy?

This person has been edited.

This person has been edited.

Social media has been getting a bad rap in the press recently. First, there’s The Innovation of Loneliness, a terrific short film (just over four minutes) by Shimi Cohen. It suggests that one of the key differences between real life and social-media life is the ability to edit. We can edit ourselves on social media and put our best foot forward. Not so in real life and, according to Cohen, that’s what makes real-life superior. Simply put: you interact with real people, not edited people.

Cohen — whose film is based on Sherry Turkle’s  book Alone Together – urges us to slow down and have actual conversations with others. He also explains (though never names) the concept of Dunbar’s Number – that humans naturally organize themselves into groups of 150 or less. He implies that any group larger than 150 is too much for the human mind to handle. So what’s the point of having, say, 500 friends on Facebook?

Cohen’s film reminded me of the many articles I’ve read on mindfulness recently. For instance, Scientific American Mind recently led with mindfulness as its cover story. I’ve also been reading Mindfulness for Beginners by Jon Kabat-Zinn. The common thread  is the admonition to slow down and, as Kabat-Zinn phrases it, “reclaim the present moment.” These writings don’t specifically suggest that social media is bad for you but it’s an easy conclusion to draw.

A research article recently published in the Public Library of Science (PLoS) is much more specific. In fact, its title pretty much says it all: “Facebook Use Predicts Declines in Subjective Well-Being Among Young Adults”. (The original research paper is here. For non-technical summaries, click here for an article from The Economist or here for one from the L.A. Times).

The study tracked 82 young people as they used Facebook. They were also asked to report their “satisfaction with life” at the beginning and end of the study. Bottom line: “…the more they used Facebook [during the study period], the more their life satisfaction levels declined over time.”

The PLoS study doesn’t identify the causes in decline of life satisfaction. But The Economist points to an earlier study to identify a likely culprit. The study, conducted in Germany, found that “…the most common emotion aroused by using Facebook is envy”.  The Economist makes essentially the same point that Shimi Cohen does:

Endlessly comparing themselves with peers who have doctored their photographs, amplified their achievements and plagiarised their bons mots can leave Facebook’s users more than a little green-eyed. Real-life encounters, by contrast, are more WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get).

So should we drop social media? As I wrote several months ago, I still think it’s a good way to stay in touch with our “Christmas card friends” – those friends whom we like but don’t see very often. For our bosom buddies, on the other hand, it’s probably better to just slow down and have a nice, mindful heart-to-heart conversation.

How Do You Know When An Argument is Over?

I've got a bone to pick with you.

I’ve got a bone to pick with you.

How do you start an argument? How do you finish one? I’ve been thinking about those questions lately. It’s not because I’ve been arguing a lot but because I’ve been thinking about how we make decisions and decision-making often involves arguing.

Here’s how not to start an argument: walk into someone’s office and unload on him or her. That happened to me more than a few times during my career. It usually ended badly. When someone unloads on me, I find it difficult to listen dispassionately. Often, I strike back. I’m good with words, including mean-spirited ones.

Equally important, how do you know if an argument is over? I used to bump into colleagues occasionally and wonder, “Am I still mad at him? Is he still mad at me? How should I act?” When I’m thinking about questions like these, I’m not thinking about effective communication.

I think my grandparents, Grover and Addie, had an effective way to deal with these situations. When one was irritated with the other, he or she opened the conversation by saying, “I’ve got a bone to pick with you.” It was always in a neutral tune of voice. The phrasing was also neutral; it didn’t say, “I’m right and you’re wrong and I’m about to prove it.” Rather, it said, “We need to have a discussion and the outcome of that discussion may be that I’m right or may be that you’re right. But we need to clear the air.”

If Grover started the bone-to-pick discussion, Addie would typically respond by saying, “What’s the matter?” also in a neutral tone of voice. Grover would then lay out his case in an almost lawyer-like fashion. Addie listened essentially until Grover laid out his entire case. She rarely interrupted. (Grover did the same when Addie started the bone-to-pick conversation). Then they talked back and forth. From my kid’s perspective, it seemed like they both got equal time.

As they concluded their discussion, one would often apologize to the other. It didn’t matter if it was Grover or Addie doing the apologizing. The other person would always say, “Apology accepted.” And that was the end of it. This simple phrase meant a lot of things, like: “OK, the storm is over, the clouds have parted, we don’t need to re-visit this again, and, if we ever get in an argument again, I promise I won’t dredge this up and throw it at you, so let’s get on with life.” That’s a lot of meaning to pack into two words.

As a little kid looking on, it all seemed so simple and straightforward. Now I marvel at their wisdom and their self-control. Between the beginning and the end of their argument, I don’t really know if they fought “fairly” or not. But I do know that they delimited their arguments. There was a clear start and a clear stop. There were no ambushes; there was no lingering resentment. Just a simple argument and a clear resolution. Perhaps that’s why they stay married for so many years.

A Cursive Hire

I can explain...

I can explain…

Some years ago, I needed to hire a director for our corporate communications organization. This was before Linked In and Monster.com, so we advertised in various media and collected several hundred resumés. Then we tried to read them all. Our brains turned to jelly.

However, one resumé stood out – it was handwritten. Not just the cover letter; the entire multi-page resumé was written in an elegant and self-confident cursive script. Additionally, it was customized, pointing out in various places how the applicant’s experience would help him succeed in our company.

Compared to the hundreds of photocopied, machine-produced resumés, the handwritten resumé told us that the applicant was seriously interested in our position. He had obviously taken some time to study our needs and prepare a thoughtful application. Indeed, he had obviously taken some time just to prepare the physical document.

We decided that we needed to meet and interview the person (as well as several others, of course). The interview went well and we wound up hiring him.

I always tell job applicants that they need to stand out. Making your resumé look different certainly does the trick. In today’s digital age, resumés almost all look the same. Do something different. That may mean handwriting your resumé, (or just the cover letter), making your resumé longer or shorter than others, submitting a video resumé, or just doing something different … like showing up to press your case in person. In the meantime, practice your penmanship.

 

 

My Social Media

YouTube Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

Newsletter Signup
Archives