The Petri Project

If you watch Oprah regularly or read the self-help literature, you’re likely getting a lot of encouragement to take more risks. Which is probably a good idea for most of us (it’s certainly the case for me), since pushing your own limits is the only way you’re likely to make big changes in your life.

But last weekend, in an article called, “When the Limits Push Back,” the New York Times‘ William Yardley raised the issue of risk-taking gone too far. He discusses risk taking in the context of two new movies about real-life extremists—Into the Wild, based on John Krakauer’s bestselling book, and Deep Water, a documentary about an inexperienced sailor who attempted a solo circumnavigation of the globe in 1968—along with the story of Timothy Treadwell, who lived among grizzly bears in Alaska (documented in Werner Herzog’s Grizzly Man). In each case, the risk ended up killing the risk taker.

Yardley’s conclusion? “There are risks, it seems, and then there are very, very bad ideas.”

It turned out these particular risk takers weren’t adequately prepared for the challenges they set for themselves. But does preparing yourself for a risk negate its riskiness altogether? It probably depends on individual psychology. As Yardley puts it, “Motives can be different, from a raw need for thrill or attention to physical challenge, spiritual enlightenment, intellectual discovery or something darker.”

This past weekend, the Times printed reader responses to the question, “What’s the biggest risk you have ever taken?” It’s a pretty interesting collection of responses, from “telling a woman I loved her” to “choosing to have a child alone” to “enlisting in the Marine Corps in 1967″ to “donating a kidney.” But what’s more interesting is to read whether the risks turned out to be good or bad ideas. Personally, the biggest risk I ever took was moving to Seattle from DC in my early twenties, with no job prospects, no place to live, and no network of family or friends in the area. It turned out to be the best move I ever made!

And you? What’s the biggest risk you’ve ever taken?

Photo credit: AnnieMathilda on Flickr.

Remember the moral dilemma on the train tracks we were talking about back in July? Today the New York Times features more research in the field of “basic primate morality,” in an article called, “Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written into Our Genes?“

The piece focuses on the work of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt (author of The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom), who is developing an evolutionary view of morality, especially as it relates to contemporary political views and religious beliefs. His research is centered on “the phenomenon of moral dumbfounding,” that is, “when people feel strongly that something is wrong but cannot explain why.”

Like Dr. Joshua Greene, who was doing the train track research, Haidt believes morality consists of “two separate mental systems, one ancient and one modern,” which he calls “moral intuition” and “moral judgment,” respectively. From the article:

The emotional responses of moral intuition occur instantaneously—they are primitive gut reactions that evolved to generate split-second decisions and enhance survival in a dangerous world. Moral judgment, on the other hand, comes later, as the conscious mind develops a plausible rationalization for the decision already arrived at through moral intuition.

As he explains it, moral dumbfounding happens “when moral judgment fails to come up with a convincing explanation for what moral intuition has decided.” (For example, when I experience disgust knowing that Shackleton’s Antarctic expedition party ate their own sled-dogs to survive, I’m morally dumbfounded.)

You can help augment Dr. Haidt’s work by testing your own morals (anonymously) at YourMorals.org. The questions therein relate to the five components of morality Haidt has found common to most cultures: harm, loyalty, fairness, authority, and purity. (The NY Times article explains these further.)

Start with the “Moral Foundations” questionnaire, then proceed to all sorts of interesting surveys, including the “Sacredness Survey,” which determines what you would and wouldn’t do for a million dollars, and the “Disgust Scale,” which clarifies what you find disgusting and how that relates to morality. What’s more, you can compare your personal results against those of self-proclaimed liberals and conservatives who have taken the tests. Truly fascinating stuff!

Photo credit: Tut99 on Flickr.

Gretchen Rubin of The Happiness Project continues to spread the happy far and wide (without being annoying or cloying, which I find remarkable). In addition to chronicling her own pursuit of happiness, she’s now issued a challenge to readers: create your own happiness project.

She suggests getting started by crafting a personalized “Twelve Commandments” of happy. It’s an exercise she completed herself, resulting in a list she says she returns to again and again. (You can read Gretchen’s 12 Commandments here.) As she explains, some items on her own list may seem cryptic to outsiders, but they are all “extraordinarily meaningful” to her. Which is, of course, the whole point… your happiness goals need to be entirely your own; striving for someone else’s vision of happiness not only defeats the purpose, it’s doomed.

Gretchen says the most important thing to remember when creating your 12 Commandments is that this is *not* a to-do list. If you feel yourself drawn toward a list of tasks, she advises thinking about how those smaller resolutions “fit into a larger self-command you’d like to observe.” Sample commandments (from Gretchen’s list as well as those her readers have submitted) include “Enjoy the process,” “Lighten up,” “Don’t keep score,” “Do it Now,” etc.

I’ve paraphrased Gretchen’s commandment-creating commandments below:

1. Pay attention to quotes that get stuck in your head. There’s probably a good reason you’re finding them unforgettable.
2. Metaphors and other literary devices may be the best way to couch your commandments.
3. Fight the urge to be too comprehensive. Short and snappy works best.
4. Your list is yours and yours alone, and may well be completely opposite from someone else’s.
5. Take your time in creating the list. Since it’s something you’ll want to come back to, serious reflection is required to ensure it’s lasting.

So what would your commandments be? (And how are your stone carving skills?) If you’ve got a list on 43 Things, how does it overlap and intersect with your 12 Commandments?

Photo credit: ezz_eddie on Flickr.

NPR’s Talk of the Nation recently featured an interview with social psychologist Elliot Aronson, whose new book, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts, explores why we humans have such a hard time admitting we’re wrong.

In the interview, Aronson talks about “cognitive dissonance,” which is the feeling we experience when we simultaneously hold two ideas or beliefs that conflict with each other (such as, “I want to eat healthy foods,” and “Nothing tastes finer than a cold Coca-Cola”). Cognitive dissonance is especially strong when one of the two conflicting beliefs is about how we see ourselves in the world (such as, “I am an honest person,” and “I took two reams of paper home from my office job”).

Apparently the human brain finds cognitive dissonance so unpleasant—and is so reluctant to admit wrongdoing—it develops a handy way to deal with such instances: justification. Perhaps you’re familiar with it.

Psychologist Drew Westen (whose new book The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation is a must-read, according to Bill Clinton), has done neurological research on cognitive dissonance and found that when it occurs, the *reasoning* areas of the brain virtually shut down. But once a justification is made, the dissonance is reduced, and the emotional centers of the brain light up like fireworks. (Hooray! I can have a Coke!)

Rationalizing conflicting beliefs is actually okay in small-scale situations, according to Aronson, as it makes you feel better and allows you to sleep at night. The problem comes, he says, when you’re talking about a “serious blunder.” In that case, justification may restore “cognitive consonance” and make us feel less conflicted, but the approach is damaging in the long run. If we can’t admit our mistakes, we can’t learn from them, and we’re more apt to commit the same ones in the future. Drat.

Aronson says the best way to break out of this loop is to increase our awareness of when we’re making kneejerk rationalizations. When we feel the friction of cognitive dissonance, instead of justifying our actions or assertions, we should scrutinize them. In this way, he says, we can make wiser decisions and learn from our mistakes. Sounds worth a try.

Cartoon: Life in Hell by Matt Groening