59 Seconds_ Think A Little, Change A Lot Part 8

I don't like making decisions that are irreversible.

12345.

7.

When I have made a decision, I often wonder how things would have worked out if I had made a different choice.

12345.

8.

I find it difficult to settle for second best.

12345.

9.

When on the Internet, I tend to surf, quickly skipping from one site to another.

12345.

10.

I rarely feel happy with what I have because I find it easy to imagine getting something better.

12345.

To score the questionnaire, add your ratings. Low scores run between 10 and 20, medium scores between 21 and 39, and high scores between 40 and 50.Research suggests that people often approach many aspects of their lives using one of two fundamental strategies-maximizing or satisficing. "Maximizers" tend to obtain high scores on the questionnaire, and "satisficers" tend to obtain low scores. Extreme maximizers constantly check all available options to make sure that they have picked the best one. In contrast, extreme satisficers look only until they have found something that fulfills their needs. As a result, maximizers objectively achieve more but take longer to find what they want and may be less happy because of a tendency to dwell on how things could have been.For example, in one study of job hunting, researchers categorized more than five hundred students from eleven universities as maximizers or satisficers and then tracked them as they tried to find employment.17 The maximizers ended up with salaries that were, on average, 20 percent higher than those of the satisficers, but they were also less satisfied with their job search and more p.r.o.ne to regret, pessimism, anxiety, and depression. The maximizers ended up with salaries that were, on average, 20 percent higher than those of the satisficers, but they were also less satisfied with their job search and more p.r.o.ne to regret, pessimism, anxiety, and depression.If you are a maximizer and find yourself wasting too much time searching for the perfect product, you might find it helpful to limit the resources that you put into some activities (e.g., give yourself only thirty minutes to find your friend a birthday card) or make certain decisions irreversible (for example, by throwing away receipts).18There is an old adage that happiness is about wanting what you have, not having what you want. It seems that when maximizers get what they want, they may not always want what they get.

HOW TO DECIDE WHETHER PEOPLE ARE TELLING YOU THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

How do you think people tend to behave when they lie to you? Take a look at the list of behaviors in the table below and place a checkmark in either the "True" or the "False" column after each statement.

TRUE.

FALSE.

When people lie, they tend to ...

-avoid eye contact.

-smile more.

-squirm in their seats or, if they are standing up, shift from foot to foot.

-develop sweaty hands and faces.

-cover their mouth with their hands.

-give long and rambling answers to questions.

-give answers that sound unstructured and jumbled.

-nod their head more.

-gesture more.

-grow longer noses.

People are often surprisingly economical with the truth. In a survey that I conducted with the Daily Telegraph Daily Telegraph, a quarter of the respondents claimed to have told a lie within the last twenty-four hours. Other work suggests that an impressive 90 percent of people say that they have lied on a date and that about 40 percent of the population are happy to lie to their friends. Deception is also a major problem in the workplace, with surveys suggesting that around 80 percent of people have lied during a job interview, and almost 50 percent of employees have told their boss at least one important lie.19 In view of the prevalence of lying, it is not surprising that all sorts of techniques have been developed in an attempt to detect such fibbery. In ancient times, for example, there was the ever popular "red-hot poker" test. In a procedure that could reasonably be described as h.e.l.l on earth, a poker would be placed into a fierce fire, removed, and the accused forced to lick it three times. The theory was that the innocent person would have a sufficient amount of saliva on the tongue to prevent burning, whereas a guilty party would have a much drier tongue that would thus become somewhat attached to the poker.

According to the history books, a similar but less barbaric technique was used during the Spanish Inquisition. The accused would be made to eat some barley bread and cheese, while those around prayed that the Angel Gabriel would prevent the person from successfully swallowing the food if they had lied. To my knowledge, neither of these techniques has been subjected to proper scientific testing, in part, I am guessing, because it would be tricky to obtain the necessary informed consent from partic.i.p.ants and the Angel Gabriel. However, if such studies were to be carried out, any positive findings would support one of the most commonly held theories about lying-the Anxiety Hypothesis.

This idea holds that people become very nervous when they lie, and so they develop a variety of anxiety-related symptoms, including a drying of the mouth, which could cause them to become stuck to red-hot pokers and find it difficult to swallow barley bread.

Although the theory is intuitively appealing, obtaining reliable proof for it has proven far from easy, with some research suggesting that liars are no more stressed than those who tell the truth.

In a recent study, for example, conducted by Richard Gramzow at the University of Southampton, and outside colleagues, students were first connected to machinery that measured their heart rate and then interviewed about their recent exam performance.20 The interview involved the students' describing the grades that they had obtained over the years and comparing their own skills and abilities with those of cla.s.smates. What the students didn't know was that after the interview the experimenters were going to obtain their actual exam results and so would be able to identify which students had been telling the truth and which had been exaggerating. Interestingly, the results revealed that nearly half of the students had exaggerated their academic achievements. Even more interestingly, the heart-rate data showed that those who had raised their grades for the occasion were no more stressed than their honest colleagues were. If anything, they were slightly more relaxed. The interview involved the students' describing the grades that they had obtained over the years and comparing their own skills and abilities with those of cla.s.smates. What the students didn't know was that after the interview the experimenters were going to obtain their actual exam results and so would be able to identify which students had been telling the truth and which had been exaggerating. Interestingly, the results revealed that nearly half of the students had exaggerated their academic achievements. Even more interestingly, the heart-rate data showed that those who had raised their grades for the occasion were no more stressed than their honest colleagues were. If anything, they were slightly more relaxed.

The results from studies using high-tech anxiety-measuring machinery are, at best, mixed. However, that hasn't stopped the public from accepting the idea that people become terribly tense when they are being economical with the truth. Perhaps driven by the countless films and television programs that show liars with sweaty palms and racing hearts, most believe that the best signs of deceit are those popularly a.s.sociated with increased anxiety.

Teams of researchers have spent hours carefully comparing films of known liars and truth tellers, with trained observers coding every smile, blink, and gesture. Each minute of footage takes about an hour to a.n.a.lyze, but the resulting data allow researchers to compare the behavior a.s.sociated with a lie and with truth, and thus uncover even the subtlest of differences. The findings are fascinating. Honestly.

Take a look at the questionnaire at the beginning of this section. How many checkmarks did you put in the "True" column? All of the behaviors listed in the questionnaire are things that people do when they become nervous. They avoid eye contact, squirm in their seats, sweat, and start to garble their words. According to the researchers who have spent hours coding the behavior of liars and truth tellers, not one of the items in the table is reliably a.s.sociated with lying. In fact, liars are just as likely to look you in the eye as truth tellers are, they don't move their hands nervously, and they don't shift about in their seats.

However, because most people hold these mind myths in their heads, they are terrible at deciding whether someone is lying. Present them with videotapes of people lying and telling the truth and ask them to spot the liar, and they perform little better than chance. Show adults films of children describing a true event and a fict.i.tious one, and the adults are unable to tell which is which.21 Ask someone to convince their long-term partner that they found a photograph of an attractive person unattractive, and they are surprisingly successful. Ask someone to convince their long-term partner that they found a photograph of an attractive person unattractive, and they are surprisingly successful.22 Even groups of lawyers, police officers, psychologists, and social workers have been unable to reliably detect deception. Even groups of lawyers, police officers, psychologists, and social workers have been unable to reliably detect deception.23 So what really gives away a liar? Although lying does not always make people stressed, it usually taxes their minds. Lying involves having to think about what other people already know or could find out, what is plausible, and what fits in with what you have said before. Because of this, liars tend to do the things that correspond to thinking hard about a problem or issue. They tend not to move their arms and legs so much, cut down on gesturing, repeat the same phrases, give shorter and less detailed answers, take longer before they start to answer, and pause and hesitate more. In addition, there is also evidence that they distance themselves from the lie, causing their language to become more impersonal. As a result, liars often reduce the number of times that they say words such as "I," "me," and "mine," and use "him" and "her" rather than people's names. Finally, there is increased evasiveness, as liars tend to avoid answering the question completely, perhaps by switching topics or by asking a question of their own.

To detect deception, forget about looking for signs of tension, nervousness, and anxiety. Instead, a liar is likely to look as though they are thinking hard for no good reason, conversing in a strangely impersonal tone, and incorporating an evasiveness that would make even a politician or a used-car salesman blush.

IN 59 SECONDS.

Body Language For successful lie detection, jettison the behavioral myths surrounding the Anxiety Hypothesis and look for signs more commonly a.s.sociated with having to think hard. Forget the idea that liars have sweaty palms, fidget, and avoid eye contact. Instead, look for a person suddenly becoming more static and cutting down on their gestures. Also, learn to listen. Be on guard for a sudden decrease in detail, an increase in pauses and hesitations, and an avoidance of the words "me," "mine," and "I" but an increase in "her" and "him." If someone suddenly becomes very evasive, press for a straight answer.24 To spot possible shifts, try to establish what researchers have referred to as an "honest baseline." Before asking questions that are likely to elicit deceptive answers, start with those that are far more likely to make the person respond in an honest way. During these initial answers, develop an understanding of how they behave when they are telling the truth by looking at their body language and listening to the words they say. Then, during the answers to the trickier questions, watch for the behavioral shifts outlined above.

Also, remember that even if you do see these signals, they are not an absolute guarantee of a lie. Unlike taxes and death, nothing is that certain when it comes to lying. Instead, such clues are simply an indication that all is perhaps not as it should be-a good reason to dig deeper.

E-mail Me Communication expert Jeff Hanc.o.c.k and his colleagues at Cornell University asked students to spend a week making notes of all of their significant face-to-face conversations, telephone chats, texts, and e-mails, and then work through the list, indicating which ones contained lies.25 The results revealed that people lied in 14 percent of e-mails, 21 percent of texts, 27 percent of face-to-face conversations, and 37 percent of telephone calls. According to Hanc.o.c.k, people are reluctant to lie in e-mails because their words are recorded and what they say can come back to haunt them. So if you want to minimize the risk of a lie, ask others to e-mail you. The results revealed that people lied in 14 percent of e-mails, 21 percent of texts, 27 percent of face-to-face conversations, and 37 percent of telephone calls. According to Hanc.o.c.k, people are reluctant to lie in e-mails because their words are recorded and what they say can come back to haunt them. So if you want to minimize the risk of a lie, ask others to e-mail you.

DECIDING HOW LONG SOMETHING WILL TAKEIn an insightful study of time management, Roger Buehler at Wilfrid Laurier University asked students to indicate when they expected to finish an important term paper.26 The students believed that they would hand in their work, on average, ten days before the deadline. They were, however, being far too optimistic; in reality, they tended to finish the papers just one day before the deadline. This effect, known as the "planning fallacy," is not limited to students trying to finish their term papers on time. Research shows that people have a strong tendency to underestimate how long a project will take and that people working in groups are especially likely to have unrealistic expectations. The students believed that they would hand in their work, on average, ten days before the deadline. They were, however, being far too optimistic; in reality, they tended to finish the papers just one day before the deadline. This effect, known as the "planning fallacy," is not limited to students trying to finish their term papers on time. Research shows that people have a strong tendency to underestimate how long a project will take and that people working in groups are especially likely to have unrealistic expectations.27 Even when they are trying to be realistic, people tend to imagine that everything will go according to plan, and they do not consider the inevitable unexpected delays and unforeseen problems. Even when they are trying to be realistic, people tend to imagine that everything will go according to plan, and they do not consider the inevitable unexpected delays and unforeseen problems.However, Buehler's work has also suggested a quick and effective way of overcoming the problem. When his students were told to think about when they had managed to finish similar tasks in the past, their answers for meeting future deadlines proved much more accurate. It seems that to get an accurate estimate of the time needed to complete a project, you can look at how long it took to finish broadly similar projects in the past.If that doesn't work, you could always try a technique investigated by Justin Kruger and Matt Evans at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.28 In their studies, partic.i.p.ants estimated how long it would take to carry out a relatively complicated activity, such as getting ready for a date. One group was asked simply to make their estimates, while another group was encouraged to "unpack" the activity into its const.i.tuent parts (showering, changing clothes, panicking) before deciding on a time frame. Those who did the mental unpacking exercise produced estimates that proved far more accurate than those of other partic.i.p.ants. So to find out how long it really will take you to do something, isolate all of the steps involved and then make your time estimate. In their studies, partic.i.p.ants estimated how long it would take to carry out a relatively complicated activity, such as getting ready for a date. One group was asked simply to make their estimates, while another group was encouraged to "unpack" the activity into its const.i.tuent parts (showering, changing clothes, panicking) before deciding on a time frame. Those who did the mental unpacking exercise produced estimates that proved far more accurate than those of other partic.i.p.ants. So to find out how long it really will take you to do something, isolate all of the steps involved and then make your time estimate.

parenting The Mozart myth myth, how to choose the best name best name for a baby, for a baby, instantly divine a child's destiny using divine a child's destiny using just three marshmallows, and effectively praise praise young minds young minds

WOLFGANG AMADEUS MOZART was born in 1756, composed some of the world's greatest cla.s.sical music, and died, probably of acute rheumatic fever, in 1791. He was a genius. However, some believe that his music is able to reach parts of the brain that other compositions can't and that it can make you more intelligent. Moreover, they seem convinced that this effect is especially powerful for young, impressionable minds, recommending that babies be exposed to a daily dose of Mozart for maximum impact. Their message has spread far and wide-but is it really possible to boost a youngster's brainpower using the magic of Mozart? was born in 1756, composed some of the world's greatest cla.s.sical music, and died, probably of acute rheumatic fever, in 1791. He was a genius. However, some believe that his music is able to reach parts of the brain that other compositions can't and that it can make you more intelligent. Moreover, they seem convinced that this effect is especially powerful for young, impressionable minds, recommending that babies be exposed to a daily dose of Mozart for maximum impact. Their message has spread far and wide-but is it really possible to boost a youngster's brainpower using the magic of Mozart?

In 1993 researcher Frances Rauscher and her colleagues at the University of California published a scientific paper that changed the world.1 They had taken a group of thirty-six college students, randomly placed them in one of three groups, and asked each group to carry out a different ten-minute exercise. One group was asked to listen to Mozart's Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major, the second group heard a standard relaxation tape, and the third group sat in complete silence. After the exercise, everyone completed a standard test designed to measure one aspect of intelligence, namely the ability to manipulate spatial information mentally (see ill.u.s.tration on the following page). The results revealed that those who had listened to Mozart scored significantly higher than those who heard the relaxation tape or sat in complete silence. The authors also noted that the effect was only temporary, lasting between ten and fifteen minutes. They had taken a group of thirty-six college students, randomly placed them in one of three groups, and asked each group to carry out a different ten-minute exercise. One group was asked to listen to Mozart's Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major, the second group heard a standard relaxation tape, and the third group sat in complete silence. After the exercise, everyone completed a standard test designed to measure one aspect of intelligence, namely the ability to manipulate spatial information mentally (see ill.u.s.tration on the following page). The results revealed that those who had listened to Mozart scored significantly higher than those who heard the relaxation tape or sat in complete silence. The authors also noted that the effect was only temporary, lasting between ten and fifteen minutes.

[image]

The type of item that might appear in a test measuring the ability to manipulate spatial information mentally. The top row shows a piece of paper being folded in half and then having two pieces cut away. Partic.i.p.ants are asked to look at the four shapes on the bottom row and choose the shape they would see when they unfolded the cut paper.

Two years later, the same researchers followed up their initial study with a second experiment that involved a larger group of students and took place over the course of several days.2 The students were again randomly placed in one of three groups. In the first part of the experiment, one group listened to Mozart, another group sat in silence, and a third heard a Philip Gla.s.s track ("Music with Changing Parts"). Again, strong differences emerged, with those who listened to Mozart outperforming the other two groups in a further test of mental paper folding. On later days, the Philip Gla.s.s track was replaced with an audiotaped story and trance music. Now, the Mozart and the silence groups obtained almost identical scores, while those who listened to the story or the trance music trailed in third place. The evidence suggested that Mozart's music might have a small, short-term effect on one aspect of intelligence. The students were again randomly placed in one of three groups. In the first part of the experiment, one group listened to Mozart, another group sat in silence, and a third heard a Philip Gla.s.s track ("Music with Changing Parts"). Again, strong differences emerged, with those who listened to Mozart outperforming the other two groups in a further test of mental paper folding. On later days, the Philip Gla.s.s track was replaced with an audiotaped story and trance music. Now, the Mozart and the silence groups obtained almost identical scores, while those who listened to the story or the trance music trailed in third place. The evidence suggested that Mozart's music might have a small, short-term effect on one aspect of intelligence.

Journalists soon started to report the findings. New York Times New York Times music critic Alex Ross suggested (no doubt with his tongue firmly in his cheek) that they had scientifically proven that Mozart was a better composer than Beethoven. However, some writers soon started to exaggerate the results, declaring that just a few minutes of Mozart resulted in a substantial and long-term increase in intelligence. music critic Alex Ross suggested (no doubt with his tongue firmly in his cheek) that they had scientifically proven that Mozart was a better composer than Beethoven. However, some writers soon started to exaggerate the results, declaring that just a few minutes of Mozart resulted in a substantial and long-term increase in intelligence.

The idea spread like wildfire, and during the latter half of the 1990s the story mutated even further from the original research. Up to that point, not a single study had examined the effect of Mozart's music on the intelligence of babies. However, some journalists, unwilling to let the facts get in the way of a good headline, reported that babies became brighter after listening to Mozart. These articles were not isolated examples of sloppy journalism. About 40 percent of the media reports on the alleged "Mozart" effect published toward the end of the 1990s mentioned this alleged benefit to babies.3 The continued popular media coverage of what was now being labeled the "Mozart" effect even impinged on social policy. In 1998 the State of Georgia supported the distribution of free CDs containing cla.s.sical music to mothers of newborns, and the state of Florida pa.s.sed a bill requiring state-funded day-care centers to play cla.s.sical music on a daily basis. The continued popular media coverage of what was now being labeled the "Mozart" effect even impinged on social policy. In 1998 the State of Georgia supported the distribution of free CDs containing cla.s.sical music to mothers of newborns, and the state of Florida pa.s.sed a bill requiring state-funded day-care centers to play cla.s.sical music on a daily basis.

The alleged "Mozart" effect had been transformed into an urban legend, and a significant slice of the population incorrectly believed that listening to Mozart's music could help boost all aspects of intelligence, that the effects were long-lasting, and that even babies could benefit. However, as the 1990s turned into the twenty-first century, the situation went from bad to worse.

First, Christopher Chabris at Harvard University collected the findings from all of the studies that had attempted to replicate Rauscher's original results and concluded that the effect, if it existed at all, was much smaller than had originally been thought.4 Then other work suggested that even if it did exist, the effect may have nothing to do with the special properties of Mozart's Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major, and could in fact be a.s.sociated with the general feelings of happiness produced by this type of cla.s.sical music. For example, in one study researchers compared the effects of Mozart's music with those of a much sadder piece (Albinoni's Adagio in G Minor for Organ and Strings), and found evidence that, once again, Mozart had more of an effect than the alternative.5 However, when the research team conducted a control experiment about how happy and excited the music made partic.i.p.ants feel, the alleged "Mozart" effect suddenly vanished. In another study, psychologists compared the effect of listening to Mozart with that of hearing an audiotape of Stephen King's short story "The Last Rung on the Ladder." However, when the research team conducted a control experiment about how happy and excited the music made partic.i.p.ants feel, the alleged "Mozart" effect suddenly vanished. In another study, psychologists compared the effect of listening to Mozart with that of hearing an audiotape of Stephen King's short story "The Last Rung on the Ladder."6 When partic.i.p.ants preferred Mozart to King, their performance on the mental manipulation task was better than when listening to the piano concerto. However, when they preferred King to Mozart, they performed better after they had heard his story. When partic.i.p.ants preferred Mozart to King, their performance on the mental manipulation task was better than when listening to the piano concerto. However, when they preferred King to Mozart, they performed better after they had heard his story.

The public's belief about the alleged "Mozart" effect is a mind myth. There is almost no convincing scientific evidence to suggest that playing his piano concertos for babies will have any long-term or meaningful impact on their intelligence. Would it be fair to conclude that there is no way of using music to boost children's intelligence? Actually, no. In fact, evidence for the benefits of music exists, but it involves throwing away the Mozart CDs and adopting a more hands-on att.i.tude.

Some research has shown that children who attend music lessons tend to be brighter than their cla.s.smates. However, it is difficult to separate correlation from causation. It could be that having music lessons makes you brighter, or it could be that brighter or more privileged children are more likely to take music lessons. A few years ago, psychologist Glenn Sch.e.l.lenberg decided to carry out a study to help settle the matter.7 Sch.e.l.lenberg started by placing an advertis.e.m.e.nt in a local newspaper, offering free weekly arts lessons to six-year-old children. The parents of more than 140 children replied, and each child was randomly a.s.signed to one of four groups. Three of the groups were given lessons over the course of several months at the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto, while the fourth group acted as a control group and didn't receive lessons until after the study had ended. Of those who attended the lessons, one-third were taught keyboard skills, another third were given voice training, and the final third went to drama cla.s.ses. Before and after their lessons, all of the children completed a standard intelligence test.

The results showed clear IQ improvements in children who had been taught keyboard skills and given voice lessons, whereas those given drama lessons were no different than the control group. Why should this be the case? Well, Sch.e.l.lenberg believes that learning music involves several key skills that help children's self-discipline and thinking, including long periods of focused attention, practicing, and memorization.

Whatever the explanation, if you want to boost the brainpower of your offspring, perhaps it is time to take that Mozart CD out of the player and get the kids to start tickling the ivories themselves.

PLAYING THE NAME GAME.

Parents often find it surprisingly difficult to decide what to call their baby, in the knowledge that their child is going to spend his or her entire life living with the consequences of their choice. Research suggests that they are right to give the issue careful thought; a large body of work shows that people's names can have a sometimes powerful effect.

For example, in one of my previous books, Quirkology Quirkology, I described work suggesting that when it comes to where people choose to live, there is an overrepresentation of people called Florence living in Florida, George in Georgia, Kenneth in Kentucky, and Virgil in Virginia.8 Also, in terms of marriage partners, research has revealed that more couples share the same letter of their family name than is predicted by chance. It is even possible that people's political views are, to some extent, shaped by their names. Research on the 2000 presidential campaign indicated that people whose surnames began with the letter Also, in terms of marriage partners, research has revealed that more couples share the same letter of their family name than is predicted by chance. It is even possible that people's political views are, to some extent, shaped by their names. Research on the 2000 presidential campaign indicated that people whose surnames began with the letter B B were especially likely to make contributions to the Bush campaign, whereas those whose surnames began with the letter were especially likely to make contributions to the Bush campaign, whereas those whose surnames began with the letter G G were more likely to contribute to the Gore campaign. were more likely to contribute to the Gore campaign.

Since then, I have conducted additional work that has uncovered other ways in which your surname might influence your life. I recently teamed up with Roger Highfield, then science editor of the Daily Telegraph Daily Telegraph, to discover whether people who had a surname that began with a letter toward the start of the alphabet were more successful in life than those with names starting with letters toward the end. In other words, are the Abbotts and Adamses of the world likely to be more successful than the Youngs and the Yorks?

There was good reason to think that there may indeed be a link. In 2006 American economists Liran Einav and Leeat Yariv a.n.a.lyzed the surnames of academics working in economics departments at U.S. universities and found that those whose initials came early in the alphabet were more likely to be in the best-rated departments, become fellows of the Econometric Society, and win a n.o.bel Prize.9 Publishing their remarkable findings in Publishing their remarkable findings in the Journal of Economic Perspectives the Journal of Economic Perspectives, they argued that "alphabetical discrimination" probably resulted from the typical practice of alphabetizing the names of authors of papers published in academic journals, which meant that those with names toward the beginning of the alphabet appeared more prominent than their alphabetically challenged peers.

I wondered whether the same effect might apply outside the world of economics. After all, whether on a school register, at a job interview, or in the exam hall, those whose surnames fall toward the start of the alphabet are accustomed to being put first. We also often a.s.sociate the top of a list with winners and the bottom with losers. Could all of these small experiences acc.u.mulate to make a long-term impact?

Everyone partic.i.p.ating in the experiment stated their s.e.x, age, and surname, then rated how successful they had been in various aspects of their life. The results revealed that those with surnames that started with letters toward the beginning of the alphabet rated themselves more successful than those whose names started with later letters. The effect was especially p.r.o.nounced in career success, suggesting that alphabetical discrimination is alive and well in the workplace.

What could account for this strange effect? One pattern in the data provided an important clue. The surname effect increased with age, giving the impression that it was not the result of childhood experiences but a gradual increase over the years. It seems that the constant exposure to the consequences of being at the top or bottom of the alphabet league slowly makes a difference in the way in which people see themselves. So should these results give those whose surname initial falls toward the end of the alphabet cause for concern? As a Wiseman, and therefore someone with a lifetime's experience of being near the end of alphabetical lists, I take some comfort from the fact that the effect is theoretically fascinating but, in practical terms, very small.

The choice of a first name can matter too. Even after drawing up a short list of possible names for their offspring, and asking friends and family for advice, some people still struggle. Is it better to go with a traditional name or a modern one? Is naming a child after a celebrity a good idea? Is it more important to have a name that rolls off the tongue or one that stands out from the crowd? Psychology can lend a helping hand.

Previous work has shown that people with names that have positive a.s.sociations do especially well in life. For example, teachers tend to award higher essay grades to children who they believe have more likeable names (Rose, for instance),10 college students whose names have undesirable a.s.sociations experience high levels of social isolation, and those whose surnames happen to have negative connotations (such as Short, Little, or Bent) are especially likely to suffer feelings of inferiority. college students whose names have undesirable a.s.sociations experience high levels of social isolation, and those whose surnames happen to have negative connotations (such as Short, Little, or Bent) are especially likely to suffer feelings of inferiority.11 I teamed up with the Edinburgh International Science Festival to help discover which first names were seen as especially successful and attractive in the twenty-first century. This study involved more than six thousand people going online and indicating whether they thought some of the most popular first names in the United Kingdom seemed successful and attractive. Strong trends emerged. Traditional names with royal a.s.sociations (such as James and Elizabeth) were viewed as highly successful and intelligent. In contrast, the most attractive female names tended to be soft-sounding ones that end with the ee ee sound (such as Lucy and Sophie), whereas the s.e.xiest male names were short and often rugged-sounding (such as Jack and Ryan). At the other end of the spectrum, Lisa and Brian were seen as the least successful, and Ann and George as the most unattractive. sound (such as Lucy and Sophie), whereas the s.e.xiest male names were short and often rugged-sounding (such as Jack and Ryan). At the other end of the spectrum, Lisa and Brian were seen as the least successful, and Ann and George as the most unattractive.

There is also the issue of initials. As noted in Quirkology Quirkology, research by Nicholas Christenfeld and his coworkers at the University of California suggests that a person's initials may become an issue of life or death.12 After a.n.a.lyzing a huge computerized database containing millions of Californian death certificates, they discovered that men with positive initials (such as A.C.E., H.U.G., and J.O.Y.) lived about four and a half years longer than average, whereas those with negative initials (such as P.I.G., B.U.M., and D.I.E.) died about three years early. Women with positive initials lived an extra three years, although there was no detrimental effect for those with negative initials. After a.n.a.lyzing a huge computerized database containing millions of Californian death certificates, they discovered that men with positive initials (such as A.C.E., H.U.G., and J.O.Y.) lived about four and a half years longer than average, whereas those with negative initials (such as P.I.G., B.U.M., and D.I.E.) died about three years early. Women with positive initials lived an extra three years, although there was no detrimental effect for those with negative initials.

New research, conducted in 2007 by Leif Nelson and Joseph Simmons, indicates that these effects are not just limited to the relatively small number of people whose initials happen to make especially positive or negative words.13 Instead, according to their work, even the hint of initial-based positivity or negativity is enough to exert a major influence on people's lives. Instead, according to their work, even the hint of initial-based positivity or negativity is enough to exert a major influence on people's lives.

In certain situations, single letters are a.s.sociated with success or failure. Perhaps the best-known, and in many ways most important, example of this occurs during the grading of exams. In most forms of testing, those who have done well are awarded As and Bs, whereas those toward the bottom of the cla.s.s tend to receive Cs and Ds. Nelson and Simmons wondered whether people whose first or last initials matched one of the two top grades might be unconsciously motivated to perform well on exams, whereas those whose names start with either C C or or D D might not try to achieve such high marks. To find out if this bold hypothesis was true, the duo a.n.a.lyzed fifteen years of students' grade point averages from a large American university. Remarkable as it may seem, the results revealed that students with first or last names starting with an might not try to achieve such high marks. To find out if this bold hypothesis was true, the duo a.n.a.lyzed fifteen years of students' grade point averages from a large American university. Remarkable as it may seem, the results revealed that students with first or last names starting with an A A or a or a B B had obtained significantly higher grade point averages than those beginning with the letters had obtained significantly higher grade point averages than those beginning with the letters C C or or D D.

Excited by their initial success, Nelson and Simmons turned their attention to the impact that this effect might have on people's lives. They thought that if students whose names began with A A or or B B obtained higher exam marks than those whose names began with obtained higher exam marks than those whose names began with C C or or D D, the former group might find it easier to get into better graduate schools and so have more successful careers. To test their hypothesis, they needed to find a large, searchable database containing students' initials and the graduate school that they had attended. After much searching, they eventually found the perfect resource-the online database of the American Bar a.s.sociation. The research team created a computer program capable of scanning the online information for the number of people with the key initials in each of the 170 law schools listed. After designating the quality of the schools by using information from U.S. News & World Report U.S. News & World Report rankings and comparing this with the data from almost four hundred thousand lawyers, Nelson and Simmons had their answer. As the quality of law schools declined, so too did the proportion of graduates from those law schools who had the initials rankings and comparing this with the data from almost four hundred thousand lawyers, Nelson and Simmons had their answer. As the quality of law schools declined, so too did the proportion of graduates from those law schools who had the initials A A or or B B. As they note at the end of their report, "It seems that people with names like Adlai and Bill tend to go to better law schools than do those with names like Chester and Dwight."

IN 59 SECONDS.

Research shows that people with surnames that begin with a letter toward the beginning of the alphabet are more successful in life than those whose names begin with letters toward the end. Obviously, the potential for choosing a successful surname is limited, unless you are prepared to change your name or, if you are female, to marry a man whose surname falls toward the start of the alphabet. However, with respect to choosing a child's first name, other research can provide a helping hand. Names with positive connotations, royal a.s.sociations, or those that sound especially attractive are all good bets. Finally, do not underestimate the power of initials. Avoid creating a set of initials that make a word with negative a.s.sociations, and help to ensure exam success by going for names starting with the letter A A or or B B.

PRAISE BE!.

Almost every manual on good parenting promotes the power of praise, with some self-help gurus suggesting that the single best thing you can do for your children is to build up their self-esteem by constantly giving compliments. Tell your children how intelligent they are when they pa.s.s an exam. Congratulate them on their artistic streak when they produce a nice drawing. Celebrate their athletic abilities when they score a goal or win a race. According to this approach, negativity should be banished and the focus instead firmly placed on even the smallest of successes.

The idea has enormous intuitive appeal. Always tell the little ones that they are wonderful, and surely they will grow up to be confident and happy people. So far, so good. There is, however, just one small problem with this rather utopian view of the human psyche. Research suggests that telling children that they are bright and talented is a terrible thing to do.

In the late 1990s Claudia Mueller and Carol Dweck at Columbia University conducted a large-scale program of research on the psychology of praise.14 Their experiments involved more than four hundred children between 10 and 12 years of age, who were drawn from a variety of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. In a typical study, the children were presented with an intelligence test in which they were asked to look at rows of shapes and, using logic alone, work out which shape should come next in each series. After they had worked through the problems, the experimenters took away their workbooks and calculated the scores but provided each child with false feedback. They explained that each child had done really well, solving 80 percent of the problems correctly. Their experiments involved more than four hundred children between 10 and 12 years of age, who were drawn from a variety of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. In a typical study, the children were presented with an intelligence test in which they were asked to look at rows of shapes and, using logic alone, work out which shape should come next in each series. After they had worked through the problems, the experimenters took away their workbooks and calculated the scores but provided each child with false feedback. They explained that each child had done really well, solving 80 percent of the problems correctly.

In addition to this feedback, one group of the children was told that they must be really bright to have solved so many puzzles, while another group was greeted with stony silence. According to the self-help gurus who promote the positive power of praise, just spending a few seconds complimenting a child's ability can have a dramatic effect. The results revealed that they are right, but perhaps not quite in the way they had antic.i.p.ated.