THINKER'S ALMANAC - March 29

Why is doodling an effective method of note-taking?

Subject:  Study Strategies - Dual Coding

Event:  Birthday of Allan Urho Paivio, 1925

When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions. -William Shakespeare

A large part of Shakespeare’s genius was his ability to combine ideas and images.  In the quotation above, for example, the abstract idea of “sorrow” comes alive through the imagery of an invading army.

Another man who understood the power of words and imagery was the Canadian psychologist Allan Paivio, who was born in Ontario on this day in 1925.  Early in his career, he developed a theory related to memory called the “conceptual peg hypothesis,” which states that concrete words are easier to remember than abstract words because concrete words create more vivid mental images.  Words combined with a concrete visual image are easier for the mind to hang onto, like a hat hangs onto a peg.

Later he developed his most influential concept, a learning strategy called dual coding, which intentionally combines verbal material with visual materials.  The combination of words and pictures enhances the learner’s memory by engaging two separate mental channels (verbal and visual), giving the learner two ways of remembering the learning (1).

Unlike learning style theory, which attempts to match students to their single best mode of learning -- visual, auditory, or kinesthetic -- dual coding works under the assumption that all human brains learn best when verbal and visual materials are combined.

Teachers and students can employ dual coding with a variety of visual forms, including pictures, diagrams, graphs, tables, graphic organizers, symbols, or cartoons.  It is important to note, however, that in order for the visual representations to be effective and memorable, they must be closely related to the verbal information.  For example, a student might take notes using words on the left-hand column of a piece of paper and then review those notes by generating visual representations in the right-hand column (2).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is dual coding, and why is it an effective study strategy?

Challenge - Study Smart With Six Strategies:  Dual coding is one of six study and learning strategies that cognitive scientists have documented as legitimately effective for students to practice and use. The other five are Spacing, Retrieval Practice, Elaboration, Interleaving, and Concrete Examples.  The website “The Learning Scientists” explains each of the six strategies and provides research on the effectiveness of each strategy.  Select one strategy, and explore what it is and how it works.  Write a paragraph explaining to a student how the strategy works.

Sources:

1-Allan Paivio In Memoriam

2-Sumeracki, Megan. “Dual Coding and Learning Styles.” The Learning Scientists.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - March 26

What lesson about human thinking can we learn from a slave who lived in the 5th century B.C.?

Subject:  Cognitive Dissonance - “The Fox and the Grapes”

Event:  William Caxton publishes first English translation of Aesop’s Fables, 1484

Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher is bound in his way to be a lover of myths and poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in being big with wonder. -Thomas Aquinas

On this day in 1484, William Caxton published the first English translation of Aesop’s Fables. Born in 1422, Caxton established the first printing press in England and not only printed books but also translated them into English from French, Latin, and Dutch. Caxton’s English translation of the fables was translated from French.

The Greek storyteller Aesop lived in the 5th century B.C. Although we know few facts about his life, we do have legends that report he was a slave who eventually won his freedom.  

One legend tells of his ability to think on his feet and his skill for constructing analogies in story form. One day, walking with his master, the philosopher Xanthus, Aesop came upon a gardener.  The gardener asked Xanthus for some gardening advice, complaining that the weeds in the garden always grow faster than the fruits and vegetables he plants.  Xanthus is a bit flummoxed by the question, but answers that the only explanation is divine providence.  After 

hearing Xanthus’ answer, Aesop laughs, so Xanthus challenges him to give his answer to the question.  Aesop explains that nature is like a woman who has been married twice.  In her first marriage, she had children who she raised and cared for; in her second marriage, however, she inherited stepchildren from her husband's previous marriage.  In Aesop's analogy, the weeds are given special and loving care as Mother Earth’s biological children, while the gardener's crops are her step-children.  As a result, they receive less care and attention. After hearing Aesop’s explanation, the gardener nods with understanding and shows his gratitude to Aesop by giving him a basket of vegetables.  

Today we are familiar with many of Aesop’s Fables because of their popularity as children’s stories, such as “The Ant and the Grasshopper,” “The Tortoise and the Hare,” and “The Lion and the Mouse.”  The Fables are not just for children, however.  Careful examination of their themes will provide profound insights into human thinking and behavior.  One specific example is the “Fox and the Grapes,” which identifies the natural human inclination for rationalization.

Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked 'Oh, you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes.' People who speak disparagingly of things that they cannot attain would do well to apply this story to themselves.

Cognitive scientists recognize the fox’s behavior in this story as classic cognitive dissonance:   the internal mental conflict that occurs when our thoughts or beliefs run counter to our actions, behaviors, or new information.  

We seek out consistency when it comes to our attitudes and behaviors, just as the fox likes to see himself as a capable hunter of grapes.  When we encounter dissonance, or lack of agreement between our thoughts and actions, we become uncomfortable and seek to excuse or rationalize our behavior.  The fox, therefore, is better able to maintain his image of himself as a capable hunter by rationalizing that the grapes were sour.

Being right feels much better than being wrong, so we tend to see what we want to see.  We like it when our thoughts are consistent and balanced; however, like the fox, the world presents us with curveballs and contradictory information that can throw our thinking out of balance.  When we encounter this “dissonance,” it’s often easier to “explain away” or rationalize than to think deeply and reasonably.  After all, thinking is hard work, so we often avoid it. 

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is cognitive dissonance, and how does the fable of “The Fox and the Grapes” illustrate it?

Challenge - Show Me the Dissonance:  The psychologist who first identified and named cognitive dissonance was Leon Festinger (1919-1989).  Do a bit of research to discover that specific experiment Festinger carried out to empirically demonstrate the reality of cognitive dissonance in the thinking of real people.  What was the experiment, and how did it reveal cognitive dissonance?

Sources:

1-Gibbs, Laura. “Life of Aesop: The Wise Fool and the Philosopher.” Journey to the Sea online magazine 1 March 2009.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - March 25

If argumentation were a Swiss Army Knife, what would be its six essential tools?

Subject:  Persuasion - Toulmin Argument

Event:  Birthday of British philosopher Stephen Toulmin, 1922

Don’t raise your voice, improve your argument. -Desmond Tutu

Today is the birthday of British philosopher and educator Stephen Toulmin, who was born in London in 1922.

In 1958, Toulmin published a book entitled The Uses of Argument in which he explained his model of argumentation.  Toulmin’s objective was to give his readers a practical, real-world method for constructing or analyzing arguments.  Instead of the abstract, academic proofs written by logisticians, Toulmin proposed a method that could be understood and applied by ordinary people to everyday arguments.

The Toulmin model of argument is made up of six key parts:

The Claim is what you believe to be true, what the argument proves.

The Data is the facts, evidence and reasons that lead you to believe the claim is true.

The Warrant is an assumption that connects the data with your claim.  The warrant makes the thinking of the argument explicit, explaining both how and why the data support the claim.  

The Backing is any facts or details that support the warrant.

The Qualifier is the limits of the claim, stating whether or not it is always true or in what cases it is true.

The Rebuttal is where the person writing the argument anticipates and answers possible objections to the claim by stating counterclaims and responding to them.

Toulmin’s model is an excellent way to analyze arguments made by others or to analyze your own.  It gives you a method for carefully thinking through each part and for troubleshooting the parts that don’t hold up under scrutiny.  In essence, the model is a grammar for arguments. Just as grammar allows you to name the parts needed for crafting and revising clear sentences, Toulmin’s model gives you the nomenclature needed to construct and examine sound arguments (1).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What are the six parts of the Toulmin argument, and how does each contribute to making a sound argument?

Challenge:  Try Toulmin’s Toolbox:  What are examples of five claims that you believe in fully?  Brainstorm some possible claims that you could confidently make.  Then, select one claim, and write a well-developed argument employing each element of the Toulmin model.

Before you begin writing your own argument, analyze the example argument below, identifying the claim, qualifier, data, warrant, backing, and rebuttal:

The best way to become a good writer is to read widely. Most good writers build up their experience and understanding of the different ways that words, sentences, and paragraphs work through reading. Furthermore, most writers don’t just express their own ideas; instead, they build and test their own ideas by reading, responding and referring to other writers. One of the common things you will hear when listening to interviews of writers is their references to other writers as well as to what they have read or are reading.  In the words of Stephen King, “If you don’t have time to read, you don’t have the time (or the tools) to write. Simple as that.” A writer might have great ideas, but without a lot of experience in analyzing the written word through careful reading, the writer is not going to be equipped to package his or her ideas in a way that they can be understood by an audience of readers.  Some may say that the best way to write is to just write; however, that’s a little like saying the best way to build a house is to just build a house. Just as home construction requires knowledge of architecture, good writing requires a solid understanding of the architecture of prose. Construction workers read blueprints before they pick up a hammer; likewise, good writers read good books before they pick up a pen.  

Sources:

1-Grimes, William. “Stephen Toulmin, a Philosopher and Educator, Dies at 87.” The New York Times 11 December 2009.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - March 23

Is it possible to run a sociological experiment that could determine the innate nature of the human species?

Subject:   Social Psychology - The Stanford Prison Experiment

Event:  Birthday of Philip Zimbardo, 1933

Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good.  -Mahatma Gandhi

On this day in 1933, psychologist Philip Zimbardo was born in New York City.  After earning his Ph.D. in psychology from Yale University in 1959, Zimbardo became a professor of psychology.  Zimbardo is best known for what is perhaps the single most famous psychological experiment in history:   his 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment.

The experiment began with the “arrest” of nine young men who actually volunteered for the experiment.  On the morning of August 15, 1971, each of the men was arrested at his home and booked for either theft or armed robbery.  Instead of being taken to an actual jail, however, all nine were transported to the basement of the Stanford University psychology department building, where a makeshift jail had been set up for the two-week experiment.  Greeting the inmates were nine additional volunteers who had been selected to play the role of guards.  Each wore a khaki uniform and mirrored sunglasses.

The inmates were first stripped of their clothes, chained around their ankles, and given a knee-length smock and a stocking cap to wear.  They were then confined three to a cell; from this point on each inmate was addressed only his four-digit ID number.  In only the second day of the experiment, the prisoners staged a rebellion by barricading themselves in their cells by pushing their beds against the doors.  The guards countered by punishing the inmates, spraying them with fire extinguishers, taking away their beds, and stripping them of their clothes.

The behavior of the guards continued to devolve, becoming more and more inhumane and sadistic.  On the sixth day Philip Zimbardo, who was playing the role of prison superintendent, was visited by his girlfriend.  As she watched the cruel behavior of the guards and the emotional distress of the inmates, she questioned Zimbardo and made him realize how out of control the whole experiment had become.  He immediately stopped the experiment, putting an end to it eight days early.

For years the Stanford Prison Experiment has been held up as proof of how ordinary people can be transformed and stripped of their individual wills when put into certain situations or roles.  Zimbardo calls this the Lucifer effect, where normal individuals become capable of evil, sadistic acts when put in the right circumstances.  In short, it’s not bad apples, but bad barrels that lead to evil actions.

Although many have accepted Zimbardo’s Lucifer effect, others have raised doubts.  In his 2020 book Humankind, historian Rutger Bregman claims to have evidence that Zimbardo’s experiment was a hoax.  One key question is the behavior of the guards.  Although Zimbardo claims that the guards made their own rules and that their sadistic behavior was not at all directed, Bregman claims that Zimbardo briefed the guards before the experiment, in effect coaching them to be cruel and to create fear in the inmates.  Furthermore, Bregman claims that one of the guards, an undergraduate named David Jaffee, was the person who actually came up with the idea of the experiment.  And not only did Jaffee have the idea, he also ran a dry run of the experiment in May 1971 with six guards and six inmates.  Jaffe’s active role in the planning and carrying out experiment places an element of doubt into the experiment’s outcome, making us wonder how much of the Stanford Prison Experiment was true science and how much was staged.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is the Lucifer effect, and what doubts about the running of the Stanford Prison Experiment make some doubt the validity of the Lucifer effect?

Challenge - Rousseau And Hobbes:  What is the natural inclination of humans?  Are we innately good or evil?  Whenever these two philosophical questions arise, the discussion typically begins with the contradictory views of the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78).  In his great work Leviathan (1651), Hobbes claimed that in the state of nature the life of humankind is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  For Hobbes, only a civil society held together by a strong governing authority held humankind in check.  Rousseau, however, saw human nature as innately good.  For him, life before the modern state was peaceful and happy.  It is the institutions of civilization that have turned humans toward wickedness.  What is your view?  Do you see the cup of humanity as half full of good or half-empty with bad?  State your claim, and include evidence from your reading, observation, or experience that supports it.

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

March 23, 1775:  Patrick Henry delivered one of the most memorable and most important speeches in American history.  The speech was delivered at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia, to the 120 delegates of the Second Virginia Convention, which included George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.  (See THINKER’S ALMANAC - May 29)

March 23, 1926:  Writing in her journal on this day, American writer Edith Wharton (1862-1937) reflected on life by juxtaposing two metaphors:  “Life is always a tightrope or a featherbed.  Give me the tightrope.”

Sources:

1-Bregman, Rutger. Humankind: A Hopeful History.  New York:  Little, Brown and Company 2019: 140-57.

  

THINKER'S ALMANAC - March 22

How can the fatal fall from a tightrope by Karl Wallenda teach us to be more successful?

Subject:  Leadership - The Wallenda Factor

Event:  Karl Wallenda falls to his death in Puerto Rico, 1978

I think that at the start of a game, you're always playing to win, and then maybe if you're ahead late in the game, you start playing not to lose. The true competitors, though, are the ones who always play to win. -Tom Brady

On this day in 1978, the high-wire artist Karl Wallenda fell to his death while performing in San Juan, Puerto Rico.  Wallenda was 73 years old and had been performing on tightropes since he was 6 years old.  

While the death of Wallenda was blamed on high winds and an improperly secured wire, Wallenda’s wife had another possible explanation:  his mindset.  She claimed that prior to his attempted tightrope walk between the towers of the Conando Plaza Hotel, he contemplated something that he had never thought about before: falling.  In his wife’s words, “. . . it seemed to me that he put all his energies into not falling rather than walking the tightrope.”

Based on Wallenda’s long career of successful tightrope walks rather than his final fatal fall, leadership expert Warren Bennis coined a leadership principle called the Wallenda Factor.  In his thousands of successful high-wire walks, Wallenda focused on walking across the rope with his eyes focused forward on his goal rather than looking down and contemplating thoughts of falling.  The Wallenda Factor is a mindset that focuses on strategies for success rather than on the possibility of failure (1).

There is a fine but very important line between focusing on succeeding rather than on not failing; it’s the same fine line between focusing on winning rather than not losing.  One excellent example comes from one of the most successful college basketball coaches of all time, Geno Auriemma.  Auriemma’s University of Connecticut women’s basketball team went undefeated in two straight regular seasons.  Unfortunately, both teams lost in the Final Four championship tournament.  The following year in the 2012-13 season his team lost multiple games in the regular season, which according to Auriemma gave them a better mindset going into the NCAA Championship Tournament:  “This team wasn’t burdened by being afraid to lose and was playing to win. [My past] teams 

were more afraid to lose a national championship than wanting to win a national championship” (2).

According to Warren Bennis, successful leaders don’t even have the word “failure” in their vocabularies.  Instead, they attempt to reframe failure, using terms with less harsh connotations, such as “mistake,” “glitch,” or “setback.”  That is not to say that great leaders never fail; instead, they don’t allow failure to 

take center stage.  When failure does happen, great leaders don’t let it intimidate them; instead, they put it in its proper perspective, using it as an opportunity to learn strategies for future success.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is the Wallenda Factor, and how can it help people be more successful?

Challenge - Focusing Like a Laser on Success:  Research what successful people say about success.  Identify your favorite quotation on success, and explain why you like it.

Sources:

1-Goldberg, Philip.  The Babinski Reflex.  Tarcher, 1990.

2- Fournier, Julie. “Playing To Win vs. Playing Not To Lose.” Basketball Is Psychology 11 April 2019.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - March 21

According to a British study, what percentage of highway accidents result from “rubbernecking”?

Subject:  Curiosity - Pandora Effect

Event: The study entitled “The Pandora Effect: The Power and Peril of Curiosity” is published, 2016.

Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect. -Steven Wright

In an ancient myth, the Titan brothers Prometheus and Epimetheus were tasked by Zeus with creating the first living creatures on earth.  Epimetheus created the animals, endowing each with a special trait. Prometheus formed man out of mud, and the Goddess Athena breathed life into the clay figure. Unfortunately, because Epimetheus had given away all the special traits, Prometheus needed to improvise.  First, Prometheus made man stand upright like the gods.  Second, he defied Zeus, by stealing fire and giving it to man.

For his theft of fire, Prometheus was punished by Zeus, who chained him to a mountain; each day an eagle would come and devour Prometheus’ liver, which would grow back again each night.

Zeus also came up with a creative plot to punish mankind for accepting the gift of fire from Prometheus.  He began by creating a woman named Pandora, fashioning her to look like the goddess Aphrodite. Zeus then brought Pandora to Earth to be Epimetheus’ wife.  As a wedding gift, Zeus gave Pandora a box but warned her never to open it.  Overcome by curiosity, Pandora ignored Zeus’ command.  As she opened the box, all the miseries of life -- greed, envy, hatred, pain, disease, hunger, poverty, war, and death -- flew out.  Pandora slammed the box’s lid closed; only one thing remained inside the box:  hope.

The Pandora myth speaks to us about the power of curiosity, and recent research by psychologists has determined that Pandora's decision to open the box is consistent with human nature.

In a study published on this day in 2016 by Christopher Hsee of the University of Chicago, volunteers were given pens to use for filling out surveys.  The subjects had no idea that the focus of the study was not on what they wrote on the surveys; instead, it was on which pen they would select to write with.  One group of subjects -- called the “certain outcome” group -- was given 5 pens with green stickers and 5 pens with red stickers; the sticker on the red pens had  “warning electric shock” written on it while the green label indicated that clicking it would not result in a shock.  The second group of subjects -- called the “uncertain outcome” group -- were given 10 pens with yellow stickers that warned, “May or may not give a shock.” 

Logic might tell you that the harmless green pens would be the pen most likely to be clicked by the subjects; however, the actual results showed that the pens with the yellow uncertain label were clicked five times more frequently than any of the other pens.  Researchers call this the Pandora Effect, confirming that humans have an eager desire to fill in the gaps between what they know and what they don’t know.

The Pandora Effect can lead to negative outcomes.  For example, a British study found that 29% of highway accidents were caused by “rubbernecking.”  Based on this conclusion, the UK Highways Agency has begun a program of putting up large screens at highway crash sites in order to block them from the view of other motorists.  

Of course, curiosity is not all bad.  It’s the trait that compels us to explore and to invent.  The philosopher Thomas Hobbes said that “Curiosity is the lust of the mind,” but often this results in a positive lust for knowledge that propels us forward to new discoveries.  Nevertheless, we should remember Pandora and try to use reason to assess risks versus rewards so that we are left with something more than just hope.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is the Pandora Effect, and how can it have both positive and negative implications for individuals?

Challenge - The Box is Half Full:  The story of Pandora’s Box tells us the negative side of curiosity.  What is an example of a story, true or fictional, that tells us the positive side of curiosity, such as a discovery that was sparked by a curious mind of an explorer or inventor?

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

March 21, 1969:  On this day the duo Simon and Garfunkel released the song “The Boxer.”  In addition to being a great song, it also features lyrics that echo psychological insights in our cognitive biases, specifically confirmation bias:  “A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.”

Sources:

1-Simon Oxenham.  “The Pandora Effect:  Why Curiosity Usually Beats Common Sense.” New Scientist 1 August 2016.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - March 18

When it comes to persuading others and getting what you want, what is the one magic word?

Subject:  Enthymeme - Mallory’s Because Justification

Event:  Mallory gives his reason for climbing Mount Everest, 1923

Why climb Mount Everest? Because it's there. -George Mallory

On this day in 1923, The New York Times published an article about the English mountaineer George Mallory (1886-1824) who was pursuing his goal of climbing Mount Everest, the world’s tallest mountain (29,029 feet).  When asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, Mallory famously answered, “Because it’s there.”

At the time Mallory gave his answer, no expedition had ever successfully summited the world’s highest mountain.  Mallory, himself, had participated in two previous expeditions and was preparing for his third.

On the morning of June 8, 1924, Mallory and his climbing partner Andrew Irvine set out for the summit from their camp at 26,800 feet, but they never returned.  The disappearance of the two climbers was a mystery for 75 years until Mallory’s body was found on the mountain in 1999. No one knows for sure whether or not Mallory and Irvine made it to the summit.

Twenty-nine years after the disappearance of Mallory and Irvine, Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay became the first climbers to successfully reach the summit of Mount Everest on May 29, 1953 (1).

Mallory’s simple three-word answer, “Because it’s there,” became his epitaph and captured the imagination of generations of explorers and risk-takers.  It also shows the power of giving a reason — any reason.

A psychological study completed in 1977 demonstrated the power of the word “because.”  People waiting in line to make copies were asked by someone behind them to skip ahead in line.  The people who gave a reason to skip, saying, “Excuse me, may I use the copy machine because I’m in a rush” were 30% more likely to be allowed to skip ahead in line than those who gave no reason.  This worked even for people who gave a nonsensical reason, saying “May I use the copy machine because I have to make copies.” 

Readers are more likely to accept your claims if you provide clear reasons that support them; this concept is known as the because justification.  Appeal to your reader’s logical side by laying down the clear reasons behind your claims. For even better results, string your reasons together using parallelism to add rhythm, repetition, and resonance (2).

The persuasive nature of reasoning is nothing new.  In the fifth century, the philosopher Aristotle wrote the first textbook explaining the art of persuasion, On Rhetoric.  Aristotle made logical argumentation accessible through a device he called the enthymeme, a sentence that explicitly states a claim and a reason.  The additional essential element of an enthymeme is an assumption, which is implicit rather than stated.

For example, as an enthymeme, Mallory’s justification for attempting to climb Mount Everest might be stated as follows:

Claim:  I should climb Mount Everest.

Reason: Because it exists.

Assumption:  The existence of a mountain is sufficient justification for climbing it.

With the enthymeme, Aristotle emphasized the role of logic (or logos) in making a sound argument.  He also emphasized, however, that effective persuasion takes more than just pure logic. Any successful writer or speaker must consider his or her audience and establish the audience’s trust (ethos).  Furthermore, the speaker or writer must not only make the audience think, he or she should also make the audience feel something (pathos)(3).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What evidence reveals that reasons are an important part of an effective argument?

Challenge:  Unpack Your Enthymemes:  What are some current issues that people are arguing about at the local, national, or international level? What are the core claims, reasons, and assumptions that make up a specific argument? Brainstorm some general issues of controversy and find a recently published editorial that addresses one of the issues. Read the editorial carefully and analyze the writer’s argument by identifying the claim, reasons, and assumptions.  Also identify how the writer appeals to the audience by establishing trust and credibility, as well as how the writer appeals to the emotions of the audience. 

Sources:

1-Britannica.com.  “George Mallory.”

2-Clear, James. “The One Word That Drives Senseless and Irrational Habits.”

3-Shovel, Martin. “Enthymeme, or are you thinking what I'm thinking?” The Guardian 9 April 2015.