Social Science

Science supporting Jesus?

There is this idea in our culture that if you are angry then you need to pop off or let of steam.  This idea excuses a number of behaviors of people in relationships.  I cannot express how many people I hear (myself included) say, "I just needed to get this off my chest" or "I just need to yell and get this anger out."  If you have ever thought that popping off in order to release steam then you too have, at least one time, bought into the idea that letting off steam alleviates anger.

And it does.  Which is why we do it.

The issue is that letting off steam in this way may make us feel better but it never stops us from having to let of more steam in the future.

Take this little bit from You are Not so Smart.  Please note that it takes a bit of set up to get to the interesting stuff, but we have to see the set up before we can get into it.  So first the set up:


"In the 1990s, psychologist Brad Bushman at Iowa State decided to study whether or not venting actually worked. He divided 180 students into 3 groups. One group read a neutral article. One group read an article about a fake study that said venting anger was effective. The third group read about a fake study that said venting was pointless. He then had students write essays for or against abortion, a subject about which they probably had strong feelings. He told them the essays would be graded by fellow students, but they weren't.  When the students got their essays back, half were told their essays were superb. The other half had this scrawled across the paper: "This is one of the worst essays I have ever read!" Bushman then asked the subjects to pick an activity like playing a game, watching some comedy, reading a story, or punching a bag. The results? The people who read the article that said venting worked, and who later got angry, were far more likely to ask to punch the bag than those who got angry in the other groups. In all the groups., the people who got praised tended to pick non-aggressive activities."


No big shocker there.  When we are told by an authority that some behavior is good/not good for us then we tend to heed that advice.  While this is no surprise, it might be worth taking note that this also creates feedback loops.  If we are told "venting" is good then we will more likely seek out opportunities to do it, and if we are told "venting" is not good then we will seek out other ways to deal with anger.  


Now onto the interesting part in which another experiment is created like the first but with a twist, in which the group that was told their essay was the worst essay the grader ever read was then divided in half and and were told they were going to have to compete against the person who graded their essay. "One group first had to punch a bag, and the other group had to sit and wait for two minutes. After punching and waiting, the competition began. The game was simple: Press a button as fast as you can. If you lose, you get blasted with a horrible noise. When you win, your opponent gets blasts. The students could set the volume the other person had to endure, a setting between zero and ten, with ten being 105 decibels. Can you predict what they discovered? On average, the punching bag group set the volume as high as 8.5. The time-out group set it to 2.47. The people who got angry didn't release their anger on the punching bag-their anger was sustained by it."


This may be common sense to you.  It may not be. For generations Christianity has taught about loving the neighbor who is sometimes also your enemy. Forgiveness is critical to the life of the Christian. Jesus is said to have spoken words of forgiveness while on the cross. 


It is good to see that science is catching up :)















Maximizers and Satisficers

If you do a quick google for the words "Maximizers and Satisficers" you will come across all sorts of articles and blogs talking about these two different styles we all evoke to make decisions. It is rather fascinating to me that we each have these two styles in us depending upon the nature of the decision.

A quick overview:
Maximizers - making and optional decision or action after every known option is examined.
Satisficers - making a decision or take action once set criteria are met.

I am not a social scientist at all. I only have a basic understanding of these two decision making styles and do not claim expert status. However, I could not help but think about these two options and how different people respond to this blog.

Maybe some of us when it comes to the topics written about are Maximizers and others are Satisficers. For some of us, we know a lot of options and spend a lot of time reading other sources in order to come to a decision. Others, of us may not spend as much time looking at all the options of faith and that is okay with us - we are satisfied with what we know and it "works".

I don't know about all the connections here - maybe there are no connections at all - but I share this with anyone who is reading this. What areas in your life do you Mazimize and what ares in your life do you Satisfiy? Here is a worksheet you can work through to self examine.

The research that I come across points that Satisficers tend to be happier in life, but that just is not always the case either. Here is a person who is stoked to be a Mazimizer.

Can you connect going up stairs with worship

I found this video, and while it is not profound it does seem to visually articulate something about human nature.



My question is, in light of this experiment, what do you think could change in worship to have 66% more people using the path of worship than another path?

Or, if that is too specific or outside your normal thinking, what about these questions:

What can you do to change a mundane behavior into something people want to participate in?
What if music cam with every footstep?
How can you and I nudge people to partake in activities/actions which are better for their health?
Would you have stopped in your day to 'play' a bit on the stairs?


Phone number can over ride reason

The explanation given by the experimenters from yesterday, argued that the longer number kept the frontal cortex busier and was thus unable to out shout the more primal and lower brain areas. Therefore those with a shorter number still had the energy from their higher brain areas to 'reason' the healthier choice, while those with the longer number did not have as much higher brain function to talk sense to the lower regions.

And so the longer number was enough to occupy the higher brain areas to encourage less healthy choices.

Although this is a rather trivial choice, if this is extrapolated out to take into account the more complex things we are keeping in our brain at any given time as well as the complex decisions we are asked to make, this experiment could speak a to a larger problem.

If this is true, that is our higher brain areas can be preoccupied by even the simplest things, then it is all the more important to take time out of our days (perhaps 5 times?) to center our thoughts or quiet our minds so that we are able to free our higher brain areas.