Blog on mind and brain research and advice

How to Beat the Planning Fallacy

August 28, 2014 by Joycelyn Campbell 2 Comments

The planning fallacy is a tendency to “describe plans and forecasts that are unrealistically close to best-case scenarios.” [Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversy] In other words, people tend to make plans, set goals, schedule their time, etc., based on an assumption that everything will go smoothly, easily, and according to the plan they have created.

One effect of the planning fallacy is underestimating how long something will take to complete. If a deadline is involved, the result can range from a period of burning the midnight oil to catch up to a major catastrophe—depending on the situation.

Another effect is an inability to tolerate the inevitable delays and obstacles that are a normal part of any project or process and to interpret them to mean that something must be terribly wrong or someone must be to blame (because things haven’t gone according to the plan).

The way to beat the planning fallacy is to focus on process rather than on outcome.

Concentrating on process—the steps or activities necessary to achieve the desired result—helps people focus their attention, leads to more realistic expectations, and reduces anxiety. This allows people to anticipate potential problems as well as potential solutions.

Of course, it’s important to identify the desired outcome so you know where you’re headed. But once you have done that, if you keep your attention on what it will take to get there, you’re much more likely to arrive and to maintain your sanity.

Got Goals?

August 24, 2014 by Joycelyn Campbell 2 Comments

Goal You probably won’t be surprised to learn that people who set low goals or no goals tend not to accomplish much. On the other hand, people who set goals not only get more done, they also tend to be happier and more satisfied with their lives. In addition, people who set and achieve challenging goals increase their self-confidence and self-esteem.

A goal without a plan is just a wish. –Seth Adam Smith

A goal is a specific state of affairs that a plan is intended to achieve and that (when achieved) terminates behavior intended to achieve it. In other words, once you complete the plan, you are finished working toward it. Formulating a goal is the first step toward achieving it. If you get this wrong, you will have a tough time getting what you want. A well-formulated goal identifies both a specific state of affairs and the time by when you intend to achieve it:

I intend to lose five pounds by November 1st rather than I want to lose some weight.

Two factors that will greatly increase the likelihood you will achieve your goal are:

Knowing why you’re doing it (how does it relate to what really matters to you?).
Making a commitment to doing it.

One follows from the other. If you aren’t sure why you’re setting or working toward a goal, you’ll have a harder time making a commitment to achieving it. There’s no point in putting time, effort, and energy into doing something half-heartedly or half-way. Of course, making a commitment doesn’t mean you can see into the future and know what the outcome will be. There are no guarantees. But if you build escape clauses and wiggle room into your goals right from the start, you’re probably wasting your time. Once you know why you want to achieve a goal and you have made a commitment to doing what it takes, these three steps can help you seal the deal:

Write it down. Writing out your goal can help you clarify it and solidify your commitment.
Make it SMART. That means Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Bound.
Develop a plan. A plan consists of the action steps you need to take in order to achieve that specific state of affairs you are now committed to creating in your life.

Now go out there and make something happen!

Increase Your Productivity by Eliminating Choice

August 21, 2014 by Joycelyn Campbell 2 Comments

The best way to ensure you will accomplish something is by taking choice out of the equation. As long as you think you have a choice about whether or not to do something, chances are good you won’t do it.

In an article at 99U titled How I Kept a 373-Day Productivity Streak Unbroken, Jamie Todd Rubin talks about his consecutive-day writing streak. He has an even longer streak, though. At the time he wrote the piece, he had written 516 out of the previous 518 days.

Rubin doesn’t talk about choice in his article, nor does he talk about habits. What he says is:

While I didn’t set out to form a routine, I eventually established one which has led to my most prolific year as a writer yet.

How did he do it? He used the principles of I.A.P.: Intention, Attention, and Perseverance.

He decided to challenge his assumptions about the circumstances he needed to have in order to write. He has a day job and a family that includes young children, so large blocks of uninterrupted time were not on the menu. But as a result of questioning his assumptions, he discovered he could get a significant amount of writing done (500 words) in a 20-minute block of time.

So he set an intention to write for at least 20 minutes every day. He knew that would be easier said than done, especially on days when his regular routine was disrupted.

I learned ways to hack my writing streak to cope with the disruptions and still write every day.

He keeps his attention on his intention by deciding ahead of time when to fit his writing in when his day isn’t going to follow a normal routine. On such days, he usually gets his writing done earlier in the day. He also cuts himself some slack while still keeping his routine in place.

In my normal routine, I can usually count on 40 minutes of writing time. On these off-days, I may only be able to count on 10 or 20 minutes.

Rubin has a plan in place for responding to the unexpected, which is the perseverance part of the process. We have to expect the unexpected to occur and figure out ahead of time how we’ll deal with it.

Sometimes, things happen that you can’t plan ahead for. Life gets in the way. I’ll go into a day thinking that it will be routine, and something comes up. Maybe I have to work late at the day job or maybe one of the kids is sick. Whatever it is, in these instances, I haven’t planned ahead and so I can’t necessarily get my writing done early in the day.

Rubin knows that he can usually count on squeezing 10 minutes of writing in, no matter what’s going on. So he makes that his goal instead of 20 or 40 minutes. As he says, the 250 words he can generate in 10 minutes is 250 words he wouldn’t have otherwise. He also keeps several writing projects going, so he can always find something he’s in the mood to work on.

Even so, he sometimes has a day where he doesn’t have an opportunity to do any writing whatsoever.

What happens when the streak inevitably comes to an end? Well, I just start anew. It’s happened once already. I previously had a 140-day streak, and then missed two days in the space of a week. But I got right back on the horse, and haven’t missed a day for 373 days.

Getting back on the horse is what perseverance is all about. It’s how we beat the “ah, screw it” that tempts us when things don’t go according to plan. It isn’t the two missed days that are important. It’s the other 518 days that really matter.

These three steps (intention, attention, perseverance) can be applied to any activity, not just to writing. If you decide ahead of time that you aren’t going to waste time each day choosing whether or not to do it, you’re far more likely to get it done.

Rubin concludes:

There is no question that my sales of both fiction and nonfiction pieces have increased since I started writing every day. Indeed, since the streak began, I’ve sold 18 pieces of fiction or nonfiction, triple that of any previous year.

Although he didn’t initially set out to create a daily writing habit, by setting an intention, finding a way to keep his attention focused on it, and persevering by planning for the unexpected and the failures, that’s exactly what Rubin has done. By taking choice out of the equation, he tripled his writing productivity.

What’s the Condition of Your Metacognition?

August 17, 2014 by Joycelyn Campbell 2 Comments

Metacognition is the awareness of our own thought process and the ability to make judgments about our thoughts. Another way to describe it is “thinking about thinking.” Although this is an abstract concept it has very practical implications.

Metacognition is how we identify our limitations and compensate for them. –Stephen M. Fleming, Scientific American Mind

In order to identify our limitations (as well as our strengths), we need to be able to assess them objectively, yet it can be difficult to be objective about ourselves. We have a tendency to feel confident about many things, but often that confidence is unwarranted. It’s part of the human condition. And, as Dan Ariely has said, “Thinking is difficult and sometimes unpleasant.”

Some of us have better metacognitive skills than others, and metacognition can be impaired as a result of mental illness or substance abuse. But most of us can develop the ability to observe and reflect upon our thinking. We can get better at metacognition.

One way to do this is to maintain an attitude of curiosity. Notice when your assessments turn out to be accurate and when they don’t. You’re likely to find that your thinking is more accurate in some areas than in others, which is the case for most people. If you begin to recognize some patterns, you’ll have a better idea of when your confidence is justified and when it isn’t. It’s much easier to be objective—as opposed to judgmental—when we’re able to be curious about everything that’s happening.

We all analyze our inner thoughts and feelings, but some of us feel anxious about what we might discover about ourselves while others feel intrigued and fascinated about ourselves. –Alain Morin, Science & Consciousness Review

Meditation is another means of developing insight into your thinking process. Regular meditation leads to changes in the brain that seem to be linked to metacognitive abilities.

Metacognition is one of the ways in which we come to know ourselves. The better we know ourselves, the likelier we are to make sound decisions, understand and connect with other people, and identify and achieve meaningful goals.

The practice of self-observation begins with a desire and resolution on your part: “I want to know what really is, regardless of how I prefer things to be.” –Charles Tart, Waking Up

What’s the Link between Creativity and Mental Illness?

August 14, 2014 by Joycelyn Campbell 1 Comment

Do the words tortured and genius go hand-in-hand? If you’re highly creative does that mean you’re more susceptible to mental illness? Do you, in fact, need to have a mental illness in order to be creative?

The link between creativity and mental illness has been a subject of discussion and speculation at least since Aristotle suggested there was one. More recently, it has been the subject of much scientific study. The topic is in the limelight once again due to Robin Williams’ suicide.

This edition of Brain & Mind Roundup (#5) links to four articles by, or citing the work of, Nancy Andreasen and Shelly Cooper, two researchers who study creativity and who have published books on creativity and the brain.

Click on the titles to read the full articles.

Secrets of the Creative Brain

Nancy Andreasen (The Atlantic)

Andreasen is a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who began exploring the anecdotal link between creativity and mental illness in the 1960s when she studied a group of writers from the Iowa Writers’ Workshop. She writes:

I have spent much of my career focusing on the neuroscience of mental illness, but in recent decades I’ve also focused on what we might call the science of genius, trying to discern what combination of elements tends to produce particularly creative brains. What, in short, is the essence of creativity? Over the course of my life, I’ve kept coming back to two more-specific questions: What differences in nature and nurture can explain why some people suffer from mental illness and some do not? And why are so many of the world’s most creative minds among the most afflicted?

The Relationship between Creativity and Mental Illness

At brainpickings, Maria Popova provides a beautiful and thoughtful presentation of Nancy Andreason’s book The Creating Brain: The Neuroscience of Genius. Popova says:

One of the most interesting chapters in the book deals with the correlation between creativity and mental illness, bringing scientific rigor to such classic anecdotal examples as those evidenced in Van Gogh’s letters or Sylvia Plath’s journals or Leo Tolstoy’s diary of depression or Virginia Woolf’s suicide note. Having long opposed the toxic “tortured genius” myth of creativity, I was instantly intrigued by Andreasen’s inquiry, the backdrop of which she paints elegantly:

Did mental illness facilitate [these creators’] unique abilities, whether it be to play a concerto or to perceive a novel mathematical relationship? Or did mental illness impair their creativity after its initial meteoric burst in their twenties? Or is the relationship more complex than a simple one of cause and effect, in either direction?

And this is where the monumental importance of her study shines: What Andreasen found wasn’t confirmation for the “tortured genius” myth — the idea that a great artist must have some dark, tragic pathology in order to create — but quite the opposite: these women and men had become successful writers not because of their tortuous mental health but despite it.

The Real Link Between Creativity and Mental Illness

Scott Barry Kaufman (SciAm)

Scott Barry Kaufman, Scientific Director of The Imagination Institute and a researcher in the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania, investigates the measurement and development of imagination. He questions Andreason’s findings and looks deeper, writing:

The oft-cited studies by Kay Redfield Jamison, Nancy Andreasen, and Arnold Ludwig showing a link between mental illness and creativity have been criticized on the grounds that they involve small, highly specialized samples with weak and inconsistent methodologies and a strong dependence on subjective and anecdotal accounts.

Is there any germ of truth to the link between creativity and mental illness? The latest research suggests there is something to the link, but the truth is much more interesting.

It seems that the key to creative cognition is opening up the flood gates and letting in as much information as possible. Because you never know: sometimes the most bizarre associations can turn into the most productively creative ideas. Indeed, Shelley Carson and her colleagues found that the most eminent creative achievers among a sample of Harvard undergrads were seven times more likely to have reduced latent inhibition.

Latent inhibition is a filtering mechanism that we share with other animals, and it is tied to the neurotransmitter dopamine. A reduced latent inhibition allows us to treat something as novel, no matter how may times we’ve seen it before and tagged it as irrelevant. Prior research shows a link between reduced latent inhibition and schizophrenia.

Creativity and Psychopathology: A Shared Vulnerability Model

In this paper, Shelly Carson, Harvard researcher on creativity, psychopathology, and resilience, and author of The Creative Brain: Seven Steps to Maximize Imagination, Productivity, and Innovation in Your Life, reviews “the empirical evidence for an elevated risk of three disorders in creative individuals: mood disorders, schizospectrum disorders, and alcoholism.”

While creativity is considered a positive personal trait, highly creative individuals have demonstrated elevated risk for certain forms of psychopathology. [In] this paper I argue that a model of shared vulnerability explains the relationship between creativity and psychopathology. This model, supported by recent findings from neuroscience and molecular genetics, suggests that biological determinants that confer risk for psychopathology interact with protective cognitive factors to enhance creative ideation.

Carson

Elements of shared vulnerability include cognitive disinhibition (which allows increased stimuli into conscious awareness), an attentional style that is driven by novelty-salience, and neural hyperconnectivity that may increase associations among disparate stimuli. These vulnerabilities interact with superior meta-cognitive protective factors, such as high IQ, working memory capacity, and cognitive flexibility, to produce an enlarged body of stimuli that is available in conscious awareness to be manipulated and combined to form novel and original ideas.

~ ~ ~

Reading and writing about this topic inevitably makes me think of my partner, who died nearly 10 years ago. He had a very high IQ, good working memory, and great cognitive flexibility, all of which seem to have mitigated the vulnerability factors, which were also present. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, which wreaked some havoc in his early and mid-life before it was treated. At times, he was more than a little eccentric, with maybe a touch of mad genius about him. (Always interesting, that’s for sure!)

He was extremely creative, prolifically so, in a variety of areas–especially writing, art, and music–and he continued to be creative while he was on medication, which was very effective for him. So clearly his bipolar bent, if you will, didn’t cause him to be creative. But there was definitely a link there. Those areas of shared vulnerability were significantly moderated by medication, but also by his own awareness and self-monitoring. And maybe that’s something to take away from this, too. Self-awareness and self-monitoring are great tools for keeping us grounded even in the midst of our wildest flights of imagination.