Let me tell you about a classic psychological study that I don’t believe. In the early 1980s, Amos Tversky and Thomas Gilovich began sifting through years of statistics from the Philadelphia 76ers. The psychologists looked at every single shot taken by every single player, and recorded whether or not that shot had been preceded by a string of hits or misses. All told, they analyzed thousands upon thousands of field goal attempts.

Why’d they do this? Tversky and Gilovich were interested in testing the “hot hand” phenomenon, which occurs when NBA players are convinced that they’re hot, on a roll, in the zone. (The sports cliches are endless.) While players, coaches and spectators were convinced the hot hand was real, the psychologists knew that humans are notoriously bad at detecting streaks. After all, we’re the same species that gets convinced we’re playing a “hot” slot machine.

After analyzing all the shots of the 76ers, the psychologists discovered that there was absolutely no evidence of “the hot hand.” A player’s chance of making a shot was not affected by whether or not their previous shots had gone in; each field goal attempt was its own independent event. The short runs experienced by the 76ers were no different than the short runs that naturally emerge from any random process. Taking a jumper was like flipping a coin. The streaks were a figment of our imagination.

The 76ers were shocked by the evidence. Andrew Toney, the shooting guard, was particularly hard to convince: he was sure that he was a streaky shooter, and went through distinct “hot” and “cold” periods. (Toney is still regarded as a great clutch player. Charles Barkley has called him “one of the best kept secrets in the history of the NBA.”) But the statistics told a different story. During the regular season, Toney made 46 percent of all of his shots. After hitting three shots in a row – a sure sign that he was now “in the zone” – Toney’s field goal percentage dropped to 34 percent. When Toney thought he was “hot,” he was actually freezing cold. And when he thought he was cold, he was just getting warmed up: after missing three shots in a row, Toney made 52 percent of his shots, which was significantly higher than his normal average.

But maybe the 76ers were a statistical outlier. After all, according to a survey conducted by the scientists, 91 percent of serious NBA fans believed in “the hot hand”. They just knew that players were streaky. So Tversky and Gilovich decided to analyze another basketball team: the Boston Celtics. This time, they looked at free throw attempts, and not just field goals. Once again, they found absolutely no evidence of hot hands. Larry Bird was just like Andrew Tooney: After making several free throws in a row, his free throw percentage actually declined. Bird got complacent, and started missing shots he should have made.

Why, then, do we believe in the hot hand? Confirmation bias is to blame. Once a player makes two shots in a row – an utterly unremarkable event – we start thinking about the possibility of a streak. Maybe he’s hot? Why isn’t he getting the ball? It’s at this point that our faulty reasoning mechanisms kick in, as we start ignoring the misses and focusing on the makes. In other words, we seek out evidence that confirms our suspicions of streakiness. The end result is that a mental fiction dominates our perception of the game.

Here’s where things get meta: Even though I know all about Tversky and Gilovich’s research – and fully believe the data – I still perceive the hot hand. I can’t help but watch the NBA playoffs and marvel at the streakiness of shooters, from Kobe to Rose. (Personally, I’d love to see an analysis of Ray Allen. If that man doesn’t show the hot hand, then it really doesn’t exist.) And I’m not alone in my stubborn skepticism. Red Auerbach, the legendary coach of the Celtics, reportedly responded to Tversky’s statistical analysis with a blunt dismissal. “So he makes a study,” Auerbach said. “I couldn’t care less.”

The larger question, of course, is why confirmation bias exists. This is the sort of mental mistake that seems ripe for fixing by natural selection, since it always leads to erroneous beliefs and faulty causal theories. We’d be a hell of a lot smarter if we weren’t only drawn to evidence that confirms what we already believe.

And this leads me to a fascinating and provocative new theory of reasoning put forth by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. In essence, they argue that human reason has nothing to do with finding the truth, or locating the best alternative. Instead, it’s all about being able to argue with others:

Reasoning is generally seen as a mean to improve knowledge and make better decisions. Much evidence, however, shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests rethinking the function of reasoning. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade.

In the most recent edition of Edge.org, there’s a great conversation with Mercier, now a post-doc at Penn. Mercier begins by explaining how the argumentative theory of human reason can explain confirmation bias:

Psychologists have shown that people have a very, very strong, robust confirmation bias. What this means is that when they have an idea, and they start to reason about that idea, they are going to mostly find arguments for their own idea. They’re going to come up with reasons why they’re right, they’re going to come up with justifications for their decisions. They’re not going to challenge themselves.

And the problem with the confirmation bias is that it leads people to make very bad decisions and to arrive at crazy beliefs. And it’s weird, when you think of it, that humans should be endowed with a confirmation bias. If the goal of reasoning were to help us arrive at better beliefs and make better decisions, then there should be no bias. The confirmation bias should really not exist at all.

But if you take the point of view of the argumentative theory, having a confirmation bias makes complete sense. When you’re trying to convince someone, you don’t want to find arguments for the other side, you want to find arguments for your side. And that’s what the confirmation bias helps you do.

The idea here is that the confirmation bias is not a flaw of reasoning, it’s actually a feature. It is something that is built into reasoning; not because reasoning is flawed or because people are stupid, but because actually people are very good at reasoning — but they’re very good at reasoning for arguing. Not only does the argumentative theory explain the bias, it can also give us ideas about how to escape the bad consequences of the confirmation bias.

Needless to say, this new theory paints a rather bleak portrait of human nature. We like to think of ourselves as rational creatures, blessed with this Promethean gift of being able to decipher the world and uncover all sorts of hidden truths. But Mercier and Sperber argue that reason has little to do with reality, which is why I’m still convinced that those NBA players are streaky when they’re really just lucky. Instead, the function of reasoning is rooted in communication, in the act of trying to persuade other people that what we believe is true. We are social animals all the way down.

Are strict Chinese mothers the best?

Amy Chua's memoir The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, which advocates a strict Chinese parenting style, has sparked furious online debate. So should a parent crack the whip or molly coddle to produce a successful, happy child?

An extract in the Wall Street Journal lists the things Amy Chua's daughters Sophia and Louisa were not allowed to do, including attending a sleepover; having a play-date; being in a school play; watching TV or playing a computer game; choosing their own extracurricular activities; getting any grade less than an A; not being the number one student in every subject except gym and drama; playing any instrument except piano and violin; not playing the piano or violin.

 

She says this is a typical reason why Chinese parents like herself raise such stereotypically successful children. What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you're good at it.

In defence of Western parenting, Mike Vilensky says in New York magazine that the cost of a rigid timetable of activities decided by parents is a loss of creativity. And creativity is what is behind the big entrepreneurial successes such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.

Psychologist Oliver James says in the Guardian that lack of creativity is a major problem in Asian schooling. His tests, based on imagining doubling your salary, always came a cropper in Asian schools.

"They were simply incapable of picturing an abstract situation and of entering into a game," noted James. "I am sure this was because their creativity had been systematically destroyed and in its place, a survival pragmatism installed."

Chua gives multiple examples of making her children practice their musical instruments, for over three hours and even on holiday.

The problem, says New York Times columnist David Brooks, is that she fundamentally misunderstands which activities are cognitively difficult. He says that while practising a piece of music for four hours requires focused attention, a sleepover with a group of 14-year-old girls is far more intellectually demanding.

"Managing status rivalries, negotiating group dynamics, understanding social norms, navigating the distinction between self and group - these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense tutoring session or a class at Yale."

Out-of-date stereotype

While no-one seems to dispute that children of Chinese heritage do consistently better than their peers, there are suggestions from the Chinese community that the stereotype of the strict Chinese parent is outdated.

Columnist for China Daily Huang Hung says in the Daily Beast the context of this strict form of parenting is based on parts of Chinese culture which glorify suffering, and tells mothers they are only as good as their children.

However, she says that the overwhelming feeling is that Chinese parents in China do not act like this anymore. "It is ironic that as young Chinese mothers in Beijing and Shanghai are embracing more enlightened Western ideas about child raising, mothers from Connecticut are sinking deeper into China's darker past in child rearing."

Jen Wang from the website Disgrasian adds in the Huffington Post that as a second generation Chinese immigrant she finds it difficult to justify a strict upbringing. She argues that the parenting style is now irrelevant as the consequences of failure in a middle class family aren't as dire as it would be for their parents. This, she wonders, might make it harder for her daughters to understand why Amy Chua is so strict.

Happy children

What Wang is perturbed by is the effect Chua's methods would have on a child's self esteem.

Chua's argument goes that Western parents assume children are more fragile than they really are. In this view Western beliefs are motivated by the idea children will be permanently damaged if they are pushed too hard.

Psychologist Oliver James argues Chinese families show 'a great deal of love'

Chinese mothers, by contrast, will excoriate, punish and shame their children if they don't get perfect grades in Chua's viewpoint. Chua insists that Western children are definitely no happier than Chinese ones.

"Chinese mothers can say to their daughters 'hey fatty - lose some weight'. By contrast, Western parents have to tiptoe around the issue, talking in terms of 'health' and never ever mentioning the f-word, and their kids still end up in therapy for eating disorders and negative self-image."

Wang says Chua's argument can be proved wrong by research conducted by University of Washington showing that US-born women of east Asian origin are more likely to commit suicide.

Toby Young, a London journalist who is attempting to set up a free school, comes to Chua's defence, saying a strict upbringing might actually bring more self esteem. He points out in the Telegraph that Chua claims that Chinese children make for more robust adults, having been galvanised in the hot-house of the Chinese parenting academy.

He goes on to argue that constantly boosting children's self-esteem is setting them up for a fall. "We send them out into the world with an inflated idea of their own abilities and the moment they come face-to-face with a tough competitor - one of Ms Chua's daughters, for instance - they collapse like a house of cards. Bye-bye, self-esteem. Hello, depression."

'Our evil mother'

On the relatively low rate of Chinese depression Toby Young and Oliver James agree. However, James thinks it is because, like Hung, that this is because Chinese parents do not actually act as Chua claims.

Yes, he says, the child is excoriated for failing the family and its clan, if it does badly. But the parents and grandparents still show a great deal of love and warmth, even if it has failed or done wrong.

The last word should be given to Amy Chua's daughter, who responded to all the criticism in the New York Post. Sophia Chua Rubenfeld, 18, says people need to lighten up.

"One problem is that some people don't get your humour. They think you're serious about all this, and they assume Lulu and I are oppressed by our evil mother. That is so not true. Every other Thursday, you take off our chains and let us play math games in the basement."

An important thing to understand about American culture is that we tend to place responsibility and focus on individual behaviour rather than think about laws and regulations to affect behaviour," he told the BBC.

By JONAH LEHRER

Can modern science help us to create heroes? That's the lofty question behind the Heroic Imagination Project, a new nonprofit started by Phil Zimbardo, a psychologist at Stanford University. The goal of the project is simple: to put decades of experimental research to use in training the next generation of exemplary Americans, churning out good guys with the same efficiency that gangs and terrorist groups produce bad guys.

View Full Image

Bob Adelman/Corbis

Rosa Parks(1963 photo) and other heroes possess qualities that the rest of us can try to learn.

At first glance, this seems like a slightly absurd endeavor. Heroism, after all, isn't supposed to be a teachable trait. We assume that people like Gandhi or Rosa Parks or the 9/11 hero Todd Beamer have some intangible quality that the rest of us lack. When we get scared and selfish, these brave souls find a way to act, to speak out, to help others in need. That's why they're heroes.

Mr. Zimbardo rejects this view. "We've been saddled for too long with this mystical view of heroism," he says. "We assume heroes are demigods. But they're not. A hero is just an ordinary person who does something extraordinary. I believe we can use science to teach people how to do that."

The curriculum, which lasts four weeks and is targeted at adolescents, is rooted in decades of psychological research. (Mr. Zimbardo is best known as the scientist behind the Stanford Prison experiment, which demonstrated that even liberal-minded undergrads can be turned into sadistic prison guards.) After taking a "hero pledge"—research shows that public commitments boost rates of adherence—the "heroes in training" begin their education.

The first lessons focus on human frailties, those hard-wired flaws that allow evil to flourish. The students are taught, for instance, about the research of the psychologist Stanley Milgram, whose famous experiment in the early 1960s showed that ordinary people would blindly obey authority and give what they thought were strong electrical shocks to strangers. They are also warned about the bystander effect—our reluctance to help a person in need when others are around—and the prevalence of prejudice. It's a crash course in all the different tendencies that lead good people astray.

After being "fortified against the dark side," the student heroes are trained to be more empathetic. Most of these lessons revolve around perception, on becoming more attentive to the feelings of others. The students learn how to interpret micro-facial expressions—a fake smile looks different than a real smile—and practice listening to their classmates. Another important lesson revolves around the fundamental attribution error, a prevalent psychological bias in which people neglect the influence of context on behavior. "One of the main reasons we don't help others is because we assume they deserve what happened to them, that they must have done something wrong," Mr. Zimbardo says. "But most of the time it's just the situation playing itself out. We teach people how not to blame the victim."

The next phase of instruction has a grandiose title: "Internalizing the Heroic Imagination." The students begin studying the behavior of other heroes, past and present. They look at Harry Potter and Abraham Lincoln, Achilles and Martin Luther King. (Mr. Zimbardo is trying to create a "Heropedia," so that people can search a vast database to find heroes in their neighborhood or age group.) Because human behavior is profoundly shaped by those around us—we are all natural "peer modelers"—the project attempts to give students a more heroic set of peers. "Just look at the Milgram experiment," Mr. Zimbardo says. "Everybody uses that as an example of how bad people are. But the actual data aren't so depressing. If subjects watched someone else refuse to issue shocks, then they almost always refused, too. The hero created another hero."

The last step of hero training is the most important. The students begin rehearsing their heroism in the real world, translating the classroom lessons into positive changes. (No cape required.) The students start with baby steps, as they are instructed to do one thing every day that makes someone else feel better. Perhaps it's complimenting a bus driver, or helping mom make dinner, or spending quality time with grandpa. The goal is to break down the barrier that keeps good intentions from becoming virtuous actions. Though real heroes take risks, Zimbardo notes that one can't begin with reckless acts of altruism. Courage requires practice.

At the moment, the Heroic Imagination Project remains a modest endeavor, operating out of a single storefront in San Francisco. The project has just begun pilot programs at several middle schools and high schools in the Bay Area, with plans to develop additional seminars for business executives and young children next year. After graduating from the course, the heroes will be encouraged to stay in touch via a special online social network, a kind of Facebook for heroes. Mr. Zimbardo also plans on monitoring the long-term effects of the project, as he revises the curriculum to maximize its impact.

One day, though, Mr. Zimbardo hopes to have a hero project in every city. "One of the problems with our culture is that we've replaced heroes with celebrities," Mr. Zimbardo says. "We worship people who haven't done anything. It's time to get back to focusing on what matters, because we need real heroes more than ever."

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page C12

Are Heroes Born, or can They Be made?

New social groups are emerging among UK workers, Experian says

A batch of previously unseen groups are reshaping Britain's social landscape, according to research by data analysts.

While some Brits are building their lives around their material ambitions, others are "downsizing" and heading for a simpler life in the countryside.

Experian spokesman Richard Holt said his firm was seeking to "understand the changing structure of British society".

The company's research divides Britain's adult population into 61 different types under 11 groups.

Changing groups

Whole swathes of childless Brits - dubbed "Seriously Single" by Experian - are now inhabiting trendy loft apartments in inner cities.

Rural Isolationists Choosing rural life over material urban living Seriously Single Childless and living in trendy apartments High Technologists Well-paid and employed by hi-tech firms Asian Enterprise Young and motivated Asian middle class workers Global Connections Wealthy foreign-born elite living in London Motorway Magnetism Materialist commuters living near motorways

But hardened materialists are choosing to set up home in newly-built housing estates along motorway corridors.

Meanwhile, areas that were almost exclusively occupied by the traditional white middle classes - such as Wembley, Hayes, Ilford, Greenford and Kingsbury - are now inhabited by young and highly-motivated middle-class Asians.

Experian's research also says around 0.7% of the UK population is largely comprised of an extremely wealthy, foreign-born elite living at exclusive London addresses.

It also says council estates around the country have polarised into two groups.

Firstly, there are those which have become prosperous under the Conservative government's right-to-buy scheme.

Secondly, "sink estates" have formed where the scheme did not prove a success, leading to increases in crime and anti-social behaviour, according to the company.

'Unmarketable and deprived'

Mr Holt said: "One of the major socio-economic trends over the past 10 years has been the polarisation of council estates between those that are now owner-occupied and those that remain in unmarketable and deprived "sink" estates."

Britain's pensioners are also said to have formed two distinct classes - those reliant on state pensions and those who provided for their old age with private pensions.

Lifestyle labels used by Experian include:

Sharing a Staircase - describing an isolated life in poorly-maintained council-owned estates experiencing high rates of crime, drug-use and anti-social behaviour.

Examples given are Sheepscar, Motherwell and areas in Hull, Manchester and Birmingham.

Ties of Community - better-off and well-maintained council properties with high levels of owner-occupation.

These include parts of Woburn, Luton and Lutterworth.

Student Enclaves - Dense concentrations of student communities in previously run-down inner city areas.

Comprising Headingley, Clifton, Salford and the Radford area of Nottingham.

The research was provided via the company's updated Mosaic UK consumer classification system.

The system drew on information from the 2001 national Census and hundreds of other sources, including the electoral roll and house price data, Experian said.

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version

The question is, how much of our investing behavior is predetermined? Can we change our behavior? And, if so, how? The answer to the first question: about a third. A recent study, "Nature or Nurture: What Determines Investor Behavior," examined the investing habits of identical and fraternal twins. It showed that genetics accounted for a third of such key measures as how willing we are to invest in the stock market and how we allocate our funds. Upbringing had some influence on how the subjects handled money, the study also showed, but experiences with money outside the family quickly trumped parental influences.

So although nature and nurture are both significant, they don't necessarily control our destiny as investors. What's more important is to recognize that it's human nature to fall prey to our biases, which include overconfidence, short-term thinking and inertia. Problem is, we have a blind spot when it comes to these biases - we usually don't recognize them in ourselves. And until we do, we can't address them. That makes blind-spot bias the mother of all psychological investing problems.

Navigating blind spots

Emily Pronin, a professor of psychology at Princeton University, says we fall victim to BSB even when we're shown incontrovertible evidence that it exists. "I spend a whole lecture describing blind-spot bias, and I give my students lots of examples of biases," says Pronin - say, believing you're smarter than the average person, or more altruistic than others, or more socially desirable than average. A few days later, she says, a graduate student from another class asks the same students how much they show bias relative to others in the class. "And they still tend to say they're free from the bias," Pronin says.

Pronin says people deny that they suffer from these issues because they occur subconsciously. "In order to determine whether they are biased," she writes, "people generally look to their conscious motives rather than to their actions." So when a bias occurs subconsciously, people don't notice it.

To liberate us from BSB, Pronin came up with a simple solution: She had students read an article, titled "Unaware of Our Unawareness," that convincingly lays out the case that our subconscious can influence our attitudes and behavior. After reading the article, the people in one group didn't show the usual tendency to deny their biases. Those who skipped the article did.

Once you admit to your investing biases, you can begin to overcome them. But don't expect to rewire yourself. "You can improve, you can become more self-aware, but you can't change who you are in a meaningful way," says Frank Murtha, a behavioral-finance consultant with MarketPsych, which offers psychological-training services to traders and money managers.

Becoming more self-aware involves several steps. Among other things, Murtha and his Market-Psych partner, Richard Peterson, have developed a quiz to help figure out when you're acting impulsively regarding your investments and when you're being consistent. Their book, "MarketPsych: How to Manage Fear and Build Your Investor Identity," can help you learn to identify and control your biases. Plus, it's a fun read.

- Kiplinger's Personal Finance

We're still victim to biases even when we're shown that they exists says Emily Pronin, prof of psychology at Princeton

Young children smacked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found.

According to the research, children smacked up to the age of six were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to university than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.

Only those children who continued to be smacked into adolescence showed clear behavioural problems.

Children’s groups and MPs have tried several times to have physical chastisement by parents outlawed. They claim it is a form of abuse that causes long-term harm to children and say banning it would send a clear signal that violence is unacceptable.

Related Links

• Smacking is the last resort of a poor parent

• Why smacking is evidence of failure

However, Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children.

“The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,” said Gunnoe. “I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You just don’t use it for all your jobs.”

Research into the effects of smacking was previously hampered by the inability to find enough children who had never been smacked, given its past cultural acceptability. But Gunnoe’s work drew on a study of 2,600 people, of whom about a quarter had never been physically chastised.

Gunnoe’s findings were welcomed by Aric Sigman, a psychologist and author of The Spoilt Generation: Why Restoring Authority will Make our Children and Society Happier.

“The idea that smacking and violence are on a continuum is a bizarre and fetishised view of what punishment or smacking is for most parents,” he said.

“If it’s done judiciously by a parent who is normally affectionate and sensitive to their child, our society should not be up in arms about that. Parents should be trusted to distinguish this from a punch in the face.”

Penelope Leach, the British parenting guru whose book Your Baby and Child has sold more than 2m copies, said physical discipline should always be avoided.

“No good can come from hitting a child,” said Leach. “I do not buy this idea that children will learn positive behaviour from being smacked. The law says adults hitting adults is wrong and children should be protected in the same way. Children are people, too.”

British parents have traditionally followed the maxim “spare the rod and spoil the child”. More recently, however, the opposition of children’s charities to smacking has gained support, with 71% of Britons in one poll saying they would support a ban. The law allows smacking as long as it does not leave a mark.

The government says it does not want to criminalise parents for chastising their children with the best of intentions.

Gunnoe’s research included detailed questioning of 179 teenagers who were asked how old they were when they were last smacked and how often they were smacked as a child.

Their answers were compared with information they gave about their behaviour that could have been affected by smacking. This covered bad outcomes, such as antisocial behaviour, early sexual activity, violence and depression, and good outcomes, including academic success and optimism about the future.

Teenagers who had been smacked only when they were aged two to six performed slightly better on almost every positive measure and no worse on the negative measures than those who had never been smacked.

The results were less clear for a separate group of teenagers who had been smacked until they were slightly older — aged seven to 11. They fared slightly worse on negative behaviour scores — they reported being involved in more fights, for example — but were also likely to be more academically successful than those who had not been smacked.

Teenagers who were still being smacked, however, scored significantly worse than every group on all the measures. Gunnoe found little difference in the results between boys and girls and between racial groups.

She is now trying to explain the reasons for the differences. She suggests parents who rule out smacking as a matter of principle may be less likely to help their children develop the self-discipline and social skills needed to succeed in life.

If you need another reason to give thanks at the dinner table on Thursday, how's this: people who maintain an "attitude of gratitude" tend to be happier and healthier than those who don't, according to a lengthy and instructive article this week in the Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ's Melinda Beck reports that adults who feel grateful have "more energy, more optimism, more social connections and more happiness than those who do not, according to studies conducted over the past decade. They're also less likely to be depressed, envious, greedy or alcoholics."

Now a new study conducted by researchers at Hofstra University — the results of which are set to be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Happiness Studies — finds similar benefits of gratitude for adolescents as well. (More on Time.com: How to Raise a Happy Child)

Dr. Jeffrey J. Froh, assistant professor of psychology and lead researcher of the new study, surveyed 1,035 students ages 14 to 19 and found that grateful students reported higher grades, more life satisfaction, better social integration and less envy and depression than their peers who were less thankful and more materialistic. Additionally, feelings of gratitude had a more powerful impact on the students' lives overall than materialism. (More on Time.com: Generosity Can Be Contagious)

What the bulk of the research suggests is that gratitude should be chronic in order to make a lasting difference in well-being. Dr. Robert Emmons, professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis, and a pioneer in gratitude research, told the WSJ that in order to reap all of its benefits, feeling gratitude must be ingrained into your personality, and you must frequently acknowledge and be thankful for the role other people play in your happiness: "The key is not to leave it on the Thanksgiving table," he said.

The good news is that even a negative Nancy can learn to incorporate gratitude into her life. Dour outlooks can be changed. Beck reports:

For older children and adults, one simple way to cultivate gratitude is to literally count your blessings. Keep a journal and regularly record whatever you are grateful for that day. Be specific. Listing “my friends, my school, my dog” day after day means that “gratitude fatigue” has set in, Dr. Froh says. Writing “my dog licked my face when I was sad” keeps it fresher. The real benefit comes in changing how you experience the world. Look for things to be grateful for, and you'll start seeing them.

…

Studies show that using negative, derogatory words — even as you talk to yourself — can darken your mood, as well. Fill your head with positive thoughts, express thanks and encouragement aloud and look for something to be grateful for, not criticize, in those around you, especially loved ones.

Whether or not you can keep up your attitude of gratitude over the long-term, at least it can help you get through this year's Thanksgiving dinner.

Read the entire WSJ article here.

Find this article at:
http://healthland.time.com/2010/11/25/how-feelings-of-gratitude-breed-happiness-and-well-being/

French horror at 'Anglo-Saxon' reforms

By Christian Fraser
BBC News, Paris

In France this week, more than two million workers took to the streets to protest against proposals to raise the retirement age. But the harsh economic climate may continue to threaten the traditional French way of life.

All right, so they were not blockading British ferries at Calais or burning English lamb in rural Normandy.

Nonetheless, the French strikers who brought the country to a standstill this week still had the Anglo-Saxons in their sights.

In France, I have come to realise, the term "Anglo-Saxon" is rarely one of endearment.

It is a useful umbrella description that seems to cover any number of perceived national weaknesses the other side of the Channel.

Last week, French scorn was reserved for the British retirement age, now set to rise to 67.

"Incroyable!", cried a population that jealously guards its savoir-vivre .

Last Tuesday, I was by the statue of Marianne, who personifies the values of the French republic, when I encountered one particularly vehement demonstrator at a central Paris rally.

"We should not be imitating our neighbours," she barked, perhaps noting my English tweed.

“ The French have always expected the state to provide - not only for their short working week, their excellent free schools and hospitals - but also their retirement ”

"We must defend what we have. Ours is not the Anglo-Saxon way."

Indeed not.

The French are scandalised by President Nicolas Sarkozy's determined push to raise the state pension age from 60 to - horror of horrors - 62.

A modest rise in European terms and in the current economic climate, you might think, not unreasonable.

'New mindset'

Yet the French have always expected the state to provide - not only for their short working week, their excellent free schools and hospitals - but also their retirement.

Most people here do not contribute to private pensions.

The vast majority rely on the state pension, and compulsory membership of industry schemes.

The politicians, however, know that this has to change.

Jean-Francois Cope, the head of the ruling UMP parliamentary body and a rising star of the centre-right, says the French need a new mindset.

"By 2018, the French might have to wait until they are 63 for retirement," he whispers.

"We can still provide a state pension. But if we live longer, we work longer."

He added: "The language and the psychology will have to change in France."

More sleep

Change will not come easily or quickly.

Consider these figures from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development:

On average, a Frenchman will spend 135 minutes eating every day - his American and Canadian counterparts take just 50 minutes.

The French get more sleep, and then there are those famously long summer holidays.

In August, French society heads for the hills, the beaches, the mountains. Anywhere but the office.

At least this year's break gave President Sarkozy some respite from the restless French unions, which are supported by three-quarters of the French people.

Though it did not go unnoticed that most of the workforce had been back at work for just one week before they were all out on national strike again.

To be fair, despite the "down-time" the French are still hugely productive, even in a 35-hour week.

“ When it comes to the welfare state, successive presidents have dodged the ball ”
Gerard Lannelongue, director of French education provider

The problem, some experts will tell you, is that the span of their working life is just too short.

Most do not start working until the age of 26 or 27, youth unemployment runs at 10%, and come the age of 55 they expect to be winding down to a long and enjoyable retirement.

A colleague came across one very spry demonstrator this week who finished work 20 years ago and is now an accomplished hang-glider.

Mr Cope is having none of this.

"From now on an employer will not ask what a 55-year-old will do with his retirement," he warns.

"He will ask what he wants to do in the next stage of his career."

Reform battle

France's top business brass are very much onside.

I rubbed shoulders with some of the country's leading directors at a glitzy business conference the other day.

Many were talking "Anglo-Saxon" - the language of a longer working life, more enterprise, more reform, less bureaucracy, a smaller state and a bigger society.

"You have to have sympathy for Mr Sarkozy," said Gerard Lannelongue, director of one of France's biggest education providers.

"When it comes to the welfare state, successive presidents have dodged the ball," he added.

"Mr Sarkozy has no option but to carry it."

Carry it he must - to the unions.

They have already ensured that some 700 amendments to the pensions bill be debated in the parliament, including proposed exemptions for those in "dirty or dangerous jobs".

These include not only the steelworkers or those employed in public transport, but shop assistants and teachers. They are also clamouring for recognition too.

EUROPE'S RETIREMENT AGES

France - 60

UK, Italy - 65 for men, 60 for women

Germany, Netherlands, Spain - 65

Greece - 65 for men, 62 for women

"The idea that a teacher cries at retirement is reserved solely for the movies", gasped one seemingly exhausted maitresse.

More action is due in a few days time, and another demonstration after that. It is a question of who blinks first.

But perhaps President Sarkozy can draw some straws of comfort.

The mood last week was sullen and resentful, but two-thirds of the marchers surveyed said they did not think their protests would make one jot of difference.

They appear stolidly resigned to their fate. Very Anglo-Saxon.