On October 14, 1912, just before giving a scheduled speech in Milwaukee, Theodore Roosevelt was shot in the chest by would-be assassin John Schrank. Roosevelt not only survived the attempt on his life, but went on to deliver his speech as scheduled. He began by saying,
I don't know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot; but it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose. But fortunately I had my manuscript, so you see I was going to make a long speech, and there is a bullet - there is where the bullet went through - and it probably saved me from it going into my heart. The bullet is in me now, so that I cannot make a very long speech, but I will try my best.
What explains Roosevelt's dauntlessness? New research published in theJournal of Personality and Social Psychology suggests that presidents and psychopaths share a psychological trait that may shed light on what made Teddy such a unique character.
The trait is called "fearless dominance," defined as the "boldness associated with psychopathy." Researchers say that when found in the psychological makeup of presidents, it's "associated with better rated presidential performance, leadership, persuasiveness, crisis management, Congressional relations, and allied variables; it was also associated with several largely or entirely objective indicators of presidential performance, such as initiating new projects and being viewed as a world figure."
Researchers tested their hypothesis in the 42 U.S. presidents up to and including George W. Bush using (a) psychopathy trait estimates derived from personality data completed by historical experts on each president, (b) independent historical surveys of presidential leadership, and (c) largely or entirely objective indicators of presidential performance.
More than 100 experts, including biographers, journalists and scholars who are established authorities on one or more U.S. presidents, evaluated their target presidents using the data derived from the sources listed above.
The results:
Theodore Roosevelt ranked highest in fearless dominance, followed by
A new study of more than 45,000 women, the largest of its kind, suggests that there could be a link between infection with the Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii) parasite and suicides among women. T. gondii is sometimes called the “Kitty Litter Parasite” because it usually spreads through contact with cat feces. (correction: it should also be mentioned that in the United States, T. gondii is also transmitted via contact with uncooked contaminated meat and vegetables; contact with cat feces is certainly not the only means of transmission in the US or abroad).
About one third of the world’s population is infected with the parasite, which stealthily hides from the human immune system in brain and muscle cells. Often the host will not develop symptoms of the infection (called toxoplasmosis), but a fair amount of research evidence suggests that it is linked to subsequent mental illness, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and also increased risk of traffic accidents.
The latest research is the first to link T. gondii with suicides across a large human population. Quoting senior author of the research paper and leading expert on suicide neuroimmunology, Tedor T. Postolache, M.D., "We can't say with certainty that T. gondii caused the women to try to kill themselves, but we did find a predictive association between the infection and suicide attempts later in life that warrants additional studies. We plan to continue our research into this possible connection.”
Researchers analyzed data from 45,788 women in Denmark, who gave birth between May 15, 1992 and Jan. 15, 1995 and whose babies were screened for T. gondii immunoglobulin antibodies. Babies don't produce antibodies to T. gondii for three months after they are born, so the antibodies present in their blood represented infection in the mothers.
The research team searched Danish health registries to determine if any of these women later attempted suicide, including cases of violent suicide attempts which may have involved guns, sharp instruments and jumping from high places. The researchers also cross-checked records in the Danish Psychiatric Central Register to determine if the women had been diagnosed previously with mental illness.
The study found that women infected with T. gondii were one and a half times more likely to attempt suicide compared to those who were not infected, and the risk seemed to rise with increasing levels of the T. gondii antibodies. The suicides linked to these high levels of infection were also the most violent. Evidence of previous mental illness did not significantly change the findings.
T. gondii has also been linked to suicides, of a sort, among our friends the rodents. Previous research showed that infected rats experience a reduced fear response to cat odors, making them more likely to come sniffing around your feline’s territory. When a cat eats the rodent, it ingests the parasite, which then finds a comfortable place to hang out in the cat’s intestines.
The latest study has a few limitations, not the least of which is an inability to determine a specific cause for the suicidal behavior. "T. gondii infection is likely not a random event and it is conceivable that the results could be alternatively explained by people with psychiatric disturbances having a higher risk of becoming T. gondii-infected prior to contact with the health system," Dr. Postolache says.
At the least, the findings should support the need for future research to determine whether the parasites our cats are hosting would like to drive our brains off the highway.
My research into the traits of influencers and achievers continues, and as I turn more pieces of this puzzle around to fit the whole, more ideas appear to me as a fit for this space. In this edition, reflections on falling short -- more precisely, why we fail despite ourselves.
1. Like Yoda said, you just don't believe it.
The crucial part of Yoda's dialogue with Luke is "believe." The human brain is a powerful problem-solving and prediction making machine, and it operates via a multitude of feedback loops. What matters most in the feedback loop dynamic is input -- what goes into the loop that begins the analysis-evaluation-action process, which ultimately results in an outcome. Here's the kicker: if your input shuttle for achieving a goal lacks the critical, emotionally relevant component of belief, then the feedback loop is drained of octane from the start. Another way to say that is -- why would you expect a convincingly successful outcome when you haven't convinced yourself that it's possible?
2. Other people have convinced you of your "station."
I've always thought the "know your station in life" idea to be among the most pernicious we humans have ever come up with. The only version of it I like is Tennessee Williams': “A high station in life is earned by the gallantry with which appalling experiences are survived with grace.” Love that Tennessee Williams. What's more pernicious than the idea itself is that it's often heaved upon us by other people, and they convince us that we are what we are and we'd better just live with it because, well, that's what we'll always be. Really? Says who? Show me the chapter on predetermined stations in the cosmic rule book, please. This also gets back to the feedback loop dynamic, because if this external "station" scripting is part of your input, you can expect sub-par outcomes all the time.
3. You don't want to be a distrupter.
The word "disrupter" has taken on such a heavy, mixed bag of meanings in the last few years. Reading both popular psychology and business books, I'm not sure if it's a good or bad thing to be. One thing seems certain -- the notion of disrupting anything--of being the water that breaks the rock--is scary to most of us. Reason being, disruption is perceived as a threat to our threat-sensitive brains. Disruption means that consistency, stability and certainty might get jettisoned for a time, and that puts our hard-wired internal defense system on high alert. Sometimes, though, you have to override the alarms and move ahead anyway. If you never do, you'll never know what could happen.
4. You think, "what if I die tomorrow?"
We all think this from time to time. And you know what, sure, any of us might die tomorrow -- all the more reason not to waste time thinking about it and hamstringing yourself from going after what you want to achieve. Would you rather die as a monument to mediocrity or as someone who never quit striving? Which leads to the next one...
5. You wonder how you will be remembered.
The rub here is simply that, if you "die tomorrow," will people remember you as someone who clung to stability like an existential life preserver -- and is that what you really want? I know for a fact that many people do want exactly that, because it's a comfortable niche to occupy on the obituary page. "She/he was a good person, good friend, good...." Good is fine, but it ain't great. You can't strive for great achievements by dropping anchor in Goodville. My take on this is: it's OK to wonder how you'll be remembered, but don't let thoughts of "good and nice and stable" effect that all important feedback loop, because if you do your brain will be happy to oblige with lots of good and little else. 6. You think there must be a pre-established role for your life, and you might be screwing with it.
This one also touches on the "station" idea discussed above, but it goes deeper than that. We humans are prone to believing in something psychologists call "agency." We want to believe there's a reason for everything, and that everything has a prime mover -- an agent, whether human or otherwise. So, we think, what if there's a reason we are what we are -- what if celestial agency has determined it so? Should we be messing with that? The error in thinking here is clear -- agency is a figment our brains rely on to manage difficulty with as little trauma as possible. The first thing to do is recognize that, and then recognize that the role for your life has only one true agent -- You.
7. Your career appears to be well-established and that's good...right?
Well, maybe that's good, sure. The question becomes, is "established" what you really want? Maybe it is, and that's cool. But if "established" means you can't reach beyond certain imposed parameters to achieve anything else that you truly want, then maybe it isn't so useful after all. Like most things, this is a personal choice and it doesn't have a right or wrong answer. But it's worth acknowledging that you may very well be "establishing" yourself out of greater achievements.
8. You are afraid of losing what you have built.
A totally legitimate fear, and one we should kick out of our perspectives as quickly as possible. Here's one example why: Remember this little thing we've been suffering through for sometime now called a recession? Remember how many people lost all or nearly all they'd "built" during these last few years of economic erosion? The reality is, you can lose everything in a heartbeat through no fault of your own, so why allow that fear to stop you from reaching out for what you really want? This goes in the same basket as "I could die tomorrow." Yes, true, we can lose, we can die. So what? Push forward.
9. You think, "maybe I've hit my ceiling."
The proverbial "ceiling" -- so long have ye been with us, and yet so little have ye given us. I side with the late great Peter Drucker who said (paraphrasing from this classic article on Managing Oneself) if you reach a point in your career where you think you won't progress any further, then start focusing on the next part of your life. Actually, he added, you should start thinking about the next part of your life well before you begin it. The point is, forget about ceilings and focus on achievement. When you start using the cultural shibboleth of the ceiling as an excuse, you are achieving nothing and will continue to do just that.
10. Confusion about where to go.
Of all of these 10 ideas, this one is to me the most difficult because it plagues me almost constantly. Gearing up the cerebral feedback loop for achievement is one thing, but without a sense of focus and direction, all of that energy isn't going to yield very much in the end. My experience has been that sometimes you have to let the energy flow for a while without too firm a sense of direction and see if focus emerges organically. Once it does, you can then nurture it into a more structured method for getting where you want to go.
If you have thoughts on these 10 ideas, or suggestions entirely separate from them, please write them in the comments section. I and others want to hear them, so let em rip!
As much as we'd rather not admit it, jerks often get ahead in our world -- usually at the expense of a lot of other people along the way. Psychological research over the past few years is revealing why. As it turns out, acting like a jerk isn't the secret to reaping the rewards of jerkiness. The real secret is simply letting others place you on a pedestal.
The most recent study illustrating this point was covered in the Wall Street Journal in a piece entitled, "Why Are We Overconfident?" The study wanted to uncover what adaptive advantage overconfidence could possibly convey, since it so often leads to errors that don't benefit us. The short answer is that even if overconfidence produces subpar results, others still perceive it positively. Quoting from the article:
In one of several related experiments, researchers had people take a geography quiz —first alone, then in pairs. The task involved placing cities on a map of North America unmarked by state or national borders. The participants rated themselves on their own abilities and rated each other, secretly, on a number of qualities.
As expected, most people rated their own geographic knowledge far higher than actual performance would justify. In the interesting new twist, however, the people most prone to overrate themselves got higher marks from their partners on whether they “deserved respect and admiration, had influence over the decisions, led the decision-making process, and contributed to the decisions.”
In other words, overconfident people are perceived as having more social status, and social status is golden.
A study last year highlighted a similar result, but this time with respect to another jerk-marquis trait: rudeness. Being rude is a categorically negative behavior by most standards, and to suggest otherwise--that is, to mount a defense of rudeness--would be a really strange thing to do. But psychology research is often at its best when it endorses positions that at first glance seem awfully strange.
And so it is with rudeness, because while most of us deplore it, research suggests that we also see it as a sign of power. A study published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Scienceindicated that the ruder someone acts, the more convinced observers become that he or she is powerful, and therefore does not have to respect the same rules the rest of us bow to.
In one of the experiments, study participants read about a visitor to an office who marched in and poured himself a cup of "employee only" coffee without asking. In another case they read about a bookkeeper that flagrantly bent accounting rules. Participants rated the rule breakers as more in control and powerful compared to people who didn't steal the coffee or break accounting rules.
In another experiment participants watched a video of a man at a sidewalk café put his feet on another chair, tap cigarette ashes on the ground and rudely order a meal. Participants rated the man as more likely to "get to make decisions" and able to "get people to listen to what he says" than participants who saw a video of the same man behaving politely.
What this study appears to indicate is that violating norms is viewed by others as a sign of power, even if the observers would otherwise judge those violations as rude or flatly wrong. Considering many of the openly rude jerks we venerate, these findings make a lot of sense. (Though I would like to see a follow on study that examines observer perceptions when the rude rule breakers are caught. Perhaps it's less the rudeness and corruption we admire, and more the ability to get away with it that intrigues us. Maybe we're just a little smitten with the charisma of villainy.)
Taken together with the results of the study on overconfidence, it would seem that jerks are inherently quite good at putting one over on us. In fact, they don't even have to try. They just need to work their trade and earn the praise of their peers.
Contraception for men is a game of extremes. On one end of the spectrum we have condoms, and on the other is the vasectomy. And in between those two options there's... pretty much nothing. You can either go with a simple tool that has a reasonable chance of failing, or permanent shutdown.
That may change in a few years if a new technique known as reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance, or RISUG, is eventually approved by the FDA.
The procedure involves injecting a clear gel into the vas deferens, the vessel through which sperm is transported to its launch site before leaving the body. The gel coats the interior of the vessel with a plastic compound that has a net positive charge. When sperm enter the vessel, they are neutralized by the charge and die before they can reach the exit.
The gel will be marketed in the U.S. under the name Vasalgel, though, as I mentioned, it has a series of hurdles to overcome first. Even in India where the gel was invented it's still in clinical trials.
The website HowStuffWorks has a fascinating article about RISUG that covers its genesis as a method to purify drinking water. Here's a snippet:
In the 1970s, he [Sujoy Guha, inventor of the procedure] began investigating cost-effective techniques to purify rural water systems. He discovered that if he coated pipes with a common polymer called styrene maleic anhydride, he could kill bacteria lurking in the water supply. The process took advantage of an electric charge differential existing between the polymer, which was positively charged, and the bacteria cells, which carried a net negative charge. As microbes traveled through the polymer-lined pipes and encountered the strong positive charge, the attractive forces pulled them apart.
When the Indian government began worrying about its rapidly growing population, Guha wondered if the same polymer could work for male contraception. After all, the vas deferens resembled a water pipe, and sperm traveling through the narrow tubes were analogous to bacteria. Guha ran some tests and found that the procedure worked perfectly...
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 10:00AM 
in the chest by would-be assassin John Schrank. Roosevelt not only survived the attempt on his life, but went on to deliver his speech as scheduled. He began by saying,
