More evidence that money is the root of all evil?

Money and Me, Me, Me

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/1116/3

By Greg Miller
ScienceNOW Daily News

It's often said that money changes people. Now a team of experimental psychologists has found that just thinking of money changes people. With money on their minds, experimental subjects became more focused on themselves--in both good ways and bad.

Psychologist Kathleen Vohs says she started thinking about the psychology of money when she moved from a postdoctoral position to her first faculty job. The big salary increase meant she could hire a mover instead of relying on help from friends. It certainly made the move easier, Vohs says, but she missed the camaraderie of sharing pizza and beer after a big group effort. The experience led her to hypothesize that while money makes people more independent, it can also act as an isolating social barrier.

To examine this idea in a more controlled setting, Vohs, now at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and colleagues recruited several hundred college students to participate in a variety of experiments. In each experiment, the researchers subtly prompted half the volunteers to think of money--by having them read an essay that mentioned money, for example, or seating them facing a poster depicting different types of currency--before putting them in a social situation. In one experiment, the researchers gave volunteers a difficult puzzle and told them to ask for help at any time. People who had been reminded of money waited nearly 70% longer to seek help than those who hadn't. People cued to think of money also spent only half as much time, on average, assisting another person who asked for their help with a word problem and picked up fewer pencils for someone who'd dropped them.

The antisocial behavior didn't end there. Volunteers reminded of money preferred working alone even if sharing the task with a co-worker resulted in substantially less work. They also chose solitary leisure activities on a questionnaire--preferring a private cooking lesson, for instance, over a dinner for four. And when asked to set up two chairs for a get-to-know-you chat with another volunteer, subjects who'd seen a money-themed computer screensaver placed the chairs further apart than subjects who'd seen a fish screensaver, Vohs and colleagues report in tomorrow's issue of Science. Taken together, Vohs says, the findings suggest that thinking of money puts people in a frame of mind in which they don't want to depend on others and don't want others to depend on them.

"It's a provocative set of findings," says Tom Gilovich, a psychologist at Cornell University. "The notion that you can prime people, even subliminally, and get these effects is kind of stunning." The study may have implications for routine decisions such as whether to give your children an allowance, adds Stephen Lea, an economic psychologist at the University of Exeter, U.K. An allowance might foster self-sufficiency, Lea says, but it might discourage cooperation at the same time. "It's not an easy decision, but you need to recognize that if you monetize a relationship, you change it."

Monuments to the important

Once upon a time, we named significant buildings and stadiums after significant people. As pointed out by Thomas Vinciguerra in an editorial in The Week (incidentally, one of my very favorite things to read) that tradition continues to fall away in favor of selling off naming rights to the highest (usually corporate) bidder, with Shea Stadium in New York recently being renamed in honor(?) of Citibank. I find this particularly sad in cases like this when someone gets bumped. Not that I actually knew who Shea was before reading this article, despite literally a lifetime of following one of the Mets major rivals in baseball futility, the Cubs.

Here in the Triangle, people hadn't really gotten to the point of remembering the name Raleigh Sports and Entertainment Complex before the negotiations with RBC bank concluded and it was forever (or at least until the next bidder comes along) dubbed the "RBC Center". The only whining here, I believe, was over who got how much of the cash and when. Oh, and "what the heck is RBC?"

I first thought about this probably 10 years ago when I briefly held the naive misconception that the new United Center in my hometown of Chicago was named in some sort of altruistic unity movement rather than the airline based there. Ha!

Anyway, I've also noticed in our travels that more and more roads, bridges, and highways have small signs saying that they are commemorating someone who was from that town. So rather than naming buildings and stadiums after the significant people in a town, we are naming sections of roadways. Maybe its fitting, given our obsession with driving. Or maybe its just a step along the progression and next DOTs around the country will be selling naming rights to roads too, in an attempt to raise the funding required to build them. Hmmm, now there's maybe an idea....

Happy Thanksgiving!

Thanksgiving is a big deal in our family. Growing up, I think I even looked forward to it more than Christmas! Even as my brother and I have started families of our own, most years have found most of us together for Thanksgiving. Often at my parent's house, but sometimes at one of us kids' place. Even sometimes with some or all of the dear family friends with whom we shared so many of those Thanksgivings in the 80s and 90s. Last year, that crowd that used to be 8 was all together again and had grown to a crowd of 18!

But this year is different. Through various circumstances - some planned and some not - we are not only home for Thanksgiving, but not having any of my family here. Don't worry - Susan's dad & wife, will be here and at least one friend, so we will have many to share the feast with. I do find just a little twinge of sadness at a tradition being disrupted, though, if just for a year. I don't miss the traveling insanity, but I do miss the family.

On a different note, there is one pseudo-tradition that bit the dust this year. The kids and I spent a couple minutes this morning watching the Macy's Parade. I stress that it was just a couple minutes. The parade wasn't that engaging for the kids, but worse still were the ads that ABC was playing every couple minutes. Not only were they annoyingly disruptive, but they were not at all suitable for kid viewing. They were mostly promotions for upcoming shows, but they were, without exception, too violent, scary, or risque for me to be comfortable. I understand that this is a major cross-promotion opportunity for the network, but I really felt like I had taken my kids to a "G" movie and gotten the "R" previews. Guess that's what passes for television "entertainment" these days. The channel went back over to PBS and they watched Dragon Tales for a while.

Can we be different while being the same?

To tie you over until my inspiration returns, I thought I'd cross-post my contribution to a conversation over on the blog of our church Emmaus Way.

I've been thinking a lot about what it means to live as a Christian in the upper-middle-class suburban American world that I live in. In many ways, we're about as stereotypical as it comes - sheltered suburban house, 2 kids, 2 cars (yes, even a mini-van, but its really not our fault... that's a different story for a different place), and even some semblance of a picket fence. But once you get beyond the demographics, can you tell that we are trying to live differently? Or, more scary, is it possible for one in these demographics live as a Christian?

Collectively, we tell ourselves that we can. That we must be able to live in these demographics as a Christian - as a voice in the darkness, proclaiming the love of Christ to our neighbors, kids' friend's parents, etc. But is it all a cop-out? Is it a way to have our cake and eat it too?

The discussion this week on the tension between hospitality and purity started to address this and hopefully its a discussion that can continue thru this series. I still don't totally grok the "exile" thing, but I get this tension. At least I think I do. Its about time, money, security, and lots of other things... but how much is it about love and Christ?

There's so many balancing acts just in area of time that its really unbelievable until you live there, but we are trying. Susan & I are are very intentional with how we attempt to balance kid needs, parent needs, learning, playing, and just being. But we're not always that good at it. Having our kids as involved in "non-kid" things is hard. Its the balance between the kids being really a part of the Emmaus Way community and, well, being tired, bored, and disruptive pre-schoolers. Its deciding which opportunities we are willing to follow - my kids have gleened sweet potatoes, but my 4-year-old son doesn't know the difference between football, baseball, and basketball. (Yes, I feel guilty about this at times).

I also wrestle with things like how can we build a college fund for the kids (which might pay for a single textbook by the time they get there, but again I digress), or a 401k for our retirement, but also strongly believe in social justice and helping the poor? Where does the hospitality of sharing the gifts of the Lord with those in need end? (don't get me started on tithing percentages, net vs gross, the church vs all charity). Where does the purity of trusting the Lord to provide end? Is socking away savings for a life even beyond the 50 year jubillee timeframe unfaithful?

I don't know the answer, but it was even reassuring to hear it spoken out loud that there is a tension there. The question is how we are called to be radically different, and how to find that balance point for our individual situations.

Waiting

As the song (Led Zeppelin?) goes... been a long time, been a long time, been a long lonely, lonely, lonely, lonely, lonely, lonely time.

Since my last post, I've been out of town 9 days on two different trips. Not an excuse, but a fact. One would think, with all the time I've spent sitting around, that some utterly brilliant blog posts would have sprouted from my keyboard. Although my keyboard may be gross enough to actually sprout something, it hasn't learned to create blog posts on its own... at least not yet. I am switching to a new notebook though, just in case :-)

As I've sat and waited, I've been thinking some, but mostly just being. Maybe its the somewhat perpetual state of tiredness I've found myself in, or just the large quantities of thinking that I've been doing between times of sitting around, but I've been uncharacteristically lumpy, as it were. Just being.

Why is this disturbing to me? Isn't "just being" every once in a while a good thing? I'll get some rest and let you know.

Ugh

Well, I suppose one good part of going to Beijing again next week means that I miss a little of the sniping that passes for pre-election political discussion these days. Unfortunately, I get to hear most of it as I don't leave until Monday.

In this age that nearly everything that is said by a public figure is recorded and/or published, its not surprising that politicians get caught making stupid statements. What's really annoying is the legions of folks who seem to have stooped to the level that all they do is listen for the stupidity and/or potentially offensive comments in their opponents speeches, so they can howl. Forget actually discussing the... gasp... issues. Let's just talk about how awful everyone is and that a slip of the tongue obviously means that deep down inside they are really terrible people who hate something/someone that they shouldn't.

I wonder if these are the same people who complain about how pre-packaged all of our candidates are? Why would you actually speak off the cuff when you are ostricized for any statement that isn't completely benign? Having leaders who are able to speak in public is important, but there's a limit. I'd rather have a leader who also has convictions and a clue too, even if I don't agree with all of them.