Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Distinguishing between "choking" and "panicking"

If you've ever "choked" in any kind of performance (e.g. when you're far ahead in a snooker game and just need this one, simple shot to win, you can do this, just keep your shoulder down and your elbow straight, follow through with the cue and WHAT THE-), then this utterly superb article will have you nodding your head in acknowledgement, understanding and compassion.

Not only does it explain and separate the notions of panicking (reversion to instinct) and choking (loss of instinct) under pressure with dramatic examples, it introduces the interesting form of choke that is "stereotype threat" (which seems to correspond with something I wrote a while ago):
"Steele and others have found stereotype threat at work in any situation where groups are depicted in negative ways. Give a group of qualified women a math test and tell them it will measure their quantitative ability and they'll do much worse than equally skilled men will; present the same test simply as a research tool and they'll do just as well as the men."

Ultimately, we're faced with a Schrodinger-type paradox, whereby external, theoretically irrelevant variables (audience, expectations, prize, etc) influence performance on a task:
"We have to learn that sometimes a poor performance reflects not the innate ability of the performer but the complexion of the audience; and that sometimes a poor test score is the sign not of a poor student but of a good one."

Monday, February 16, 2009

Human logic is creativity

From The Society of Mind, Marvin Minsky's excellent book (Picador edition, p. 189):
I do not mean to say that there is anything wrong with logic; I only object to the assumption that ordinary reasoning is largely based on it. What, then, are the functions of logic? It rarely helps us get a new idea, but it often helps us to detect the weaknesses in old ideas. Sometimes it also helps us clarify our thoughts by refining messy networks into simpler chains. Thus, once we find a way to solve a certain problem, logical analysis can help us find the most essential steps. Then it becomes easier to explain what we've discovered to other people - and, also, we often benefit from explaining our ideas to ourselves. This is because, more often than not, instead of explaining what we actually did, we come up with a new formulation. Paradoxically, the moments in which we think we're being logical and methodical can be just the times at which we're most creative and original.

I think the last two sentences are enlightening and in strong contrast to the popular assumptions that "logical" thinking is an antithesis of creative thinking.