Body Talk

Anyone remember reading Amelia Bedelia books when you were young?  Amelia Bedelia was a maid who wore crazy hats and took things literally - throwing a tent away after being asked to pitch it, putting clothes on the chicken she was asked to dress, and decorating the curtains she was asked to draw. Funny stuff to a 6-year old.

Amelia Bedelia did not understood that conversations are not supposed to be taken literally. We all make extensive use of metaphors in speech - we can think of talking about our troubles weighing us down, or feeling like we are on cloud nine; of someone who has a cold heart, or who warms our soul; of feeling puffed up with pride, or in the case of unwelcome events, very small.  As we get older, we understand that these are symbolic in nature.  However, as it turns out, we may not have left all that literalism behind with our youth. 

A series of recent studies suggest that many of our abstract cognitions may be interpreted literally.  In other words, our bodies may in some cases mirror and reflect our abstract thoughts.  Many of us still hold to the concept of mind-body dualism; the idea there is something unique and special and separate about our minds versus our bodies.  This series of clever studies suggest that this dichotomy is even more false than it is generally acknowledged to be. 

"Researchers at the University of Aberdeen found that when people were asked to engage in a bit of mental time travel, and to recall past events or imagine future ones, participants’ bodies subliminally acted out the metaphors embedded in how we commonly conceptualized the flow of time. As they thought about years gone by, participants leaned slightly backward, while in fantasizing about the future, they listed to the fore. "

In a similar fashion, other studies in this newly emerging field of embodied cognition suggest that we might find people friendlier when we are holding a warm drink, or might be more likely to use handiwipes when we're reminded of the wrongs we have committed, and think heavier textbooks contain more vital information.  

“How we process information is related not just to our brains but to our entire body,” said Nils B. Jostmann of the University of Amsterdam. “We use every system available to us to come to a conclusion and make sense of what’s going on.”

These physical accompaniments to the metaphors in language suggest that we think, not just with our heads, but also with our bodies.   They also suggest a number of fascinating areas for future research.  It remains to be seen whether the effects found in the laboratory translate into an influence in the real world.  There are also implications with respect to cross-cultural differences.  Would cultures with different metaphors show different  physical correlates?  In Chinese, the past is thought of as being in front of you, and the future behind you.  Would Chinese subjects lean in the opposite direction to American samples?  And last, and perhaps more importantly - can we influence people's thoughts by influencing their bodies?

Play with rules

So in class today I showed this video on the Marshmallow Test - a replication of a classic experiment conducted by Walter Mischel.



It shows a bunch of kids trying not to eat a marshmallow now in order to get two marshmallows later.  This ability to hold back from an enticing action and to distract oneself from temptation is part of what is known  as self-control, and is closely related to self-regulation.

Generally skills such as these are part of what psychologists call executive functioning.  Executive functioning involves goal-directed mental activity, or the control of thoughts, emotions, actions and strategies to accomplish goals and solve problems.  Children develop many of these abilities between the ages of about 2-5 years of age, and we'll be talking about the development of things like selective attention, inhibition of responses and theory of mind later in the quarter.  As it turns out (as proposed in this recent article in the New York Times) a subset of executive functioning - the ability to self-regulate - may be important for later academic success.

The Times article intersects with a number of the issues we'll be talking about in the next week.  First off is the question of nature and nurture.  Is the ability to self-regulate something we are born with, and that some people have more of and some people have less of, or is it the result of learning processes in those early years of life?  Different people have different opinions.  Generally, people have had limited success in designing programs that lead to any long term changes in self-control, suggesting that these abilities are not terribly malleable, and that self-control is more affected by the nature side of things.  However, the Times article discusses a new "Tools of the Mind" immersive approach currently being tested with preschoolers that seems to be meeting with greater success, suggesting that nurture may play a larger role than previously believed.

The article also discusses a conflict between different theoretical perspectives, and illustrates quite nicely how the theories that people have play out in real life.  Most educational experiences with young children aim to motivate children with a system of rewards (e.g. stickers and praise for desired behaviors) and punishments (e.g. time out for inappropriate behaviors).  This is closely linked to the learning perspective with its focus on environmental contingencies as the major shapers of development.  And, as the Times writer points out, some people have theorized that this leads to a focus on performing behaviors not because you are internally motivated to do so, but to gain the approval of others, and that what children are learning is more akin to obedience than it is to self-regulation.

The new immersive approach described in the Times article borrows heavily from a far different approach - Vygotsky's sociocultural theory.  Vygotsky focused on the interactions with others, and the ways in which more sophisticated interaction partners can support and guide your development.  We'll be talking about him in more detail (he's one of my favorites), but for now I will just point out in that in in the self-control program discussed in the article, it is assumed that much of learning will occur via peer pressure in pretend play (e.g. "You're doing it wrong!  Do it this way! Like this!") or via guidance and scaffolding provided by teachers (e.g. coaching, learning conferences).  And, hopefully what is imparted here is not just obedience to rules and the receipt of praise, but also the ability to regulate your thoughts and behavior for yourself at a later point.

I like this article because I think it touched on a variety of important things, some of which are outlined above. But I also like this article for another reason - it touched upon the importance of play.  It's my firm belief that we learn many of our most important skills through the context of play. In the U.S. I think many people tend to focus on academics - which I'm clearly in favor of and are clearly important - but too much.  Children need to play, they are driven to it relentlessly, they love it, they will play given the slightest opportunity to do so, and  it is found everywhere across the world and in most animal species as well.  That gives me an indication of how important it is, and I like to see others agree.