Skip navigation

Tag Archives: psicologia

Rory Sutherland talks about inefficiency, as demonstrated through examples. He outlines how perception and context impact a person’s decision-making process. Sutherland uses economics, an ad campaign for Shreddies and basic psychology to demonstrate how value is subjective.

Trecho da terceira aula do curso de Introdução a Psicologia de Yale.

“My favorite Freud story was as he was leaving Europe during the rise of the Nazis, as he was ready to go to England from, I think, either Germany or Austria, he had to sign a letter from the Gestapo. Gestapo agents intercepted him and demanded he sign a letter saying that at no point had he been threatened or harassed by the Gestapo. So he signs the letter and then he writes underneath it, “The Gestapo has not harmed me in any way. In fact, I highly recommend the Gestapo to everybody.””

Mais alguns trechos interessantes:

He was a man of extraordinary energy and productivity, in part because he was a very serious cocaine addict, but also just in general. He was just a high-energy sort of person. He was up for the Nobel Prize in medicine and in literature; didn’t get either one of them; didn’t get the prize in medicine because Albert Einstein–Everybody loves Albert Einstein. Well, Albert Einstein really wrote a letter because they asked for opinions of other Nobel Prizes. He wrote a letter saying, “Don’t give the prize to Freud. He doesn’t deserve a Nobel Prize. He’s just a psychologist.”

While he’s almost universally acclaimed as a profoundly important intellectual figure, he’s also the object of considerable dislike. This is in part because of his character. He was not a very nice man in many ways. He was deeply ambitious to the cause of promoting psychoanalysis, to the cause of presenting his view and defending it, and he was often dishonest, extremely brutal to his friends, and terrible to his enemies. He was an interesting character.

De Francis Crick:

“You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it, “you’re nothing but a pack of neurons.”

Essa frase é da primeira aula do curso de Introdução a Psicologia, de Yale. Coisa fina, finíssima. Aulas gravadas com transcrição completa e PDFs com o conteúdo do quadro negro. Obrigado Tim-Berners Lee, Obrigado Yale. Vocês são do caralho!

Palestra de um professor de Harvard na University of Arizona

David Laibson is a Harvard College Professor and the Robert I. Goldman Professor of Economics at Harvard University. Laibson is also a member of the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is Research Associate in the Asset Pricing, Economic Fluctuations, and Aging Working Groups.

Laibsons research focuses on the topic of psychology and economics and his work is frequently discussed in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, the Economist, Business Week, Forbes, Fortune, Money, Wired Magazine, the New Yorker, and on the PBS program Wealthtrack. In 2005, Fortune named Laibson one of ten people to watch. In 2008, Wired Magazine included Laibson on the 2008 Smart List: 15 People the Next President Should Listen To. In 2006 Laibson served as an external reviewer for the Department of Labor regulations that implement the Pension Protection Act.

E eu querendo mais lógica no mundo…

In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.


Esta é uma frase que eu costumo usar por aqui com certa frequência, e esta matéria da BBC, chamada Creative minds mimic schizophrenia“, não me deixa mentir.

Creativity is akin to insanity, say scientists who have been studying how the mind works.

Brain scans reveal striking similarities in the thought pathways of highly creative people and those with schizophrenia. Both groups lack important receptors used to filter and direct thought.

O assunto por si só é interessantíssimo, mas essa última frase torna a matéria ainda mais deliciosa. Ora, nos dias de hoje, o que mais precisamos para sobreviver à enxurrada informacional são filtros. Além dos filtros dentro da nossa caixola, estamos somando filtros artificias. De que forma isso pode impactar a criatividade? Devaneio concluído, voltemos à matéria da BBC:

Some of the world’s leading artists, writers and theorists have also had mental illnesses – the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh and American mathematician John Nash (portrayed by Russell Crowe in the film A Beautiful Mind) to name just two.

Creativity is known to be associated with an increased risk of depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Similarly, people who have mental illness in their family have a higher chance of being creative.

Fica a dica: se vc tem algum parente pancada da cabeça, coloque no currículo.

Essa frase aí embaixo é foda!

“Creativity is uncomfortable. It is their dissatisfaction with the present that drives them on to make changes.

“Creative people, like those with psychotic illnesses, tend to see the world differently to most. It’s like looking at a shattered mirror. They see the world in a fractured way.

“Creativity is certainly about not being constrained by rules or accepting the restrictions that society places on us. Of course the more people break the rules, the more likely they are to be perceived as ‘mentally ill’.”

O Dan Ariely é tão foda que eu copio o post todo.

When businesses want to find answers to questions in marketing, whom do they ask? Do they set up experiments to test their ideas, pitting the approach they think is most effective against alternatives? Do they survey consumers on a large scale? Do they go to experts who have questioned and requestioned their theories? Surprisingly, the answer is no. Most often, businesses rely on small “focus groups” to answer big questions. They rely on the intuition of about 10-12 lay people with no relevant training who ultimately have no idea what they’re talking about.

I wonder how can this be a useful strategy? Why ask those who are lacking any kind of proficiency when, by definition, experts are more knowledgeable on the topic and have experience that could actually be beneficial? And even if experts are more narrowly focused, and tunneled vision, how can this be better than carrying out their own research?

Research in psychology and behavioral economics has shown time after time that people have bad intuitions. We are very good at explaining our behavior (sometimes shocking and irrational), and to do so we create neatly packaged stories – stories that may be amusing or provocative, but often have little to do with the real causes of our behaviors. Our actions are often guided by the inner primitive parts of our brain – parts that we can’t consciously access — and because of that we don’t always know why we behave in the ways we do; still, we can compensate for this lack of information by writing our own versions. Our highly sophisticated prefrontal cortex (only recently developed, by evolutionary standards) takes the reigns and paints a perfect picture to explain what we don’t know. Why did you buy that brand of fabric softener? Of course, because you love the way it makes your clothes smell like a springtime breeze when you pull them out of the warm dryer.

So, why do businesses go to our imagination when we know it’s just a cover for what’s really going on? Indeed, why do businesses go to the imaginations of a group of people to find real answers? I suspect that the story here is linked to another one of our irrationalities: As human beings, we have an insatiable need for a story. We love a vivid picture, a penetrating example, an anecdote that will stay in our memories. Nothing beats the feeling of knowledge we get from a personal story because stories make us feel connected – they help us relate. Just one example of customer satisfaction has a stronger emotional impact than a statistic telling us that 87% of customers prefer product A over product B. A single example feels real, where numbers are cold and sterile. Although statistics about how a large group of people actually behave can tell us so much more than the intuitions of a focus group, the allure of a story is irresistible. Our inherent bias to prefer the story compels us to believe in the worth of small numbers, even when we know we shouldn’t.

This “focus group bias” is not just a waste of money it is also most likely a waste of resources when products are designed according to the “information” gathered from these focus groups. We need to find a way to base our judgments and decisions on real facts and data even if it seems lifeless on its own. Maybe we should try and supplement the numbers with a story to quench our thirst for an anecdote, but what we can’t do is forget about the facts in favor of fairy tales. In the end, the truth lies in empirical research.

Henry Chase and Luke Clark of the Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute in Cambridge have previously found that the brain responds to near miss gambling outcomes in much the same way it does to as winning. In moderate gamblers, both types of outcome activate the reward circuitry, and although near miss events are experienced to be somewhat less rewarding than wins, they nevertheless increase the desire and motivation to gamble. For games involving skill, near misses indicate an improvement in performance and spur the player to try again. But gambling is a game of chance, which distorts gamblers’ thought processes – near misses cause them gambler to overestimate both the level of skill involved and their chances of winning. This spurs them to continue gambling.

Bizarro é saber que os caras que desenham jogos estilo caça níquel já sabiam disso:

Manufacturers of gambling games have apparently known the rewarding effects of near misses all along, and they design slot machines in such a way as to exploit the cognitive distortions of gamblers. Using a technique called clustering, they create a high number of failures that are close to wins, so that what the player sees is a misrepresentation of the probabilities and randomness that the game involves. The gambler who nearly hits the jackpot will therefore want to continue playing, because he thinks he has a good chance of winning.

Filhos da puta! E como bem disse o Noah, este é um bom assunto para se pensar em um mundo cada vez mais infestado de mecanismos de jogos.

A melhor coisa que você verá essa semana. Tela cheia, por favor.

One of the concerns is that, unlike their parents — many of whom recall having intense childhood relationships with a bosom buddy with whom they would spend all their time and tell all their secrets — today’s youths may be missing out on experiences that help them develop empathy, understand emotional nuances and read social cues like facial expressions and body language. With children’s technical obsessions starting at ever-younger ages — even kindergartners will play side by side on laptops during play dates — their brains may eventually be rewired and those skills will fade further, some researchers believe.