Wednesday afternoon links 2!

* Wikipedia's Rorschach cheat sheet. My contempt for the discipline of psychology really got in the way of my reading this article; I kept thinking, "Wait, people actually take Rorschach tests seriously?"

* For more information on my feelings about the Rorschach test see the story I published in Five Fingers Review #23 (now defunct). Note: I'm not sure this issue ever actually materialized. I never got a copy.

* Two takes on how to improve your teaching: restructure your expectations about college composition and teach naked.

* If I'm reading this article correctly, M&Ms cure spinal injury.

* The only rule at Fox News is that there are no rules.

* NPR considers the uncanny intelligence of crows. Via MeFi, which has more in the comments, including video of crows exploiting traffic patterns in Tokyo to crack nuts.

I'm only now discovering the names for my pathologies: behold Truman Show Delusion. Via Boing Boing.

Dennis Kucinich has seen a UFO, says TPM by way of Shirley McClaine. Via MetaFilter, which also has the Robbers Cave psychological experiment and the worst mayor in America.

Friday Sex Science Minute: Strippers and exotic dancers make more money while ovulating and while off-the-pill. Via Kottke.

Psychologist Geoffrey Miller and colleagues tapped the talent at local gentlemen's clubs and counted tips made on lap dances. Dancers made about $70 an hour during their peak period of fertility, versus about $35 while menstruating and $50 in between.

Miller links the wage fluctuations to changes in body odor, waist-to-hip ratio, and facial features. Despite operating at the upper limits of flirtatiousness already, he says there may also be subtle shifts in their behavior—"how they talk and move when enticing a customer to buy a dance, and how they perform the dance itself."

When I was a young Ph.D. student, I tested children using the “penny-hiding game.” This is the age-old game where you sit opposite the child and show him you have a penny. You then put your hands behind your back, conceal the penny in one of your hands, and then bring your two closed hands in front of your body to invite the child to guess which hand the penny is in. Obviously he has a 50/50 chance of choosing the correct hand. You then repeat this, varying which hand you hide the penny in. To trick the child, your best strategy is to be unpredictable, rather than always hiding it in the same hand. Most children find this game lots of fun. But to test whether he himself can deceive, you then swap roles. Now he is the hider and you are the seeker. The question is: how good is he at trying to trick you?

Playing this game with a typical child over four years old soon reveals that this is – literally – child’s play. He realizes that in the role of hider he needs to do three things: (1) conceal the penny only when his hands are behind his back; (2) keep both hands tightly shut when inviting you to choose; and (3) over a series of trials, hide the penny in a sequence that is hard to predict. But playing this game with a child with classic autism – even if he is older than four – soon reveals major difficulties. The child with autism typically makes one of three kinds of error: transferring the penny from one hand to another in full view of you, in front of his body; keeping one hand open when inviting you to guess which hand the penny is in; or hiding the penny in an easy-to-predict pattern (such as in the same hand each time, or just alternating). The first two of these errors suggest he is not keeping track of what you might know, based on what you can see. He is just not keeping track of another person’s beliefs.

What people with autism can tell us about honesty, by Borat's cousin (really). Via MeFi.

Our brains don't work, chapter 99: Because of the way memory works, attempts to stamp out falsehoods actually wind up perpetuating them. Thanks to Allen for the pointer.

An nice overview of the Samenow/Yochelson "criminal personality" study referenced in tonight's Sopranos is available at criminology.fsu.edu. Via Television Without Pity.

The rejuvenated focus of the criminal personality study aimed to see the world as the criminals viewed it(Harris,1984:227). In general, the criminal saw the world in "chess-board" terms, as people were there pawns to manipulate at will for their own personal gain(Harris,1984:227). The anti-social behavior developed when the offenders were young, some as young as age four(Nott,1977:*). The criminal, early in life, consciously removed himself from the rules of society. The conventional activities and interests of his peers were abhorred by the fledgling criminal(Samenow,1978:17). Fighting, lying, and stealing were very frequent activities by the young criminal. Notably, the criminal is pro-active in his approach of rejection to others(Samenow,1978:17). Consequently, he is the first to establish polarity between himself and others(Samenow,1984:49). Additionally:

* he shies away from affection(Nott,1977:*)
* he is very restless, dissatisfied, and irritable(Samenow,1984:26)
* he perfunctorily engages in civil communication only to prevent others from being suspicious of his behavior(Nott,1977:*)
* he considers requests from teachers, parents, and others as impositions(Samenow,1984:47)
* he continually sets himself apart from others
* he is enamored with living a life of excitement, at whatever expense (Samenow,1981:6)
* he habitually experiences anger as a way of life(Samenow,1984:172)
* he lacks empathy
* he feels no obligation to anyone except his own interests
* he has no understanding of responsible decision making, having prejudged situations(Samenow,1998:68)
* he has a daily struggle with "Murphy's Law". That is, when something is bound to go wrong, it probably will. Criminals cannot cope with this obstacle well(Samenow,1998:69).

All told, fifty-two thinking patterns were distinguishable in the criminal personality(Harris,1984:227). These were considered "errors" in thinking, and though not unique to criminals, they were displayed to extreme magnitudes by criminals (Harris,1984:227). Though criminals may differ in the types of crime that they commit, and their modus operandi, they exhibit identifiable and classifiable paralleled errors in thinking(Samenow,1978:17). For example, the white collar criminal and the inner-city street drug dealer come from very different backgrounds, yet they conduct their lives very similarly according to the way that they consistently supersede their wants and desires over those of others. Importantly, the criminal act is the end product of a specific thinking process and personality characteristics. The criminal personality precedes the criminal act. But criminality goes well beyond arrestability. It pertains to the way in which a person acts, thinks, and lives his life (Samenow,1978:17). Because a person has a criminal personality, however, does not necessarily mean that he will have a criminal record.