While reading The Drunkard’s Walk by Leonard Mlodinow I came across an interesting section talking about an innate need to feel in control of our surroundings. The primary thrust of the book is how pervasive, and misunderstood, randomness is in our lives. In the chapter on “Illusions of Patterns and Patterns of Illusion” he takes a side step to explore some reasons why we try to overlay meaning onto mathematically random events.
What struck me was his discussion of behavioral research indicating that control, or even the perception of control, is empowering. He used this section to illuminate the very real drive we have to find patterns of meaning in our lives, and by extension to feel in control of our endeavors. For example, he references studies on nursing homes showing that residents allowed to control their environment by selecting their own rooms and decorations live twice as long as control groups in the same settings who aren’t provided the same choices.
I related this to our work in providing users with control over their media preferences. We’re often asked if users really want or need the control matchmine provides them with the MatchKey and our discovery network. Based on Mlodinow’s explanations the answer is a resounding “yes, users need control over their preferences and how they’re used.”
Following his lead, it’s clear that if we empower people with control over their own lives (even over something as apparently mundane as media preferences) they will fair better than when they’re being controlled. Further, he also goes on to cite examples where actual control is illusory. Even in these cases, however, the research shows that people still do better when they at least feel they’re in control.
As a caveat, this was a small bit I’ve extracted from the larger work on randomness and the history of the mathematical exploration that has been done to codify it’s complexities. If you have a quibble with the snippet I’ve carelessly ripped out of context, I’d encourage you to read the book. It’s a relatively quick read and entirely accessible (even if you’re not an astrophysicist). In fact, there’re some great segments about gambling you might find useful during your next trip to Las Vegas.
October 9th, 2008 | 
Pop Culture Memory Effect
I’ve been reading up on memory lately and found an interesting effect that might speak (in a totally non-scientific way) to something that seems to be part of our collective culture. I was listening to research CDs by Diana Deusch (see an earlier post for more background) and a pitch memory experiment caught my attention.
Here’s a quick blurb on “Short Term Memory for Pitch” from her site:
That’s all very well and good, of course, but when the intervening silence is filled with other tones, the task becomes much more difficult. Nothing strange there, I think we all get that. What gets more interesting, though, is when you fill the space between tones with spoken words (in this case they are spoken numbers). As Deusch says:
According to the background reading I’ve done in memory, it turns out that short term memory can only juggle a handful of similar items before they are either committed to longer term memory or lost. In fact, George Miller, while at Bell Labs, determined that the number of similar items is about seven, plus/minus two. Research has since shown that the number of “storable items” differs by type and situation (eg. seven for digits, six for letters, and five for words).
What I find interesting is how this might map into popular culture. For example, I’ve always wondered why people tend to remark about recent films being “the best movie ever.” I don’t take those statements literally, but assume them to be infused with exuberant hyperbole to make a point. It’s also relatively well known that in order to capitalize on this effect, movies in contention for Oscars are purposefully released near voting time.
So, if all this is well known, what’s the point of this post? First of all, I think it’s interesting to play with the temporal effect of “liking” something (ie. adding more relative weight to recent interests, degrading them over time). Second, I think it’d be interesting to explore if we’re hardwired to only allow for something like 7 +/- 2 “greatest” movies/songs/etc. in our heads at any given time.