Precisionism or: How Women Can Rule the World

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what it’s like to be a woman in the male-dominated worlds of technology and academia. I have a foot in both worlds and have noticed an uptick in discussion about how women are, unintentionally, holding themselves back. Excessive perfectionism might be one of these self-imposed barriers.

But there is a form of perfectionism – what I term Precisionism – that is instead a source of persistence and power in women, and should be cultivated.

Perfectionism seems like it should be a good thing, but from a psychological standpoint, it has a dark side. Perfectionism is defined as “the setting of unrealistically demanding goals accompanied by a disposition to regard failure to achieve them as unacceptable and a sign of personal worthlessness.” Clearly, this is a perfect storm of self-defeating beliefs, and doesn’t leave room for growth. Many argue that women have this toxic form of perfectionism in spades, indeed are socialized to think of themselves as failing if they aren’t 100% perfect. My friend Reshma Saujani gave a great TED talk on this dark side of perfectionism in women.

That isn’t, however, all there is to perfectionism. Toxic perfectionism can be dispensed with and what’s left over – striving towards excellence – can be amplified and cultivated in women.

This is what I call Precisionism and it has three guiding principles:

  1. Strive to be good enough rather than perfect. A Precisionist assumes that s/he is good enough to strive towards the highest standard of excellence, even if it is never quite reached. In contrast, if a perfectionist doesn’t reach the highest standard, s/he feels worthless. Thomas Edison was one of the great Precisionists, and said, “I have not failed, not once.  I’ve succeeded in discovering ten thousand ways that don’t work.”
  1. Focus on depth rather than reach. A Precisionisthas the capacity to go deep, to focus on getting the details right and noticing what others fail to notice. A Precisionist sees patterns that others miss, and draws on intuition to transcend current limitations and think outside the box. A Precisionist is rarely a jack-of-all-trades, master of none. A Precisionist is masterful.
  1. Embrace self-critique and come out stronger for it. A Precisionist knows that mistakes are an opportunity for growth. Decades of psychology research support this idea. A learning style focused on growth of knowledge and skills rather than on end-goals (e.g., grades, money) fosters accelerated learning, achievement, and creativity.

 

black-iris

Black Iris III, 1926, Georgia O’Keefe

As much as I’d like to take credit for coining the term Precisionism, in fact the first art movement native to the U.S. was called Precisionism. Characterized by sharply defined, almost photo-realistic images, Precisionism had a huge impact on other far-reaching artistic movements such as magic realismpop art, and photorealism,  Precisionist artists include Charles Demuth and perhaps more famously, Georgia O’Keefe.

Precisionist artists were visionaries, trend-setters, and disrupters. They were thought leaders. We need more Precisionists in the world today.

But let me be clear. While cultivating Precisionism, we should still place a high-powered microscope over how we raise and socialize our girls. There is compelling evidence that women’s professional progress can be slowed in extremely subtle, almost invisible ways. There is also good reason to believe that girls are socialized to play it safe for fear of failure, whereas boys are encouraged to shoot from the hip, do things by the seat of the pants, bravely “jump off the jungle gym.” There is face validity to this idea. For example, men will apply for jobs that they are only 60% qualified for. Women won’t apply unless they meet almost all the qualifications.

However, I read this statistic differently than many would. Some may call men in this case brave, bold, and confident. I call them sloppy. I don’t think that women should “lean in” and apply for a job for which they’re barely half qualified. Instead, they should cultivate Precisionism, apply for a job they’re 75% qualified for, crush the job interview, and grab that job by the horns.

Is rigid perfectionism holding some women back? Certainly, but the solution to this problem is NOT to shoot from the hip, put style over substance, or make mistakes because you’re moving too quickly or are under-qualified for a job. The solution is to cultivate Precisionism. We as a society are suffering from a serious shortage of Precisionism and we need to infuse MORE, not less, Precisionism into our professional and civic lives. When people say, “It would be great if women ran the world” I think this is part of what they mean.

We are in the midst of a paradigm-shift in which we are refusing to ignore the glass ceilings women face, and women are on the rise in politics, culture, business, and technology. Women — let us be brave and refuse to disavow one of our signature strengths, Precisionism. After all, it’s no coincidence that women are [almost] always right.

Politics and the Culture of Fear: Is There a Place for Digital Disruption?

It feels as if we can’t escape the culture of fear and extremism that is pervading politics. Political discourse is more vitriolic than ever after San Bernardino and Paris, and during the months of partisan name-calling and ugly mud-slinging among candidates for the U.S. Presidential Race. And clearly, there are no easy solutions to unraveling this vicious cycle.

During the Christmas holiday, I had an experience that perfectly illustrated this to me. My family and I were at a friend’s house for a holiday event, and I overheard her guests talking as I walked through the kitchen. I heard, “The more he says, the more I like him.” Then, “He says the things we all think but are afraid to say.” I started to get that sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, hoping they weren’t talking about Donald Trump. Then I heard, “The only problem with building a wall between Mexico and the U.S. is that it will have to be so big that it’s impractical and expensive.”  I tried to talk myself off the ledge, saying to myself, “Don’t open your mouth, just keep walking, don’t say anything, it won’t help or change anyone’s mind…..” But then as I was about to turn the corner, safely avoiding a conversation that would surely have turned ugly, I heard, “Of course we should ban Muslims from entering the country. Look what they did in Paris.” So, I turned sharply on my heel and unwisely marched over to the little group sitting around the kitchen table.

“Excuse me,” I said, “but I couldn’t help but overhear your conversation, and I wish that you would consider the fact that excluding or persecuting people solely on the basis of their religion or ethnicity is how (voice rising) the Holocaust started.” And then, when the response to that grenade lob was dropped jaws and the explanation, “It would only be temporary,” I looked at them incredulously, probably with disgust on my face, and said, “That’s what Hitler said and” just in case they didn’t get it the first time, “that’s how the Holocaust started.” Then I abruptly left, muttering, “This was a mistake, I can’t talk about this…..”

I found this conversation terrifying – not only because the thought of Trump as Presidentimages is terrifying, nor because I was disappointed in myself because I lost my cool, and created an extreme, unbridgeable divide between our viewpoints by invoking the Holocaust. No, this conversation was most terrifying because these people were not bad people. They were the type of people I appreciate: good, kind, hard-working people who love their kids and their family.

So where does that leave us?

I don’t have a solution, and indeed, my own extreme reaction during the kitchen table conversation shows that I lack objectivity and am certainly part of the problem. I do, however, as a scientist believe that we can harness what we know about our minds and brains to neutralize this vicious cycle of social and political extremism. Could digital disruption help move us along a path to such change? There might not be an app for that, but below I list three steps I believe could put us on the road towards digital disruption of the political culture of fear.

1. Frame political extremism as an emotion regulation problem. Before any digital disruption can happen, we have to make sense of the problem and have a concept of what’s going wrong. We have all had one of those kitchen table conversations I described above. In these conversations, our emotions get the better of us – fear, disgust, anger. This is a problem in how we control our emotions and how our emotions control our thoughts, decisions, and actions – something psychologists call emotion regulation. The problem is that our strong emotions rarely convince our debating partners. Instead, they solidify the views everyone already holds, causing us to cling to them even more strongly and rigidly. Common ground is lost, and the divide between perspectives seems increasingly unbridgeable.

Imagine how a version of that kitchen table conversation happens on the political world stage, sabotaging attempts at diplomacy and mutual understanding. The result is not just upset and angry people. Now the result is that our emotions directly shape political discourse, legal decisions, and policies that can affect generations to come.

Thus, a first crucial step towards disruption of the political culture of fear is to frame political discourse in terms of emotion regulation – applying what we know about what goes wrong and how to fix it on the individual and group level.

2. Use technology to promote empathy. Recent research in political psychology suggests that empathy can help heal rancorous political divides. A recently-published study showed that when political advocates fail to understand the values of those they wish to persuade, this “moral empathy gap” causes their arguments to fail. However, when political arguments are reframed in the moral terms of the other side, they are more effective. For example, when asked about their views on universal healthcare, conservatives who heard “purity arguments” (e.g., sick people are disgusting and therefore we need to reduce sickness) were friendlier towards universal healthcare, compared to when they heard “fairness arguments,” which are more consistent with liberal values.

If we can use technology to bridge the moral empathy gap, we might be able to reduce political polarization and promote better emotion regulation, more compromise, and deepened understanding. Virtual Reality (VR) might be one such technology. I previously wrote about Chris Milk’s thought-provoking TED talk on VR as the “ultimate empathy machine.” By creating a sense of presence and of real interactions with people and worlds, VR forges empathic bridges leading to greater understanding and compassion. In his work with the UN, Chris Milk uses VR to vividly portray the plight of refugees to politicians and policy makers. How does seeing and experiencing the suffering of 5-year-old children in the refugee camps influence policy making?: Almost certainly for the better.

3. Use technology to calm the fearful brain. As political ideologies become increasingly polarized, neuroscience research suggests that the differences between liberal and conservative viewpoints may extend beyond policy preferences to fundamental differences in the “fearful brain.”

In a paper I wrote in 2014 with Dave Amodio, a professor at NYU, we found that children of liberal compared to conservative parents showed a stronger “N2” brain response to mildly threatening and conflicting information. A greater N2, derived from EEG, suggests more openness to uncertainty, ambiguity, and threat. A culture of fear, in politics or otherwise, is marked by the opposite of this: inflexibility and discomfort in the face of uncertainty and ambiguity, along with resistance to change. These aspects of fear are part of the foundation upon which intolerance is built.

What if we could create computerized interventions that promote our ability to cope with uncertainty and change – perhaps by strengthening the N2 response? My research on the stress reduction app Personal Zen, as well as other research, shows that this may be possible. More research is needed, but if science-driven digital mental health continues to evolve, reducing the political culture of fear could soon be in the palm of our hand.

The Ethics of Digital Disruption

Alister Cameron from Squareweave give us an important thought piece on technology companies that are transforming our lives and why we should care about the ethics of their company cultures.

What It’s Like to be Blind in the Age of the Internet

A fascinating thought piece on being blind in the digital age.  Technology can be both beautiful and terrible.

The Ultimate Empathy Machine

Chris Milk TED TalkI just watched Chris Milk’s recent TED talk about virtual reality. He calls virtual reality the ultimate empathy machine. I see the vast potential of virtual reality – its use in therapy for psychological conditions like PTSD, gaming, education, and as a tool to help people create beautiful experiences. But I have to admit, my gut also has told me that virtual reality has more costs than benefits, more risks than payoffs. Perhaps I’ve read one too many future dystopia sci fi novels, but I have often thought that the temptation to reside in an artificial, constructed world of our own choice and design is too tempting for most of us; that eventually, when virtual reality is sophisticated enough, it will keep us from engaging in the “real” world in the ways we need to in order to have have substantial and lasting happiness. Think the creepy, organic virtual reality game consoles called “game pods” from the 1999 David Cronenberg film eXistenZ, and that’s where my mind goes.

treachery of sanctuaryBut Chris Milk might have just convinced me to question my gut, to think more of the artistic and humanitarian potential of virtual reality. Watch the talk to hear more about the amazing work he’s doing with the UN to vividly portray the plight of refugees to policy makers and the public through virtual reality. He also showed a film of the interactive art installation he created called The Treachery of Sanctuary. A boy stands in front of the piece, becoming a bird on the screen that he is viewing ….until all of sudden he takes flight to join the flock. I have to ask myself, why did that bring me to tears? Chris Milk believes that virtual reality is a machine that makes us more human. Perhaps the benefits could outweigh the risks.

Could Video Games Help Improve Our Mental Health?

A nice discussion of the promise – and challenges – of using video game to promote health.

 

Could Video Games Help Improve our Mental Health?

Can Technology Fix Medicine?

An interesting post from the MIT Technology Review about the challenges and opportunities in medical data – both Big Data and on the individual level, becoming more empowered patients.

Cropping Out the Sadness

An interesting thought piece by Glynnis MacNicol on what might happen when the life you are living online diverges sharply from your real life.  Ms. MacNicol alludes to some of the potential costs, which I imagine are indeed a risk. At the same time, I can’t help but wonder if we could use technology to create a “highlight-reel self” not to hide or be in denial, but to forge a new story of our lives in an attempt to break out of old, stuck ways of feeling about ourselves. It could be an act of “re-visioning” if we do it right.

 

 

Is Your Child Using Devices Too Much? Apply the Delight Principle

Many of us parents worry about the potential negative effects of technology – particularly mobile technology – on our children. But we have precious little science out there that can help us figure out the costs and benefits, risks and returns. Heck, we’ve had television sets in our homes for over 80 years and we still don’t know a lot about its effects on kids.

mother child

But putting our kids in front of technology is sometimes hard to resist. Your kid is having a tantrum on the grocery line? Bring up a movie on the iPad. Children whining at the restaurant? Hand them your iPhone and see their little smiling faces and glazed-over eyes light up from the warm glow of the screen.

However, these solutions are often tinged with parental guilt and a nagging feeling that maybe we shouldn’t be doing this quite so much. To figure out how much is too much, I apply what I call the delight principle – and it’s perhaps not what it sounds like. It’s not experiencing the (yes) exquisite delight of  that whining/crying/fussing/annoying behavior stopping as quickly as if you pressed the mute button. Rather, it’s the idea that if we’re putting devices in our children’s hands so much that we’re losing opportunities to delight in them and enjoy their wonderful little selves, then we might want to reevaluate.

In a nutshell, devices can be used in a “disconnecting” way that, over time, can reduce a child’s experience of that  loving twinkle in your eye, that unconditional positive regard that is the cornerstone of a happy childhood.

This notion – show your child that you delight in them – is obvious in many ways.  But I think that in the cacophony of all the “expert” parenting advice out there – from free range parenting to attachment parenting – this simple instinct that every parent has is easy to lose track of. When children are NOT being delightful (often!), devices are not necessarily a parent’s best friend. Here are a few ways that delight can be blocked when devices are used to disconnect during frustrating situations:

1. Remember to twinkle: Children need to see themselves literally reflected in our eyes in the form of that loving twinkle. It’s not that we need to praise them (and indeed there is good research coming out now about the downside of praise) but rather we need to take joy in their accomplishments, mirror their journey of self-discovery, and be our children’s promoters (as distinct from praisers). Putting devices in front of our kids “too much” has the effect of directly, physically blocking that twinkle. We need to trust our guts as parents on how much twinkle we want to block and make a mindful choice.

2. Share your child’s world: Take time to see the world from your child’s perspective. Every parent knows that it’s a magical place. Explore the world together, discuss ideas, point out things that are interesting or puzzling or wonderful. Listen to what they have to say about it, and if they don’t have much to say, just be with their experience of it and share your experience. Using a device to share in your child’s world seems like one of the best possible uses of a device. So, when we bring out a device, we can choose to use it to connect with our children or to tune them out.

3. Help your child find their own inner delightful child: Just in case you were starting to think I am a proponent of “just twinkle and let the hard stuff go” – not the case. By #3 here, I mean I think we shouldn’t be afraid to talk to our child about being civilized and polite – yes, delightful – human beings. I think that children who are explicitly taught and socialized to be polite, compassionate, and empathic will on average be delightful children and will grow up to be delightful adults. And the converse is also true. I think too much device time reduces opportunities to guide our children towards being delightful. Moreover,  we have to believe that a child is delightful for this to even work. With too much device time I think it’s harder to know how delightful our children truly can be.

There are definitely times when I choose to use a device to press that mute button and just take a break. But when this starts to become a family habit (are they on the device every time you go out to dinner, precluding opportunities to actually talk with one another? Are they spending so much time watching tv that you don’t know how their day at school was? ), it might make sense to do a delight check and make sure the technology choices we’re making for our children sit right with us.

 

 

 

U.S. Views on the Future of Technology

The Pew Research Center just released a report on how U.S. citizens view the future of technology over the next 50 years. Reading it, one detects a lot of enthusiasm tempered by wariness and …..hopes for time travel? Predictions are a bit wacky at times, and technophobia competes with technophilia.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 17,466 other followers