UPDATE: Psychology 640/EECS 695: Neural Models

I emailed Leeann Fu, who co-taught the Neural Models class the first time and is still teaching it, apparently. And, thankfully. She replied to my email and sent me the 17-page syllabus, as well as suggesting 3 books I might be interested in reading. Here they are:

Vehicles“, by Valentino Braitenberg.
Gut Feelings“, by Gerd Gigerenzer. Leeann said, “Steve Kaplan added this as a textbook the last time he taught his Cognitive Functioning class”.
Stumbling on Happiness“, by Daniel Gilbert. Coincidentally, I just saw the TED talk where Gilbert asks, “What Makes Us Happy?”
On Intelligence“, Jeff Hawkins, Donna Dubinsky and Dileep George.

Meanwhile, there are so many articles in the syllabus, it would be hell to find them all online…well, maybe not. I am a student, after all.

Anyway, to save myself the trouble, I’m going to see if the copy center in Ann Arbor will be willing to send the course pack to NYC. Hopefully, more updates to come!

Psychology 640/EECS 695: Neural Models

In the Winter Semester, 2005 at the University of Michigan, I signed up for this interdisciplinary class between Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and the Psychology department call Neural Models. Due to the anxiety of figuring out my final semester before graduation (I think?), I missed one day of class. Unfortunately, the structure of the class meant that missing just one day put me so behind in the course reading that it would have been impossible for me to catch up. That’s actually what the professor told us on Day 2. I don’t remember what my other classes were, but I don’t think it they were at all non-trivial in the amount of work required, so it would actually have been quite impossible to catch up. But, I’ve kind of regretted not being in that class since then, since understanding the chemistry of the brain is quite a fascinating subject. The good news is that Part I of the, yes, three-part course pack is posted on their website. So, if desired, I’m certainly at liberty to look into the reading. I think I will. And to justify cutting into the non-existent extra time in my schedule, I’ll call it something, innocuous, yet ridiculous like “Neural Design: Primary Chemical Processes and Digital Design for Tactile Environmental Change”. Actually, maybe what I could do is email the professor, assuming he’s not retired, and ask for literary sources. It’s faster than hunting down all the reading materials on the ACM.

Paper: Why Do Dominant Personalities Attain Influence in Face-to-Face Groups?

“People perceive those that are overconfident to be competent, which in turn gives them power.  This irritating effect may clarify a lot about the past decade in American life.” — Jerry Davis, co-director, Interdisciplinary Committee on Organizational Studies, University of Michigan

I was reading this paper today on trait dominance, or the ability of people who exhibit more assertiveness and competence to gain leadership status in their group. Basically, the study finds that people who act competently gain influence over others because they are perceived to be more competent by the group. The researchers also found that this perceived competence may not actually be related to their true competence.

The paper cites ways in which an individual may demonstrate competence to a group, such as their vocabulary or choice of “factual” language, their ability to speak assertively and fluidly, eye contact, and their “relaxed and expansive posture”. Individuals with a higher trait do same attributes, with the addition of suggesting and expressing their opinions more frequently.

The researchers stated: “We do not wish to argue that the core feature of personality dominance is to send a misleading signal of competence to others. Rather, trait dominance might be best defined by its primary social outcome, the establishment of influence in interpersonal settings (Gough et al., 1951; Wiggins, 1979). Individuals higher in trait dominance are perhaps defined by their striving and attainment of control and power in dyads and face-to-face groups.”

The researchers also found that “More assertive individuals might sometimes gain influence above and beyond what their actual competence warrants, and skilled members who are low in trait dominance might be unjustifiably ignored.”

They also stated that the groups may be initially wrong. “Initially, shy individuals were perceived as less intelligent by fellow group members because they spoke less; however, over time shyness was unrelated to peer ratings of intelligence, and, instead, actual intelligence predicted peer-rated intelligence.” Good news for me, I guess, but I suppose I should fake being extroverted more often.

Finally, the researchers suggested that it might be interesting to see if their finding could hold up outside of the experiment, such as what would happen if the study took place over a longer period of time, or if the groups were larger and the organization was more complex.

The study was conducted by Cameron Anderson and Gavin J. Kilduff, of UC Berkeley, and the full title is “Why Do Dominant Personalities Attain Influence In Face-to-Face Groups?: The Competence-Signaling Effects of Trait Dominance.”