"200 subjects read a five-page fictional short story written specifically for the experiment, designed to elicit compassionate feelings for the characters and model pro-social behavior. The subjects then participated in exercises to measure the impact of the reading.
Based on the results of the post-reading exercises, Johnson concluded that the more immersed the readers were in the story, the more empathy they felt for the characters. In addition, he found that the heightened empathy led to an enhanced ability to perceive subtle emotional expressions such as fear or happiness. Individuals who experienced higher levels of empathy were also nearly twice as likely to engage in pro-social, or helpful, behavior as individuals experiencing low levels of empathy.
"An interesting component is that it really seemed to be a lot about the imagery and visualizing the face of the main character and the events they experienced," said Johnson. "Those who experienced more inherent imagery were more likely to develop empathy for the characters and be more helpful."
More: http://news.blogs.wlu.edu/2012/02/21/washington-and-lee-professor-finds-that-reading-fiction-leads-to-empathy-helpful-behavior/
### END OF POST ###
www.SPYWRITER.com
27/02/2012
The Bridge of Spies
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="The bridge od spies"]
[/caption]
On June 12, 1985, Marian Zacharski, a Polish spy, was exchanged for 25 American agents.
"Polish-born, Marian Zacharski adopted the guise of a legitimate businessman in the United States in the late 1970s. The reportedly handsome and resourceful agent befriended William Holden Bell, an engineer at Hughes Aircraft. Over the course of three years, Zacharski persuaded Bell to pass along plans for secret radar systems and some of the technology behind early stealth aircraft. Zacharski’s tactics in recruiting Bell were so impressive that they are still studied by the FBI decades later."
More spy exchanges: http://www.history.com/news/2012/02/10/prisoner-exchanges-across-the-bridge-of-spies-from-powers-to-shcharansky/
### END OF POST ###
www.SPYWRITER.com
[/caption]On June 12, 1985, Marian Zacharski, a Polish spy, was exchanged for 25 American agents.
"Polish-born, Marian Zacharski adopted the guise of a legitimate businessman in the United States in the late 1970s. The reportedly handsome and resourceful agent befriended William Holden Bell, an engineer at Hughes Aircraft. Over the course of three years, Zacharski persuaded Bell to pass along plans for secret radar systems and some of the technology behind early stealth aircraft. Zacharski’s tactics in recruiting Bell were so impressive that they are still studied by the FBI decades later."
More spy exchanges: http://www.history.com/news/2012/02/10/prisoner-exchanges-across-the-bridge-of-spies-from-powers-to-shcharansky/
### END OF POST ###
www.SPYWRITER.com
24/02/2012
Reading novels makes you a better person
"Jane Smiley, in Thirteen Ways of Looking at the Novel, claims for novels an important role as an engine for change. She writes: “When I have read a long novel, when I have entered systematically into a sensibility that is alien to mine, when I have become interested in another person because he is interesting, not because he is privileged or great, there is a possibility that at the end that I will be a degree less self-centered …”
When we read, we also encounter our own reactions and prejudices, and our hopes and fears, and perhaps find ourselves a little changed for the better."
More: http://katesidley.bookslive.co.za/blog/2012/02/13/read-yourself-fabulous/
### END OF POST ###
www.SPYWRITER.com
When we read, we also encounter our own reactions and prejudices, and our hopes and fears, and perhaps find ourselves a little changed for the better."
More: http://katesidley.bookslive.co.za/blog/2012/02/13/read-yourself-fabulous/
### END OF POST ###
www.SPYWRITER.com
The absurd world of espionage
"From propaganda catapults to exploding seashells, why do "intelligence" services come up with so many bad, and often absurd, ideas?
Well, maybe they aren't coming up with all that many stupid ideas: maybe they come up with exactly as many stupid ideas as, say, the U.S. House of Representatives, but we pay more attention to the CIA's nonsense because we're more surprised by it. After all, these people, at least, are supposed to have some idea of what they're doing.
But reading through some of these stories, you start to wonder if there might be another explanation. The CIA's looniest notions, after all, bear remarkable resemblance to the loony ideas that seem to constantly pour out of totalitarian dictatorships, including current ones such as that of North Korea. Maybe it's the very fact of brainstorming behind closed doors -- six guys in a room trying to figure out a way to do whatever currently seems impossible -- that encourages it. Desperation plus not having anyone to laugh at you (whether because of secrecy or, in the case of North Korea, because you've got the entire country in a headlock) must be a pretty potent combination."
More: http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/spy-agencies-have-had-some-very-dumb-ideas-new-documents-reveal/253238/
### END OF POST ###
www.SPYWRITER.com
Well, maybe they aren't coming up with all that many stupid ideas: maybe they come up with exactly as many stupid ideas as, say, the U.S. House of Representatives, but we pay more attention to the CIA's nonsense because we're more surprised by it. After all, these people, at least, are supposed to have some idea of what they're doing.
But reading through some of these stories, you start to wonder if there might be another explanation. The CIA's looniest notions, after all, bear remarkable resemblance to the loony ideas that seem to constantly pour out of totalitarian dictatorships, including current ones such as that of North Korea. Maybe it's the very fact of brainstorming behind closed doors -- six guys in a room trying to figure out a way to do whatever currently seems impossible -- that encourages it. Desperation plus not having anyone to laugh at you (whether because of secrecy or, in the case of North Korea, because you've got the entire country in a headlock) must be a pretty potent combination."
More: http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/spy-agencies-have-had-some-very-dumb-ideas-new-documents-reveal/253238/
### END OF POST ###
www.SPYWRITER.com
20/02/2012
Confidence and ego key ingredients in publishing
What do writers have in common? Big egos. In order to create convincingly a writer must have confidence, but to publish one needs an ego. Yours truly does not lack in this respect:
"I write nothing down. I do not make notes. You will find nothing in my house that would indicate where my ideas come from. Drawing from personal experiences I am a firm believer in the old maxim, well expressed by Maxim Gorky, that that which we cannot remember is simply not worth remembering, little else writing down.
Where do the ideas come from? Again, this goes back to our experiences, to that which moves us, and which we need to come to terms with, to why do writers write at all? Beyond the simple need to satisfy our ego, many of us write not because we know the answer to what moves us, but because we seek the answer to the unanswerable, or where the answer is suppressed. Espionage is all about the illusion. Everything we think we know about it is either wrong, or planted by the services involved in it. I write with the aim to straighten that, which is purposely obscured. It is my guiding thought."
More about author Jack King: http://www.gmcknight.com/blog/2012/02/19/Jack-SpyWriter-King.aspx
Writers and their egos: http://spywriter.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/ego-a-writers-engine-2/
### END OF POST ###
www.SPYWRITER.com
"I write nothing down. I do not make notes. You will find nothing in my house that would indicate where my ideas come from. Drawing from personal experiences I am a firm believer in the old maxim, well expressed by Maxim Gorky, that that which we cannot remember is simply not worth remembering, little else writing down.
Where do the ideas come from? Again, this goes back to our experiences, to that which moves us, and which we need to come to terms with, to why do writers write at all? Beyond the simple need to satisfy our ego, many of us write not because we know the answer to what moves us, but because we seek the answer to the unanswerable, or where the answer is suppressed. Espionage is all about the illusion. Everything we think we know about it is either wrong, or planted by the services involved in it. I write with the aim to straighten that, which is purposely obscured. It is my guiding thought."
More about author Jack King: http://www.gmcknight.com/blog/2012/02/19/Jack-SpyWriter-King.aspx
Writers and their egos: http://spywriter.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/ego-a-writers-engine-2/
### END OF POST ###
www.SPYWRITER.com
18/02/2012
Re-reading books a healthy habit
"A recent study has shown many people benefit from rereading familiar stories as the encounter “reignites” their emotions and increases their knowledge.
In broad terms the research found that people were generally keen to return to a well-thumbed book or to listen again to a favourite piece of music so they could gain a “richer and deeper insight” of the experience and increase their understanding.
The study concluded: “Consumers gain richer and deeper insights into the reconsumption object itself but also an enhanced awareness of their own growth in understanding and appreciation through the lens of the reconsumption object.
“Given the immense benefits for growth and self-reflexivity, re-consuming actually appears to offer many mental health benefits.”
"Vladimir Nabokov maintained that you couldn’t say you had really read a novel till you have re-read it. On the first reading you may be gripped by the story, and so you read fast, eager to find out where it is leading you. In reading like this, you miss a lot. You have no time to “cherish the details” – a favourite phrase of Nabokov’s. You will fail to understand subtleties and nuances. You will skip hurriedly over beauties. It is unlikely that you will appreciate the structure.
The books to which one does return are either classics – sometimes classics one feels guilty about – or books which are like old friends, and therefore suitable for comfort reading. Familiarity with them breeds affection. One knows they will soothe and never disturb. You feel no obligation to read from beginning to end – though you may of course do so. You can dip in and out, and skip, and read the passages you love best. Sadly, however, the day may come when you know a particular book too well, and you can come to the end of it, just as you may find that you may reach the end of a friendship."
From:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/allanmassie/100060749/comfort-books-the-sweet-sad-joys-of-re-reading/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/9084394/Rereading-old-books-enhances-the-experience.html
### END OF POST ###
www.SPYWRITER.com
In broad terms the research found that people were generally keen to return to a well-thumbed book or to listen again to a favourite piece of music so they could gain a “richer and deeper insight” of the experience and increase their understanding.
The study concluded: “Consumers gain richer and deeper insights into the reconsumption object itself but also an enhanced awareness of their own growth in understanding and appreciation through the lens of the reconsumption object.
“Given the immense benefits for growth and self-reflexivity, re-consuming actually appears to offer many mental health benefits.”
"Vladimir Nabokov maintained that you couldn’t say you had really read a novel till you have re-read it. On the first reading you may be gripped by the story, and so you read fast, eager to find out where it is leading you. In reading like this, you miss a lot. You have no time to “cherish the details” – a favourite phrase of Nabokov’s. You will fail to understand subtleties and nuances. You will skip hurriedly over beauties. It is unlikely that you will appreciate the structure.
The books to which one does return are either classics – sometimes classics one feels guilty about – or books which are like old friends, and therefore suitable for comfort reading. Familiarity with them breeds affection. One knows they will soothe and never disturb. You feel no obligation to read from beginning to end – though you may of course do so. You can dip in and out, and skip, and read the passages you love best. Sadly, however, the day may come when you know a particular book too well, and you can come to the end of it, just as you may find that you may reach the end of a friendship."
From:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/allanmassie/100060749/comfort-books-the-sweet-sad-joys-of-re-reading/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/9084394/Rereading-old-books-enhances-the-experience.html
### END OF POST ###
www.SPYWRITER.com
12/02/2012
Find real-life love lessons in literature
"Can classic literature shed any light on twenty-first century love?
What influence does reading about love in literature have on ‘real life’? Does it simply create expectations of unachievable ideals, or does is present us with useful insight? Does it hinder our emotional development or help it? Are we better lovers for delving into Lady Chatterley’s Lover, or reciting Shakespeare to one another?
Ultimately literature encourages us to question this idea of ‘love’ presented in Valentine’s cards, suggesting that it’s okay to be different. It tells us that love happens in the most unexpected ways. Shakespeare said it first: ‘reason and love keep little company nowadays’, and ‘the course of true love never did run smooth’. . Love is not logical, it isn’t biological (you can disregard this week’s Science feature), it’s improbable and unpredictable. But that’s why it’s so exciting. Love is messy and that’s what makes it so great. In life and in literature."
More: http://www.varsity.co.uk/culture/4403
### END OF POST ###
www.SPYWRITER.com
What influence does reading about love in literature have on ‘real life’? Does it simply create expectations of unachievable ideals, or does is present us with useful insight? Does it hinder our emotional development or help it? Are we better lovers for delving into Lady Chatterley’s Lover, or reciting Shakespeare to one another?
Ultimately literature encourages us to question this idea of ‘love’ presented in Valentine’s cards, suggesting that it’s okay to be different. It tells us that love happens in the most unexpected ways. Shakespeare said it first: ‘reason and love keep little company nowadays’, and ‘the course of true love never did run smooth’. . Love is not logical, it isn’t biological (you can disregard this week’s Science feature), it’s improbable and unpredictable. But that’s why it’s so exciting. Love is messy and that’s what makes it so great. In life and in literature."
More: http://www.varsity.co.uk/culture/4403
### END OF POST ###
www.SPYWRITER.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)