Spooky Judgments: How Agents Think About Danger 1

By Wray Herbert, Huffington Post

We are watching Big Brother watching us. Whatever one thinks of Edward Snowden, hero or traitor or something in between, his revelations about sweeping NSA surveillance have gotten America’s attention. His whistle blowing has raised important questions about the balance of liberty and safety, and will heighten suspicions and scrutiny of the nation’s intelligence agencies for some time to come.

We hire and train intelligence agents to weigh risks and make judgments, and most of us want to believe that these assessments are sound. But how rational are the individual men and women who are making the life-and-death decisions that influence national security?

A new study raises some serious questions about our usual view of rationality, and how it applies to intelligence agents’ judgments about risk. Cornell University psychological scientist Valerie Reyna, one of the nation’s experts on risk assessment and decision making, persuaded a federal intelligence agency to let her study agents’ thinking. She found a pattern of irrational judgments about risk. In fact, college students were better than intelligence agents at weighing danger in a technical, logical way.

Reyna actually predicted that she would see these results. She is the originator of what’s called “fuzzy trace theory,” which posits that decision makers simultaneously confront problems in two very different ways. We deliberately and painstakingly calculate risk based on the quantitative information available — like solving a math problem — but we also process, very rapidly, the simple but meaningful “gist” of the situation. Since calculation is so taxing, in time and cognitive energy, gist thinking is often the best option, especially for decisions under pressure.

Gist thinking is paradoxical. For example, study after study has shown that children tend to employ slow and deliberate calculation, but as we get older, we rely more and more on rapid, impressionistic gist thinking. Similarly, experts in fields like finance and emergency medicine come to rely more on intuitive gist thinking, the more experienced they are. This developmental “reversal” is well documented but counterintuitive, since we expect maturity and experience to improve all cognitive performance.

Based on this body of evidence, Reyna predicted such a cognitive reversal in intelligence analysts as well. She recruited volunteers from an unnamed federal intelligence agency, mostly special agents with an average of seven years with the agency. For comparison, she also recruited a group of college students and another group of post-college adults. She tested all the volunteers on a series of what are called framing problems, which assess the tendency to make risky choices. Here’s an example:

A dread disease is threatening a town of 600, and you have the authority to make choices. Do you: Save 200 people for sure, or choose the option with 1/3 probability that 600 will be saved and a 2/3 probability that none will be saved? Or, alternatively, do you pick the option where 400 will surely die, or instead a 2/3 probability that all 600 will die and a 1/3 probability that nobody dies?

These two choice scenarios are identical, except that one is framed in terms of gain, the other in terms of loss. A fundamental tenet of decision making theory is that rational people are consistent in their choices, regardless of whether the odds are framed as gain or loss. But many people switch in this scenario from risk-seeking to risk-avoiding. Fuzzy trace theory says that this is the result of focusing on the “good” gist — all saved, or none die. Even explained this way, however, it’s nevertheless a cognitively biased form of decision making — and not what one would expect in a professional intelligence agent.

But that’s precisely what Reyna found in her experiment, described in a forthcoming article in the journal Psychological Science. Based on 30 gain-loss framing decisions, not only did the federal agents exhibit larger framing biases than college students, they were also more confident in their judgments. The post-college adults occupied an interesting middle ground between the students and agents: They were as flawed in their choices as the students — sometimes more so — but less cognitively biased than the intelligence agents.

These results show that experienced intelligence agents think irrationally about risk and loss, even when human lives are at stake. If it’s any comfort, Reyna concludes that this distorted judgment is the ironic consequence of a cognitively advanced style of thinking, an intuitive style perhaps more suitable for finding meaning in the murky world of spies and counterspies.

The Science of Siblings Reply

Francine Russo, Parade Contributor

How your brothers and sisters shape your life—long after you’ve stopped sharing a room

What can Maggie, Bart, and Lisa tell us about family dynamics? Click here to find out what the experts say.

Growing up in North Miami Beach, Tobi Cohen Kosanke, now 48, adored her brother Keith. Seven years older, he was a “laid-back surfer dude,” while she was a “chubby, nerdy” little girl. Tobi knew she could never live up to Keith’s cool persona, so while he was quitting school, experimenting with drugs, and focusing on riding the next wave, Tobi threw herself into school, with her brother’s encouragement. The hard work paid off: She went on to earn her Ph.D. and become a geologist. “I hung out with the geeky kids, the good kids, the smart kids, because of my brother,” she says. “I loved Keith, and I know he was proud of me, but I owe my success to taking the road that he didn’t take.”

Tobi’s story is not unusual. Of all the factors that shape your personality—your genes, your parents, your peers—siblings are at the top, according to one major theory of human development. If you think about it, the relationships with your sisters and brothers will likely last longer than any others in your lifetime. Research shows that even in adolescence, you spend 10 to 17 hours a week with them—and experts are finding that their impact continues long after you’ve left the nest. Study after study has shown that the ways you interact with each other growing up can affect your relationships, your happiness, even the way you see yourself throughout the rest of your life.

Article continues here:  The Science of Siblings

Death by Vanity Reply

Self-Interest Can Be Fatal

By Chris Simmons

On January 15th of 2005, U.S. military forces conducted a raid to capture Abu Omar al-Kurdi. Credible media outlets characterized al-Kurdi as a veteran of training camps in Afghanistan before arriving in Iraq in August 2003 to become Al Qaeda’s chief bomb-maker in-country. Since then, he had been responsible for making 75% of all car bombs in Iraq. At the time of his capture, he was orchestrating a wave of bomb attacks against Iraqi polling centers in an effort to derail the national elections on January 30th.

When captured, he did something we’d never before seen: he congratulated us and immediately identified himself as the master bomb-maker for Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Omar al-Kurdi. Let’s step back and put this in context. Terrorists never identify themselves. They give their captors false names, they stall, they do anything they can to buy time so their colleagues can move to new locations. They do this out of self-interest.

In contrast, al-Kurdi did the exact opposite. Why? Because self-interest is emotional, not rational. It shapes our identity and values (see the June 8th posting, The Secret to Never Getting Blindsided/). Al-Kurdi wanted his 15 minutes of fame. He knew he was a dead man. He accurately assumed we would eventually turn him over to the Iraqi government, which would execute him. In his mind, the only thing that mattered was his legacy. He wanted the world to know he was a bombing mastermind. Convinced we were the path to his immortality, he would not stop talking. He acted on his self-interest, convincingly revealing his role in numerous unsolved bombings. In doing so, Abu Omar al-Kurdi satisfied his insatiable vanity, all the while knowing that his actions provided immeasurable help to allied forces and the Iraqi government.

History Channel Documentary: Secrets of Body Language Reply

Body language is a form of non-verbal communication, which consists of body posture, gestures, facial expressions, and eye movements. Humans send and interpret such signals almost entirely subconsciously.

John Borg attests that human communication consists of 93% body language and paralinguistic cues, while only 7% of communication consists of words themselves. However, Albert Mehrabian, the researcher whose 1960s work is the source of these statistics, has stated that this is a misunderstanding of the findings (see Misinterpretation of Mehrabian’s rule). Regardless, other research indicates a baseline of 60-70% of all meaning is derived from nonverbal behavior.

Body language may provide clues as to the attitude or state of mind of a person. For example, it may indicate aggression, attentiveness, boredom, relaxed state, pleasure, amusement, and intoxication, among many other cues.

Evaluating Truthfulness and Detecting Deception Reply

By Doctors David Matsumoto, Hyi Sung Hwang, Lisa Skinner & Mark Frank

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

While interviewing the suspect who claims ignorance about an incident, the witness who saw it happen, or the informant who identified the perpetrator, the detective asks a question that will eviscerate the perpetrator’s story. As the suspect prepares to answer, he looks up and to the left, purses his lips, tenses his eyelids, and brings his eyebrows down.

The investigator knows that a suspect displaying shifty eyes and gaze aversion and looking up and to the left when answering uncomfortable questions is exhibiting signs of lying. The suspect is not totally disinterested, but he is reluctant to participate in the interview. Because the suspect’s behavior suggests dishonesty, the detective prepares to drill still deeper in the questioning.

Unfortunately, this investigator likely would be wrong. Twenty-three out of 24 peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals reporting experiments on eye behavior as an indicator of lying have rejected this hypothesis.1 No scientific evidence exists to suggest that eye behavior or gaze aversion can gauge truthfulness reliably.

Some people say that gaze aversion is the sure sign of lying, others that fidgety feet or hands are the key indicators. Still others believe that analysis of voice stress or body posture provides benchmarks. Research has tested all of these indicators and found them only weakly associated with deception.2

Relying on false clues, or signs, about lying can have dire consequences.3 It can lead to inaccurate reads that witnesses, suspects, or informants are lying when they are not or that they are telling the truth when there is more to the story. Reliance on false clues leads to misplaced confidence about the strengths and weaknesses of cases and can lead an investigator down dead-end paths. Moreover, a false read can have deadly consequences.

BEHAVIORAL CUES

Years of research have led the authors to focus solely on the most verifiable behavioral cues to lying.4Many studies have involved a randomly selected sample of people assigned by chance to lie or tell the truth. Unfortunately, such studies feature participants with no personal, financial, or emotional investment in the lie or any fear of exposure to sanction if they are caught. No stakes are involved—no punishment for getting caught and no reward for fooling the investigator.

The authors’ studies involve people motivated to act against a person or group with a different ideology, placed in a situation where they choose whether to commit a crime (e.g., steal a check made out to the group they despise), and then interviewed by a retired law enforcement officer, offering them the opportunity to tell the truth or lie. The stakes involved include facing detention, enduring blasts of white noise, or, for instance, having the stolen check donated to the group they hate. These consequences would occur if the person were not believed regardless of the truth because, in real life, consequences stem from judgments, not reality. Thus, truthful individuals often are nervous in police interrogations. The authors strive to make their research practical and analogous to real-world law enforcement situations and have found that, clearly, the behavioral cues to lying differ when people are not vested in having their story believed and have no fear of detection.

The authors monitor their participants with sensors that record and analyze their facial behaviors, gestures, body movements, voice and speech characteristics, physiological indicators (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, skin conductance, respiration), heat emanation from their faces and heads, pupil dilation, and gaze direction. In addition, the authors record their participants’ spoken words and then examine their verbal statements and style. The results have demonstrated that when motivated people lie and face consequences upon detection, clues to deception emerge and appear as leakage across multiple channels. Four of these are nonverbal (facial expressions, gestures and body language, voice, and verbal style). A fifth channel of leakage is in the actual words spoken—verbal statements.

It is not the mere presence or absence of behaviors, such as gaze aversion or fidgeting, that indicates lying. Rather, it is how these nonverbal cues change over time from a person’s baseline and how they combine with the individual’s words. And, when just the behavioral cues from these sources are considered, they accurately differentiate between lying and truth telling.5

Feature continues here:  http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/june_2011/school_violence

What You Promised Isn’t What You Delivered 3

How a sales & marketing guru convinced me to never to do business with him or his company

By Chris Simmons

I recently read a business book on the importance of building relationships. The stunning part was, the deeper I got into the book, the more I realized how little the author knew about effective communication. Even worse, he mistakenly believed gimmickry made him more memorable. It did — but not in the way he intended.

I was struck by the book’s lack of recommendations from business notables. Additionally, there was no introduction or bio to explain why I or anyone else should read and trust anything he wrote. He seemed to explain this absence with a story wherein he insisted that if you have to introduce yourself, you’re clearly an unknown – a nobody. As proof, he noted how Frank Sinatra never went onstage and identified himself as a singer. I later found the author’s bio buried on page 198 of his book. Was he known within his niche? Probably. Was he an internationally known celebrity like Sinatra? Not even close.

Then things got worse. He loved lists – every chapter had at least one. The problem was – for me at least – every list had a decimal point. “The top 6.5 reasons to do x,” read one. “Build rapport faster with these 4.5 secrets” said another. After a hundred pages, I was beyond annoyed with his shtick. Then he told a story about how he created a business card for one of his pets and began giving them out to clients and prospects.

The author wrote extensively about the need to provide value to your customers. Then he totally undermined his message with internet gimmickry to build his mailing list. Every chapter or sub-topic had a “for more on this subject, register with my website and enter the keyword “x.” While he may have thought he was providing value via his website, it provoked two negative responses from me. First, his book was only 200 pages, 50% shorter than normal. This led me to wonder if he cut content from the book solely to drive traffic to his website. Secondly, the numerous website offerings further diluted his value by making me work to get what should have already been mine. Where is the value in checking two separate locations (i.e., the book and his website) any time I need to refresh my memory on a specific topic?

Did the author achieve his goal of being memorable? Absolutely, and most of it was negative. Did he provide value, that is, did I learn anything from his book? A little: about 25 pages had ideas I will use in my business (but in fairness, a few of the ideas were sheer genius). The remainder of the book was so devoid of value it was hard for me to believe it was written by a credible marketing maverick. He failed to clearly and concisely communicate his message. As a result, what he promised wasn’t what he delivered.

On a positive note, I would have been more disappointed had I purchased the book rather than receiving it as a gift….

Deception Can Be Perfected: Can a Repeated Lie Become ‘a Truth? ‘ 1

by Hilary Hurd Anyaso

With a little practice, one could learn to tell a lie that may be indistinguishable from the truth. New Northwestern University research shows that lying is more malleable than previously thought, and with a certain amount of training and instruction, the art of deception can be perfected.

People generally take longer and make more mistakes when telling lies than telling the truth, because they are holding two conflicting answers in mind and suppressing the honest response, previous research has shown. Consequently, researchers in the present study investigated whether lying can be trained to be more automatic and less task demanding.

This research could have implications for law enforcement and the administering of lie detector tests to better handle deceptions in more realistic scenarios.

Researchers found that instruction alone significantly reduced reaction times associated with participants’ deceptive responses.

They used a control group — an instruction group in which participants were told to speed up their lies and make fewer errors, but were not given time to prepare their lies — and a training group, which received training in how to speed up their deceptive responses and were given time to prepare their lies. In the training group that practiced their lies, the differences between deceptive and truthful responses were completely eliminated.

“We found that lying is more malleable and can be changed upon intentional practice,” said Xiaoqing Hu, lead author of the study and a doctoral candidate in the department of psychology at Northwestern.

Hu said they were surprised that even in the instruction group, members who were not given time to prepare their lies and told only to try to speed up their responses and make fewer errors were able to significantly reduce their deceptive response reaction time.

“This was really unexpected because it suggests that people can be really flexible, and after they know what is expected from them, they want to avoid being detected,” Hu said, noting the findings could help in crime fighting.

“In real life, there’s usually a time delay between the crime and interrogation,” said Hu. “Most people would have time to prepare and practice their lies prior to the interrogation.” However, previous research in deception usually gave participants very little time to prepare their lies.

Lie detector tests most often rely on physiological responses. Therefore, Hu said further research warrants looking at whether additional training could result in physiological changes in addition to inducing behavior changes as observed in their study.


Story Source:  The above story is reprinted from materials provided via EurekAlert!

Journal Reference:  Xiaoqing Hu, Hao Chen, Genyue Fu. A Repeated Lie Becomes a Truth? The Effect of Intentional Control and Training on Deception. Frontiers in Psychology, 2012; 3 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00488

Is Your Brain Wired for Violence? 1

University of Pennsylvania neuroscientist Adrian Raine, the author of “The Anatomy of Violence,” believes that advances in brain imagery are helping to explain the biological roots of crime. American Enterprise Institute scholar and psychiatrist Sally Satel, a coauthor of “Brainwashed,” is wary of the seduction of brain scans. The Washington Post brought them together for a conversation about the promises and pitfalls of brain imagery. An abridged version of that conversation follows.

Outlook: Adrian, could you start us off with one of the images from your work? Tell us what we’re seeing and what some of your research suggests.

Adrian Raine: One that strikes me is Donta Page, who robbed, raped and killed a young woman in Denver in 1999. I was an expert witness in that case. Compared to normal controls, brain scans revealed he had a distinct lack of activation in the ventral prefrontal cortex: the region that helps regulate our emotions and control our impulses.

He was also brought up in a horrible environment, neglected and physically and sexually abused. He was thrown out a car window when he was just 9 months old and suffered multiple head injuries as a child. He also had a family history of mental illness. He was referred 19 times for psychological treatment, but he never once got a treatment session.

So the key conceptual point is biosocial: Combine the brain with the social environment, and you have a predisposition for violence and crime that should be taken into account. [A three-judge panel gave Page a life sentence rather than the death penalty.]

Outlook: Sally, talk about some of your concerns about brain imaging and how it’s used. You’ve written, “Naive media, slick neuroentrepreneurs, and even an occasional overzealous neuroscientist exaggerate the capacity of scans to reveal the contents of our minds, exalt brain physiology as inherently the most valuable level of explanation for understanding behavior, and rush to apply underdeveloped, if dazzling, science for commercial and forensic use.”

Sally Satel: Neurocentrism, as [my coauthor Scott Lilienfeld and I] define it, is the notion that explanations that reside at the level of the brain are inevitably the most informative, authentic, truthful explanations of complex behavior. Brain imaging can inadvertently, if it’s not interpreted correctly, or if it’s positioned in a tendentious way, feed into that [bias], because you have this stunning biological portraiture. Things appear to be lit up.

That’s really not how the brain works. It’s always on, it’s always firing — some circuits are going to be more active at any one time than another, but [neural activity] is highly distributed and not static.

Many people think that if [there is activity] in the brain, whatever behavior flows from it is involuntary. Sometimes that is the case, but you cannot draw that inference just from looking at a brain scan.

There’s also a lot of misapplication, a lot of premature application of underdeveloped science. Using [brain imaging] in the service of lie detection is one. It doesn’t mean we won’t get much better to the point where it may well be informative. But it’s not there yet, and there’s a lot of pseudo-neuroscience out there.

Outlook: The Supreme Court ruled this past week that police can take DNA samples from people arrested in connection with serious crimes. How about brain imagery? What role do you see brain scans playing in law enforcement and criminal justice, now or in the future?

Raine: Not now, but there’s potential for the future in the area of probation and parole decisions: Do we keep someone in prison, do we let them out early, are they a risk to society? Those decisions are made every day by judges, by [probation officers]. In California, it’s based on 20 indicators — social and behavioral indicators. Question is: Can these assessments be more accurate?

Two new studies have come out — one that I’m linked to and one by another group — that show brain-scan data can give added value to social and behavioral predictors of future offending. One study, this was [University of New Mexico psychologist] Kent Kiehl’s group, showed that individuals with lower levels of anterior cingulate functioning are twice as likely to reconvict after release from prison. The study I was involved in showed that individuals with reduced volumes of the amygdala were three times more likely to commit an offense in the three-year period post-release. Now, caution here, these are just two studies. But if there’s replication and extension, then there’s some potential for better decisions to be made.

Satel: I’m looking at the study you’re referring to with Kent Kiehl, and while it was a well-done study, they found what’s to me an unacceptable number of false positives and false negatives: 40 percent of people who they thought would reoffend based on reduced activity in the anterior cingulate cortex did not reoffend, and almost 50 percent of the people who they didn’t expect to offend based on the activity in that one area did offend. So that’s a not a lot better than chance.

Raine: I would say even if you statistically raise the prediction a little bit, that’s got to be better than nothing.

I think brain imaging and other neurobiology can also be used in mitigation in capital cases. If you’re against the death penalty, well, you’re in search of anything that can be thrown into that situation. Neuroscience has something to add in the penalty phase of capital cases. Outlook: If there is some biological basis for violence, what does that do to concepts of moral responsibility?

Raine: I would say it gives us more humanity. We need to understand behavior more. It will never be a full explanation. But just as with witches — we used to burn them. Once we find out more about the etiology and causes of behavior, it gives us a more benign and humane perspective.

I talk about the case of Michael, who was a 40-year-old man, married. And then he began to develop a sexual interest in his prepubescent stepdaughter. Michael was found guilty of child molestation and diagnosed with pedophilia. The night before his prison sentence, he went to hospital complaining of a headache. An astute neurologist brain-scanned him and found a tumor growing from the base of the orbital frontal cortex — a part of the brain very critical for emotional regulation. They resected the tumor, and Michael was completely normal. He successfully completed a [therapy] program and then went back home to live with his wife and stepdaughter. Sort of a happily ever after. But then the headaches came back. He began to develop interest in child pornography again. The tumor had grown back. They resected this tumor for the second time, and for six years after that, to our knowledge, Michael’s been quite normal. It’s as close as you can get to causality.

Satel: I’m all for humanity. But the case of the pedophile: That is an amazing case. However, one wonders how many of those there are.

Raine: Or take head injury: It changes behavior.

Satel: Yes, but anything dramatic like that I don’t think people question so much. My point about the pedophilia case is that the night he [went to the hospital], at one point he was afraid that if he were released he might rape his landlady.

Raine: Yes, knowledge and forethought.

Satel: This man’s moral sense was intact enough for him to stop it. And that’s always interested me because of so many of these cases where people claim that they couldn’t control themselves. All you know is that they didn’t control themselves. Our science is not good enough yet to tell us when they truly couldn’t control themselves.

Raine: I think there are degrees of selfcontrol. You know what Michael said? I’ll try and use his exact words. He said: “There was a little voice in the back of my head saying, ‘You shouldn’t do this.’ But there was a much bigger voice in the front of my head saying, ‘Go on, why not?’ ” So he did have a sense. He knew what he was doing, and he knew that what he was doing was wrong. That’s why, when I put that case to judges, 90 percent of judges will say Michael is responsible for his behavior, because he fits the legal definition as it stands.

In the future, what about partial responsibility? Not just based on brainimaging data, but on all data combined. You know, you’re either responsible or not responsible: I don’t buy into that. I think there are shades of gray. And I think that there’s a future potential for a change in the justice system in terms of bringing the concept of partial responsibility into the guilt phase of a trial.

Get in Touch With Your Hidden Narcissist 1

How to Make Your Implicit Self-Esteem Work For You

by Susan Krauss Whitbourne, Ph.D.

When we think of narcissism, we think of the clinical condition in which people show excessive levels of such qualities as self-love, grandiosity, and entitlement. Many true narcissists become enraged when other people fail to recognize and admire them because they expect that everyone thinks as highly of them as they do of themselves. However, some people with narcissistic personality disorder base their desire for attention on an overly low sense of self-esteem. Though the causes are different, the results are the same in that these individuals constantly seek attention, have overly shallow relationships, and exploit the people they know.

Narcissism can stem from a number of sources, particularly when it’s of the non-pathological form. Egocentrism, the tendency to see things from your own point of view, can lead you to engage in narcissistic behaviors in which you develop blinders to the needs of other people. Apart from this cognitive distortion, we also have a biased tendency to value the things that are ours more than the things that belong to other people. This bias leads us to engage in the irrational behavior called the endowment effect in which you place greater value on things you already own than the things you don’t have in your possession. Experiments on buying and selling behavior show that people will demand a higher price from a buyer for, say a CD they already own, than they’re willing to pay to purchase the exact same CD to add it to their collection. This is an example of the more general mere ownership effect. We value the things we own because we see them as an extension of our own identity.

The fact that we endow our possessions with greater value because they’re ours is just one example of everyday, healthy, narcissism. A little bit of self-love is good for our self-esteem. Loving the things we own is one form of this expression of healthy self-esteem. Often, we’re not even aware of just how much we hold these inherently positive views of ourselves. These unconscious views, known as implicit self-esteem, often differ radically from our explicit self-esteem, in which we state outright how we feel about ourselves. People may rate their self-esteem as average or even low on a standard self-rating questionnaire with questions such as “On the whole, I feel satisfied with myself.” However, their implicit self-esteem may reveal quite a different picture.

Try this out for yourself.

The following 10 questions are from one of the most widely-used self-esteem tests currently in use, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (R-SES). Rate each question on a 4-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree:

1. On the whole I am satisfied with myself.
2. At times I think that I am no good at all.
3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
6. I certainly feel useless at times.
7. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least the equal of others.
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.
9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
10. I take a positive attitude toward myself.

Now you’re going to take another test. This one measures your liking of certain letters. To take the test, please get out a new sheet of paper and follow these instructions:

  1. Write down all the letters of the alphabet vertically in a column on the left of the sheet of paper.
  2. Next to each letter, provide a rating of 1 to 4 with 1= dislike very much and 4= like very much.
  3. Now write across the top of your paper the letters “IYFN,” “IYLN,” “NIYFN,” and “NIYLN” creating four columns. These letters stand for “In Your First Name,” “In Your Last Name,” “Not in Your First Name,” and “Not in Your      Last Name.”
  4. Compute your average letter ratings for the four columns.

DON’T READ FURTHER UNTIL YOU’VE COMPLETED BOTH TESTS

Feature continues here:  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201205/get-in-touch-your-hidden-narcissist