November 2011 MoM Bulletin

Holiday greetings to all of our M.O.M. friends. I think you will agree that our campus gathering in August was a major highlight of 2011.

Linda Euler Anderson sends along a great article on William Perry. Here's the link for your reading pleasure: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=23193&e=y.

Also, David Brooks of the New York Times has a new project, called "Life Report," that is right up our alley. It's about US! He invites us to add our stories on his blog. I will write to him about our generation, our class of '59  - maybe he can come up with a name that defines us! 

We hope you will stay in touch and let us know what you're doing and what the impact of M.O.M. has been for you. I will assemble your responses for the next M.O.M. bulletin. We will have other updates for you as well.

Gail Stypula 

ON BEHALF OF THE QUAD: Kay, Gay & Howdy

MoM reflections by Carol Magdiel Hoge

Dear Quad,

What a gift the four of you created for your classmates.  Whereas a "bad barrel" (to use Philip Zimbardo's metaphor) produces bad apples, the four of you created a "good barrel" which allowed us to bring forth our best and share our best with one another.

What worked so well was the structure of the reunion.  For me, returning to Lagunita Court where I had lived as a sophomore, sent me back mentally to 1956 and reawakened the excitement and enthusiasm I felt at that time.  When I woke up in my dorm room on the first full day of our reunion, I woke up with a student mind set, eager to meet new people and consider new ideas. 

If gathering our group together at a dormitory was the first stroke of genius, without question, taking us off to the D-School was the second. There we were, all softened up and expectant, when wow! Welcome to 2011 at Leland Stanford Jr. University! The best part of the D-School experience was joining in small groups to "learn by doing." Quckly we realized how much each classmate had to contribute to problem solving, and quickly we comprehended the power of the D-School techniques. Suddenly we didn't feel like 74 year-old alumni-- grandparents and great-grandparents, who had been undergraduates in the era of the slide rule. The rejuvenation process which began the evening before, was continuing.  We were seeing new possibilities, and we were feeling great.

The rest of the program was an unfolding.  Our minds were open.  We were gelling as a group, and after each lecture we wanted to hear one another's responses.  Here a month after the reunion, I'm still wondering if what satisfied me most were the words spoken by the remarkable roster of speakers, or the comments and discussions which followed. My classmates brought lifetimes of accumulated knowledge and experience to their observations.  It was such a pleasure to hear what they had to say.

By Saturday afternoon, when Larry Wagner gathered us together to take our picture, we were such a happy group.  When I look at that picture I cannot find even one face that isn't positively shining.  Sheldon Breiner's beautiful slide show captured the reunion step by step, including those wonderful pictures on the deck of the Elliot Program Center where there is such peace and joy in our faces.

Certainly by now the Alumni Association is aware of the success of our reunion, and especially of the structure of the gathering, of the "good barrel" which bought out the best in us.  It's a structure which can easily be duplicated for mini-reunions of other classes, but aren't we proud that the Class of '59 thought of it first?

Thank you, thank you, Kay, Gay, Gail and Howdy,

Carol Magdiel Hoge

Meeting of the Minds - Bulletin 4

To: All Participants of Meeting of the Minds

 

Dear Friends:  We write today in the afterglow of the time we shared on campus just two weeks ago. You are ALL to be congratulated and thanked for taking a leap of faith with us and signing on to a completely new venture. You each contributed to the "mindfulness" of the program with your thoughts and ideas. You also brought great heart, great spirit, endless humor and the sum total of your LIFE! You made the Open Space Discussions and the Jeffersonian Dinner sparkle and sizzle. You were a great audience with brilliant questions for our speakers. Your openness to the dSchool process and your enthusiasm for it resonated through our days and nights together. 

 

The spontaneous sharing of your personal stories was memorable and moving. The Power Point loop of classmates' creations was awe-inspiring (soon to be a DVD we hope). You were great sports about dorm life as we encountered a few surprises! 

 

We’re hoping classmates will send contributions to further some of the wonderful work we heard about from our speakers. (Links to all of them are on the blog.) They came at great effort but fortunately they each appreciated “the best questions I can remember,” “ the pleasure of talking with an audience this smart,“ and  “the fun of this conversation” ... so we’re hoping  they felt it was worth their time.

 

We were all, of course, blown away by each of our speakers  - their ideas and passions,  their personal examples,  their achievements.  The whole event was an inspiration as well as an intellectual feast for all of us who were lucky to be there. It seems many of us had been seeking a different kind of gathering on campus, one with a more mentally challenging as well as collegial focus than is typically possible. It was exciting to see so many of you who hadn't been to reunions often, or ever, for that matter! 

 

Our 80+ classmates and guests used words like “life-changing”, "it made me want to re-invent myself", and "I'm ready to commit to more active involvement in issues important to this world".....to describe the impact of the experience.  We hope we offered a model of deep engagement with ideas, with each other, and with the University. We hope that it will also be valuable to those at the University who are thinking about the future relationship of Stanford to its growing cohorts of  older, very-active alums.

 

Thank you again for your patience as we threaded our way through the maze of details and requirements for organizing an event on campus. We are proud that we did it on our own initiative, that it was self supporting, that it retained the personal touch and incomparable Class of '59 style throughout! 

 

 

Everyone was a volunteer at this and all of you pitched in with great gusto.  Some people took on specific tasks and we want to single them out for special praise.... Marion Duncan Smith;  Connie King Turkington; Judy Font; Elaine Knoernschild; Randy Fowkes; Ami Sadler; Chatty Collier;  Bonnie Pomeroy Stern; Anne MacGillivray Franke; Dave Cox; Carroll Estes; Jane Sanders;  Jim Seeley; Carole Pewthers; Bob Kahn; Clee Houser; Larry and Marilyn Wagner; Sheldon Breiner. 

WITH FONDEST MEMORIES....'til we meet again....

"THE QUAD"

Kay Sprinkel Grace

Gay Hoagland

Gail Aguilar Stypula

Howard Elkus

Track Two Diplomacy in Action!!! with William J. Perry, Ph.D.

Track Two Diplomacy in Action!!! with William J. Perry, Ph.D.
Saturday, August 27, 2011, Stanford University Alumni Center

Dr. Perry began his remarks with these words by Robert Frost:

“…Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."

He indicates that he has taken the less traveled road for most of his life—including working as a high-tech wizard in Silicon Valley (ESL) and working as an intelligence analyst during the Cuban Missile Crisis. His government positions have included serving as the nineteenth United States secretary of defense (February 1994 to January 1997), deputy secretary of defense (1993–94), and undersecretary of defense for research and engineering (1977–81).

Dr. Perry defines two tracks of diplomacy:

• Track One – Diplomacy by government officials


• Track Two – Diplomacy by former government officials

He is an active Track Two diplomat, working in a “gang of four” with former U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, Ph.D., former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn, and former U.S. Secretary of State George P. Schultz, Ph.D. The gang of four met for the first time in 2006, to co-author an editorial.

Track Two with North Korea
Dr. Perry went to to South Korea in 2008 to attend the inauguration of the South Korean president. The next day he was driven across the demilitarized zone (DMZ) to North Korea to attend the performance of the New York Philharmonic in Pyongyang. The orchestra’s welcome in North Korea was broadcast on live television and included a standing ovation by citizens and the playing of the “Star-Spangled Banner.” (Dr. Perry notes that music is a universal language.) This followed his Track One dealing with North Korea in 1994, when the country was starting to reprocess plutonium. We came close to a second Korean War at that time, when North Korea promised to turn Seoul into a sea of flames and prepared to send troops to the south. Then North Korea backed down and promised to not make plutonium. Following an agreed upon framework, North Korea froze the building of and then eventually dismantled its nuclear plants. This drama unfolded between 1994 and 2002.

However, in August 1998, North Korea test-fired a long-range missile, leading to Dr. Perry being asked by President Clinton to engage in Track One and a Half diplomacy with North Korea. In May 1999, Dr. Perry led a delegation to North Korea. When he took medicine to a children’s hospital, the children said, “Is he here to kill us?” Such comments demonstrate the effect of a lifetime of propaganda. A first-ever summit with South Korea and Japan followed, and North and South Korea marched together in the next Olympics Games. Then, with the election of a new president in the U.S., diplomacy and talks between North Korea and the U.S. were terminated. Inspectors were ejected from nuclear plants, and North Korea now has an arsenal of seven or eight nuclear arms.

Dr. Perry states that disarmament talks have stalled subsequent to the North Korean nuclear tests. However, two Stanford professors are now trying to go back to North Korea to reopen talks on nuclear disarmament.

Track Two with China
Dr. Perry indicates that America’s relationship with China in the next few years is critically important. President Nixon recognized China in 1971, but his acts of diplomacy were impeded by the cultural revolution. President Carter recognized China just as the revolution ended, and this was the beginning of a cooperative program with China. In 1980, as part of that new cooperation, Dr. Perry led the first military delegation to China. When Ronald Reagan became president, Dr. Perry returned to Stanford and continued Track Two diplomacy with China.

Between 1979 and 1989, our relationship with China was never better. Then the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in Beijing brought an abrupt decline in our relationship with China. The relationship has never returned to the 1979-89 level.

President Clinton restarted the relationship with China by sending Dr. Perry there in 1994; it was a positive trip with a modest return. The road to friendship proved to be rocky. China conducted a missile test that landed quite close to Taiwan. Washington Post headlines at the time included “China Plans Live-Ammunition Tests,” and “Verbal war heats up over Taiwan.” But by 1996, we had some agreements, though modest, in place.

Since 1997, Dr. Perry has met annually with Chinese officials. He believes the meetings are fruitful, including an agreement between China and Taiwan to begin direct air travel.

Track Two with Iran
Iran has nuclear weapons. Why do we care?

War is more likely.

They could provide a domino effect on proliferation.

The danger of nuclear terrorism increases.

And Iran apparently believes their poisonous propaganda about Israel.

Iranian’s nuclear weapons program began with the Shah, but it was suspended after the Revolution when the program was considered anti-religious.

But the current administration in Iran appears to be heading towards a nuclear weapon under the cover of a civil nuclear program.

In late September Dr. Perry is meeting with the Iranian foreign minister in New York to discuss nuclear disarmament.

Track Two with Russia
In the 1980s, Dr. Perry went to the Soviet Union almost every year. Mikhail Gorbachev promised glasnost or free speech, and Dr. Perry was surprised when it really happened. He was there when the revolution started. During a visit to Tallinn, Estonia, Dr. Perry witnessed the Soviet Union flag being replaced by the Estonian flag.

The current issue between the U.S. and Russia involves the anti-missile system being built by the U.S. in Eastern Europe. Early in September Dr. Perry will be in a Track Two meeting with Russian scientists to see if they can arrive at recommendations to their two governments on how to proceed on this sticky issue.

The Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Working for the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons occupies most of Dr. Perry’s professional life now. He is devoting the remainder of his career to advancing this goal, but the final elimination of nuclear weapons must be finished by the next generation. Dr. Perry speaks in his classes of the danger of nuclear weapons. He works with graduate students, counting on their picking up the torch and finishing the job. Dr. Perry makes biweekly trips to Washington, DC, and he makes numerous international trips. He does this because he believes that time is not on our side.

Disarmament leadership has to come from the United States. Dr. Perry supports New START, the international treaty between the US and Russia requiring both sides to reduce the number of nuclear weapons they have deployed. However, the treaty barely passed the U.S. Senate ratification vote, so President Obama has backed off moving forward on a follow-on treaty.

Dr. Perry believes that Iran is more dangerous than North Korea. Both countries used civilian nuclear knowledge to develop nuclear weapons. However, the unintended consequences of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons-- namely, an attack by Israel--would be much farther reaching.

Pakistan presents the most danger relative to having a nuclear bomb. The country has about 100 nuclear weapons and is making more. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s government is under siege: this is part of the danger. Pakistan has lost three wars to India since the two countries separated. If they had a fourth war, Pakistan would still lose but might resort to the use of nuclear weapons. A Track Two meeting between the U.S. and Pakistan at Stanford is now being planned.

Regarding non-state terrorism: an overriding danger is catastrophic terrorism. But terrorists can’t build a nuclear weapon from scratch. On the other hand, if the terrorists could get their hands on fissile material (e.g., plutonium) they could still build a crude bomb, which, though crude, could cause devastation equivalent to the Hiroshima bomb.

Dr. Perry believes that his primary achievement as Secretary of Defense was the dismantlement of 8,000 weapons in the former Soviet Union and the U.S. Stanford University and Harvard University are leading the training of the next generation of diplomats. Michael McFaul of the Hoover Institution is President Obama’s top Russian adviser. Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall is Obama’s top European advisor. She was an instrumental facilitator of disarmament while she was an assistant to Secretary Perry.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) is a non-governmental organization (NGO) chaired by former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn. NTI has produced a video, “Nuclear Tipping Point,” which is available at http://www.nti.org. Although the video is free, Dr. Perry asks that we play it in front of a gathering of people—that we do something useful with it. The public has unfortunately dismissed the question of nuclear disarmament. NTI hopes to raise public awareness, believing that education about this will lead to disarmament. One concern is “political exceptionalism:” a belief that the rules don't apply to me. We need to recognize that we are part of the planet. Though partisanship was rampant after the 1994 Congressional election, it is as bad now as Dr. Perry has ever seen it. [Note: Several attendees indicated that they would start/join nuclear disarmament groups in their communities.]

Dr. Perry believes that before Desert Storm, Saddam Hussein had a desire for nuclear weapons but did not have one yet. Hussein did have chemical weapons, which don’t compare to nuclear weapons. A nuclear exchange during the Cold War would have been the end of civilization. Dr. Perry says that we were close to that in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Today's biggest danger is nuclear terrorists. They could change our life as we know it. Between 20,000 and 30,000 weapons still exist in the world. Dr. Perry does not expect that they will all be dismantled in his lifetime.

With respect to Afghanistan, we went there to defeat Al Qaeda, and that is taking much longer than expected. The draw-down of the U.S. military is possible, but it is still a couple of years away.

Additional Dangers
The danger in disarmament is that the bad guy could get ahold of fissionable material (e.g., plutonium).

There is a danger of cyber war. Cyber war is like a nuclear terrorist threat in that most people don't understand it. The Defense Department is aware of the dangers of cyber attacks and is working to counter. They believe that an effective defense requires a capable offense.



Congratulations to the Class of ’59: Dr. Perry says we're the best informed group he's ever spoken to :-)

On Stress and our Health - Dr. Robert Sapolsky

Friday, August 26, 2011, Stanford University Alumni Center

MacArthur Genius Dr. Robert Sapolsky is the John A. and Cynthia Fry Gunn Professor at Stanford, with joint appointments in biological sciences, neurology, neurological sciences, and neurosurgery. He is also a research associate at the National Museums of Kenya. Dr. Sapolsky’s research focuses on stress, neuronal degeneration, and aging. His studies of wild baboons in Kenya have shed light on relationships between personality, stress-related disease, and the environment. Dr. Sapolsky has published numerous books, the most recent bearing the title Stress and the Aging Brain.

Dr. Sapolsky began his presentation by saying that he was happy that no one in the Class of ’59 will ask him for a medical school recommendation. (This is unusual on this campus, apparently.)

Part of the research for his latest book required his students to conduct the following studies across the U.S.:

·       Radio station managers reflecting many musical tastes across the country were interviewed. The study revealed the following age relationship to music: We set our tastes in our 20s. If they are not set by our 30s, they will not be set. In fact, the window on developing musical taste is closed by 35.

·       Sushi restaurant owners in the Midwest were interviewed regarding food tastes. They were asked: When did sushi come to town? What is the age of your clientele? The study concluded that the average age to first try sushi is 23. If haven't tried it by 39, you won't.

·       How was Dr. Sapolsky to study fashion tastes? Tatoos? No. Earrings on men? No. So he asked his interviewers to contact 49 body piercing parlors across the country and to ask about tongue studs, with this result: The average age to get a tongue stud is 18. If you don’t have one by 23, you aren’t going to get one.

Our creativity declines with age--no surprise. But our creative output decreases at the same time that our criticism of other's work increases. For example, Albert Einstein is reported to have been less open to other people’s novelty as he aged. Part of this is due to neuron loss: tremors, inability to transfer short term memory to long term memory, and disinhibition are symptoms of the loss.

Development is a lifelong process for brains! You do make new neurons. This is the hottest study in neuroscience. Back to our research: Why are the development of musical and sushi tastes limited to young brains?

Dr. Sapolsky has learned that if people change their disciplines, they reset their clocks. (Note Dr. Carroll Estes’ career change nine years ago, noted in the Longevity posting on this blog.) It’s healthy to have a career change every few years. He calls this disciplinary age, as opposed to chronological age. Note: A UC Davis professor has called being eminent in your field the kiss of death!

Here’s another interesting branch of psychology: Peer influence or peer generational influence. You're 15. The last thing you want to be is like your parents. He sees the exact same thing in other species. When are lab rats willing to try new foods? In adolescence. Not when they’re newborns and not in adulthood.

He observed a macaque monkey who had invented two different feeding techniques. One was to clean a potato with sea water, and then dip it in salt. She would also separate rice from sand by throwing a handful of rice/sand into water, where the sand would sink. Monkeys her age or younger—not older--would copy her techniques.

A study of baboons revealed that when they moved to a new area, no one older than the one who discovered new foods would try them.

Dr. Sapolsky adds: “If you were a lot older than Darwin, forget it.” Max Planck stated that new ideas outlive the current generation.

Dr. Sapolsky has learned that he’s been asking the wrong question. Now he asks: Why is it when we get older we want to stay with what we know in food, etc.? (Stravinsky's answer: “I want to make sure I'm still here.”) He assures us that it’s not terrible to lose openness to novelty. An anthropologist has said:  Any time a rare ecological disaster came along, if there's group memory, you can survive. For example, the older the elephant matriarch, the better the infant survival rate in a group of elephants. She remembers where the good watering hole is.

Is it ok if Dr. Sapolsky listens to Bob Marley over and over again? Do some 80-year-olds need to get tongue piercings? Sure. Sure. He states: “An open mind is a prerequisite to an open heart.” Though he does warn, “If you’re listening to James Taylor, you are probably searching out relaxed jeans.”

Short term memory is up to a minute or two old. Long term memory is five minutes old or older.  It’s thanks to long term memory that you can remember your native language or the smell of what your grandmother used to bake. It is related to visceral memories. Music is in the visceral memory category. That's why an Alzheimer's patient will remember “God Bless America.”

The Fatal Attraction Phenomenon

Here’s the weirdest thing Dr. Sapolsky's ever worked on: toxoplasma. When pregnant, women automatically stay away from cats, and the only place toxo can reproduce is in the guts of cats. Cats excrete it, and it’s eaten by rats. Take a lab rat: It has a hard wired aversion to the smell of a predator (e,g,, cat urine). It will go to the other side of the cage if it’s exposed to the smell of a cat or cat feces. Toxo turns the aversion into an attraction! Predator aversion occupies just one circuit in the brain.

Dopamine is all about reward, and cocaine provides dopamine. A new study reveals that toxo increases dopamine. It can hijack a reward pathway. Toxoplasma-infected people say things they shouldn't and have accidents from reckless driving. They impulsively commit suicide. Seventy percent of people in France test positive for toxoplasma as a result of what they eat. Worldwide the number is 30%. Positive tests for toxoplasma are likelier closer to the equator (where one walks around barefoot and can get infected from feces on the ground). We can develop toxoplasma from uncooked meats. However, toxoplasma has a subtle effect and is not usually tested for in humans.

Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers

Changing the subject: Why don't zebras get ulcers? Because they're not smart enough to. A zebra has no psychological stress. This is in contrast to us. We don't fight over getting the next food animal. No. We stress over being passed over for promotion.

Stress can kill neurons—and can make neurons less able to withstand stress. Stress increases the risk of Alzheimer's Disease. However, interventions can always help; it’s never too late to seek help.

The definition of stress for a zebra is any action that knocks its body out of homeostatic balance. A half-starved lion is a stressed lion. A human being also experiences stress if you’re knocked out of homeostatic balance—or if you think you're about to be knocked out of homeostatic balance.

For most animals, stress results from an immediate awareness of danger. In humans, stress in a dangerous situation can save your life. If stress comes some other way, it can damage your body (e.g., as hypertension can). A stress reliever (e.g., a new hobby) can lower hypertension, but it has to be done daily, and it has to be something you actually like doing.

The 80/20 rule: In some ways it doesn't matter what the new hobby is. Whatever it is, getting started with it is 80% of the way to its helping you. Making the appointment for a neurological test provides immediate relief.

Dr. Sapolsky dispels another myth (the “executive stress syndrome”): A higher ranking executive is more prone to stress. In the corporate world, people at the top are not stressed. It's middle management that is stressed. The highest level people have control. Two important factors in enjoying one’s work: Doing what I love and having some surprises in the job. That’s the right kind of stress. Two important  factors in stress management: that the stress is not extreme and that it is not transient. It’s a benevolent relinquishment of control.

One final thought: BDNF, a neurotrophic factor in brain, is turning out to be important in mood and memory.

The Perfect Topic for the Class of ’59 –- Longevity

Friday, August 26, 2011, Stanford University Alumni Center

Introducing the Stanford Center on Longevity

Mission: To foster innovations in science and technology, public policy and social norms that impact the challenges and opportunities of longer life spans and aging well.

Margaret Dyer-Chamberlain, Senior Research Scholar and Managing Director, provided an overview of the Center, saying that its focus is to ensure that added years serve as a gift, not a burden. The origins of the Center are interdisciplinary—psychology and neurology—and its research areas include the following:

·       Mind – Cognition and memory, decision making, emotional regulation and experience. Recent studies focus on estrogen and memory.

·       Mobility – Osteoarthritis, sedentary behavior

·       Financial Security – Education, planning, fraud. The Longevity Center offers a new Center on Financial Fraud.

·       Global Aging – Public discourse, research on economic and political considerations

·       Politics, Scholars & the Public: Health care reform, Medicare, healthy aging, and communities. Question: How do you measure what’s a healthy community?

Courses include an undergraduate longevity course, a first-year seminar, and an undergraduate student practicum.

Think about this: By the time today’s children grow old, living to 100 will be common.

Global Population Aging

Presenter Adele M. Hayutin, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Scholar and Director of the Center’s Global Aging Program. She indicates that aging is personal for all of us, and it’s also global. Knowing it’s unfolding differently around the world, Dr. Hayutin’s goal is to describe global changes and show us that the United States is younger than most advanced economies. For example, with correct information, we can adjust portfolios and advocate for changes.

A primary issue of population aging: The increase in the share of old people is more important than the number of old people. She notes that since we graduated (1959), Americans are living longer and we are having fewer children. These forces have major consequences, which she compares to the forces of two rivers clashing—where results may be tumultuous.

Worldwide, old people (65+) outnumber young people (0-14 years old) in more developed countries. If it’s not true today, it will be in 2030 and 2050. The working age population has skyrocketed. Western Europe and Japan have the highest percentages of old people (again, 65+). Most of Asia has a young population. Thirteen percent of the U.S. population is old. Twenty years from now, Africa will continue to have a young population, and this will be in sharp contrast to Asia.

Declining fertility and increasing longevity drive the age statistics. In Japan, the average age in 1952 was 22; in 2010, it was 45; in 2030, it will be 52. In the U.S., the average age in 1952 was 30; in 2010, it was 37; in 2030, it will be 40. This was demonstrated in graphs showing a pyramid shape for our ages (oldest population at the top) in 1952 to a projected cube in 2030.

Young countries face different challenges. When one considers that Pakistan’s average age was 14 in 1950, 21 in 2010, and will be 26 in 2030, Hayutin indicates that the Arab Spring was not surprising.

China now has too many bachelors, and that is considered a national security issue. So the country is easing its one-child policy. China will see a shrinking work force. Work forces are currently shrinking in the following countries: Italy, South Korea, Germany, Japan, and Russia.

Each country faces a different reality. How do we adapt? Increasing immigration and advancing the retirement age are possibilities.

Dr. Hayutin ended her talk by asking us to write to our Congress members, asking them what they are doing about our aging population.

Stanford Prevention Research Center

Sandra J. Winter, Ph.D., from the Healthy Aging Studies Group, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Student University School of Medicine, was the next presenter. The center has promoted research on healthy aging for over 30 years. She offered these facts about chronic disease:

·       Accounts for seven out of 10 deaths each year;

·       One out of two adults has a chronic condition;

·       Can result in daily activity limitations;

·       In 2003, cost the U.S. $1,323 billion.

Americans are living longer and have an increased risk of chronic disease. (Hypertension is the most common.)

Three common causes of physical problems are physical inactivity, smoking, and diet. We don’t always do what is good for us. We need new strategies. Here’s a start:

·       Advocacy – Neighborhood eating and activity advocacy teams like backyard gardens and cooking classes and potluck dinners provide improved nutrition with socialization. Seniors learn that things that are manmade (e.g., fast food restaurants, a lack of sidewalks in a community) provide risk.

·       Stanford Healthy Neighborhood Tool – The program provides tablet computers for seniors to carry and record pictures (potential risks) and sounds (their reactions).

·       Mobile Interventions for Lifestyles & Exercise at Stanford – This program provides apps (mTrack – a fancy pedometer, mSmiles, and mConnect) for seniors who already use smartphone technology.

The Healthy Aging Studies Group is most interested in reaching the underserved.  All of these strategies focus on getting people to walk more.

Contact Dr. Winter by e-mail.

Stanford Aging Research – A Whirlwind Sampler Tour

Presenter Ken Smith is a Senior Research Fellow and Director of Academic Research and Support at the Center. A former aerospace engineer, Smith now serves as a faculty liaison in the program. Here goes with the whirlwind tour!

·       The Future Self Project: How would you like to be a young person viewing an aged version of yourself? This computer program provides such a display and also provides an aged avatar with which the person can perform activities. After viewing themselves, participants answer questionnaires. And they increase their savings programs.

·       Tai Chi – Controlling the autonomous: This study demonstrated Tai Chi’s potential benefit to circulatory control.

·       White Matter Hyperintensities in the Brain: This study provided groundwork for future dementia studies by developing methods for tracking neural pathways.

·       Shoe for Osteoarthritis Sufferers: The Center designed a shoe for knee arthritis patients, and since Spring 2011 it’s being sold as the ABEO SMARTsystem at the Walking Company.

·       Sedentary Behavior in the Workplace: This is an upcoming pilot study in an insurance company’s call center. The long-term result might be a new health guideline.

·       Glenn Laboratory for the Biology of Aging: This lab was new in 2011. It is investigating the role of stem cells in the aging process. Discoveries in the mechanisms of aging may clarify age-related disease.

·       Biology of Aging – a molecular “odometer” for aging: The eventual impact may be its ability to predict remaining lifespan.

·       Center for the Prevention of Financial Fraud: With the elderly frequently being targeted in financial fraud, the hope is to set up a new network through which information can be shared nationwide. This will be discussed at a conference in Washington, DC, in November.

·       Healthcare Choices: Knowledge of personal cost needs to be included in public opinions on healthcare reform. Currently there is some support for this, but it is nuanced.

·       Interdisciplinary studies: Psychology, neurology, biology, medicine, law, business, political science, and computer science are coming together in the Center’s studies.

·       Self-Driving Automobiles: This study potentially impacts the major mismatch between housing build-out and the aging population.

Watch for the book Planning to Stay which will be published in 2012. Most people want to “age in place.” The book includes contributions from many experts, including former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Margaret Dyer-Chamberlain and Jane Hickey of the Center, and 24 other expert authors.

The Center has 10 full-time employees. Contact Smith by e-mail. He also invites us to consider providing funds for such projects at The Stanford Challenge.

The session ended with audience comments by Class of ‘59er Carroll Estes, Ph.D., who is a sociologist and gerontologist at the University of California, San Francisco. She has been a political sociologist for the last nine years, is president of the Gerontology Society of America, and is a member of other related groups. She is working with the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare—a political action committee (PAC). She has written two books on long-term care.

Carol described the CLASS Act, where Community Living Assistance with Support Services (CLASS) is based upon cash and counseling and would save the government $87 billion. The fatal flaw is that it doesn’t require 100% participation by Americans. If passed, the CLASS Act will belong to Health and Human Services (HHS).

Carol has participated in McArthur Foundation studies that have revealed that heredity is less important than environment in longevity. One take-away for the Class of ’59: Meaning-based activity is the most beneficial.

ODE to the ’59 QUAD

ODE to the ’59 QUAD

(we ain’t talkin’ ‘bout the yearbook!)

to be sung to the familiar gospel tune

“Amazing [Kay Sprinkel] Grace"

music at

http://www.scriptureandmusic.com/Music/MIDI/Amazing_Grace_L.mid

Amazing Kay

Amazing Kay, we love you so!

You have done so much for us all:

We came back to school; we saw so many friends

in their bathrobes, in the dormitory hall.

Amazing Kay, she’s got such spark!

For her, organizing’s such a lark –

Amazing Kay, she works all day

And all too often, she gets no pay.

But Kay, you see, is not like you or me;

‘cause she’s always charged with energy –

Amazing Kay: she has inspired us all

to leap over the highest wall.

Amazing Gay

Amazing Gay, of the Class of ‘59

She’s enriched all of our lives; yours and mine

Amazing Gay, she sure knows how to plan –

When others say “can’t,” Gay says “can.”

Gay will take up the cause, whatever it may be;

She’ll find answers, just you wait and see

Amazing Gay, she always saves the day;

Nothin’s ever gonna stand in her way!

Amazing Gay, she makes all things seem

Like a dream with a recurring theme:

When there are things that we need to get done

Don’t just talk; get out there and run!

Amazing Gail

Amazing Gail, we love you one and all

Next to you we all feel so very small.

Amazing Gail, you’ve taught us all just how

to be leaders in the present, here and now.

Amazing Gail, she surely is no snail;

She gets it done, come rain or hail.

Amazing Gail, no task is ever too large:

For her the troops all say: “Yes, Sarge!”

Amazing Gail: she cannot be derailed;

She is never known to have failed.

Amazing Gail, she’s so well organized:

She’ll never come to be downsized.

Amazing Howdy E

Amazing Howdy E, he travels o’er the world

with his architectural drawings unfurled.

With Howdy E the way is clear: you needn’t fear.

He will lead the way from there to here.

Howdy E: he can design just about anything;

Howdy E always grabs the ring.

When we are in despair; when failure’s in the air

Howdy E will pull us through with his own flair.

Amazing Howdy E, he travels far and wide

Bringing all he meets to his side

He sees a challenge; he starts to draw a line

Soon there’s a plan that makes it all fine.

Amazing Quad

Amazing Quad, you truly are the best

With one in Boston, three out west

Amazing Quad, you worked with zeal and zest

Never tiring, never seeking rest.

Amazing Quad, we hold you all in awe

You’re the hardest workers we ever saw

If anybody tried to beat you at your game,

without you it wouldn’t be the same.

Amazing Quad, there isn’t any doubt,

you’ve won our very high esteem

Amazing Quad, we’re wondering just how

You could do so much and not lose steam

Chorus

Amazing Quad, hip hip hooray!

Amazing Quad, you’ve done yourselves so proud

Amazing Quad, we have to say

You were there for us every day.

Amazing Quad, you’ve given us a dream

Come true, or so it would seem.

Amazing Quad, you took one great leap

and gave us such good memories to keep.

Amazing Quad, with admiration we all weep

Dividends we all shall reap.

Amazing Quad, our gratitude runs deep

And now, at last, we’ll let you sleep!

Zimbardo Unbound*

Zimbardo Unbound*

Presented Thursday afternoon, August 25, 2011, in the Stanford University Alumni Center

Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., is an emeritus professor of psychology at Stanford University. Although he is probably best known as director of the famous (and infamous) 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment and an expert witness in Abu Ghraib prison trials, he has many areas of research in social psychology, and we were about to be introduced to three topics:

·       Creating evil in a lab

·       Exploring time in our lives

·       Inspiring heroism everywhere

Creating Evil in a Lab

Indicating that poverty is the main evil in the world (breeding temptations as well as evil), Zimbardo has always wanted to know about this:

·       Is the line between good and evil fixed and impermeable, so that good people are safe from crossing over to the bad side? Or…

·       Is the line between good and evil permeable, allowing flow across the boundary in both directions, so that good people can turn evil and evil people can become good again?

What makes people go wrong? Can it be prevented? Zimbardo defined the “Lucifer Effect,” saying that God was into conflict resolution. But in addition to creating Heaven, He created Hell as a place to store evil. Zimbardo’s Lucifer Effect is a celebration of the mind’s infinite capacity to make us behave:

·       Kind or cruel

·       Caring or indifferent

·       Creative or destructive

and make us villains or heroes. (Read more at http://www.lucifereffect.com/.)

We understand a definition of evil as an exercise and abuse of power to intentionally harm. However, there’s also an evil of inaction—the bystander effect. The greater the number of bystanders (e.g., to bullying), the less likely people will offer to help. This is demonstrated with a diffusion of responsibility, e.g., with the September 2010 PG&E pipeline explosion in San Bruno and a recent gang rape of a teenaged girl.

Here’s a very dangerous question:

·       Would you electrocute a stranger if Hitler asked you to?

This question demonstrates the issue of authority. “All evil begins with 15 volts.” Role (e.g., teacher vs. student) is important. What happens when you put good people in a bad place? In the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, students were asked if they wanted to be prisoners or guards. No one wanted to be a guard. So Zimbardo randomly assigned the roles to 24 normal and healthy students. He arranged for arrests by the Palo Alto Police Department, and students were “locked up” in the basement of the Psychology Building. Guards wore silver-reflecting sunglasses so that they would never make eye contact with the prisoners. Prisoners were assigned humiliating tasks such as cleaning toilet bowls. The abuse they received was increased daily.  Prisoners were subjected to sex games and degradation. Having spun out of control, Zimbardo stopped the experiment after six days. (It was scheduled to run for two weeks but ended after the first kid freaked out.) Read more at http://www.prisonexp.org/.

Government officials said that the 2004 Abu Ghraib Prison scandal was due to a few bad apples. Zimbardo contends (and contended in court) that the soldiers were good but the barrel was bad. He says that the situation corrupted the abusers.  Abuses did not happen on day shifts. He describes the powers of situations and systems:

·       Individual – personal disposition (“bad apples”)

·       Situational – social and physical environment (“bad barrel”)

·       System – organizational influences such as political, economic, cultural, and legal

The Stanford Prison Experiment ended such studies.

The Time Paradox

·       Future Time – Focus on positives

·       Past Time – Focus on negatives

·       Present Time Paradox – Hedonism and fatalism

Zimbardo then talked about the time paradox and how time perspectives govern our lives. Life is temptation. He demonstrated past focus and future focus with a film showing 4-year-olds who were tempted with candy. A child could get one candy now, but if s/he waited until Zimbarbo returned from a quick trip out of the room, s/he would get two candies (actually, marshmallows). This was his colleague’s study (“The Marshmallow Experiment”). With follow up inquiries over the years, the researcher learned that the kids who were willing to wait for the second marshmallow scored 250 points higher on SATs!

Education always makes present-oriented children more future-oriented. Future-oriented people live longer. (Think about it: Future-oriented people schedule annual physicals and dental exams.) On the other hand, a person who is too future-oriented is liable to be a workaholic. Zimbardo adds: “At work, time is the most important thing in the world. At home, it’s the most precious.” Zimbardo worries about this: Twenty years ago, 60% of families had sit-down dinners together. Now, only 20% of families have sit-down dinners together. Read more about Zimbardo’s Time Paradox at http://www.thetimeparadox.com/.

Also visit www.ted.com to see Zimbardo’s presentation on The Time Paradox and a newer aspect of the topic: Why boys and men are failing academically, socially, and sexually. Zimbardo adds: “All addictions are addictions to present hedonism.” And he points that children no longer wear wristwatches because of their being single function devices.

Inspiring Heroism Everywhere

How do we train people to be more future-oriented? Let us inspire more everyday people to become heroes. Dr. Zimbardo is upset that there’s no research on heroism, saying that the word is missing from indices of psychology books.

He endorses shifting social norms like this: FortifyàInspireàCoach. He believes that heroism is teachable, coachable.

What does it take to be a hero? It’s ordinary, everyday people doing extra-ordinary actions. President Obama says, “Stand up, speak out!” Rosa Parks did and the young people in Egypt do demonstrate heroism. The heroic imagination can be put to work, as demonstrated by the Chinese 9-year-old who saved two classmates in an earthquake. (Why did he do his heroic act? Because he was the hall monitor, he said.)

It is time for us to promote moral courage and the concept of heroic imagination. Heroism is the antidote to public indifference.

Evil and heroism have similar components. Classic heroes are solo male warriors or singular adventurers. Zimbardo offers a new conception of heroism, in which anyone can be a hero.

We are invited to participate in HIP in action:

·       Provide funds for research on all aspects of heroism

·       Develop Hero educational curricula; help a child get someone in his family to stop smoking

·       Facilitate public engagement to create HIP communities throughout the world, with interactive exercises

·       Participate in corporate initiatives: creating Cultures of Integrity (he just finished one at Google)

Become a HIPster and read more about the Heroic Imagination Project (HIP) at http://heroicimagination.org/.

^{-----------------}

^* Title taken from http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/mayjun/features/zimbardo.html. It still seems like an appropriate title!