Category Archives: Human Behavior

Mental health benefits of replacing social media with exercise – Medical News Today

Social media use exploded with COVID-19s lockdowns and contact restrictions. Millions turned to Facebook, TikTok, Twitter, and other platforms to escape feelings of isolation, anxiety, and hopelessness.

However, excessive screen time has led to addictive behaviors, stronger emotional attachment to social media, and deeper mental anguish for many people.

Researchers at the Ruhr-Universittt in Bochum, Germany investigated the effects of reducing social media use (SMU) and increasing physical activity, or both, on emotional well-being and tobacco consumption.

Julia Brailosvskaia, Ph.D., an assistant professor at the universitys Mental Health Research and Treatment Center, led the two-week experiment.

Brailosvskaia and her team observed that the interventions they suggested may have helped enhance participants satisfaction with life. At a 6-month follow-up, the subjects continued to report spending less time on social media, maintaining physical activity, feeling happier, and smoking fewer cigarettes.

The Journal of Public Health recently published these findings.

The studys authors noted that mental health consists of two interrelated but separate dimensions: positive and negative.

With this paradigm, they hypothesized that the positive dimension of their intervention would increase life satisfaction and subjective happiness. The negative dimension would decrease depression symptoms and addictive tendencies of SMU.

Medical News Today discussed this study with Dr.Sheldon Zablow, an author and nutritional psychiatrist. He was not involved in the research.

When asked about the effects of social media on mental health, Dr. Zablow asserted:

If activities interfere with customary basic age-appropriate milestones of economic self-sufficiency, socialization, or health maintenance, then they are detrimental. The activities could be alcohol use, substance use, dietary choices, exercise choices, or entertainment choicesspecifically social media.

Dr. Zablow warned that excessive social media use weakens social interpersonal bonds, which can negatively impact mental health.

MNT also spoke with Dr. David A. Merrill, adult and geriatric psychiatrist and director of the Pacific Neuroscience Institutes Pacific Brain Health Center at Providence Saint Johns Health Center in Santa Monica, CA, regarding the present study. He was not involved in the research.

Dr. Merrill argued that the term social media is a misnomer thats almost like a bait and switch, designed to increase user engagement.

Too much social media use, he said, could end up exacerbating mental issues for people with behavioral health conditions or addictive vulnerabilities.

Theres the brain reward system that you get from clicking or scrolling or maintaining the use of the social media, Dr. Merrill said.

I think [that the authors are] demonstrating causally that you both need to have a conscious awareness of the need to limit the self-soothing aspect of social media use, and you also need to have alternatives, so you need to have some other way to bring joy into your life, and especially during the pandemic.

As a psychiatrist, Dr. Zablow emphasized that the essential part of any treatment program recommended is exercise. Psychotherapy and, when indicated, medication, will not work well if a person does not exercise.

Dr. Zablow added that exercise increases the production of neurotransmitters, the brains natural antidepressants and antianxiety molecules.

Consequently, more exercise can build mental health, while less activity due to social media overuse can curtail healthy brain chemistry.

Dr. Brailosvskaia and her colleagues reasoned that a conscious and controlled reduction of time spent on SMU as well as an increase of time spent on physical activity could causally reduce negative mental health consequences of the COVID-19 situation. They also believed that combining both interventions might amplify this effect.

The professor mentioned that the methods can easily fit into everyday life with little cost, effort, or risk of violating COVID-19 protocols.

Further, the scientists expected their experiment to reduce stress caused by COVID-19 and diminish smoking behavior.

The researchers recruited 642 healthy adult social media users and placed them in 4 experimental groups.

The social media (SM) group had 162 individuals, the physical activity (PA) group of 161, a combination group of 159, and a control group of 160.

Over 2 weeks, the SM subjects reduced their daily SMU time by 30 minutes and the PA group increased their daily physical activity by 30 minutes. The combination group applied both interventions, while the control did not change their behaviors.

Following the World Health Organizations physical activity recommendations for adults, the first three groups increased their exercise time by 30 minutes.

The participants completed online surveys and daily compliance diaries at the start of the trial, 1 week later, and after the 2-week period. They also submitted follow-up surveys at 1, 3, and 6 months post-experiment.

Dr. Brailosvskaia and her team concluded that their interventions helped people decrease the time they spend with SM.

Even 6 months after the experiment, the participants had reduced their daily initial SM time by about 37 minutes in the SM group, by about 33 minutes in the PA group, and by about 46 minutes in the combination group.

Moreover, participants reported having a decreased emotional bond with social media.

All the interventions encouraged more physical activity as well. Six months later, our participants had enhanced their initial weekly physical activity time for 26 minutes in the SM group, for 40 minutes in the PA group, and for 1 hour 39 minutes in the combination group, the authors wrote.

Even the control group increased their activity by 20 minutes.

Dr. Merrill was impressed with the studys striking findings with the combination of reducing social media with increasing physical activity. He agreed with the notion that SMU restrictions need a complementing activity that brings joy or a sense of achievement.

According to the studys authors, the experimental longitudinal design of their present research allowed them to establish causality.

However, the study population lacked diversity. All the participants were young, female, German, Caucasian, and highly educated.

Dr. Merrill felt that, while it would be interesting to replicate this investigation in the United States with a more diverse group, the results would likely be similar.

The study did not consider which form of SMU the subjects were using or specify which type of physical activity the participants engaged in. The researchers hope that future work will focus more on these factors.

Dr. Brailosvskaias research suggests that modest changes in SMU and physical activity could help protect and enhance mental health conveniently and affordably.

The professor and her team recognize how SMU can minimize isolation and help spread information.

From time to time, it is important to consciously limit ones online accessibility and to go back to the human roots [] a physically active lifestyle to stay happy and healthy in the age of digitalization, the researchers wrote.

Read more:
Mental health benefits of replacing social media with exercise - Medical News Today

Facial recognition coming to Lincoln Corsair as partnerships formed for automotive biometrics – Biometric Update

Several companies in the automotive space have recently unveiled new partnerships or products showcasing the potential of biometrics in the car industry. Joint venture Rheinmetall Dermalog SensorTec made its public debut at the InCabin trade show in Brussels this week and Lincoln confirmed its 2023 Corsair model will offer biometric tech, while Smart Eye partnered with ams Osram to deliver biometric sensing for enhanced driver monitoring and passenger safety.

Lincoln, the luxury vehicle division of American automobile manufacturer Ford, confirmed its 2023 Corsair model will offer a combination of facial recognition, sensor, and GPS capabilities.

These technologies will be delivered as part of Lincolns ActiveGlide highway driving system (called Blue Cruise in Ford models), which allows hands-free driving on over 130,000 miles of roads in North America.

Additionally, the new Corsair system will also enable the vehicle to check traffic and change lanes when the driver hits the turn signal stalk. According to Fox News, it can also automatically lower speeds for upcoming turns and alert drivers to vehicles and pedestrians, among other things.

Lincoln is already taking orders on the 2023 Corsair, with initial deliveries scheduled for early next year. The Lincoln Grand Touring Corsair version with ActiveGlide will cost roughly US$8,000 more than its basic counterpart.

The announcement comes months after Ford was awarded a patent for facial recognition systems built into vehicles that would recognize drivers and unlock the doors on sight.

Rheinmetall Dermalog SensorTec is a joint venture of the tech enterprise Rheinmetall AG and Dermalog Identification Systems, one of Europes largest biometrics providers.

SensorTec unveiled its biometric product for the first time at the InCabin tradeshow in the Autoworld Museum in Brussels on Thursday.

According to a company announcement, the strategic goal of SensorTec is to integrate biometric technology, artificial intelligence (AI) software and digitization solutions in the vehicle interior to prevent accidents due to inattentiveness.

Dermalog owns numerous patents related to biometric technology. It has also collaborated on more than 250 major international projects in the field of human biometrics.

Most recently, the company has been working with officials of the Land Transportation Office in the Philippines to help improve the delivery of a biometrics project that was previously deemed in danger because of dissatisfaction with its execution.

ams Osram has joined forces with human behavior prediction specialist Smart Eye to work on driver monitoring systems (DMS) and occupant monitoring systems (OMS).

By merging Smart Eye interior sensing software with ams Osrams dot illumination technology in the Icarus: Structured Light Evaluation Kit, the company will design solutions that can accurately detect the driver and passenger status and position.

The proof-of-concept (POC) technology is designed to leverage existing architecture inside a vehicle to efficiently and cost-effectively provide high-performance 3D sensing capabilities for DMS and OMS applications.

Icarus features include support for high-precision augmented reality heads-up display (AR-HuD), secure driver authentication, and advanced body position to enhance road safety by delivering inputs to airbag deployment decisions and pre-crash safety measures.

The low-cost update can reportedly be installed near infrared-based DMS hardware without the need to overhaul an entire system.

The Icarus POC comes nearly a year after Smart Eye acquired behavioral software solutions developer iMotions.

As for ams Osram, the company partnered with trinamiX in July to develop a solution that enables biometric face authentication suited to mobile payments from behind an OLED screen.

ams Osram | automotive biometrics | biometrics | consumer electronics | facial recognition | monitoring | personalization | Rheinmetall Dermalog SensorTec | Smart Eye

See more here:
Facial recognition coming to Lincoln Corsair as partnerships formed for automotive biometrics - Biometric Update

DPI receives $1.5 million grant from National Science Foundation to fund international research partnership on clean transportation | The Board of…

Three-year project is designed to ameliorate urban pollution affecting health and climate change

September 15, 2022 (CHICAGO) A multi-institutional and multidisciplinary team led by the Discovery Partners Institute has been awarded a $1.5 million grant from the National Science Foundation PIRE program to reduce pollution in South Asian cities and accelerate a transition to clean transportation.

Researchers in the three-year project will employ weather and climate modeling to predict how switching from vehicles that burn fossil fuels to electric vehicles will affect urban air quality.

The team of physical scientists, engineers, social scientists and educators will also study impacts on human behavior during this changeover, with the hope of encouraging swifter adoption of clean transportation.

The projects principal investigator is Ashish Sharma, who recently joined DPI as climate and sustainability lead. Sharma is also an adjunct professor in the department of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

Exhaust from internal combustion engines adds to air toxins that worsen health particularly in large, dense cities. The worlds 1.4 billion conventional cars and trucks, which are concentrated in cities, also are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, which cause global warming and climate change.

This project is critical and timely as transportation emissions contribute not only to the changing climate but also to extreme events, such as making heatwaves stronger and storms more intense, Sharma said.

The work will primarily focus on three Indian cities Delhi, Pune and Bhubaneswar, with a combined metro population of 36.5 million with potential to scale to other South Asian cities. This project also could help guide U.S. cities, where pollution from gasoline-powered vehicles remains a major challenge.

We would like to learn from this international experience and prepare U.S. cities before these issues worsen, Sharma continued. Our U.S. team in Chicago, Colorado and Phoenix will use existing partnerships to establish research and education programs at their home institutions.

DPI is a public-private R&D center under the University of Illinois System.

We are excited that DPI will lead this effort to develop research-driven solutions for air quality issues, guide investments in transportation and thus directly impact global economic growth and human health, said Venkat Venkatakrishnan, director of research at DPI.

We are committed to leverage DPIs in-house knowledge base and connections, he added, to develop an international hub for cross-cutting research and education to address climate change and clean energy challenges head on.

The NSFs Partnership for International Research and Education program is extremely selective in awarding grants, approving only 10 to 15 a year. The NSF-PIRE program selects visionary, ambitious, interdisciplinary, use-inspired research proposals that address scientific challenges related to climate change and/or clean energy.

We look forward to the results and accomplishments of your interesting, interdisciplinary, international work, both for the scientific outcomes and for societal benefits, said Fahmida Chowdhury, a program director in the NSFs Office of International Science and Engineering.

Along with DPI, this team will include members from the University of Illinois Chicago, the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, the University of Chicago, Arizona State University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. International partners include the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi, the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology in Pune and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Researchs Institute of Minerals and Materials Technology in Bhubaneswar.

About DPI

The Discovery Partners Institute empowers people to jumpstart their tech careers or companies in Chicago. Led by the University of Illinois System in partnership with top research universities, it does three things: Train people for high-demand tech jobs; conduct applied R&D; and support business building. With state investment and a new innovation district in development, DPI has the resources to attract, develop, and leverage the most ambitious people and companies the region has to offer and keep them here.

More here:
DPI receives $1.5 million grant from National Science Foundation to fund international research partnership on clean transportation | The Board of...

Christian Montag, psychologist: Technostress is when you think, Id like to smash the computer – EL PAS USA

Christian Montag is a Professor of Molecular Psychology at Ulm University in Germany, and the author of works and research that investigate the influence of technology on the human mind. His broader field of research encompasses personality psychology, the study of individual differences that determine cognitive abilities, such as intelligence, or why we are more cooperative, extroverted, or anxious. With technology playing an increasingly important role in our lives, the 45-year-old researcher says a multidisciplinary approach is needed to understand how this is affecting us psychologically. Montag has supported the development of a study (the 2022 Wellness and Home Working report) by NFON, a European provider of cloud-integrated business communications. He talks to EL PAS about the findings of the report, which are based on a survey carried out by Statista Q, a specialist in data, analytics and market research of 8,000 people in eight European countries.

Question. What is technostress?

Answer. Its a term that was introduced into the scientific literature a couple of years ago, and it came about when people started to deal with those situations that we all face when technology doesnt work. When you think: Id like to smash the computer, thats technostress. There have been studies that show how hormones could trigger people to punch machines. We all face technostress in our daily lives, and now with the prevailing home offices for many of us, we face many new challenges resulting in technostress. Just think of the situation created by the pandemic, which forced many people to use video calls and other programs for the first time.

Q. But doesnt that happen in conventional workplaces as well?

A. True, but even so, if we compare the situation at the beginning of the pandemic and the situation today, we see a change: many people were not adequately prepared from a technological point of view for a well-functioning home office. Digitalization comes with costs to our well-being when the internet connection does not work properly or is too slow or you simply have very old equipment at home. Many people had to renew their devices out of necessity.

Q. Some 28% of respondents say they are working more and, conversely, 36% say they have more time to spend with the family

A. Its the paradox of working at home. On the one hand, people feel that they are working more, that the workload is intensifying and that they are spending more hours in front of the computer. But on the other hand, they say they have more time for family or leisure. From my view, the key to explaining this paradox is that people do not work need to commute anymore or to a lesser extent. For example, you commute two hours a day. Then we see a worker spending half an hour longer at work, but they also gained an extra hour and a half. This gives them more flexibility to see the doctor or do the grocery shopping, things which before they would do on the weekend. Now they can do it on Wednesdays, when there are not so many people in the supermarket. We are becoming more flexible in many ways.

Q. Another surprising result is that some (8.7%) find it stressful to eat at home.

A. Obviously there are different eating cultures, but I think the main reason has to do with convenience. Not all of us know how to cook properly, and many of us have to learn this. Also, even a simple dish involves preparation or shopping of groceries some people were not used to this situation.

If I were to investigate happiness, I would ask you how much you have danced, enjoyed yourself in the last few weeks

Q. Self-medication has also increased. Thirty-four percent of respondents say they have self-medicated for the sake of their mental health. Is this related to technostress?

A. If humans are experiencing negative emotions, they tend to try to get rid of them, because negative emotions such as anger, fear and sadness feel bad. Trying to get rid of these, therefore, represents a natural response. For some people, one way to achieve such a downregulation of negative affect, is self-medication. Covid has been a big stressor, and then there came the new situation where we were working exclusively from home. Some people were stressed out not only due to technostress, but they also felt alone because they did not have a person to interact with in times of physical distancing. Also, in the survey we found that people have problems saying: Okay, here is where work stops and my private life begins. Work is intruding in everyday life, and it is really difficult to disengage from these things, so this also can be stressful. This led some people to self-medicate (as we saw in our work, where we studied non-prescribed medication). Recent studies beyond our work also suggest that whereas as some people reduced alcohol consumption during the pandemic, others started to drink a lot more. In the end, many factors, including ones own vulnerability and resilience, play a role in understanding human behavior.

Q. And up to 72% of those surveyed reported taking melatonin to improve their sleep.

A. I think this is not surprising after the pandemic. If people fear the pandemic or experience uncertain situations, they start to ruminate, to think about things that worry them, so lying awake prevents them from getting the right amount of quality sleep.

Q. According to the study, 21.7% of European respondents (25.6% in Spain) say they plan to resign because of their experience working from home and 9.9% have already left their job. Why?

A. We discussed already several challenges arising from the new home office situation and also the problems, which arose from the pandemic, which from my view in part, explain why people decide to quit their jobs. A crucial variable, not named in the context of quitting, is that they many of the study respondents saw no option to realize their own potential. Beyond this, I also want to mention that the pandemic has been an opportunity to reflect on life. Up to this point, many lives were going on rather automatically: getting up, working, taking care of children, housework and sleeping. There wasnt even time to think about misery. Now we have more time on our hands to reflect and think. When we get out of that automatism and let our brains run free for a moment, we give it the chance for mind wandering, self-reflection and even creativity. In this context, we saw in our study that some people came to the conclusion that they didnt want the life they had before. We saw that life is precious and not infinite. We all strive for a good life and not a bad life, right?

Q. Even if you lose purchasing power?

A. From my personal experience and that of others, I believe that money is ultimately not the most important driver for choosing a job when you are at certain stage in your careers. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman researched, years before the pandemic, the associations between life satisfaction, wellbeing and salary. There comes a point where a salary supplement doesnt make you happier; maybe it makes you a little bit more satisfied with life, which is more the cognitive aspect, but it doesnt really make you more happy. If I were to investigate happiness, for instance, I would ask you how much you have danced, enjoyed yourself, in the last few weeks and how much you have cried due to sadness. And again, if you ask about emotional experiences, there comes a point where the salary is not so important (in Kahnemanns work the threshold is around $75,000 a year). From that point on, happiness doesnt increase with more money and this is, I think, what a lot of people intuitively know and accept: that they have a decent salary and that what really matters to them is family, that what they want is more time for the good things. It will be really interesting to see whether these perceptions endure when we are confronted again with the automatisms of everyday post-pandemic life, when we fall into the traps and patterns again.

Q. What should companies and workers do in the face of this new reality?

A. We have talked a lot about the downsides, but obviously working from home has given many people many more degrees of freedom to deal with the hassles of everyday life and also to spend more time with the family, but still get the job done. We need to combine the best of both worlds. Working from home is going to stay. But also our research reflects a deep longing to meet and see colleagues, to have real social interactions beyond virtual encounters. There is work looking at video conferencing fatigue and its shows associations with burnout. At the moment, it is discussed that videoconference-fatigue might be triggered due to anxieties about being constantly monitored and about appearing in front of screens (mirror anxiety or being dissatisfied with ones own facial experience). Moreover, our interaction with others are limited to the frame of the screens. This is not healthy. Videoconferences can be tiring, and it is also harder to read emotions of our interaction partners via screens. We need, from time to time, to see each other in person and also to have a good time. It is the nexus that brings people together, and it is important to develop trust between people. From my view, combining elements of both worlds, the old office and the new home office, would be a solution so that companies and the rest of society come up with a proper plan for what a healthy working life will look like in the near future

Read this article:
Christian Montag, psychologist: Technostress is when you think, Id like to smash the computer - EL PAS USA

How Impact Data Changes the Way Donors Give (SSIR) – Stanford Social Innovation Review

There are over 10 million non-government organizations worldwide. Donors do not have enough time, attention, or cognitive bandwidth to evaluate and consider their relative merits when deciding to whom and how much to give.

Even when donors do narrow down their options to, say, charities working on certain issues, with specific communities, or in particular geographic locations, there are still many hassles when it comes to researching and comparing organizations. Objective information about effectiveness and impact is often difficult to find, and it is not communicated in an easily understandable and comparable way.

In both cases, donors often make donation decisions based on limited information. They give based on emotion or in reaction to a clever appeal. Or, perhaps worse, they give ad-hoc or randomly. Others opt not to make any donation at all, leaving the social sectorour worlds safety netat risk of financial failure.

But what happens when donors are provided with accessible, standardized, and objective metrics, and can see charities presented side-by-side?

Short answer: they give more effectively to charities making a measurable impact.

People often wonderdo metrics really matter?

Over the past eight years, the Impact Genome Fund (Impact Genome), a publicly funded research initiative of the Tides Foundation, has been pioneering standardized, objective impact metrics for all nonprofits. Weve collected metrics on thousands of charities and consolidated them in our nonprofit registry. These metrics include information that could be useful to donors in making more informed decisions. Among them:

The theory we wanted to test was whether standardized comparable impact dataspecifically, the five metrics aboveis critical to solving an overarching problem in the charitable giving space: choice architecture. Choice architecture is the design of different ways in which choices can be presented to decision makers, and the impact of that presentation on decision-making.

The choice architecture for funding decisions is typically weak. The overwhelming number of charities, the inconsistency of the type and amount of information available, the inability of donors to compare options easily, and the lack of salient objective metrics for comparison make it difficult for donors to make an optimal donation decision.

But does our theory hold up? If donors have access to better choice architecture, will they change their giving?

Impact Genome recently partnered with ideas42, with funding from Fidelity Charitable Trustees Initiative, to test whether the availability of these types of metrics and a better choice architecture had any influence on giving behavior. As a nonprofit committed to bettering the world through behavioral science, ideas42 uses insights from human behaviorwhy people do what they doto help improve lives, build better systems, and drive social change.

Together, we tested the influence of choice architecture on donation decisions in terms of both which charity to donate to and how much to donate. The study used a multi-methodological approach carried out with the AmeriSpeak panel at NORC at the University of Chicagoa representative, probability-based sample of more than 1,500 Americans.

We ran a controlled experimental study that involved a simulated decision using real money. Participants were told they would go through eight rounds where they would decide to keep or donate $5 to one of the charities they saw. To make the decision feel less hypothetical, they were told there was a random chance that one of those rounds would be carried out with real money. In that round, whatever amount they decided to donate would be sent to the charity they selected, and the amount they decided to keep would be added to their base payment.

First, participants were shown three hypothetical charities with various amounts of information. Participants were assigned to one of three treatment groups and given $5, which they could keep or donate as they saw fit. They were then asked to select the charity they were most likely to support and how much of their $5 they wanted to donate.

The Control Group saw only the charity descriptions. Treatment Group 1 saw both the charity descriptions and objective metrics, including the number of beneficiaries that achieved the outcome, the cost of producing a single outcome, whether the program operates in a high-need area, and the quality of its impact evidence. Treatment Group 2 first saw just the charity description. After they made their decision, they were given additional information about the cost-effectiveness of the charity and asked if they wanted to increase their donation by $1.

We also included a conjoint analysis with six survey rounds. Conjoint analysis is a survey-based statistical technique traditionally used in market research to quantify how consumers relatively value the attributes of a product or service. In each survey round, participants were shown two hypothetical charities with a random combination of metrics. Participants selected their preferred option of the two and then indicated if they would be willing to donate that rounds credit to the selected charity.

Finally, participants saw three real, but anonymized, charities from the Impact Genome Registry. Their descriptions and metrics were shown, but there was no clear winner. For a random 10 percent of participants, actual payments were made for this round. We needed to include this round to fulfill our promise of a random chance of real payments.

At the end of the survey, respondents were asked additional questions regarding the importance of various metrics, their experience using the metrics to make decisions, and their personal experience with charitable giving. This section included additional charity attributes (such as charity cause) to see how they compared to the more objective metrics.

In short, the study found that providing objective metrics shifted giving decisions to more effective charities when donors could compare charities side-by-side and there was a clear winner. Moreover, the majority of respondents (74 percent) said that they found it useful to compare charities using a similar framework.

Digging a little deeper, here is some of what we learned:

Does differential performance on metrics influence who gets the donation?

Yes, a lot when donors can compare charities side-by-side and there is a clear winner.

Providing objective, comparable metrics to donors at the time of the donation decision led to an 80 percent increase in the number of people that selected the most effective charity. In our study, donors were able to easily compare three giving options with a clear winner, and in that setting, metrics had a big effect on donors choices.

Do metrics increase the size of the donation?

The results were inconclusive, and more research is needed.

When comparing two roundsone with a clear winner based on the metrics and one without a clear winnerthere was no statistically significant difference in the amount of money donated.

That said, respondents who indicated they were confident in their ultimate choice of which charity to support donated statistically significantly more money. Moreover, respondents who agreed with the statement it was easy to decide which charity had the best combination of features donated statistically significantly more money.

Approximately two-thirds of respondents (61 percent to 64 percent) gave the maximum donation ($5) in any given round. This was much more than we had anticipated based on previous research. Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference in the amount of money donated between the treatment groups that did and did not see the charities metrics.

Our theory is there may have been a ceiling effecta research term for when participants in a study all cluster around the high end. Because the amount participants had to give away was so small, many opted to give it all away every time. It is possible that if respondents had more money to donate, they would have shown more variation in how much they gave.

Tying this finding to the one above, we found that providing metrics changed who donors gave money to, but not how much money they gave. Though, as we noted, the ceiling effect could mean there is more nuance in their giving decisions than our study could detect.

Do donors care about using metrics to compare charities?

Yes, they say they do.

When asked directly if it would be helpful to be able to compare charities using a similar framework when making donation decisions in their day-to-day lives, 74 percent of respondents agreed.

Importantly, as the previous findings show, their behavior agreed.

Its probably obvious that the findings were important to those of us running the study. It showed our theory was correct. The work weve been doing to provide accessible, comparable, objective metrics can and will help donors make a bigger impact.

But if you want to maximize the impact of your giving, this study should be important to you too.

Why?

Previous work at ideas42 has shown that many donors tend to engage in emotional, ad-hoc giving in response to requests, rather than proactive, strategic giving. This can lead to misalignment between their ideal goals and their actual donation behavior. Now, we know there is a better way.Using standardized, comparable metrics can help you develop a strategic approach: if you have the information you need, you can shift your donations to the most effective charities, thus maximizing your positive impact on the cause(s) you care about.The ability to make a bigger impact comes from being able to understand not just what charities do, but how well they do it.

Accessible, comparable, and objective metrics are important for institutional funders as well. Bespoke impact evaluations are expensive and can be burdensome on nonprofits if each funder wants a slightly different measurement of effectiveness. Creating standardized metrics across all charities steers us away from less meaningful metrics like overhead vs direct costs, and toward metrics that better capture outcomesultimately, the change that we want to see in the world.

With this work, our ultimate goal has been to provide data so that all donors can more effectively invest in social change and finally solve some of the worlds most intractable problems. Our study showed that making it easier to compare giving options and giving people access to the data they need does change the way they give. It makes it possible for donors to use their resources better, give to effective charities, and make a bigger impact.

Read more stories by Heather King, Marisa Nowicki, Liz Noble, Doug Palmer & Jason Saul.

Excerpt from:
How Impact Data Changes the Way Donors Give (SSIR) - Stanford Social Innovation Review

Striking Scientific Research on the Harms of Social Media Expat Guide Turkey – Expat Guide Turkey

According to a study conducted in Austria in 2014, people who use social media for 20 minutes are more unhappy than people who use the internet for 20 minutes. It was estimated that this was because people knew that they were wasting time when using social media.

According to an article published in the journal Computer and Human Behavior, people who use 7 or more social media platforms are 3 times more likely to show symptoms of anxiety disorders than people who use 2 or less social media platforms.

According to a BBC news report, 2 studies found that internet use was the source of depression, unhappiness, feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness in 700 students, and that the symptoms worsened as the amount of internet use increased.

According to a study conducted on 1700 people in 2016, people who use social media are 3 times more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety disorders than those who do not.

According to a study conducted at Trent University in the UK analyzing the results of 43 scientific studies, excessive use of social media

was found to be the cause.

A Swiss study of 1,000 Facebook users found that women who participated in the study felt more unhappy and insecure because those who post on Facebook always post their happiest and most beautiful selves.

In a 2013 study of 79 Facebook users, researchers asked 79 users 5 times a day How do you feel? and How much have you used Facebook since the last message? The results of the study showed that the more Facebook use between the 2 phones, the less enjoyment of life.

A 2016 study at Penn State University found that looking at other peoples mostly photoshopped pictures lowers peoples self-confidence. It is claimed that a serious reason why the number of plastic surgeries has increased by 20% in the last 10 years is the obsession with looking more beautiful in selfies.

A study of 600 social media users found that a third of them felt a sense of failure caused by jealousy.

According to an article published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, a study of 7000 people aged 19-32 who use social media too much found that people who use social media too much are twice as likely as normal people to have social belonging problems.

Source: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180104-is-social-media-bad-for-you-the-evidence-and-the-unknowns

In 2017, a national study in the UK found that people with social media addiction were mostly young single women. They were also found to be low-educated, low-income and insecure.

For some people, the addiction has reached such a level that in the US in 2014, a Facebook-addicted burglar was caught by the police because he couldnt resist entering Facebook in the house he was robbing.

Source: https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/06/23/thief-forgets-to-log-out-of-facebook-after-burglarizing-home/

Montfort University in the UK banned the unrestricted use of social media on campus and in student dormitories for 5 days on January 16, 2019 due to the potential harm to young peoples mental health. the university administration found that its students were somewhat addicted.

Soruce: https://www.bbc.com/news/education-46876458

According to an article published in the world-renowned scientific journal Lancet, a sedentary life is more harmful than smoking. Considering that one out of every three 15-year-olds in the UK uses social media for more than 6 hours, it is not difficult to guess that social media use is not only harmful to mental health but also to physical health.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-1887688 http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180118-how-much-is-too-much-time-on-social-media

According to the BBC, 259 people lost their lives while taking selfies as of October 2018.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-45745982

According to a newspaper published in the US, Facebook was mentioned in one third of the divorce files in 2011. According to divorce lawyers in the US, Facebook is seen as one of the biggest reasons why marriages end.

Source: https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/facebook-ruining-marriage-social-network-named-divorce-filings-2011-article-1.1083913

View post:
Striking Scientific Research on the Harms of Social Media Expat Guide Turkey - Expat Guide Turkey

LIVE: Todd Snider / Lilly Winwood @ The Egg (Swyer Theatre), 09/13/2022 – Nippertown

It was the kind of September day where you felt your eyelids sweating from the humidity that hung in the air, stale and leftover from summer but not yet ready to let go into fall when Jim and I entered The Egg Tuesday night. We had heard Todd Snider there before, and both of us were anticipating some relief from the heaviness of the air as well as our moods Tuesday night. I was newly grieving the loss of my father and walked with stooped shoulders. Jim squeezed my hand, hoping Sniders magic would once again lift my spirits.

Snider is a traveling troubadour, a storyteller whose haphazardappearing lyrics are paradoxically well-planned jokes that reflect on basic human nature. Dressed in vagabond clothes and selling the image of a pot-smoking, beer-drinking hippie, Snider is hard not to like as he laughs at himself and embraces all forms of human nature.

Lilly Winwood, daughter of famed Steve Winwood, opened for Snider. While initially a bit bland, Winwoods confidence grew through her setlist. She peaked with Laundry Day, a song about staying connected to a lover through the use of the laundry machine, and finished with a beautiful rendition of her song California. Winwoods vocals are sweet and on pitch; despite some technical problems, her playing was also satisfactory. But her performance reflected some nerves perhaps, and a sense she isnt totally ready to expose herself and be vulnerably honest with a crowd.

Unlike Todd Snider.

Snider came on stage under a deeply dipped fedora singing his song An Alright Guy. He earned his laughs through self-deprecating lyrics somehow lacking insight into how others managed to miss that he was an alright guy while slyly pointing out that despite his faults, hes still a good human. In the story, female friends disliked him for looking at porn, others judged his use of pot, and even drunk driving; throughout it all, he maintained I know I aint perfect, but God knows, I try.

That was really the tone of most of the nights songs, and Sniders wit and honesty reflected years of philosophicalexamination of self and (other) human nature. He shared story after story of trying to be a great musician and songwriter, and how he finally learned from another songwriter the trick: stay flexible enough to pack up and move along without more than 15 minutes notice. His 15-minute rule resurfaced in jokes later in the night, revealing his clever comedic timing to be perfected.

Snider talked about how a girlfriend wanted him to stop songwriting and get a job, prompting him to pack up within 15 minutes. And how after a tornado destroyed his home, he didnt need to replace much as he had it all with him. But the best part of the 15-minute rule was that it created so many of his wonderful songs. You dont know how disciplined I had to be to stay this fucked up, he laughed.

Sniders stories were a hit, but so were his beautifully crafted songs. He performed I Spoke Like a Child to an awed crowd, and reflected on how much older he is now than when he wrote these words about lost innocence. That sense of time passing, and changing meaning for him, was left unspoken but hung in the air with the wisdom only aging can bring.

Sniders The Ghost of Johnny Cash was equally spellbinding, weaving the magic of past musicians with the realities of legacies extended through art. He played it upon request from the crowd, weaving it into stories about trying to play for Johnny Cash.

Snider wove song and story to a poignant place, relieving intensity with laughter through songs like Conservative Christian, Right Wing Republican. Another favorite of the night, Doublewide Blues, offered a keen awareness of human behavior as well ashumble forgiveness for human smallness through love. Even the ridiculous KKK flags could be understood, and while not tolerable, Snider grew a sense that all beings, even those with ugliness, still deserve our love.

Sniders stories seemed to portray him as a partier, and I believed him. But I also realized (once again, as I noted in a review last year) that he was more philosopher and spiritualist than party kid, betraying his gentle spirit through soulful lyrics and bluesy chord patterns. Ending on a second version of An Alright Guy, Snider earned a standing ovation from his audience who called him back for two encore songs.

When we left Swyer Theatre at The Egg, the humidity had lifted and fall seemed to have magically settled over the capital. I felt a chill in the air and reached for Jims hand as we walked quietly to the car. You know what, I do think that Snider is truly an alright guy, I told Jim.

And just like the air around me, my heart was lighter for a few moments. Snider helped me forget my grief and celebrate instead all the messiness that being a loving, aging hippie entails.

If Nippertown is blessed to host Snider again, go catch his show. Always unique, yet consistently on message, it is a breath of fresh air.

Continued here:
LIVE: Todd Snider / Lilly Winwood @ The Egg (Swyer Theatre), 09/13/2022 - Nippertown

Biometrics: Why Are They Needed and Top Practical Applications – Spiceworks News and Insights

Companies have used passwords to secure their data and assets for a long time. But password security has grown less effective as processing speeds have accelerated and cryptanalysis methods have improved. Consequently, a more advanced authentication technique is required. Biometrics is one such method. This article delves deep into biometrics, discussing its challenges, applications, and why we need to implement it as a critical authentication method. Read on.

Biometrics is an authentication factor that uses human behavior and physical attributes to identify a user. We can use several physical characteristics, but not all provide the same level of protection for an organizations resources. Nor are all scanning technologies suited for all business environments.

In this article, we have examined each approach to measuring biometric characteristics, the challenges with each, and the role of biometrics in overall identity management.

For decades, organizations relied on passwords to protect information resources. However, the increase in processor speed and improvements in cryptanalysis have made passwords weak protection, as the NIST describes in their password use guidelines.

The need for something more resulted in the creation of other approaches and divided all associated authentication factors into three types.

Type I Something you know (passwords, PINs, passphrases, etc.)

Type II Something you have (token, certificate, one-time password generator, )

Type III Something you are (biometrics: fingerprint, vein pattern, iris pattern, )

Each type has advantages and disadvantages, often resulting in higher than the acceptable risk when protecting highly classified systems and data, making using two or more factors necessary.

Biometrics is just one factor, a factor that has challenges of its own. Consequently, it is not an authentication silver bullet, often requiring an additional factor, depending on solution characteristics and the risk you are trying to mitigate.

See More: Deepfakes: Can Biometric Authentication Defeat the New Cybersecurity Nightmare?

Before looking at specific biometrics solutions, it is essential to understand their common characteristics and challenges, including error rates, effectiveness, advantages, and disadvantages.

First, each biometrics solution has three associated error rates, as shown in Figure 1. False rejection rates (FRRs), known as Type I errors, are the rate at which an authentication system fails to verify the identity of an authorized user. A Type II error, the false acceptance rate (FAR), is the rate at which the authentication system incorrectly authenticates unauthorized users. The crossover error rate, or CER, is the point at which the FAR and the FRR are the same.

Figure 1: Biometrics Error Rates

As we increase the sensitivity of the biometrics sensors, the sensors scan and measure user characteristics, the FRR increases, and the FAR decreases. In other words, as we try harder to prevent unauthorized users from getting authenticated, we frustrate our users, reducing their productivity as we increase the number of times an authorized user fails to authenticate.

The CER varies across the characteristics measured and the available vendor solutions. When selecting a solution, it is crucial to understand the risk associated with the error rates and choose the one that fits the specific application within your organization.

The placement of sensors is an important consideration. For example, placing fingerprint sensors that require placing a finger on a surface is not a good solution for many manufacturing environments. Ambient oil and other substances find their way to fingers and sensor surfaces, causing error rates to spike.

Further, environmental conditions can affect the characteristics scanned. Abdarahmane Wone et al. documented research in which they found evidence that features examined under different environmental conditions, other than those present when the person enrolled into the biometrics system, appeared different to scanners. I will cover enrollment later in this article.

Environmental considerations are important and should be discussed with any vendor presenting her solution for review.

It is not just picking the wrong solution that can cause your biometrics efforts to circle the drain. Failure is imminent if you lose management support or users simply refuse to use it.

One of the biggest reasons users resist biometrics is their belief that the organization collects and stores information about one or more of their physical characteristics. We must inform our users about how the process works and how it protects their information.

Another challenge involves cultural norms that vary from country to country and between cultures, affecting what individuals view as acceptable. Organizations must understand what resistance there might be to body part scanning and plan authentication efforts accordingly.

Managers begin to join other users in biometrics resistance when the solutions implemented hinder production, caused by multiple attempts to authentication or failure to recognize scans. Properly tuning your error rates, correctly assessing what works and what does not within specific work environments, and providing quick workarounds when biometrics fail all help prevent managers and employees from storming your office in a biometrics revolt.

There are two basic biometrics processes: enrollment and authentication.

Before an employee uses a biometrics solution for authentication, the organization must enroll him. Figure 2 shows a general enrollment process.

After the administrator creates an Active Directory account for the new hire, she begins the biometrics enrollment process.

Figure 2: Enrollment

Figure 3 shows that using the reference template for authentication is straightforward.

Figure 3: Biometrics Authentication

The UK National Cyber Security Center (NCSC) describes different approaches to attacking biometrics.

Not all biometrics solutions are susceptible to all of these attack vectors. In any case, the following section provides ways to strengthen each type of biometrics. The key takeaway, however, is that biometrics is not a completely safe authentication factor, with the risk associated with what is used, the quality of the sensors, and the processing algorithms.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, a fingerprint is the collection of papillary ridges on the ends of the fingers and thumbs that enable us to grasp objects securely. The arrangement of these ridges, as shown in Figure 4, differs between individuals, providing unique identification.

Figure 4: Fingerprint Patterns (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Although there have been some claims that fingerprints are not unique, there is no credible evidence to support these claims. However, it is not difficult to create artifacts for fingerprint solutions that only check for patterns, ignoring checking to see if the patterns are actually part of a living person.

Organizations can strengthen fingerprint recognition efforts by

As shown in Figure 5, humans have a set of facial characteristics that organizations can use to authenticate their identities. 2D scanning includes

Figure 5: Biometrics Characteristics (TechSmith Assets)

Facial recognition does not require physical contact with the scanner. Users can often just simply sit in front of a device for facial recognition, requiring no special interaction.

Facial recognition, like fingerprint recognition, can be forged with facial artifacts created by threat actors, artifacts created using photographs or other media. The use of artifacts to bypass recognition is known as a presentation attack.

When evaluating a solution, one of the first things an organization should consider is its ability to defend against presentation attacks, taking steps to ensure the presence of a live human face, not an image, in front of the camera. According to Kevin Bonsor and Ryan Johnson, one approach is to use 3D scanning that looks at additional characteristics, like the curves of the eye socket, nose, and chin. Another is the use of video capture algorithms that detect nodding and blinking.

Stephen Mayhew writes that hand geometry is the longest implemented biometric type, debuting in the market in the late 1980s. However, the hand is not distinctive enough to use as a strong biometrics authentication in most solutions.

Hand scanning devices measure an individuals hand length, width, thickness, and surface area, capturing images of both the hands top and side.

Eye characteristics are unique, but iris and retina scans are not equally resistant to presentation attacks.

The iris, as shown in Figure 6, is the colored area around the pupil. Each persons iris is as unique as their fingerprint, and users often do not need to touch a scanner to authenticate. Another advantage is the lack of change over time in the iris patterns. However, iris artifacts can be created, making live-eye detection or a second authentication factor necessary for high-risk situations.

Figure 6: Iris (By Smhossei Own work, CC BY 3.0, Source)

Retina scans are intrusive, requiring the insertion of a harmless beam into the back of the eye to scan the retinas blood vessels. Figure 7 is an artists interpretation of the patterns inside the eye. This intrusion can cause users to refuse to use the scanner. An upside, however, is that it is as yet impractical for a threat actor to rely on an artifact during a retina scanning attack.

Figure 7: Retinal Blood Vessel Pattern (Retina Associates)

Eye scans are fast with low error rates. However, they can be costly for general use across an organization and more suitable for high-risk or quick access needs.

Vein recognition, also known as vascular biometrics, is very accurate, nearly impossible to fool with artifacts, fast, and with falling costs, making it a good alternative for fingerprint recognition. Using the subcutaneous blood vessels of the human body that create patterns unique for each individual, scanners typically use fingers or hands for authentication.

Figure 8: Vein Recognition (Parihar & Jain)

Although behavior recognition solutions are generally considered relatively weak, they can be used as part of zero-trust access control, providing periodic verification of a user without any pause in their tasks. Keystroke dynamics and voice recognition are two common approaches.

Keystroke dynamics uses a software agent placed on the users device. The agent measures overall typing speed, variations in how the user moves between keys, common typing errors, and the length of time keys are depressed. Solutions that continuously assess typing patterns provide authentication verification during the entire time a user is authenticated.

Voice recognition uses users voice prints for authentication. Threat actors can easily capture voice samples, patch needed phrases together if needed, and successfully launch a presentation attack.

See More: How Cloud-Based Biometrics Streamline Identity Management

My descriptions above are general statements about the different biometrics approaches. They, and the comparison information provided in Table 1, are contingent upon emerging technologies and the differences between solution vendors. It is essential to ask the right questions. Know what you are getting.

Table 1: Biometrics Comparisons

Biometrics can be a practical, easy-to-use authentication factor. However, not all environments are suited for every approach. Before selecting a solution, understand the environment in which it will operate, and the daily condition of the physical characteristics scanned, avoiding issues like fingers covered with oil or other substances. You might need more than one solution, each fitted to its operating environment and the risk associated with accessed resources.

One of the biggest challenges you will face is user non-acceptance based on privacy concerns. Management at all levels must understand and support the effort. Users must be trained and understand why something new is entering their work habits and the steps taken to protect their privacy.

One way to get managers and other employees on board is to involve them in the decision-making processes, starting with the review of the risk assessment, through requirements definitions and feasibility studies, to the selection of the final solution (or solutions).

Does your company have a powerful biometric mechanism in place? Let us know on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. We would love to hear from you!

Read more:
Biometrics: Why Are They Needed and Top Practical Applications - Spiceworks News and Insights

Financial Wellbeing: Helping Customers Manage Their Money Better – Finextra

The temptation to spend is always with us, but for some people the compulsion to consume is overwhelming.

Financial discipline takes practice; our tendencies to spend or save are habitual and form a predictable pattern. However, with the right approach, even long-standing bad habits can be changed for the better. This blog explores how banks can apply behavioral economics and modern technologies to help their customers develop good financial habits and build customer loyalty along the way.

For the most part, human behavior is driven by habits and in accordance with underlying personality traits and cultural influences. It follows that some people are savers while others are spenders. This also helps explain why financial education generally fails to deliver long-term improvements as people tend to default to ingrained ways of behaving.

So, if increasing financial literacy doesnt lead to better financial habits, what will?

Recognizing the Need to Change

The truth is people are fearful of change and many will resist it. This human trait is endemic and theres even a psychological term for it:metathesiophobia or fear of change is believed to be rooted in the deep psychological need to be in control, even when bad habits dominate. To change a habit requires an awareness of that habit in the first place and then a conscious effort to behave differently.

If a financial institution can better understand customer behavior, it can design products and services that are aligned to effectively help customers manage their money to meet life goals. Theres a clear need for this in the real world. Recent surveys reveal some alarming statistics, including:

Unfortunately, many people live in denial of their economic realities and persist in making irrational financial decisions. They need help, and banks are well positioned to do just that.

Behavioral Economics

As discussed in a prior blog, banks can adopt an approach founded in behavioral economics to create the right conditions for people to make sensible financial decisions. The behavioral approach is firmly rooted in practical reality and nudges people to do the right thing with proven results.

Pairing behavioral economics with modern technology conjures up a powerful alchemy. Following are several examples of how banks can apply these as tools to help their customers achieve better financial outcomes:

Automate savings programs to make savings as easy as possible for customers. Such programs reduce the mental burden of decision making (when to save, how much to save) and the results can make it seem like magic for customers. Its crucial to make the signup process easy and frictionless. Also, because not all customers like to save in the same way, be sure to offer a variety of automated savings options to give customers a choice for what best fits their needs and situation. Once enrolled, customers will see their savings accumulate, positive reinforcement for the new savings habit being formed.

Set savings goals once a customer has signed up for automated savings. With the right technology customers dont have to actively decide to prioritize their own future needs, which so many people find challenging. Setting a goal is a proven way to improve outcomes; going a step further you can also allow customers to share their goals with friends and family to enlist support and help reinforce the customers commitment and odds for success.

Leverage predictive analytics to analyze each individual customers real-time transaction data and financial behavior. The amount saved can be automatically adjusted accordingly to optimize savings. By including behavioral economics in the customer experience, banks can help customers develop habits that will steadily and sustainably improve financial wellbeing.

Manageable Steps

Financial goals that are both long-term and large can be daunting. Saving for retirement or even a new car may seem like an insurmountable challenge for some. When helping customers save for the future, banks should break the goal down into increments and create a clear set of steps for how to get there. Customers should be encouraged to start with a manageable amount and build from there. Its all about demonstrating progress.

Make Finance Personal

Financial institutions are uniquely placed to help customers calculate what they can afford based on their own cash flow and financial goals, rather than external data and influences. With a wealth of customer data available, this is a perfect example of how modern tech can enable hyper-personalized services. By harnessing customer financial data, banks can offer personalized insights and recommendations for details like:

Not only will customers see improvements in terms of their financial wellbeing, but they will also value their bank that much more.

[1] https://www.finder.com/uk/saving-statistics#:~:text=better%20or%20worse%3F-,Key%20statistics,for%20a%20month%20without%20income.

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/51percent-of-americans-have-less-than-3-months-worth-of-emergency-savings.html#:~:text=For%202021%2C%2025%25%20of%20survey,cover%20expenses%20for%20three%20months.

See original here:
Financial Wellbeing: Helping Customers Manage Their Money Better - Finextra

Playing a Robot in D&D: Here’s How to Add More Sci-Fi to Your Fantasy – BoLS

Dungeons & Dragons is a game all about fantasy adventurers with magic swords on quests. Heres how to play a robot in D&D.

Yes, Dungeons & Dragons is, on the surface, a game all about fantasy. But what does that mean? Genre is only as meaningful as its distinction. And heroic fantasy adventurers can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Generic European Mediaeval Times is just sort of the boring mayo-is-too-spicy-for-me default.

But adding sci-fi to fantasy is a tale as old as time. Even in the most Tolkienesque fantasy, the works of Lord of the Rings author Jolkien Rolkien Rolkien Tolkien himself, do elements of science fiction crash in. Beren One-Hand rose to the heavens in a glass ship atop a pillar of flame.

And if that can be in the Silmarillion, then you absolutely can be a robot in D&D. So grab your Binary Language of Moisture Vaparators -> English dictionary. Because heres how to play a robot in D&D.

First things first, in order to be a robot, you have to understand what a robot is. We all know that a man is a miserable pile of blood and secrets. But robots? Thats something else entirely.

Now its a safe bet to assume that if youre considering playing a robot in D&D you have some pre-set ideas. Robots are synthetic beings, right? Created for some purpose with a sentience of their own.

But in D&D that can be dwarves, if you think about it. Because what are dwarves if not the stone-forged creations of Moradin? If the father of all dwarves breathed into them a love of crafting, is that not the same as being programmed, but with meat instead of metal?

Fortunately, this is D&D. We dont have to get existential. We can represent what it means to be a robot mechanically. There are rules for being organic and having a meat body, and rules that might center a robot PCs synthetic nature.

There are three main robotic PC races in D&D:

The latter isnt officially in D&D yet, but given that we know Planescape is coming, it seems a safe bet that what we see in the Wonders of the Multiverse Unearthed Arcana (where Glitchlings are found) will make the jump to published material sooner rather than later. Each of them has a different approach to being a robot. But by and large, all of them remove the need to eat, drink, breathe, or sleep. Lets take a look!

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Get Tabletop, RPG & Pop Culture news delivered directly to your inbox.

Warforged are probably the first thing that leaps to mind when you think about Robots and D&D. Introduced in the very first Eberron, Warforged introduced a ton of people to fantasy robots. Made of living steel and stone every Warforged is a unique creation. They are made with steel, darkwood, stone, and rootlike cords infused with alchemical fluids.

Originally built to fight in a war, these constructed beings were given the freedom to find purpose.

Pick Warforged if you want to play the kind of robot that is searching for a function. Theyre the iconic pick for a synthetic being learning to be organic.

Mechanically, this is represented by the following:

You can be a more artisanal robot, though. For that, you might consider Autognome. Autognomes are mechanical beings built by rock gnomes. Built and programmed.

This is an important distinction because theyre more traditional robots. An Autognome might say this isnt in my programming. Every Autognome is wildly different. While Warforged might share a similar chassis design (they were originally built as weapons of war), Autognomes are built for a variety of purposes according to the whims of their creators.

If you want to play the kind of robot that adventures but is much more mechanical, and sort of celebrates that distinction, Autognome is a great place to start. Mechanically, theyre represented in the following ways:

Introduced in the Wonders of the Multiverse Unearthed Arcana, Glitchlings are robotic beings created by forces of planar law. If you want to be a magic robot, then this is the way to go.

Glitchlings are given rudimentary personalities but are all about absorbing information and experiences and developing as they go. If you want to play a robot that holds up a mirror to humanity/organic life and all its foibles, then misinterpreting it through the lens of a Glitchling is probably the way to do it.

Like Warforged and Autognomes, they too have rules that make them stand out from organic life:

Now that youve figured out what kind of robot you want to be, how do you actually do it? The right class will take you a long way. Now, before we get into it, I should mention, any class can be a robot. Because you can justify anything, and theres not a single class that wont be fun.

That said, a few options stand out without needing too much work:

Sorcerer After all, what is programming but an arcane language written in eldritch symbols that requires the right components to work? The Clockwork Soul Sorcerer is a natural fit. You can take a page from the artificers handbook and flavor your spells as things you do with your magic robot technology. Instead of waving your hands to cast scorching ray, maybe a flamethrower emerges from a hidden panel on an arm, etc.

Artificer You dont have to be an artificer to be a robot, but blend magic and technology in the same ways your character already is. Any of them works, but the Armorer and Artillerist feel like natural fits.

Warlock Look Eldritch Blast is basically already a laser. And theres no way Ruby comes from anything other than an Infernal Warlock Patron. Scrums are just the part of the bargain that sealed the deal.

Fighter From Johnny Five to Futuramas knife-wielding Roberto, we all know robots can fight. Battle Master makes for an excellent choice as you can flavor your maneuvers as enhanced combat protocols. Rune Knight too, since it gives you an in-combat transformation.

Rogue Assassin droids are common in Star Wars, of course, theyre a good fit for D&D too.

But there are plenty of other tools at your disposal beyond just pick one of the character races that is a robot. The deathless nature of the Reborn is a great way to play someone whos a bit robotic but with flesh. It all comes back to what you want to do when playing a robot.

There are lots of reasons one might want to play a robot in D&D. Among the many you might:

And theyre all valid. But its important to keep in mind what you want to explore with your character. Once you do, you can start roleplaying like a robot.

Now that youve picked the perfect PC race, its time to make your robot into a character. You can start by looking at what questions you want to ask, as a robot. Weve mentioned some above. Then just find ways to ask them in character.

Maybe your Warforged was built to be a scout originally, and now theyre looking for their own purpose. You can ask things, either literally, or better yet, with actions. Look at Bastion, from Overwatch.

Bastion was built as a gun turret tank soldier but found purpose in the woods. You can have your robot PC ask questions with their curiosity about the world. Maybe you befriend animals. Maybe you try to mimic human behavior to mixed results. But curiosity is a great drive for a robot.

On the opposite end of the robot spectrum, you have Bender, Bending Rodriguez, who does cool robot things and cant do many other things. Like being a folk singer.

But he has fun playing within the constraints of his programming. Playing a robot can be a great way to act up in certain scenes. You can decide that something is or isnt part of your programming, and let that guide your behavior and choices.

Being a robot gives you an interesting viewpoint, and from there, you can do what you like.

Even little things like catchphrases can help ground your character in who they are. Weve talked about this in developing a character voice. You could just as easily throw in a little bit of a verbal reminder to folks that youre playing a robot. Saying well that doesnt compute works whether youre saying it like a Speak & Spell or saying it like Bender might say kill all humans. You just want to find opportunities to explore the niche youve carved for yourself outside of being human.

Which we all definitely are, and know how to do. So, no need for any follow-up questions about that, right fellow humans? Hah.

01001000 01100001 01110000 01110000 01111001 00100000 01000001 01100100 01110110 01100101 01101110 01110100 01110101 01110010 01101001 01101110 01100111!

Read more here:
Playing a Robot in D&D: Here's How to Add More Sci-Fi to Your Fantasy - BoLS