Category Archives: Human Behavior

Human Behavior

‘Devs’ Episode 4 will see Lily fear for her life as Kenton drives her to psychiatric appointment – MEAWW

Alex Garlands science fiction miniseries Dev is at a critical juncture. The show follows the story of a young software engineer, Lily Chan (Sonoya Mizuno), investigating the secretive development division of her employer which she believes is behind the murder of her boyfriend Sergei (Karl Glusman). In the first three episodes, the series built the premise.

Amaya, run by Forest (Nick Offerman), an eccentric-looking man who believes in causal determinism, has created a technology that would paradoxically both change the world, and not change it at all.

Sergei, who was put in the titular Devs team, may perhaps have been a Russian spy committing industrial espionage. When caught, the companys head of security Kenton (Zach Grenier) murders him on Forests orders and frames it as suicide.

Lily, who was initially in shock, comes to realize this death couldnt have been suicide. With her ex-boyfriend Jamie (Jin Ha), she examines the footage where Sergei allegedly self-immolates. Jamie, however, notices a critical flaw in the video and they realize it was a doctored video.

As per IMDb, the synopsis for episode four reads: After Lily's behavior at Amaya, Kenton forces her to see a psychiatrist. Meanwhile, the Devs team disagree over the ethics of their invention, and Forest asserts his commitment to the project.

Lilys behavior refers to her pretending she was a paranoid schizophrenic, who had psychotic episodes in the past. She even stood at the ledge of Kentons office, pretending to be suicidal. That was, of course, a ruse to divert Kentons attention while her friend Jen (Linnea Berthelsen) steals a file from his system.

In the promo for Episode 4, we see Forest tell Katie (Alison Pill) that he was scared. When asked about what, he says, Us".

This might very well be about the nature of work being done at the Devs division: developing a method to predict human behavior through quantum computing. The technology in the previous episode, it successfully (through the examination of behavioral patterns) visualizes American playwright Arthur Miller and model Marilyn Monroe (they were married for a while) having sex has extraordinary ramifications. In one way, it can change everything about the world.

To be able to predict human behavior is to play God. Forest, despite his absolute belief in fatalism, has every right to fear the awesome powers of this technology.

At the same time, we see Lily saying, Theyre gonna kill me, likely referring to Forest and Kenton. As the latter takes her (or rather forces her) to visit a psychiatrist, and even proceeds to drive her there, Lily screams, Stop the car. Perhaps, she is afraid that the trip to the shrink is just a ruse to get her isolated, and consequently murder her.

The promo ends with Lily telling Jamie, I stopped seeing them as a tech company. I see them as the Mob. For all that Lily knows right now, her view of Amaya and its leadership is not far off the mark.

Hopefully, Episode 4 will shed more light on the powers of the Amaya technology and also on what Lily plans to do next, now that she knows Sergei did not commit suicide and that the companys narrative was decidedly a false one.

Devs drops on FX on Hulu, every Thursday at 12 am.

See original here:
'Devs' Episode 4 will see Lily fear for her life as Kenton drives her to psychiatric appointment - MEAWW

Human Behavior

Human Behavior And Group Dynamics Can Be Reshaped By AI Use, Including Via AI Self-Driving Cars – Forbes

AI will substantively impact human behavior including social group interactions.

Suppose you interact with an AI system, such as a robot, and in so doing your behavior changes based on that interaction.

This makes sense in that we already today interact with the likes of Alexa and Siri, AI systems employing a limited capability of Natural Language Processing (NLP), and find ourselves perhaps changing what we do next as a result of the AI interaction (Ill go ahead and put on my raincoat and take my umbrella, after discussing the forecasted weather with Alexa).

Lets rev this up a notch.

Suppose you and your buddies opt to interact with an AI system, doing so collectively, as a group, and have some form of substantive interaction that takes place.

Would the group dynamics and social interaction be potentially altered as a result of having the AI system engaged in the interaction with you all?

Yes, indeed, and furthermore the manner in which the AI interacted and what it had to say could impact too the viewpoints and perceptions of those humans in the group that were undertaking the interaction, along with causing the human-to-human group or social dialogue to also be impacted (such as cohesion of the group, tenor and tone of the group, focus, and engagement within the group, etc.).

A recent Yale study conducted an experiment in which humans in small groups of three people interacted with an AI system, deployed as a likable looking robot, doing so to play a game, and the robot was pre-programmed to provide varying kinds of experimental treatments: (1) Robot expresses a self-deprecating commentary which ostensibly reveals a sense of robot personal vulnerability to the group, (2) Robot is neutral in its commentary, and (3) Robot is silent.

The researchers reported that the vulnerable utterances by the robot not only influenced groups to talk more, but also positively shaped the directionality of the utterances to be more evenly balanced between the other two human members of the group (see this link for the research paper, the authors of the study are Margaret L. Traeger,Sarah Strohkorb Sebo,Malte Jung,Brian Scassellati, andNicholas A. Christakis).

Having conducted similar AI research that explores the impact of AI on human behavior and likewise having deployed AI systems in industry, Ive found it useful to characterize these efforts as follows.

Well use the letter R to represent robots, and the letter H to represent humans.

The nomenclature of 1R <-> 1H means that we have one robot that is interacting with one human.

This is a commutative expression in that well say that 1R <-> 1H is equal to and no different than if we were to indicate 1H <-> 1R.

Next, well introduce intentionality and the changing of behavior.

If we have 1R -> 1H, it means that one robot is interacting with one human and that the end result is some form of behavioral change exhibited by the human (which can arise via intentional actions of the R, or unintentionally so).

Of course, in the real world, we could have more than one human involved, having the humans participating as a group, so the group aspect is: 1R -> nH.

This means that we have one robot that is changing the behavior of a group of humans, wherein n is some number of 2 or greater.

To make it clear that group dynamics are involved, this is included too: 1R -> nH : nH <-> nH.

The latter portion of nH <-> nH helps to remind us that the group of humans are interacting with each other (since otherwise, it could be that the humans are told to not interact with each other or for some reason decide to purposely not interact, which, admittedly, could also be shaped via the R, but thats an additional variant for another day).

One other important point is that even though the R is used to represent a robot, the other way to more fully envision this aspect is to think of the R as any AI system that is reasonably intelligent-like and decidedly does not need to be the kind of space-age robot that we often have in mind, i.e., there doesnt necessarily need to be a slew of mechanical arms, legs, and other such human-like mechanization's.

Why care about all of this?

Because we are going to soon enough have widespread advanced AI systems that interact with humans, doing so beyond just occurring on a one-on-one basis (the 1R <-> 1H), though even for one-on-one nonetheless still being able to impact human behavior (the 1R -> 1H), and will certainly be ratcheting up to impacting human behavior that affects social interaction as a group (the 1R -> nH : nH <-> nH).

Developers and those fielding AI systems ought to be thinking carefully about how their AI is going to potentially impact humans and the inner group of dynamics among humans, during the interaction that those AI systems undertake with us.

In addition, humans need to be mindful that the AI system can potentially change our behavior, for the good or possibly for the bad, along with changing how we behave in a group setting with our fellow humans.

If we dont make sure that we are on our toes, the AI can cleverly lead us down a primrose path, getting groups of humans to become incensed, perhaps take to violent action, or express untoward outcomes (getting humans to among ourselves furtively work ourselves into a tizzy).

Of course, you can also take the glass-is-half-full viewpoint, and suggest that perhaps the AI system might stoke humans in a group setting to be more productive, more open to each other, and otherwise spur humans to be more, well, humane with each other.

This is why the recent spate of AI Ethics guidelines are so important and why I keep pounding away at having the AI community be mindful of how they are designing, developing, and fielding the myriad of AI systems that are appearing in a dizzying fashion and going to become integral to our daily lives.

For my analysis of the Rome Call For AI Ethics see this link, for my analysis of the Department of Defense principles of AI Ethics, see this link.

The AI genie is being let out of the bottle, so quickly and without sufficient scrutiny and caution, we might either be shooting our own foot as humanity, or we might be boosting ourselves to new heights, yet all-in-all it right now is taking place with little thought as to which way this is going to go.

Id prefer that things end-up on the side of enhancing mankind, the so-called AI For Good, and avoid or mitigate what we know will certainly equally emerge too, which is the AI For Bad.

On the topic of research studies, there are ways to further explore this question about AI and human behavior encompassing group dynamics.

For example, first consider this: 1H -> 1R

This use case looks at how the human can potentially change the behavior of the robot or AI system, perhaps convincing the robot to take actions that without the human interaction might not otherwise have taken place.

Amplifying that further, consider this: 1H -> nR : nR <-> nR.

In this use case, there is a group of robots or AI systems that are interacting jointly as a group (thats the nR <-> nR), and the human is impacting the robots, in both an individual robot instance, and along with how and what robots are doing as a federated or group interaction.

Many are caught off-guard on that formulation, not realizing that yes, we are gradually going to have multiple robots that are interacting with each other, doing so in a manner of human-like group dynamic interactions (for my discussion of federated AI, see this link here).

For those that like twisters and puzzles, heres something you might enjoy: 1R -> nR : nR <-> nR

Thats the case of a robot that is interacting with a multitude of other robots, and for which the group dynamics of the other robots are being changed as a result of the robot that is initiating or potentially leading the interaction.

Finally, we can also reflect on humans in the same manner, namely this: 1H -> nH : nH <-> nH.

No robots are in that equation, its a human-only instance.

We experience this every day.

Your boss comes into a conference room and announces to you and your fellow employees that the company is going to provide a bonus to those that exceed their quota (thats a behavior spark of the 1H -> nH). The group of employees engage in a discussion among themselves about what each will do (the nH <-> nH), in order to earn that potential bonus.

Thats a happy face version.

Revise the example somewhat for a sad face version.

Your boss comes into the conference room and announces to you and your fellow employees that the company is going to start laying off people, those as rated as subpar by their employee colleagues. Imagine what would happen next in the group dynamics among the employees, a potential nightmare of alliances, backstabbing, and the like.

Those of you that want to pursue the whole enchilada, consider this:

nR -> nH : nH <-> nH

nH -> nR: nR <-> nR

(nR -> nH) + (nH -> nR): nR <-> nR; nH <-> nH

Plus other variations.

Ill leave that as an exercise for those of you at home or are in your research labs.

As mentioned earlier, the R is not merely or solely a traditional kind of robot that comes to mind and can be any intelligent-like AI system, which includes, for example, AI-based self-driving cars.

Heres the question then for today: Can AI-based self-driving cars potentially impact human behavior on both an individual basis and on a social dynamic or group interaction among humans too?

Id like to keep you in suspense, and gradually reveal the answer, though I realize you are undoubtedly anxiously perched on the edge of your seat, so, yes, AI-based self-driving cars can indeed have such impacts.

Lets unpack the matter and see.

The Levels Of Self-Driving Cars

It is important to clarify what I mean when referring to AI-based true self-driving cars.

True self-driving cars are ones that the AI drives the car entirely on its own and there isnt any human assistance during the driving task.

These driverless vehicles are considered a Level 4 and Level 5, while a car that requires a human driver to co-share the driving effort is usually considered at a Level 2 or Level 3. The cars that co-share the driving task are described as being semi-autonomous, and typically contain a variety of automated add-ons that are referred to as ADAS (Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems).

There is not yet a true self-driving car at Level 5, which we dont yet even know if this will be possible to achieve, and nor how long it will take to get there.

Meanwhile, the Level 4 efforts are gradually trying to get some traction by undergoing very narrow and selective public roadway trials, though there is controversy over whether this testing should be allowed per se (we are all life-or-death guinea pigs in an experiment taking place on our highways and byways, some point out).

Since semi-autonomous cars require a human driver, the adoption of those types of cars wont be markedly different than driving conventional vehicles, so theres not much new per se to cover about them on this topic (though, as youll see in a moment, the points next made are generally applicable).

For semi-autonomous cars, it is important that the public be forewarned about a disturbing aspect thats been arising lately, namely that in spite of those human drivers that keep posting videos of themselves falling asleep at the wheel of a Level 2 or Level 3 car, we all need to avoid being misled into believing that the driver can take away their attention from the driving task while driving a semi-autonomous car.

You are the responsible party for the driving actions of the vehicle, regardless of how much automation might be tossed into a Level 2 or Level 3.

Self-Driving Cars And Human Behavior

For Level 4 and Level 5 true self-driving vehicles, there wont be a human driver involved in the driving task.

All occupants will be passengers.

The AI is doing the driving.

Some people perceive the AI driving system as nothing more than a simple machine. It is easy for us as human drivers to say that driving is a mundane task and readily undertaken.

Indeed, it is somewhat staggering to realize that in the United State alone there are about 220 million licensed drivers (see driver stats link here). Obviously, the driving of a car must be relatively simplistic if you can get that many people to presumably be able to do it (as some suggest, it isnt rocket science).

Yet, also consider how much life-or-death risks and consequences there are in the act of driving a car.

There are about 40,000 deaths per year due to car crashes in the U.S., and around 2.5 million bodily injuries to people involved in car crashes.

Turns out that getting an AI system to drive a car could be said to be easy, but the trick is getting it to drive a car safely, and do so in the midst of the raucous and dangerous wilds of human drivers and everyday driving circumstances (in essence, getting AI to drive a car on a closed track that is utterly controlled is readily viable, but once you put that same AI self-driving car into the real-world with the rest of us, all bets are off, for now, and its a doozy of a problem).

Once you put an AI self-driving car onto the public roadways, youve essentially added a new social actor into our midst.

Social actor, you might ask?

Yes, the AI system is now contending with all the same roadway social interactions that we humans do.

Think about your actions as a human driver.

Is that pedestrian going to suddenly dart into the street, and if so, should I slam on my brakes or instead keep going to scare them back onto the sidewalk in a game of chicken?

Thats social interaction.

Now, with the advent of self-driving cars, rather than having a human driver in the drivers seat, the social actor becomes the AI system thats driving the self-driving car.

But, there isnt anyone or anything sitting in the drivers seat anymore (though, as Ive posted here, some are working on robot drivers that look and act like a traditional robot, which would sit inside the car and drive the vehicle, but this is not likely in the near-term and certainly not prior to the advent of todays version of self-driving cars).

Ive exhorted that we are going to find ourselves confronted with a head nod problem (see my analysis here), whereby as pedestrians we can no longer look at the head of the driver to get subtle but telling clues about what the driver is intending to do.

Thus, this vital social interaction is going to be broken, meaning that the pedestrian wont know what the AI driving system is thinking (theres not as yet a theory-of-mind that we can have about AI driving systems), and likewise, the AI if not properly developed wont be gauging what the pedestrian might do.

There are various technological solutions being explored to deal with this social interaction, including for example putting LED displays on the exterior of the car to provide info to pedestrians, and there is the hope that V2P (vehicle-to-pedestrian) electronic messaging will help, though all of this has yet to be figured out.

Lets tie this together with the earlier equations presented.

A self-driving car is coming down the street and meanwhile, a pedestrian is getting ready to jaywalk.

We are on the verge of a social interaction, namely a 1R <-> 1H situation.

The AI of the self-driving car wants to stand its ground and intends to proceed unabated, so it somehow communicates this to the pedestrian, attempting a 1R -> 1H.

In what way will the communication occur, and will the human pedestrian acquiesce or resist and opt to jaywalk?

Thats yet to be well-formulated.

Lets bump things up.

A group of strangers are standing on a street corner, waiting to cross the street (this is nH).

As a self-driving car reaches the corner, it wants to try and make sure that those pedestrians stand away from the corner, since the AI system is going to make that right turn without pausing.

We have this: 1R -> nH

It could be that the pedestrians do nothing and standstill.

Or, they might look at each other and try to figure out which has the greater will, namely they as a pack of humans might decide to flow off the curb into the street, doing so to basically tell the self-driving car to back off and let them cross, though it could also be that they briefly confer and decide that it is better to let the AI do its things and make the turn.

In essence, this happened: 1R -> nH: nH <-> nH.

Suppose the AI system had proffered a gentle, friendly indication, asking the group to remain out of the way, how might that have played out among the group in a social interaction about what to do?

Or, suppose the AI system had been stern, essentially threatening the group to stay put, what might have been the group dynamics in that case?

For more on the use of social reciprocity by AI in human-AI interactions, see my discussion at the link here.

Read the rest here:
Human Behavior And Group Dynamics Can Be Reshaped By AI Use, Including Via AI Self-Driving Cars - Forbes

Human Behavior

How To Stay Resilient And Mentally Healthy During The Coronavirus Outbreak – WBUR

Editor's Note:This hour discusses anxiety and other mental health issues.If you or someone you know may be considering suicide, contact theNational Suicide Prevention Lifelineat 1-800-273-8255 (En Espaol: 1-888-628-9454; Deaf and Hard of Hearing: 1-800-799-4889) or theCrisis Text Lineby texting 741741.Coronavirus anxiety resources:Coronavirus Anxiety Helpful Expert Tips and Resources (ADAA),Manage Anxiety & Stress (CDC), Pandemics General Resources (APA)Other Resources:Anxiety and Depression Association of America,Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies,The Jed Foundation,National Alliance on Mental Illness

Coronavirus and collective stress around the world. Why is this moment so anxiety-producing and how can we stay resilient in the face of it?

Jonathan Kanter, director of the Center for the Science of Social Connection at the University of Washington. (@UWPsychology)

Elissa Epel, stress scientist and psychiatry professor at the University of California, San Francisco. (@Dr_Epel)

The San Francisco Chronicle: "How to turn the coronavirus anxiety into something positive" "Most of us alive today are novices to experiencing global pandemics, so we could benefit from some insight through a science lens of human behavior under threat.

"Theres a lot of controversy about just how much we should be anxious and panicking. Science has an answer. Anxiety is helpful, panic is damning: Anxiety drives us to mobilize together, stay clearheaded, and do what is needed for the common good.

"Panic is highly contagious, throws us into irrational and catastrophic thinking, and drives us to toward lousy human behaviors that can exacerbate our crisis greed, excessive hoarding, stampeding. Panic is highly contagious and infects those around us. The difference between anxiety and panic is critical to understand, so we can strike the right balance."

The Conversation: "Social distancing comes with social side effects heres how to stay connected" "To fight the spread of coronavirus, government officials have asked Americans to swallow a hard pill: Stay away from each other.

"In times of societal stress, such a demand runs counter to what evolution has hard-wired people to do: Seek out and support each other as families, friends and communities. We yearn to huddle together. The warmth of our breath and bodies, of holding hands and hugging, of talking and listening, is a primary source of soothing. These connections are pivotal for responding to and maximizing our survival in times of stress.

"Priority number one is to follow the recommended social distancing guidelines to control the virus. The cure is definitely not worse than the disease experts projections of disease spread and mortality without strong intervention make this clear."

Wired: "Dont Go Down a Coronavirus Anxiety Spiral" "The past few days have made clear how serious the escalating coronavirus pandemic is for many people in the United States. Schools and workplaces across the country closed, major events were canceled, and testing delays made it impossible to confirm how many people were infected.

"The stock market had its biggest decline in decades, Sarah Palin rapped to Baby Got Back dressed in a bear suitit feels like the world is unraveling. There is so much going on, and so much uncertainty, it is all too easy to get trapped watching cable news or scrolling through Twitter all day.

"If all this news is making you feel stressed, youre far from alone. Many people are sharing their worries online; theres a whole subreddit devoted to coping with these feelings. Experts say overloading on information about events like the coronavirus outbreak can make you particularly anxious, especially if youre stuck inside with little to do but keep scrolling on Twitter and Facebook."

Seattle Times: "A cough, and our hearts stop: Coping with coronavirus anxiety and fear" "We are you. We are mothers, daughters, students and teachers. Yet we are also clinical psychologists who spend our days researching and treating pathological anxiety and fear. With the near constant news of the spreading coronavirus and fatalities, our personal and professional identities have dramatically collided, forcing us to consciously live consistent with the scientific principles we know well.

"This became very real for one of us on March 1, as two young children developed sudden, unexplained fevers. As they lay uncharacteristically quiet on the couch complaining of sore throats and headaches, fear set in. What followed was 24 hours of worry, internet searching, repeated calls to the pediatrician, and constant self-reassurance kids are unlikely to develop severe symptoms, coughing and breathing difficulties are primary symptoms but anxiety persisted.

"In the end, the two kids were diagnosed with strep infections, and anxiety subsided. In Seattles elevated threat environment, anxiety processes are playing out in our daily lives."

View post:
How To Stay Resilient And Mentally Healthy During The Coronavirus Outbreak - WBUR

Human Behavior

Religion justifies many conflicting human behaviors. How would God reconcile that? | Opinion – Tennessean

DeWayne Stallworth, Guest Columnist Published 5:00 a.m. CT March 17, 2020

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Religion accounts for much of the best and worst of human behavior throughout history. What would God make of this?

Narratives stretching back millennia help explain how a divine being, or multiple deities, created what we mere mortals know as humanity and planetary substance.

Early humans, while adapting and defining the social world around them, discovered their limitations and began associating the creation of things beyond their physical grasp the moon, stars, sky and so on to that of a more informed, super natural and transcendental phenomenon.

This mode of contemplation often resulted in the attribution of divine essence toward nature as well as toward humans who were recognized and worshiped as demigods.

By correlating aspects of the natural world with that of divine essence, humans garnered the ability to envision a sacred space beyond the here-and-now moment, which also inspired the use of rituals and symbols to communicate cultural significance to peoples of the world. As the God concept developed in practice and theory among various cultural groups, the world became fragmented and accustomed to the use of divine influence as a means to further human ambitions.

Dewayne Stallworth(Photo: Submitted)

The Crusades are an example in which human beings used religion as a means to vie for more space, power and geographical positioning. Muslims and Christians killed one another because both sides were convinced that they possessed solely Gods blessed directive to pursue cultural advancement.

Similarly, American chattel slavery is yet another example of how humans use religion to substantiate oppressive and dehumanizing behavior. In fact, in 1562, British sailor John Hawkins became the first European to sail the triangular trade successfully. The slave ship that transported these newly-enslaved Africans to the new world was ironically named Jesus.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

In the 21st century, humans continue to co-sign God to acts that border on sinister and nefarious intentions. Diverse religious groups gather together weekly in order to worship the God of their understanding. Jews, Muslims and Christians believe that their respective notions about God, this world, and the hereafter are validated historically, and they have the words to prove it: Hebrew Bible, Quran and Christian Bible.

Which religious group is right? A Christian understanding of God, for instance, entails a belief of hellish torture if one does not possess faith solely in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

In other words, according to Christian dogma, one can fight against social injustice, advocate for LGBTQ rights, assist the homeless and treat all human personality with a sense of relevance, but still reserve a spot in hell if one does not believe the Christian narrative of the historical Jesus. I find this mode of thinking to be difficult, absurd and dangerous.

Neo-Nazi groups also subscribe to hard-wired notions about God. They are convinced that God has given them authority to kill, harass and terrorize non-whites as a means of preserving God ordained whiteness. As far as these racists are concerned, God deems their hateful consideration of another race as being both appropriate and meaningful.

Therefore, I believe that God, albeit a plausible cosmic reality, is also a mental construction that provides a context for what is good and proper for the individual. Thus, God is real according to how the individual understands and interprets this reality via lived experience. I often wonder how God feels about people who use religious dogma as a means of manipulation, control and social expansion.

Does God even care? I think God does care; and if God is real, the agents of religious manipulation will have to provide an accounting for their abuses; or maybe not.

You decide.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

DeWayne R. Stallworth is an African American religious studies scholar and the author of two books.

Read or Share this story: https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2020/03/17/god-real-and-other-religious-quandaries-through-history/5026243002/

Visit link:
Religion justifies many conflicting human behaviors. How would God reconcile that? | Opinion - Tennessean

Human Behavior

Watch the Footprint of Coronavirus Spread Across Countries – The New York Times

As the new coronavirus shuts down countries around the world, the impact can be seen from space.

A satellite that detects traces of human activity tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks, fossil fuel burned in power plants and other industrial activities shows striking reductions in pollution across China and Italy since the outbreak first started.

Both countries have taken unprecedented measures to limit the movement of people in the hope of slowing or even containing the spread of the disease. Even in South Korea, which has put more modest restrictions on the movement of its citizens, pollution appeared to fall.

Its the first time in history weve seen something like this, said Marco Percoco, an associate professor of transportation economics at Bocconi University in Milan, referring to the speed and the size of the pollution declines in Italy and China.

December 2019 to March 2020

December 2018 to March 2019

December 2019 to March 2020

December 2018 to March 2019

Italy is facing the largest coronavirus outbreak outside of China, with nearly 30,000 illnesses and 2,100 deaths reported so far.

Early cases were clustered in the north, where the outbreak has been especially severe, but the disease has continued to spread throughout the country.

In early March, the government imposed emergency measures restricting the movement of roughly 16 million people throughout northern Italy, including major cities like Venice and Milan. Bars, restaurants and other gathering places were closed, and citizens were asked to avoid all unnecessary movement. Soon after, similar restrictions were extended countrywide.

The impact of those restrictions can be seen in pollution readings gathered by the European Space Agencys Sentinel-5P satellite. The images show that emissions of nitrogen dioxide, a gas closely linked to vehicle exhaust, are considerably lower across northern Italy compared to the same time period last year. The region regularly struggles with wintertime smog.

The satellite data was analyzed for The New York Times by Descartes Labs, a geospatial analysis group.

In a separate analysis made public this weekend, researchers from Bocconi University reported a sizeable decline in several types of air pollution in Milan during the lockdown, including nitrogen dioxide levels and particulate matter pollution, a byproduct of burning fossil fuels that is highly damaging to human health.

It is clear people are not moving by cars, said Dr. Percoco, an author on the study, noting that vehicle emissions are a major source of particulate matter and other pollution in Italian cities. Few people are on the streets, he said, with many Italians staying home to avoid the virus.

December 2019 to March 2020

December 2018 to March 2019

December 2019 to March 2020

December 2018 to March 2019

Decembeer 2019 to March 2020

Decembeer 2018 to March 2019

The drop in pollution was even starker in China, where the new coronavirus was first detected. The largest emissions reductions were seen surrounding the city of Wuhan, in Hubei Province.

Chinese officials put the region on lockdown in late January, following the Chinese New Year holiday, and have only recently begun relaxing restrictions to allow workers in key industries to return to their jobs. That includes public transportation workers and those involved in making medical supplies and other necessities.

The unprecedented lockdown, which barred the movement of nearly 35 million people, caused widespread economic disruptions, including a slowdown in manufacturing and electricity generation.

Pollution across the region plunged accordingly.

What we saw in China was a very rapid effect, said Joanna Joiner, an atmospheric physicist at NASA. The agencys own analysis found that nitrogen dioxide emissions over eastern and central China were significantly lower during January and February this year compared to what is normal for the period.

Every year, pollution dips across the country during the weeklong Lunar New Year celebration, as factories shut down and people stay home from work. (The holiday falls in late January or early February each year). But usually, emissions rebound as the country reopens for business. This year, they stayed at lower levels for weeks.

A smaller decrease in nitrogen dioxide pollution can also be seen in South Korea, around the capital, Seoul. The South Korean government did not bar the movement of its citizens but encouraged strict social distancing by closing down schools and universities, asking people to work from home and canceling large gatherings.

The social distancing measures, as well as an increasing number of people in self-quarantine, appear to have had an impact on air pollution, said Minwoo Sun, a coordinator at the Global Air Pollution Unit of Greenpeace East Asia. But further analysis is needed to fully understand the depth of coronavirus impact on South Koreas air, he added.

As more countries shut down life as usual to slow the spread of coronavirus, we may see further drops in pollution around the world, Dr. Joiner said.

Were seeing changes in human behavior, in how people are moving around and how theyre using fuels, she said. Pollution wont hide from the satellite data. Its going to tell us whats going on.

More here:
Watch the Footprint of Coronavirus Spread Across Countries - The New York Times

Human Behavior

Younos: The dilemma of decarbonization – Roanoke Times

Younos is founder and president of Green Water-Infrastructure Academy and former research professor of water resources at Virginia Tech. He lives in Blacksburg.

The drive to mitigate climate change has introduced the buzzword decarbonization. Basically, the aim of decarbonization is to reduce operational (direct) and embodied (hidden) global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the atmosphere attributed to human activities. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is considered the major GHG contributing to global warming. About 65% of atmospheric CO2 increase is attributed to burning of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and gasoline/diesel). In addition, about 11% of the CO2 increase is attributed to changes in physical and biological characteristics of the land surface such as deforestation, intensive agriculture and urbanization. Other critical GHGs are methane (16%), nitrous oxide (6%) and F-gases chlorofluorocarbons from refrigerants (2%). The percentage of CO2 and methane contribution to atmosphere and their comparative global warming potentials is continuously changing as more scientific data becomes available.

In the US, GHG emissions (operational and embodied) from burning of fossil fuels are distributed across several economic sectors (EPA 2019): electricity generation (28%), agriculture (9%), industry (22%), transportation (29%), residential and commercial (12%). According to the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, about 65% of electricity generation in the U.S. depends on fossil-fuels (35% natural gas, 30% coal). And according to U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in first 8 months of 2019, renewable energy sources (not including hydro and nuclear power) accounted for 11.4% of U.S. electricity generation: wind (6.94%), solar (2.7%), biomass (1.4%) and geothermal (0.4%). While the gradual decarbonization of power generation plants, i.e., switching to renewable energy resources is an ideal approach, a sudden shift to renewables is not technologically feasible, is considered impractical and cost prohibitive with significant repercussion on other economic sectors because of their dependence on electricity. According to a recent Forbes report, renewable energy sources will require $14 trillion of investment, and could deliver around 80% of global power by 2050.

Effective decarbonization depends on evolving technologies and human behavior. Evolving technologies include but not limited to the design of energy efficient industries, utilities, vehicles, buildings and other infrastructure (embodied carbon footprint), heating/cooling system, and electric appliances and fixtures. During the past few decades, significant progress has been made in the arena of energy use efficiency and is steadily improving. For example, research shows that using wood instead of steel and concrete to construct high-rise buildings is technically possible and can reduce embodied carbon footprint of built environments. The second evolving technologies relate to design of cost-effective and efficient renewable energy technologies (solar, wind, hydro, tidal, wave, geothermal, biomass, and other). For example, evolving battery technologies for storage of intermittent renewable energy resources, such as solar and wind, are critical for making the shift toward using more renewables. The third component of evolving technologies is the design of smart and distributed (decentralized) energy/electricity grid that automatically integrates various locally available renewable energy resources and also limits the need for long-distance electricity transmission lines.

Human behavior can be characterized as institutional behavior and personal/individual behavior. Institutional behavior is complex. Its influenced by the current state of knowledge, and regulations which are mostly based on the state of knowledge. Advances in technology influences adaptation of new regulation but the process is tedious. Even small scale changes in institutionalized environmental management, such as building codes and land development to implement energy use efficiency, require significant effort on the part of local and state governments. In our democratic society, policy making is a significant challenge since its strongly influenced by a market economy and advances in technology. In contrast, personal behavior is an individual responsibility which can significantly impact local and global environment. GHG emissions and climate change are significantly affected by our daily activities. Our existing institutionalized culture of waste is the result of collective human behavior which is the sum of individual behaviors. Its said that small drops make the river, thus to achieve decarbonization goal, we should practice conservation in all aspects of our daily life energy, water, food, and use of all manufactured products. This is an achievable goal possible with citizen education, and that we should pursue.

See original here:
Younos: The dilemma of decarbonization - Roanoke Times

Human Behavior

How to turn the coronavirus anxiety into something positive – San Francisco Chronicle

Sam Herbert of Berkeley wears a face mask and gloves as she waits in line with dozens of others to enter Berkeley Bowl in Berkeley Bowl, Calif. Saturday, March 14, 2020. Stores across the Bay Area have been overwhelmed with shoppers "panic buying" amid the thread of the Coronavirus and increased self-isolation within communities.

Sam Herbert of Berkeley wears a face mask and gloves as she waits in line with dozens of others to enter Berkeley Bowl in Berkeley Bowl, Calif. Saturday, March 14, 2020. Stores across the Bay Area have been

Photo: Jessica Christian / The Chronicle

Sam Herbert of Berkeley wears a face mask and gloves as she waits in line with dozens of others to enter Berkeley Bowl in Berkeley Bowl, Calif. Saturday, March 14, 2020. Stores across the Bay Area have been overwhelmed with shoppers "panic buying" amid the thread of the Coronavirus and increased self-isolation within communities.

Sam Herbert of Berkeley wears a face mask and gloves as she waits in line with dozens of others to enter Berkeley Bowl in Berkeley Bowl, Calif. Saturday, March 14, 2020. Stores across the Bay Area have been

How to turn the coronavirus anxiety into something positive (and why panic is damning)

Most of us alive today are novices to experiencing global pandemics, so we could benefit from some insight through a scientific lens of human behavior under threat. Theres a lot of controversy about just how much we should be anxious and panicking.

Science has an answer.

Anxiety is helpful, panic is damning: Anxiety drives us to mobilize together, stay clearheaded, and do what is needed for the common good. Panic is highly contagious, throws us into irrational and catastrophic thinking, and drives us to toward lousy human behaviors that can exacerbate our crisis greed, excessive hoarding, stampeding. Panic is highly contagious and infects those around us. The difference between anxiety and panic is critical to understand, so we can strike the right balance.

Moderate coronavirus anxiety is good. We are doing smart essential things washing hands, canceling things, staying home; no Disneyland for spring break. Prevention behaviors in turn reduce anxiety further. The stress response is what has kept humans safe and alive throughout history. Some people are still cavalier and cool which can have new consequences, such as ignoring directions meant to keep others safe. This is it, its our one time-limited opportunity to flatten the curve of infections, to prevent overwhelming the hospitals, and our anxiety fuels our efforts.

But just how anxious should we be? There is a sweet spot. We need to take social distancing seriously, not as if, but truly as our lives and especially vulnerable peoples lives depend on it.

The media are flooded each day with predictive models of worst-case scenarios, and stories from Italian hospitals which are, frankly, terrifying describing the lack of resources to stop people dying from interstitial pneumonia. These easily lead our anxious minds to overestimate the actual threat, and underestimate our ability to cope with it. Further, the more time we spend on media, the more likely we are to feel overwhelmed, and to develop post-traumatic symptoms in the long run, as weve learned from Dr. Roxane Silver and colleagues studies of disasters like the Boston Marathon bombing and 9/11. Stick with the facts from a few reliable sources such as the Centers for Disease Control. Try to limit media exposure to twice a day max and focus on productive activities this period.

Coronavirus panic is creating big problems, personal and societal. Dont let it spiral out of control.

How are you doing today? Since its cold and flu season, many of us have symptoms. Panic can heighten our perception of physical symptoms, and this feels tortuous if we are suspecting its COVID-19. Further, prolonged high stress can actually suppress our ability to fight viruses.

But its worse than that under panic, we hijack our prefrontal cortex, home of rationality, so we are thinking from our emotional brain. We are more likely to make mistakes and bad decisions. Predictable human behaviors under panic, now in full florid display across countries, include herding behavior, panic buying and hoarding, and xenophobia.

The human threat response can easily go awry.

Fear drives herding behavior: Rather than making a rational decision based on data, fear drives us to follow the herd. It explains why on March 9 the Dow hit a 12-year low, and the next day, it rebounded. On March 11, based on President Trumps unreassuring comments, it dropped again. Herding behavior has led us quickly toward recession. We are social mammals prey to panic-impulsivity and its painful economic consequences.

In hard times, our automatic tendency, if left unchecked, is to respond to others with competition, greed, and over-acquire any limited resources. This creates problems for the common good (in psychology this is called tragedy of the commons). Panic buying may reduce anxiety temporarilyIm safe, I have 20 bottles of Purell and 10 boxes of masksand it gives us something we have control over, but real safety is found in certain safety and distancing behaviors, and supporting each other.

There are viral scenes of herding behavior on social media, such as the stampedes scrambling for toilet paper. There are few true shortages, just hoarding. We might see trouble filling grocery stores due to slow distribution (lack of workers), not real food shortages. Toilet paper production is continuing as usual. If we buy moderate amounts at the store over time, we can flatten the curve of overdemand and shortages in our stores. Now bank lines in San Francisco are long.

We need to temper the panic and encourage each other to be reasonable in our appetite to stock up.

Its more marathon, less sprint: Living with a highly stressful situation for months is not a human physiology problem, we are built for that, but allowing it to get under our skin with exaggerated and prolonged emotional responses is. Chronic stress left unchecked can dampen our immune response (a focus of our research). We of course want a pill, a quick way to just say no to intense anxiety and panic. Stress science has a lot to say about situations we cannot control, and certainly a global pandemic is the exemplar.

We can first acknowledge we cannot change the situation, we must completely surrender with acceptance of our new reality. But we can do our part we control our personal ecosystem. The more we accept our current life of strict distancing, the more we can flatten the curve quickly.

Chinas strict measures led them to be on the other side of this. We can, too. Fear of the unknown is inevitably intense. But mindless fear is far worse than mindful awareness of fear.

Lets face this one day, one moment, at a time. Being mindful starts by becoming aware of what you personally are experiencing, by labeling the thoughts and emotions you are having, switching from emotional mode to a kind and reflective observer mode: So this is what it feels like to live in a pandemic. Paradoxically, that helps the emotion pass through us quicker.

Be extra kind to yourself, acknowledging that anxiety right now is normal and almost inevitable, and humans across the globe are sharing this same experience with you. This virus brings us right to our shared humanity our primal stress response to protect our lives, our love to protect others. Let yourself feel gratitude for what you do have right now, and grateful to those still working to keep stores stocked and fighting to save lives in our hospitals.

We are stuck in this together: One of the most powerful ingredients for stress reduction is calm caring emotional support. Opportunities to help abound. Helping behaviors are known to be happiness behaviors as well. Social distancing doesnt mean we cant provide social support through phone and video. We can check on elderly neighbors, friends and relatives who cannot leave home easily (especially if they are sick), with caring calls or texts, and offers to bring food and medications. Communities are rapidly building their own support networks, using networks such as Nextdoor or Facebook. This is a time we discover who we are as a nation, an opportunity to strengthen our worn-down social cohesion and live our core values.

This is going to be a tough period, there will be some herds and stampedes, suffering and deaths, but together we can rise above our reptilian panic responses, and fight our best battle against this vicious virus.

Elissa Epel, Ph.D., is a stress scientist and professor in the Department of Psychiatry at UCSF and co-author of the New York Times best-seller book on stress and healthy aging, The Telomere Effect.

Continued here:
How to turn the coronavirus anxiety into something positive - San Francisco Chronicle

Human Behavior

Column: Try to maintain some of your children’s routines during this time of crisis – Los Angeles Times

The coronavirus pandemic is forcing us into a nationwide experiment with online education.

Until now, online education has largely held a supplemental and supporting role to traditional classroom learning.

But, as campuses across the country shut down in-person instruction and shift en masse to exclusively using distance learning in an effort to limit transmission of the virus, we suddenly find ourselves thrust into uncharted territory.

This unprecedented turn of events is fraught with challenges for educators, students and parents, not the least of which is mobilizing efforts to ensure that all students have adequate access to technology.

Though only time will tell what the long-term fallout of this sudden change will be, I decided to consult a couple of experts to glean some insights about the potential implications.

First, I spoke with Gerard Beenen, interim associate dean and professor of management at Cal State Fullertons Mihaylo College of Business and Economics, who has extensively studied teaching online.

One of my takeaways from my conversation with Beenen is that this abrupt change in circumstances will be extraordinarily difficult for an educational infrastructure that is notoriously risk-averse, bureaucratic and slow to evolve.

It requires institutions to be nimble against their will, he said.

Like it or not, educators are now forced to pivot quickly and try to provide a comparable level of instruction while adapting lessons and tests to a digital format.

This will be particularly tough for those teachers who are less comfortable with distance learning or havent received much training with, for example, interactive online platforms like Zoom.

When he developed his first online class, Beenen noted, it took him 500 hours to develop 40 hours of instruction. That equates to more than 12 hours of preparation for every hour of lesson time.

People dont have that time in todays environment, he said. Things will be done very quickly.

Another factor to consider, he said, is that some types of learning science labs, for instance dont convert readily to online studies. No matter how well-designed the lesson plans, some depth will undoubtedly be lost due to the absence of hands-on instruction and interactivity.

Students, too, will have varying levels of comfort with the move to online education. Some will adapt more easily, while others might struggle, such as those who require a high degree of structure, dont do well with ambiguity or find it harder to focus and ignore distractions while at home.

Were going to have students who dont have same competency as they would in a regular learning situation, Beenen said.

Therefore, he suggested, expectations and assessments of student progress will also have to be adjusted to reflect this new reality.

Another major concern is that some students might be vulnerable to high levels of stress brought on by an abrupt change in routine and by the social isolation required to combat the viruss spread.

Shanna Farmer, a Newport Beach-based licensed marriage and family therapist and an associate clinical professor at the UC Irvine School of Medicines Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, said that parents should be on the alert for signs of anxiety and depressive disorders in their children.

There are a lot of potential issues for anxiety and depression to settle in whenever we have a sudden shift in everyday routines, she said.

Students with learning disabilities and pre-existing mental health conditions will be especially at risk, she said.

Warning signs that children arent coping well could include higher-than-usual levels of irritability or frustration, trouble sleeping, withdrawal or excessive clinginess.

One of the things that I think is really important, however long this goes on, is that people try to keep something of a routine, Farmer said.

That means parents should maintain the same bedtime and wake-up times for their kids and adhere to a specific schedule for structured learning experiences.

They should sit their children down, discuss expectations and come up with a family plan for meeting those expectations, she said.

Parents should also make time for physical activity, entertainment, and self-care, whether its a family walk to the park, playing board games, or learning meditation techniques, Farmer suggested.

Another dimension to this experience that should be emphasized, Farmer said, is that it presents an opportunity to model positive attitudes and behavior.

Parents can demonstrate and encourage such qualities as resilience, altruism, gratitude and compassion, and foster a were-all-in-this-together sense of community and shared sacrifice.

This could be a really wonderful way for society to grow through this, she said.

Its a lovely thought. I hope Farmer is right, and that we emerge from this crisis a little wiser, kinder and better prepared for turbulent times ahead.

More here:
Column: Try to maintain some of your children's routines during this time of crisis - Los Angeles Times

Human Behavior

Column: Adapting to social distancing and virtual everything – MetroWest Daily News

We are learning a lot about human behavior during our common coronavirus experience.

Columns share an author's personal perspective and are often based on facts in the newspaper's reporting.

We are learning a lot about human behavior during our common coronavirus experience.

Just watching panic-stricken shoppers pile mile-high stacks of toilet paper into their carts can only make people wonder, how much toilet paper can those people possibly use? Common sense rationing does not appear to be on anyones radar screen. Of all people, New Englanders should know the folly of panic shopping. How many times have we stocked up to prepare for storms that never materialized?

Fear certainly effects us humans in strange ways. Wary people peer over their face masks with that Dont touch me look in their eyes. Whatever made them think anyone wanted to touch them in the first place?

We are quickly adapting to a period of virtual everything, and social distancing. Its chilling.

Students are attending virtual classes. Clergymen are preaching from virtual pulpits. We are told: Dont go the hospital, call your doctor. Perhaps that s the best advice possible under the circumstances but it does make one wonder why anybody would continue to espouse government-run health care.

This threat proves the value of "America First" when it comes to creating our own supply chains. We should be producing pills and other medical necessities here in this country instead of depending on China. This far-reaching virus makes that obvious.

With all due respect to our socialist friends, thank heaven for capitalism. Because of the profit motive, commercial interests are working around the clock to find a vaccine that can overcome this powerful virus. Some one is going to make a lot of well-deserved money for an effective serum.

Yes, and theres also something about this coronavirus pandemic thats teaching us a lot to remember. Things we should never have ignored in the first place.

Hopefully, people will remember the importance of personal hygiene. Just about everybody knows enough now to wash their hands more often - with soap or hand sanitizer. Finally, its a good thing that people who dont feel well are staying home rather than putting others at risk. Empowering rituals like investing in strengthening the bodys immune system by eating well, sleeping, and home exercise are finally receiving the attention they deserve.

Even public officials have shown capacity to learn from the past. When America was threatened by Ebola, President Obama refused to cancel flights from Africa. That mistake wasnt repeated when President Trump quickly restricted flights from China to just a few airports.

Here are some thoughts to consider.

Focus on what strengthens you and not what scares you. Our human brains are much more sensitive to what could go wrong than they are to what can go right. People fear dying in a plane crash much more than being in a car crash. Yet statistics show a 1 in 114 chance of dying in a car crash versus a 1 in 9,821 odds of dying in a plane crash.

Avoid fear mongers. Fear fuels more fear. Do yourself a favor and walk away from the doomsday and panic merchants.

Educate yourself. Dont just depend upon headlines. While the coronavirus is bad, it could be worse. Every year, some 60,000 Americans die of ordinary influenza.

In the final analysis, fear is contagious, but so too is courage. Sure, it makes sense to follow common sense precautions. But like so many other troubling things in life, this too will pass.

Heres something to consider. Some experts tell us that the coronavirus will weaken with the advent of warm weather. Thats just about 30 days away. It will be interesting to see how long it will take to recover from the social distancing that has become todays norm?

Will life in restaurants, bars, and sport events ever be the same? Will people start dating again?

Personally, Im really worried about the mental health of all those people who bought enough toilet paper to last for at least seven years.

Frank Mazzaglia can be reached at frankwrote@aol.com.

Continued here:
Column: Adapting to social distancing and virtual everything - MetroWest Daily News

Human Behavior

Professor says fake Coronavirus news is making the crisis increasingly worse – Ladders

Effectively covering the Covid-19 pandemic is just as vital as it is challenging.The narrative tends to escalate by the day because of the pathogens breakneck transmission speed.

Research regarding this specific zoonotic virus is gradually making its way into academic literature, but a new study published in revue-Depidemiologie-Et-De-Sante-Publique highlights the grim impact of misinformation.

When it comes to COVID-19, there has been a lot of speculation, misinformation and fake news circulating on the internet about how the virus originated, what causes it and how it is spread. Misinformation means that bad advice can circulate very quickly and it can change human behavior to take greater risks, professor Paul Hunter said of the new paper in a mediarelease. Fake news is manufactured with no respect for accuracy and is often based on conspiracy theories. Worryingly, research has shown that nearly 40% of the British public believe at least one conspiracy theory, and even more in the US and other countries.

Initially, the majority of data submitted by medical professionals was based on the nature of similar pathogens of the past.

Before the novel Coronavirus penetrated the US pundits and elected officials alike were quick to remind people that influenza has a much higher mortality rate, while others were resolute in their belief that the virus would be contained in Mainland China before it achieved pandemic status.

When both of those predictions were debunked, rising death tolls, hysteria, and hospitalizations welcomed erroneous preemptive measures; like wearing face masks or eating garlic. Most of the dietary suggestions, even if incorrect, were victimless offenses. However, if the public is made to believe that they are protected via methods that in reality are of zero utility, they are all the more likely to enter high-risk situations.

People in West Africa affected by the Ebola outbreak were more likely to practice unsafe burial practices if they believed misinformation. And here in the UK, 14% of parents have reported sending their child to school with symptoms of contagious chickenpox violating school policies and official quarantine advice, Hunter continued.Worryingly, people are more likely to share bad advice on social media, than good advice from trusted sources such as the NHS, Public Health England or the World Health Organisation,

To test the adverse potential of alternative facts in relation to pandemic events, the researchers devised theoretical simulations that incorporated real human behavioral tendencies, the spread of other similar infectious diseases, incubation and recovery times, and the degree to which incorrect information is shared on social media and among communities.

We tested strategies to reduce misinformation. In our first study, focusing on the flu, monkeypox, and norovirus, we found that reducing the amount of harmful advice being circulated by just 10% from 50% to 40% mitigated the influence of bad advice on the outcomes of a disease outbreak, Dr. Brainard explains. Making 20% of the population unable to share or believe harmful advice or immunizing them against fake news, had the same positive effect.

As it stands, staying informed is our only defense against Covid-19s corrosive tour. Its easy to feign authority when the world wide web is so readily at our disposal, but interpreting information requires expertise.

See more here:
Professor says fake Coronavirus news is making the crisis increasingly worse - Ladders