Category Archives: Human Behavior

Human Behavior

How To Turn Down The Boil On Group Conflict – Forbes India

Image: Shutterstock Even as polarized political discussion appears to have frozen the possibility of compromise, new research suggests that divided sides can come together on many issues to make decisions.

Our research finds that inaccurate beliefs really drive behavior and contribute to intergroup conflict, says Jeffrey Lees, a doctoral candidate in Organizational Behavior and Psychology at Harvard Business School.

In actuality, most people have a wildly inflated sense of just how negative the other side feels, according to a new paper that Lees co-wrote with Harvard University Associate Professor of Psychology Mina Cikara. If you forecast that no matter what you propose, the other side will hate it, then you are going to say compromise is a waste of time, Lees says.

The paper, Inaccurate Group Meta-Perceptions Drive Negative Out-Group Attributions in Competitive Contexts, was published in November 2019 in the journal Nature Human Behavior.

We want to compromiseIn a series of experiments, Lees and Cikara found people are much more willing to compromise, but resist trying because they think those on the other sideand even those within their own groupwill resist going along. But they also unearthed good news on how mistrust can be overcome on many issues.

Lees first started considering these dynamics in a business context. I was thinking about how people inside organizations predict how people outside of the organization perceive it, and how they might get that judgment wrong, Lees says. It didnt take me long to realize how that sort of judgment applies in other contexts.

He teamed up with Cikara, whose lab has looked at how peoples perceptions of others changed based on whether they think of them as individuals or groups. How we attribute motives to other people becomes distorted when we stop thinking of them as individuals and instead move to a framework of us versus them, Cikara says.

In a political context, that can quickly lead to conflict.

People not only have stereotypes of what other people are like, they also have stereotypes of what other people believe, Cikara says. They hate us for our freedom, or they think were liberal snowflakes, or theyre doing that to be obstructive, or they want to ruin our American way of life. But when you actually talk to people about their opinions, almost nobody actually talks like that.

Lees' and Cikaras experiments found most people are much less negative than the stereotypes we harbor about the other group. For each experiment, the researchers presented real-world scenarios that advantaged one side or the other, and then asked participants to predict how negatively the other side would react.

For example, one scenario presented to participants who identified as Democrat, explained that Democrats in a state legislature were considering a change to committees that draw voting lines. While currently, committee members were appointed by the governor, a Republican, the new proposal would allow equal representation by both parties.

They then asked participants to predict on a 100-point scale how much Republicans would dislike or oppose the measure or consider it politically unacceptable. Responses averaged in the 80s, with the largest clump at 100.

As negative as possibleThe forecasts were pretty much as negative as possible, Lees says. In reality, however, the real responses were closer to 50showing that participants overrated how badly the other side would feel.

Lees and Cikara found similar results for other scenarios, involving changes to selection of judges, campaign financing, and renaming of a state highway. (The researchers purposefully stayed away from hot button issues such as gun control and abortion, which might spur too much passion.)

The results were consistent for both Democrats and Republicans, or even if they just presented an anonymous Party A and Party B.

They are totally insensitive to the scope or impact of the issue, Cikara says. They just think the other side is going to be upset about anything.

Even more interesting, people made the same forecasts about others in their own group, believing their fellow Democrats or fellow Republicans were angrier about a measure, even when they themselves were only mildly opposed.

Having such polarized views of both political parties naturally leads to less willingness to negotiate and compromise, Lees says.

If you are a legislator, you are thinking no one across the aisle or in my own tribe will support compromise, but thats in fact wrong. Both sides might be okay with compromise, but no ones willing to propose it because of inaccurate forecasts.

Overcoming bias to reach cooperationThe news from their experiments wasnt all bad. When the researchers flipped the script to create scenarios that were cooperative, study participants were much more accurate in their predictions. For example, in the voting districts scenario, the researchers told participants that it was Democrats who were proposing the change to make the commission fairer, even though a Democrat was currently in the governors office and stood to lose advantage through the change.

In that case, Democrats and Republicans alike accurately predicted how both sides would feel.

Suddenly, peoples forecasts become accurate, which is quite an optimistic finding for cooperation, Lees says. If you can actually engender cooperation, people are much more likely to have accurate perceptions that might drive reconciliatory behavior.

In a final experiment, Lees and Cikara showed that people could change their perceptions when confronted with new information. After making their own predictions about the negativity of the other side, participants were shown their true level of oppositionon average, much lower than theyd assumed. Afterwards, people decreased the degree to which they thought the other side was engaging in purposeful obstructionism.

Theres a lot written about how people are totally insensitive to the truth when told that their beliefs are wrong, Lees says. This suggests thats not the case. People are willing to update their beliefs when they are simply told they are inaccurate.

Better business outcomesThis finding, which indicates the potential for creating cooperation, carries implications for business as well.

In the context of teams or negotiations, adopting a competitive mindset can lead to undue pessimism about how others feel, Lees says. These inaccurate beliefs can lead to missed business opportunities. But if those contexts are reframed as cooperative, accurately forecasting how someone across the negotiation table might respond to a particular proposal becomes easier.

Thats good news in a society that often seems to be grappling with intractable partisanship on every issue. While some issues may still present a gulf too wide to bridge, the study shows that there is at least some room for compromise and mutual understanding between the parties, if they can just start talking to each other.

When youre not talking about hot-button issues, you shouldnt be afraid to broach the topic with people who have a different position than you, Cikara says, because it turns out you most likely have an inaccurate perception about what they thinkand they have the same of you. All it takes is one person to break the cycle.

Michael Blanding is a writer based in the Boston area.

[This article was provided with permission from Harvard Business School Working Knowledge.]

See original here:
How To Turn Down The Boil On Group Conflict - Forbes India

Human Behavior

highlandcountypress.com – The Highland County Press

Dr. Karissa L. NiehoffExecutive DirectorNational Federation of State High School Associationshttps://www.ohsaa.org/

While the behavior of parents and other fans at high school games is still a work in progress, there is some good news on the officiating front.

Last fall, we reported on a growing shortage of officials nationwide even reaching a crisis stage in some areas as games were being canceled. Through a nationwide recruitment effort, progress is being made in attracting more people to the high school officiating avocation.

Thanks to the NFHS #BecomeAnOfficial campaign that was launched in the spring of 2017, more than 4,000 men and women across the country have registered and become certified officials. Many of these individuals are former high school athletes who want to remain involved in sports, earn some extra income and stay in shape, including first responders such as police officers, firefighters and EMTs.

Individuals interested in becoming an official can sign up through the http://www.HighSchoolOfficials.com website, and most state associations respond within 24 hours to continue the registration process.

On the flip side, however, is the fear that any gains in new officials coming in the front door are being offset by other officials heading out the back door because of the continued boorish behavior on the part of parents and other fans.

Rickey Neaves, associate director of the Mississippi High School Activities Association, is struggling to cover all basketball games in his state in his role as officials coordinator.

Fans and coaches alike feel freer to downgrade officials, and holler and scream at them, as opposed to the way it was 10 years ago, Neaves said. You can see where it is getting worse and worse with parents and coaches blaming officials or staying on an official to the point where theyre just not going to take it, so they just get out.

Unfortunately, we continue to hear reports like this from across the country. A recent survey conducted by Officially Human: Behind the Stripes that was completed by about 19,000 respondents in 14 states indicated that the problem persists, with fans who do not know the rules being the main culprit.

If efforts by the NFHS at the national level and others at state and local levels to attract more people to officiating are to be successful, unsportsmanlike behavior on the part of parents and other fans must cease or we will lose some of these new officials within two years.

While we recognize the task of improving the culture at high school events is challenging and is one more item on the busy plates of school administrators, it is essential if we are to retain officials.

Brenda Hilton, founder of Officially Human: Beyond the Stripes, said The time is now for all of us to realize that officials are human and their existence and hard work at sporting events allows all of us to enjoy the games that we love. We must start to humanize officials now before the whistles fall silent.

Recognition and thanks should also be a part of the game plan. We must regularly share our appreciation for the men and women who officiate high school sports.

Dana Pappas, commissioner of officials for the New Mexico Officials Association, shared the following with officials in her state during a special appreciation week:

Never think that what you do as an official doesnt matter because it does. Never let one contest where the fans are exceedingly brutal and the scrutiny is overly intense derail your love for what you do. Never think that you are not making a difference because you most definitely are. You are educators, role models and guardians of the integrity of the sport you officiate. You officiate because you care about kids, you care about your chosen sport and you care about your community.

Instead of viewing these officiating issues as a crisis, lets see them as an opportunity to impact lives through education-based athletics.

Dr. Karissa L. Niehoff is in her second year as executive director of the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) in Indianapolis, Ind.

Read the original post:
highlandcountypress.com - The Highland County Press

Human Behavior

Difference, Division, Desi Breeds : Intuitive Economics and the Outcome of an Operation – Economic and Political Weekly

Suppose, in a business you invest 1,000 and get 1,500 as return. You have 500 as net profit. Suppose you expand on the business by additionally investing 1,000. Now you get a net profit of 800 instead of 500.Would you consider the decision of this additional investment as a wise decision? We raised this question in a meeting of a mixed group, consisting mainly of social workers working with farmers, fisherfolk, pastoral, and tribal communities. We were discussing the economics of livelihood for people dependent on nature. Some of them said, Yes. We will invest 1,000 more because by doing so, our net profit goes up. Some of them said, No. This is not wise! Because, even if net profit goes up, it is not in proportion to the additional investment. The ratio actually decreases with the additional investment.

Which of the answers is correct? Is it really wise to make the additional investment or not? Both the groups certainly used logic which was right in their context. Both the groups were doing a careful costbenefit analysis. But, one group was using net profit, defined as returns minus the cost. The other was using a ratio, defined as returns divided by the cost. Interestingly, even within the latter group, individuals working with farmers appeared to think in a different way than individuals working with tribal communities. For this article, we will use the words cost and benefit to describe the actualities of a deal, and the words investment and returns to refer to the perceptions and strategies of an investor.

Although the dilemma of using difference or division, or rather when one should use difference and division, could seemingly be solved by employing common sense, we believe it is a fundamental question that requires serious thought. Many people may not even think that it is an important question, since business wisdom lies in reducing costs and increasing returns. Theoretically, if business wisdom is applied in real-life situations, both difference as well as ratio willincrease. But, this does not always work. The above example, although very simple, demonstrates that optimising difference and optimising ratio can lead us to diametrically opposite decisions. The question is not only important in economics, but also in biology. Evolutionary biologists frequently worry about budgets, where energy, time, health, longevity, or reproductive success is the currency. Only the ones with a profitable budget will survive. As a result, an intuitive sense of optimising has evolved in animals. It is unlikely that humans are an exception to the evolved intuitive optimisation mechanisms. But, humans also have conscious thinking and theorisation, so we should seek a logical explanation for our decisions in our conscious beliefs and theories. So, we wanted a logical answer to the question of when to divide and when to subtract.

We then started scanning economics textbooks and asking economist friends about when to take the ratio and when to take the difference in the costbenefit analysis. The economists we consulted ranged from teachers of first-year economics in colleges to senior economists working as consultants in multilateral organisations. Surprisingly, we did not get any definitive answer. The responses included Use ratio; Use difference; We always use ratios, but I dont know why; Use either, what difference does it make? I dont know; and Frankly speaking, I never thought of this question. The theory of probability in mathematics begins with two simple rules that tell us when to add probabilities and when to multiply. We thought there would be such simple rules that instruct when to use difference and ratio. However, we learnt that such rules do not exist, or even if they do, most economists, at least in our sample, do not seem to know them.

Use of Ratio and Difference

So, how does it matter whether we take difference or ratio? As we discussed further in that group, some inquisitive individuals asked. Are we limited to only one business? What if we start a second unit of the same business and invest another 1,000 in it, instead of going from 1,000 to 2,000 in the same unit? With two independent units of the same business, we will earn 3,000 with an investment of 2,000. This is better than earning 2,800 from 2,000. This turned out to be the key question, and it gives a simple answer to the fundamental question as well. If you have multiple investment opportunities, then go by the ratio, and if you have a single opportunity or your possible investment opportunities are almost saturated, then you should go by the difference. The same can be demonstrated by a more rigorous mathematical proof given in Box 1.

A simple generalisation is that whenever a law of diminishing returns applies and there is an overhead cost in the endeavour, the difference optimum is typically much to the right of the ratio optimum (Box 1 and Figure 1). Thus, to maximise net benefit, it is necessary to invest much more in terms of money or efforts. Whereas, in maximising the benefit to cost ratio, it is a better strategy to have a smaller investment per unit, but to increase the number of units. In simple words, when there is one investment opportunity, it is desirable to extract the maximum output from the unit, even at a higher cost. Whereas, if many replicates of the unit are possible, it is desirable to invest less per unit, but increase the number of units. How much to invest in a unit depends on the overhead costs too. With greater overhead costs of a unit, one needs to invest much more in the unit. The higher the overhead investment, the lower the difference between ratio optimum and difference optimum. The investment still remains lower in ratio optimisation than in difference optimisation. So, the choice of model (whether to use difference model or ratio model) and the optimum investment per unit depends upon how many investment opportunities you have and the overhead cost.

In the case of Indian agriculture, a farmer most commonly has only one investment opportunity: their own land. Therefore, it is natural to use a difference model and extract maximum output, even at a higher cost. On the other hand, in the case of livestock in the Indian context, more investment opportunities (number of animals) are available, so the natural tendency should be to invest little per animal, but let the number of animals increase on their own.

Domesticated herbivores in India typically grazed on common pasture lands (Roy 1997). Therefore, keepers have little overhead as well as running costs. In a ratio model, when the denominator is near zero, the ratio is always high and, therefore, there is no need to worry so much about the productivity of an individual animal. In the context of a typical Western dairy farming model, where there are private ranches, a ranch becomes the unit, and since the owner has a single unit, there would be an attempt to increase the net productivity of the unit even at a higher investment. In this model, on the one hand, investment on owning the huge piece of ranch increases the overheads, making high productivity necessary. On the other hand, long-term assured ownership is a good motivation for worrying about sustainability. Therefore, there is no option but to increase the investment per animal, at the same time, keeping the number of animals limited.

In that context, cattle are more like a crop and land is a limiting factor. This sets the ground for a difference model to work in which the investment as well as productivity goes up. Thus, the economics of modern Western dairy farming and traditional cattle keeping is fundamentally different, and therefore, the breeds and characteristics of animals supporting the two economic models are also fundamentally different. In a ratio model that is typical of traditional Indian animal keeping, people will tend to select animals requiring near zero inputs without worrying much about their productivity. In the modern Western private ranching system, there would be a selection for high-productivity animals even if they require greater inputs. The difference in productivity in different varieties of animals originates in the selection operating on these animals. Animals bred for generations in the difference model become more productive, and those under the ratio model become more hardy and resilient, but less productive.

Innate and Intuitive Economics

Evolutionary ecologists have shown that even the so-called dumb or unintelligent animals with tiny brains make very careful costbenefit judgments. For example, a parasitoid wasp typically lays eggs on the caterpillar of a host insect. The number of eggs to be laid on a given caterpillar is a complex investment decision. The optimum egg investment per caterpillar unit depends upon a number of factors, including the expected remaining lifespan of the female, the residual egg-laying capacity, the probability of finding more host caterpillars, whether a caterpillar found already has eggs laid by a competing female, and so on. Mathematical ecologists have shown that wasp females are able to take a complex economic decision (Heimpel et al 1996: 241020).

Considering the astonishing innate mathematical ability of a wasp, it should not be surprising that even illiterate humans do take wise economic decisions even when they have not studied economics formally. Humans appear to make complex costbenefit analysis while making several decisions where the currency need not always be money. Time, labour, energy, sex, reproductive success, survival, or social status work as currencies in human intuitive economic calculations (McNamara and Houston 1986: 35878), but it is beyond doubt that using costbenefit optimisation is an innate tendency of animals (Parker and Smith 1990: 2733; Smith and Winterhalder 1992: 2560) and that legacy continues in humans. Formal education is not a primary requirement for making such complex calculations. While doing formal economics, some of the currencies can be put in numbers as equivalents of money, whereas for other currencies, it is difficult to set up an equivalence with money. Herein lies the difference between intuitive economics and formal economics. Nevertheless, the fundamental principles of costbenefit analysis, including the above stated rule about ratio versus difference, need not be different.

If asked directly, farmers do not know what a difference model is and what a ratio model is, but they appear to use the right model in the right context. In another study published earlier (Bayani et al 2016), we tested the differential predictions of the difference versus ratio models on a set of farmers (Watve et al 2016: 86167). The results showed very clearly that farmers unanimously used the difference model. Thus, the farmers appeared to have an intuitive knowledge of some principles of economics, which our educated economists have not yet clearly figured out.

Hybrid Crops vs Crossbred Cows

The green revolution entered India in the late 1960s. It was brought in by government efforts, with the help of visionary scientists. The government wholeheartedly promoted the use of hybrid seeds, chemical pesticides, and fertilisers, bringing about changes in traditional farming practices. The new agricultural practices needed more investment not only in purchasing hybrid seeds, but also for chemical fertilisers, pesticides, and irrigation. Hybrid or high-yielding varieties of seeds certainly required more care, since they were more susceptible to climatic variation as well as diseases and pests. Within a decade, almost the entire country changed agricultural practices. Individual farmers invested more in order to get more returns, although the benefit to cost ratio might have actually declined. It should also be noted that although there were many incentives and promotional schemes launched by the government, nothing was made mandatory. The farmers largely accepted the green revolution in a short span of time.

More recent is the specific case of Bt cotton. India is the worlds largest cotton producing country (Statista 2019). Bt cotton was introduced in 2002, and it took a few years to be known. Soon, Bt cotton percentage in terms of production area boomed up from 6% in 200405 to 81% in 200910. In less than eight years, 93% cotton farmers started using Bt cotton (ISAAA 2014). The change was so rapid that non-Bt cotton seeds were practically out of the market, and many indigenous varieties were threatened to extinction (Kumarnath 2016). More generally, hybrid or high-yielding varieties have replaced indigenous varieties, and a special drive is needed to conserve indigenous varieties.

In contrast, if we see the case of livestock, Operation Flood, launched in 1972, was a project of Indias National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), which was the worlds biggest dairy development programme. High milch foreign breeds were introduced in the cattle population. Programmes like artificial insemination (AI) were launched, with substantial thrust from government and non-governmental agencies. Concerned agencies worked with targets and tried to reach out to every doorstep to inseminate local cows with high-quality semen (NDDB 2015). Furthermore, there were moves to improve feed, fodder and veterinary services. But, the efforts precede Operation Flood since even before Operation Flood, there were active efforts to eradicate and replace indigenous cattle. For example, in Kerala, castration of local bulls was made mandatory under the Kerala Livestock Improvement Act of 1961. Under this act, any bull of an indigenous breed reaching sexual maturity had to be castrated and a task force set up to implement the castration operations at a mass scale. Nothing comparable to this was ever done for Bt cotton or any high-yielding crop variety. Even doorstep-level facilitation and persuasion was never needed for the green revolution. In spite of all such efforts, the trend in the growth of exotic/crossbred cattle remained poor, in contrast with the trends in high-yielding crop varieties (Figure 2).

Although there has been a steady decline in indigenous cattle percentage and a steady increase in exotic/hybrid cattle, the percentage share of exotic/crossbreed cattle has increased only by 14% in two decades (from 1992 to 2012). In comparison with the 93% spread of Bt cotton in eight years, this increase is meagre. Particularly notable is the vast majority of the so-called non-descript cattle (DAHD 2012). There have been excellent indigenous cattle breeds, such as gir, that are high-yielding, but even they were never abundant across the country. Majority of the population was happy with the low-yielding one, but self-sustaining hardy cattle that needed little care and survived droughts, diseases, and parasites (Mazoomdaar 2013). These animals performance was poor if seen through the difference model, but excellent by the ratio model because theinvestment needed was negligible.

Thus, there is a stark contrast between peoples response to high-yielding crop varieties and high-yielding animal breeds. They seem to have accepted the former in a short time, but have resisted the latter even after the option has existed for a long time. We feel that the difference lies in the economic model of optimisation used. With the difference model predominating agricultural economics, they are ready to invest more money and efforts and go for higher yields. But, with animals, they are happier with small yields coming out of near zero investment because they are using a ratio model. This choice of the model is completely innate and intuitive. Nobody did any calculations consciously. Such calculations must be as natural and built-in as the wasp optimising her egg investment. Now, it is high time that formal economics recognises the innate economic models of people.

Ratio Model in Agriculture

The ratio model can be appropriate for agriculture under a set of conditions. In slash-and-burn agriculture, where new land can be brought under cultivation, that is, new investment opportunities can be created, a ratio model will work better. Also, in a society that is free to expand the agricultural land, a ratio model is appropriate. We see this difference in the history of modern agriculture too. In the 1960s, the green revolution took quick and firm roots in India, but it did not succeed in much of Africa, although its promotion was attempted (Pingali 2012: 12,305). For the 1960s population-to-land ratio in much of Africa, people could rely on the ratio model and were not interested in difference optimisation. As the population grew, and there was a clear demarcation of agricultural lands and land saturation, the difference model started gradually taking over, and the response to the green revolution improved.

Today, we see substantial and sincere efforts to promote zero-budget agriculture, which is ecologically sound (Palekar 2007). We raise no doubts about the ecological and sustainability-related merits of zero-budget agriculture. But, the response from the farmer community to this model so far is extremely limited. Out of the 140 million hectares (ha) of agricultural land in India (Directorate of Economics and Statistics 2014: 305), farmers have committed to organic farming in only 0.51 million ha (PoliticalTruth 2016). The reason is likely to be that the promoters are trying to promote ratio optimisation (Misra 2007), whereas the farmers community has a difference model in their intuitive calculation. It would be necessary for the promotion of organic farming to rework its economics and see how it performs in a difference model. If Misras (2007) claim is correct, both the ratio and difference models could be more favourable in spiritual agriculture. But, unless it is propagated by projecting its economic superiority by the difference model, farmers are unlikely to adopt it on a large scale.

When Two Optima Contradict

The contrasting example comes from the rapidly rising dairy industry. When a dairy company or cooperative is established, it has invested substantial amounts into overhead costs like land, establishment cost, machinery, storage, and supply chains. Although the dairy industry might still be using the ratio model, a rise in overheads shifts the optimum to the right. The dairy unit has certain other limitations. It can take raw material from several cattle or buffalo owners. But, since milk is highly perishable, there is a limit to the area from which it can transport raw milk. Within this area, they need to maximise the incoming flow. Therefore, the industry is interested in a higher investment and higher returns model. This goes in a subtle conflict with the animal owners. The optimum for the industry is far to the right than the optimum for animal keepers (Figure 3, p 31). As a result, the industry would have to take special efforts to motivate people to increase their investment per animal and improve the returns per animal. For this, they need to give incentives, attractive offers, free veterinary services, animal insurance, assured market or some other means to motivate them. Only with such efforts, the high-yielding varieties can be sustainable by peoples intuitive economics.

As a result, in the milk catchment area of large dairy units, high-yielding breeds are expected to be better accepted by people. In the absence of incentives and active promotion by organised dairy agencies, people are unlikely to accept and maintain these varieties on a mass scale and over a long time. This prediction of the hypothesis matches with the statistical trend. The spread of cross-bred varieties closely follow the rise in the dairy industry (Figure 4).

Dairy Industry and Breed Selection

The organised sector of the Indian dairy industry started growing post-independence, and in the early 1960s, the share of the organised sector in total milk procurement was only 3.7%. By the mid-1990s, it reached 12% (Sharma et al 2002). By 2008, the share of organised milk production was 23.39%, and by 2015, it was 26.26%. The pattern of this rise is closely followed by the pattern of the number of cross-bred cattle reflecting acceptance of cross-breed cattle by people. Although the jersey cow was introduced in India long ago in 1856 (Chako 1994), systematic breeding programmes began only in the 1960s. Thereon, it followed the growth curve of the organised dairy sector very faithfully. Even geographically, the statewise success of artificial insemination programme shows a good positive correlation (r = 0.64, p = 0.018) with the number of organised sector units and the total capacity (Figure 5). The correlation remains significant even after correcting for the area of the state. Thus, much of the spread of high-yielding cattle is catering to the economic interest of the organised dairy industry rather than the economic interest of individual cattle keepers.

Our emphasis on the use of ratio versus difference models of intuitive economics does not mean that other factors, such as government policies, market infrastructure, advertising andsocio-politicalcultural acceptance do not play any role in the growth and acceptance of high-yielding varieties. But, it gives the right platform on which the effects of every factors can be rightly mapped. If planning is based on the appropriate economic model, the implementation is more likely to be effective.

Conclusions

For any microeconomic model, it is necessary to have clarity about whether one should use a ratio model or a difference model. People appear to use the two models discriminately and appropriately. Formal economics needs to realise this, which would help the planning of large-scale operations in the right direction and in the most effective way.

This article is neither to support genetically modified (GM) crops, nor to oppose better animal husbandry practices. It demonstrates how the underlying innateintuitive economic model used by ordinary people dominates the outcome. For promoting any new technology or practice on a nationwide scale, it is necessary to understand peoples economics without which huge efforts can turn unproductive. The whole motive of this analysis is to understand how microeconomics at the farmers level affect trends in a bigger picture. It is surprising that such an analysis has not been the centre of thinking in this field. Huge amounts of efforts have gone into developing better breeds, sperm banks, artificial insemination techniques, and the like. A number of excuses are given to explain the relative failure of cattle-breed improvement. The predominant excuses include the relatively high care required for cross-bred cows, the need for continued cross-breeding programme since the quality is not maintained in subsequent generations and the lack of awareness and education in people (Sainath 2012; Ramdas and Ghotge 2006). Interestingly, all of these factors were applicable to hybrid crops as well, but they did not prevent their acceptance and spread (Koshy 2011).

It is necessary to differentiate between reasons and justification/excuses, which can be revealed only through insightful, evolutionary socio-economic investigation. Advancement in the field of technology needs to be accompanied by an equally intensive, scientific, unbiased and insightful research in peoples behaviour for a socially important policy to be successfully implemented over a large population like ours.

References

Bayani A, D Tiwade, A Dongre, A Dongre, R Phatak and M Watve (2016): Assessment of Crop Damage by Protected Wild Mammalian Herbivores on the Western Boundary of Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve (TATR), Central India, PLOS One, 19 April, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0153854.

Chako, C T (1994): Development of Sunandhini Cattle in India, World Animal Review, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, viewed on 14 July 2019, http://www.fao.org/docrep/t4650t/t4650t0v.htm.

DAHD (2012): 19th Livestock Census 2012: All India Report, Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, viewed on 14 July 2019, http://dahd.nic.in/sites/default/filess/ Livestock%20%205_0.pdf.

(2013): Breeding Survey Book: Estimated Livestock Population Breed-wise: Based on Breed Survey 2013, Animal Husbandry Statistics Division, Government of India, New Delhi.

Directorate of Economics and Statistics (2014): Agricultural Statistics at a Glance (various issues), Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, viewed on 14 July 2019, https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/PDF/Agricultural-Statistics-At-Glance2014.pdf.

Heimpel, G E, J A Rosenheim and M Mangel (1996): Egg Limitation, Host Quality and Dynamic Behaviour by a Parasitoid in the Field, Ecology, Vol 77, No 8, pp 241020.

ISAAA (2014): Global Status of Commercialised Biotech/GM Crops: 2014, Brief 49, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, viewed on 14 July 2019, https://isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/default.asp.

Koshy, J (2011): How India Became a Bt Cotton Country, Livemint, 27 July, viewed on 28 July 2019, https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/ NZIDje22uiFUoskfs9FD5M/How-India-became-a-Bt-Cotton-country.html.

Kumarnath, K (2016): Bt Cotton: How It Flowered and Is Losing Lustre Now, Hindu BusinessLine, 22 March, viewed on 28 July 2019, .

Mazoomdaar, J (2013): The Desi Cow: Almost Extinct, Tehelka, Vol 10, No 5, viewed on 28 July 2019, http://old.tehelka.com/the-desi-cow-almost-extinct/.

McNamara, J M and A I Houston (1986): The Common Currency for Behavioural Decisions, American Naturalist, Vol 127, No 3, pp 35878.

Misra, S S (2007): Punjabs Spiritual Farming, Down to Earth, 30 November, viewed on 28 July 2019, https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/punjabs-spiritual-farming-6918.

NDDB (2015): Operation Flood, National Dairy Development Board, viewed on 29 December 2016, http://www.nddb.org/about/genesis/flood.

Palekar, S (2007): The Techniques of Spiritual Farming, Amaravati, Maharashtra: Vedic Books.

Parker, G AandJ M Smith (1990): Optimality Theory in Evolutionary Biology, Nature, Vol 348,1 November, pp 2733, doi: 10.1038/348027a0.

Pingali, P L (2012): Green Revolution: Impacts, Limits and the Path Ahead, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol 109, No 31, July, pp 1230208.

PoliticalTruth (2016): Organic Farming: India Worlds Third Highest Producer of Organic Products, 13 February, viewed on 28 July 2019, https://politicaltruth.wordpress.com/2016/02/.

Ramdas, S R and N S Ghotge (2006): Indias Livestock Economy: The Forsaken Dry Lands, Seminar, Vol 564, August, viewed on 28 July 2019, http://www.india-seminar.com/2006/ 564/564_s_r_ramdas_&_n_s_ghotge.htm# top.

Roy, Deb R (1997): Communal Grazing Lands and Their Importance in India and Some Other Asian Countries, Session 18, Communal Grazing Lands, International Grassland Congress, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Sainath, P (2012): Cattle Class: Native vs Exotic, Hindu, 6 January, viewed on 28 July 2019,https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/sainath/Cattle-class-native-vs-exotic/article13355009.ece.

Samuelson, P and W Nordhaus (2001): Microeconomics (17th edition), Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Sharma, V, R V Singh, S Staal and C Delgado (2002): Critical Issues for Poor People in the Indian Dairy Sector on the Threshold of a New Era, June: Phase I of an IFPRIFAO project entitled Livestock Industrialisation, Trade and Social-Health-Environment Impacts in Developing Countries, viewed on 3 January 2017, http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/LEAD/X6115E/x6115e0b.htm.

Smith, E A and B Winterhalder (1992): Natural Selection and Decision Making: Some Fundamental Principles, Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior, E A Smith (ed), New York: Aldine de Gruyter, pp 2560.

Statista (2019): Cotton Production by Country Worldwide in 2017/2018, viewed on 5 July 2019, https://www.statista.com/statistics/263055/cotton-production-worldwide-by-top-countries.

Trading Economics (2016): Agricultural Irrigated Land (% of Total Agricultural Land) in India, viewed on 5 January 2017, http://www.tradingeconomics.com/india/agricultural-irrigated-land-percen....

Watve, M, A Bayani and S Ghosh (2016): Crop Damage by Wild Herbivores: Insights Obtained from Optimisation Models, Current Science, Vol 111, No 5, pp 86167.

Continued here:
Difference, Division, Desi Breeds : Intuitive Economics and the Outcome of an Operation - Economic and Political Weekly

Human Behavior

We Need the Wisdom of Wikipedia – The LumberJack

Weve all been there. Youre sitting in a class. Your professor wants you to write a paper on the different types of asexual reproduction of the Sanderia malayensis jellyfish or some other arcane drivel. Your first reaction is to hit up Wikipedia. Then comes the kicker. You cant cite Wikipedia. You scowl and snarl under your breath.

Wikipedia is cool and it is useful. Turning a blind eye to Wikipedia as a reliable source is shortsighted and has implications beyond the realm of encyclopedias. Distrusting Wikipedia represents academias unwillingness to open the gates of collaborative truth-knowledge.

Scientific papers, meanwhile, are far from perfect.

Contrary to what your professors may tell you, Wikipedia, as a source, is statistically just as accurate as published encyclopedias for most of its content. A 2005 study by the Nature research journal, Internet encyclopaedias go head to head, found errors in both encyclopedias, but among the entries tested, the difference in accuracy was small.

Wikipedia, in their signature self-aware style, has reported on their own reliability as well. Wikipedia does not guarantee validity, but it is an invaluable research resource.

Inaccurate information on Wikipedia is usually corrected quickly. Hyperlinked citations back up nearly every claim made on an entry. The Sanderia malayensis jellyfishs page hosts six sources from international professionals, biologists and a handbook on poisonous jellies.

Scientific papers, meanwhile, are far from perfect. Soft sciences have suggested cures to unhappiness or boosts to confidence through simple behavioral change, but as other researchers try to replicate the experiments, their conclusions are significantly different. This indicates a serious error in the scientific method. If science isnt replicable, science is null.

In the last few years, a plethora of papers have fallen under criticism after researchers have failed to reproduce their resultsits been called the replication crisis. The crisis may have a few sources.

Mistakes happen on Wikipedia too and it is always essential to be critical of anything read.

First, its not hard to get published. The University of World News said in 2018 that too much scientific research is being published. It estimated nearly 30,000 scientific journals are in circulation, publishing approximately two million articles each year. They said the volume burdens the peer review system and makes it dysfunctional.

Second, the media likes to be the first to report on news, including science news. Journalists can be wrong and often are when it comes to reporting on science, especially when theyre grasping to be the first to report on new findings. These bad practices report inaccurate, unconfirmed, flawed science to their audience before the study can be replicated.

Mistakes happen on Wikipedia too and it is always essential to be critical of anything read. Search around, find supporting articles for any claim made and be aware that there may be flaws. But be able to recognize valid and sound knowledge.

Critical review by the editors of Wikipediawho can be any personis what makes Wikipedia so powerful and so accurate. Its the worlds largest encyclopediaabout 50 times larger than Britannicawith over six million entries and over 200,000 contributors. Wikipedia should serve as a banner for collaborationespecially between diverse groups.

In The wisdom of polarized crowds, a 2019 study from Nature Human Behavior, researchers found politically-diverse teams created more accurate entries than teams with less political diversity.

Wikipedia comes in clutch, often. Using it as a source may be frowned upon by professors, but a short chat with most of them and theyll say Wikipedia is an excellent place to start. The website is a tool, not a cheat code. It would be ignorant to ignore it, but if its used appropriately, maybe, just maybe, we could learn something about jellyfish.

Like Loading...

See the original post:
We Need the Wisdom of Wikipedia - The LumberJack

Human Behavior

Of economics and love The Manila Times – The Manila Times

JOSEFINO R. GOMEZ

ECONOMICS is based on the belief that humans are rational. Therefore, we should not expect economists to discuss irrational subjects, such as love and marriage.

The late Gary Stanley Becker begged to differ, however. He revolutionized economics by applying microeconomic analysis to a wider range of human behavior and interaction including youve guessed it love and marriage. In a series of research papers in the 1970s, Becker laid out the framework for analyzing love and marriage. He showed that what seemed to be irrational life choices could be explained by rational choice theory. For a while, social scientists initially ignored, then mocked Beckers ideas on the nature of marriage before finally accepting it. In 1992, he won the Nobel prize for economics.

So, what presumptions and conclusions did he arrive at? Beckers approach was naturally based on rational individuals. Its based on two principles. According to him, people tie the knot because they get higher satisfaction (utility) from getting married than remaining single. Second, there is a marriage market, in the sense that men and women compete as they seek mates. Each person tries to find the best mate subject amid restricted market conditions.

Becker theorizes that each person will tend to pair with someone with whom the chances of maximizing their household production of goods and services are the highest. The set of household goods and services include tangible goods, as well as non-market goods, like shared hobbies and the thrill of raising kids.

If the couples level of satisfaction is determined by both market and non-market earnings, the time and effort spent on raising market earnings can reduce non-market earnings, and vice versa. This means you only have a limited resource, such as time, and spending time making money will mean less time in doing chores and with kids. Each couple will then try to allocate this limited resource. So if men are better at earning money in the labor market and women are better at taking care of the home and children, it then makes sense for them to combine forces through marriage so they can then specialize in what they each do best. Other things being equal, a high-earning male is more likely to marry a low-earning female, and vice versa.

Couples are most likely to have different earnings, but both theory and empirical evidence suggested one attracts more when it comes to other attributes, such as education or physical attractiveness. Becker argued that attributes like education or beauty are complementary inputs in the production of non-market goods and services, whereas wage income could be substituted and that a lack of complementary attributes might explain a huge number of separations among couples.

Gains from marriage are determined by how the division of labor occurs. If a lot of energy is spent on checking if a partner is performing his or her assigned role, then the net gains will be relatively less. Effort checking and auditing your partner are called transaction costs.

The gains also depend on whether a huge fraction of the output generated after marriage can be jointly shared. Love enhances the gains from marriage because each partner then cares about the utility (satisfaction) of the other. With love, transaction costs are lowered and the gains from marriage are increased. Love also increases the likelihood of increased production of shared family goods, thereby increasing these gains.

A paper titled The Essential Economics of Love by Martin Zelder asked the questions: Are economics and love compatible? And can an enduring connection be forged? It then concludes that [f]ew would argue that love is profound, although sometimes tragic.

Perhaps, the same assessment can be made of this endeavor to understand love with economics. This paper has argued that love is indeed produced, although perhaps not in the more organized or concerted fashion that other household commodities are produced.

As a consequence, love, by virtue of the special circumstances under which it is produced and consumed, is fraught with special problems, problems which, on the one hand, make it hard to produce as much love as is desirable, and on the other hand may imply that love is overproduced. But there is undoubtedly still much for economists to learn (and teach?) about love.

As for me, to increase the gains from marriage, we can learn the following from Beckers paper: contribute our skills and time to the household with our best ability (maximizing returns). Do it with love (less transaction costs) and finally share and acquire things that can be used and enjoyed by the household. (jointly sharing of output).

Finally Ill leave you with a quote from Benjamin Franklin: In times of stress, the three best things to have are an old dog, an old wife and ready money. Happy Hearts Month!

Josefino Gomez is a registered financial planner of RFP Philippines. To learn more about personal financial planning, attend the 82nd RFP program in March. For inquiries, email info@rfp.ph or text at 0917-9689774.

Read more:
Of economics and love The Manila Times - The Manila Times

Human Behavior

See the best animated short films from around the world at the Art Theatre, Sunday the Hi-lo – Long Beach Post

This is a curated show with selections of the best animated short films created by students and professionals from around the world. That translates into 10 films from seven countries.

Its funny how animation has so rapidly grown from Saturday morning fodder to an art form that is arguably the most imaginative and thought-provoking in filmmaking today.

Here are some brief descriptions of the featured films, courtesy of event organizers:

Personal relationships are at the heart of several of the films in this years program, including Daria Kashcheevas International Student Academy Award-winning puppet animation Daughter, a deeply moving exploration of the ties between a father and daughter.

The Fox and the Bird by Sam & Fred Guillaume, is a beautifully observed fable about an unlikely friendship between the two eponymous characters.

Filmmaker Michael Frei and game designer Mario von Rickenbach provide a more clinical view of human behavior in their mesmerizing KIDS,which explores the nature of group dynamics.

The question of individual identity informs both Hounds by Amit Cohen and Ido Shapira and (Self-Narrative) by Graldine Charpentier. In the former, a highly domesticated dog undergoes a disturbing change when a pack of wild hounds gathers near his house, while the latter offers a clear-eyed and heartfelt look at a young girls journey to self-realization as a transgender person.

Joanna Luries mysterious and transcendent Flowing Through Wonder chronicles an extraordinary ritual and celebrates the transformative mystery that underlies life and death.

Natalia MirzoyansFive Minutes to Sea in which a young girl waits impatiently to go back in the sea, takes a more lighthearted approach while playing with conundrums of time and perspective.

The program is rounded out by Gil Alkabetzs Rubicon, a frenetic and very funny hand-drawn animation based on the classic riddle about how to ferry a wolf, a sheep, and a cabbage across a river without something getting eaten.

The 21st Annual Animation Show of Shows runs Friday, Feb. 21 to Sunday, Feb. 23, at the Art Theatre, located at 2025 E. Fourth St. Showtimes are 1 p.m. on Friday and Saturday and 3 p.m. on Sunday. For more information or to buy tickets, click here.

The Today You Should newsletter is now Do This! Subscribe and well let you know whenever theres something great to do in or around Long Beach.

Subscribe through Google Calendar or your calendar app and get alerted to the best things to do in or around Long Beach. This feature is experimental. Let us knowhow its working.

Link:
See the best animated short films from around the world at the Art Theatre, Sunday the Hi-lo - Long Beach Post

Human Behavior

11 Scary Facts About Driverless Car Technology | TheThings – TheThings

There's no denying the fact that there will be a lot more autonomous cars on the roads in the future. While the technology is still very much in the early development stages, it will most likely take on a snowball effect as soon as the manufacturers start to figure out the finer details. Even now there are several semi-autonomous vehicles on the roads, with Tesla and its "Autopilot" system being the most famous one.

But is it all good? Or should we be worried? Honestly, there's only one way we'll find out what's going to happen - we'll just have to wait and see. While there are certainly plenty of concerns surrounding self-driving cars, there's no stopping it now. Here are some of the scariest things about autonomous vehicles.

Even though hundreds of companies are now involved in various aspects of self-driving cars and the tech behind it, there's still a severe lack of safety standards. The information that's available about the technology is limited, and as yet there are not enough solid facts to create a baseline for these safety standards should be. An unregulated industry might be great for the manufacturers, but it means consumers will need to put in some extra work to make sure they're safe.

RELATED:Cruise Origin People Mover Has No Controls, Completely Autonomous

One study that was published in Science Magazine showed that an occupant of a self-driving car risks being sacrificed by their own car if it meant many other people's lives would be saved. Who wants to be the owner of such an ungrateful and backstabbing car? It's quite a scary prospect, even if it's far-fetched.

The weather is actually one of the biggest issues when it comes to fully autonomous vehicles. Bad weather will result in a massive amount of data that the car will have to process as it's driving. This can cause problems with the computer and processors, which can lead to an emergency situation, and those may turn out to be more serious than one might think.

Studies have shown that if an emergency situation arises and a computer-controlled car needs to revert to human control, it can take as long as ten seconds before that person is fully re-engaged. There aren't many driving-related emergencies that provide you with a 10-second heads-up before you have to deal with them.

RELATED:18 Pics That Paint Tesla (And Other Electric Cars) In A Different Light

Most people don't think about how many jobs are actually affected by self-driving cars. All public transport, truckers, taxi and Uber drivers, all types of deliveries, private chauffeurs, driving instructors... And what about the traffic police? Or those companies that make speed cameras?An advocacy group for professional drivers, called the Upstate Transportation Association, is actually so worried about this that they're trying to get New York to ban self-driving cars for 50 years.

RELATED:20 Tonnes Of Butter Delivered Thanks To A Self-Driving Truck

At first, driverless cars might make traffic worse as they will be very cautious during their "learning period." At least that's what a study by the U.K. Department for Transport found when they looked into it. The same government agency believes that traffic delays will increase until between 50% to 75% of all cars on the road are fully autonomous.

Now, when two cars meet at an intersection without any lights or signs, there is a certain level of non-verbal communication between drivers that usually sorts it out. Autonomous cars don't have a solution for this yet. Self-driving cars will need to learn to recognize facial expressions and body language in order to function properly in areas where there are pedestrians and/or a lack of signs and lights.

It's one thing for autonomous cars to recognize pedestrians and cyclists and what their body language means, but dealing with unpredictable people is something else entirely. While testing self-driving cars inSingapore, it was discovered that most of the near-accidents were caused by people jumping in front of the cars to see if they managed to stop in time.

What will happen if a car driven by a human will try to take advantage of a driverless car by deliberately not giving way? It's easy to say that there's a severe risk of an accident if they do and that it's the fault of a human, not the self-driving car - but that's not helping if you end up in the hospital, or worse! These situations are something motorcyclists face all the time, and best riders know what to look for to stay safe when surrounded by unpredictable people - automated cars don't know how to read these situations yet.

RELATED:Disgruntled Ex Waymo Employee Break Checked A Self Driving Car And Caused A Collision

Let's say they solve all these problems, so the cars will be communicating between themselves, all the roads are mapped out perfectly for them, and they learn to read human behavior... There's still a potential chance of component failure. A sensor or camera getting iced over, a broken cable or a bad connection - the only way to solve this is to use multiple sensors that "overlap" to ensure safety.

Right now, cars with self-driving tech are fairly self-contained, which minimizes the risk of real-time hacking. However, if cars will be communicating with each other and the road infrastructure in the future, the risk of hacking will increase exponentially. A Kelley Blue Book survey confirmed that almost everyone sees it as a potential problem in the next few years.

Sources: Science Mag, LinTech, Forbes, Technology

NEXT: Toyota Wants To Become An Autonomous Transportation Company

NextHeres The Worst SUV From Each Top Manufacturer In 2020

Read the original here:
11 Scary Facts About Driverless Car Technology | TheThings - TheThings

Human Behavior

Taking aim at the ‘Cult of the Gun’ – UCLA Newsroom

The story of America is a story of guns from the earliest days of expansion to the political divide of 2020 and every chapter reveals thorny questions about nation building, race and whose rights most deserve to be protected.

That premise guided the UCLA Meyer and Renee Luskin Lecture Series recent event, during which historian, author and educator Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz discussed the gun love ingrained in U.S. culture.

The 390 million privately owned guns in the United States most of which are semiautomatic or high-caliber sidearms and rifles account for half the worldwide total, Dunbar-Ortiz said, even though Americans make up just 4% of the global population. Of American adults who own guns, 61% are white men.

The numbers tell part of the story, but society cannot make sense of gun hoarding and the cult of the gun if we dont deal with white nationalism, she added. And we cant deal with white nationalism without dealing with United States history.

Dunbar-Ortiz, author of Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment, interspersed her keynote address with insights from her own deep involvement with firearms as a young woman. Held at UCLAs Luskin Conference and Guest Center, the event included a panel discussion with Dunbar-Ortiz; Adam Winkler, a gun policy expert and professor of law at UCLA School of Law; Ismael Ileto, an activist fighting against gun violence and hate crimes; and moderator Brad Rowe, a lecturer at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and an expert in criminal justice policy.

What seems clear to me is that we cannot depend on the rush of adrenaline, the indignation, the inspiration that we feel after a tragic event to carry us through the hard work of policy reform, Rowe said.

The panelists related personal tales of loss, debated how to best effect change and discussed arguments over the reach of the Second Amendment.

Some gun control advocates believe the amendment was never intended to guarantee an individuals right to bear arms.

Dunbar-Ortiz offered a darker view of the founders intent: The violent appropriation of native land by white settlers was seen as an individual right in the Second Amendment one of several points in U.S. history when the right to bear arms was invoked to secure white privilege.

That long, intergenerational, violent struggle to take the land is why descendants of those mostly Anglo and Scots-Irish settlers today believe they are the authentic lords of the United States and should govern a kind of blood right, she said.

Even as she delivered blunt appraisals of modern-day policing, the National Rifle Association, Republican leaders and the Junior ROTC a program that she believes is responsible for the normalization of militarism for children Dunbar-Ortiz shared stories of her own immersion in gun culture. She grew up around firearms in rural Oklahoma, and in her 30s, she joined an armed radical-left group that amassed a huge arsenal.

A firearm slung over your shoulder or a 9 mm Browning tucked under your belt creates a sense of amplified power, without which you feel naked and vulnerable, she said. Guns are awesome. They are also beautiful objects that are addictive.

In addition to the mass shootings that capture headlines, access to guns is linked to alarming rates of suicide and domestic violence, and the evenings panelists grappled with how to stem the public health crisis.

It always boils down to whos in office, said Ileto, whose brother Joseph was shot to death in 1999 by a white supremacist who had also attacked children at a Jewish community center in Granada Hills.

We can march and march, we can do all these panels, we can do all the conferences we want, and nothing will be changed. Nothing will move [us] forward to a safer society until we change the ones who can change the law, Ileto said.

Winkler pointed to the divide between U.S. lawmakers some of whom are beginning to champion gun safety reforms, which were once taboo and U.S. courts, which appear on the verge of expanding gun rights.

I think many people who follow this area feel that the Supreme Court is likely to step back into the Second Amendment fray maybe even to outlaw bans on military-style rifles or to outlaw bans on high-capacity magazines or to say its a constitutional requirement for cities like Los Angeles to allow people to carry guns on our streets, Winkler said.

Rowe invited those who would preserve or expand gun rights to join the conversation.

If we do hope to develop long-lasting gun reform, it cannot be done in a vacuum and without consideration for the legitimate claims of gun advocates, he said.

Dunbar-Ortiz offered a counterpoint. Invoking her extensive experience with communities fraught with guns, she said, I dont think its worth your time to try to convert them, frankly.

Instead, she called on passionate grassroots organizers to fight for gun control laws at the state and local levels.

I think the social movements are going to be more important than candidacy to change things, she said. But, she cautioned, I doubt that any common-sense firearms regulation can be enacted until the Second Amendment is understood to represent white supremacy and genocide.

The event, covered by C-SPAN, was part of UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs 25th anniversary commemoration. Gary Segura, dean of the Luskin School, said the evenings topic was chosen to stimulate conversation and turn research and critical thinking into action the core mission of the Luskin Lecture Series.

Whether it is immigration, whether its crime, incarceration, violence against women, mental health issues, suicide prevention and many, many other issues, guns are deeply connected to the work and the challenges that we try to address at the Luskin School, Segura explained during his welcoming remarks.

The widespread impact of gun culture was reflected in the events numerous sponsors, which included the nonprofit Women Against Gun Violence, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Sciences, Health Equity Network of the Americas, the Jane and Terry Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, UCLA Law, and the social welfare and public policy programs at the Luskin School.

Read the rest here:
Taking aim at the 'Cult of the Gun' - UCLA Newsroom

Human Behavior

15 Seemingly Innocent Kids’ Shows That Are Littered With Controversy – TheThings

Kids shows are designed for children to watch, yet somehow there seems to be a lot of controversy that surrounds their content. More often than we'd like,children's shows are criticized for containing contentorelements don't align with the audience they were created for.

The truth is that many parents rely on the distraction of television to entertain their kids while they multitask around the house, so it's pretty important to be able to flick on a children's show and walk away, trusting that the content is going to be age-appropriate. Let's take a look at some of the most popular kids shows that are riddled with controversy.

Ren and Stimpy is a cartoon with a fan base comprised of both adults and children. That may be because of the fact that there's enough adult content in there to remain entertaining to the grown-ups, but too much to be comfortable for parents. The characters are often depicted in situations considered to be grotesque and inappropriate for young viewers, not to mention the dangerous stunts and actions they're constantly displaying.

In one particular episode, Bob The Builder was experiencing difficulties while wallpapering, and out of nowhere, viewers swear they heard him drop an F-bomb. The network denied the claims, stating his words were intentionally muffled, but DailyMail reported on the occurrence and the backlash from angry parents around the world.

Does Dora have parents? She certainly doesn't ask them for permission before she goes anywhere. Parents of young children who tune in to this show have complained about the fact that Dora seems to just leave when she sees fit as she embarks on wild adventures. This may seem like a simple concern, but parents can't risk their children mimicking this behavior and leaving home without consent the way this show demonstrates.

It's easy to let our guard down around Barney. He's a big purple dinosaur that sings about loving one another and making friends. While this may seem harmless, not all parents are aligned with his vision. In one particular episode, Barney educates viewers by saying "a stranger is a friend you haven't met yet", encouraging kids to talk to strangers. It's pretty clear why this wouldn't sit well with parents trying to keep their kids out of harm's way.

Spongebob Squarepants may be a show better reserved for older children. The content and actions of the characters may not be suitable to younger audiences that can't differentiate between fact and fiction. The characters frequently perform stunts that young kids may be apt to mimic. There are so many entirely adult-based jokes that appear on this show, that Screen Rant dedicated an entire segment to them.

Paw Patrol appears innocent at first glance. There aren't many parents that would complain about this show, however some perceive it to be a bit too "frantic" for their children. There's always a tragic occurrence followed by a rescue, and some of the incidents involve crashes and tense moments. Kids internalize these scenes with far greater sensitivity andthe content may be too traumatic for some youngsters.

As a whole, Sesame Street has earned a lot of trust and respect from parents. However, the guest appearances that keep the show fresh and fun can oftentimes introduce a very adult layer of complexity. Human behavior can't be controlled the way puppets can be, Mike Rowe being a prime example. He appeared on the show and made made the comment; "I always wanted to go in through the back door" when speaking to Oscar. Most children wouldn't catch this point of reference, but it still left parents angered and dismayed.

The debate about racial depictions within the Curious George show is a deep-rooted and long standing one. Many scholars have weighed in on this topic, citing the fact that Georgerepresented a slave, and that the showwas promoting white supremacy.BU reports that academics and parents alike have questioned the show's subliminal messages for many years.

This show is an entertaining one, but it's tough to deny the fact that it portrays some downrightdisturbing things.Common Sense Media reports on an episode which was described as "creepy and dark". At one point "a lady breathes in Captain K'nuckles face and his skin peels off". In another instance, "K'nuckles has a daydream were Flapjack pours candy down his throat and a barber threatens to stab Flapjack in the face with a spear."

This show has more hate on social media than we can describe. Common Sense Media describes parent reactions to this show as being immensely negative. While a few butt jokes here and there may be funny, kids are likely to take them way too far. There are also numerous references to death, hangovers, and skinny dipping - none of which seem appropriate for young viewers.

Related:20 80s Movies And The Controversial Scenes That Wouldnt Fly Today

It's really hard to admit that this show isn't appropriate, because we all love it so much. Somehow the older generation seemed unscathed while watching this, but as awareness surrounding children's exposure to topics on TV heightens, it's easy to see that this show is inappropriate. There's an abundant use of guns and weapons and an ever-present array of moments in which the characters are being lumped on the head and repeatedly hit with blunt objects.

Related:20 90s Movies And The Controversial Scenes That Wouldnt Fly Today

The hits keep coming when it comes to parental debate against this show. Adventure Time is riddled with sexual connotations and exploitative language that is inappropriate for many young viewers. NME highlights moments using terminology such as "it goes in my butt", "don't flaunt it if you're not gonna give it up", and "I wanted you to bite me." We're pretty sure there's no further explanation required on this one...

Another classic is now under scrutiny! This show was passable in the past, but is now heavily "under fire" for its use of weaponry and depiction of ongoing violence. It is riddled with the use of guns, weapons, and sharp objects, all of which are frequently used to visibly strike other characters. Clearly this is not ok for young viewers to internalize or mimic in their daily lives.

Related:10 TV Shows You Want Your Kids To Watch (And 5 To Avoid Entirely)

Ranker reports that this show is riddled with issues and is under constant scrutiny, making us wonder how it has managed to stay on-air as long as it has. In an example of clear disregard for young viewers, the episode Tentacool and Tentacruelaired a mere 4 weeks after the 9/11 attacks, despite the fact that it depict aTentacool destroying a skyscraper. Clearly this wasn't very well thought out, nor should children be subjected to this sort of content.

This may be viewed as being "too fussy", but if you live in certain parts of the world, you know better than to make jokes about being exposed to spiders. An episode of Peppa Pig titled "Mister Skinny Legs" clearly tells viewers that "spiders can't hurt you", and The Guardian reported on the fact that it had to be taken off-air. In some parts of the world, spiders absolutely can hurt you, and this message to children was riddled with the potential for serious harm.

Next:Our Kids Love Watching These Movies (But Theyre Super Controversial)

Next15 Surprising Facts From The Set Of TLC's Cake Boss

Go here to read the rest:
15 Seemingly Innocent Kids' Shows That Are Littered With Controversy - TheThings

Human Behavior

Drivers To Start Ditching Gasoline Cars for EVs As Early As 2025 – Yahoo Finance

Car buyers in the United States and major European economies expect improved infrastructure and range of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) to convince them to choose buying an electric car over a gasoline-powered car in five to ten years, a new report from human behavior and analytics firm Escalent showed this week.

Although drivers are unlikely to choose an EV over gas or diesel-powered car in the next year, the share of those who expect to buy a gasoline car in five to ten years is significantly lower, according to Escalents survey carried out in 2019 among 1,000 American consumers and more than 1,000 consumers in Germany, the UK, and Spain.

Over the coming decade, consumers expect electric vehicles to become competitors and viable alternatives to gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicles. This is a significant shift in consumers expectations, the study found.

Among American consumers, 70 percent expect to buy a gasoline car within one year, but the share of those expecting to buy a gas-powered car in five to ten years drops to just 37 percent. In Europe, 50 percent of potential car buyers would choose an internal combustion engine (ICE) car within a year, but only 23 percent would buy a gasoline vehicle in five to ten years, the survey showed.

Currently, EVs are still a tiny fraction of all cars sold in the United States, accounting for just 2.2% of all passenger car sales in Q3 2019. At the same time, sales of gasoline SUVs and non-commercial small and medium-sized pick-up trucks are on the rise.

Commenting on Escalents report, Mark Carpenter, joint managing director of Escalents UK office, said:

While most buyers dont plan to choose BEVs over gasoline-powered cars within the next five years, consumers have told us there is a clear intention to take BEVs seriously in the five years that follow.

However, manufacturers will need to tap into the emotional value of BEVs rather than just the rational and functional aspects to seize on that intent and inspire broader consumer adoption, Carpenter added.

According to Wood Mackenzie, falling battery pack prices, faster charging, and greater ranges will make the 2020s the decade of the electric vehicle.

BEVs are expected to reach price parity with conventional vehicles at point of sale in this decade, Ram Chandrasekaran, Principal Analyst Transportation & Mobility at WoodMac, said earlier this month.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Read this article on OilPrice.com

Read the original post:
Drivers To Start Ditching Gasoline Cars for EVs As Early As 2025 - Yahoo Finance