Category Archives: Human Behavior

Human Behavior

Is COVID-19 here to stay? A team of biologists explains what it means for a virus to become endemic – The Apopka Voice

By Sara Sawyer, Professor of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado Boulder; Arturo Barbachano-Guerrero, Postdoctoral Researcher in Virology, University of Colorado Boulder, and Cody Warren, Postdoctoral Fellow in Virology a

Now that kids ages 5 to 11 are eligible for COVID-19 vaccination and the number of fully vaccinated people in the U.S. is rising, many people may be wondering what the endgame is for COVID-19.

Early on in the pandemic, it wasnt unreasonable to expect that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) might just go away, since historically some pandemic viruses have simply disappeared.

For instance, SARS-CoV, the coronavirus responsible for the first SARS pandemic in 2003, spread to 29 countries and regions, infecting more than 8,000 people from November 2002 to July 2003. But thanks to quick and effective public health interventions, SARS-CoV hasnt been observed in humans in almost 20 years and is now considered extinct.

On the other hand, pandemic viruses may also gradually settle into a relatively stable rate of occurrence, maintaining a constant pool of infected hosts capable of spreading the virus to others. These viruses are said to be endemic.

Examples of endemic viruses in the United States include those that cause the common cold and the seasonal flu that appear year after year. Much like these, the virus that causes COVID-19 likely wont die out, and most experts now expect it to become endemic.

We are a team of virologists and immunologists from the University of Colorado Boulder studying animal viruses that infect humans. An essential focus of our research is to identify and describe the key adaptations that animal viruses require to persist in the human population.

So why did the first SARS virus from 2003 (SARS-CoV) go extinct while this one (SARS-CoV-2) may become endemic?

The ultimate fate of a virus depends on how well it maintains its transmission. Generally speaking, viruses that are highly contagious, meaning that they spread really well from one person to the next, may never die out on their own because they are so good at finding new people to infect.

When a virus first enters a population with no immunity, its contagiousness is defined by scientists using a simple mathematical term, called R0, which is pronounced R-naught. This is also referred to as the reproduction number. The reproduction number of a virus represents how many people, on average, are infected by each infected person. For example, the first SARS-CoV had an R0 of about 2, meaning that each infected person passes the virus to two people on average. For the delta variant strain of SARS-CoV-2, the R0 is between 6 and 7.

The goal for public health authorities is to slow the rate by which viruses spread. Universal masking, social distancing, contact tracing and quarantines are all effective tools to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Since SARS-CoV was poorly transmissible, it just took a little bit of public health intervention to drive the virus to extinction. Given the highly transmissible nature of the delta variant, the challenge for eliminating the virus will be much greater, meaning that the virus is more likely to become endemic.

Its clear that SARS-CoV-2 is very successful at finding new people to infect, and that people can get infected after vaccination. For these reasons, the transmission of this virus is not expected to end. Its important that we consider why SARS-CoV-2 moves so easily from one person to the next, and how human behavior plays into that virus transmission.

SARS-CoV-2 is a respiratory virus that is spread through the air and is efficiently transmitted when people congregate. Critical public health interventions, like mask use and social distancing, have been key in slowing the spread of disease. However, any lapse in these public health measures can have dire consequences. For instance, a 2020 motorcycle rally brought together nearly 500,000 people in Sturgis, South Dakota, during the early phases of the pandemic. Most of the attendees were unmasked and not practicing social distancing. That event was directly responsible for an increase in COVID-19 cases in the state of South Dakota and nationwide. This shows how easily the virus can spread when people let their guard down.

The virus that causes COVID-19 is often associated with superspreading events, in which many people are infected all at once, typically by a single infected individual. In fact, our own work has shown that just 2% of the people infected with COVID-19 carry 90% of the virus that is circulating in a community. These important supercarriers have a disproportionately large impact on infecting others, and if they arent tracked down before they spread the virus to the next person, they will continue to sustain the epidemic. We currently dont have a nationwide screening program geared toward identifying these individuals.

Finally, asymptomatically infected people account for roughly half of all infections of COVID-19. This, when coupled with a broad range of time in which people can be infectious two days before and 10 days after symptoms appear affords many opportunities for virus transmission, since people who dont know they are sick generally take few measures to isolate from others.

The contagious nature of SARS-CoV-2 and our highly interconnected society constitute a perfect storm that will likely contribute to sustained virus spread.

Given the considerations discussed above and what we know about COVID-19 so far, many scientists believe that the virus that causes COVID-19 will likely settle into endemic patterns of transmission. But our inability to eradicate the virus does not mean that all hope is lost.

Our post-pandemic future will heavily depend on how the virus evolves over the coming years. SARS-CoV-2 is a completely new human virus that is still adapting to its new host. Over time, we may see the virus become less pathogenic, similar to the four coronaviruses that cause the common cold, which represent little more than a seasonal nuisance.

Global vaccination programs will have the greatest impact on curbing new cases of the disease. However, the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine campaign so far has touched only a small percentage of people on the planet. In addition, breakthrough infections in vaccinated people still occur because no vaccine is 100% effective. This means that booster shots will likely be needed to maximize vaccine-induced protection against infection.

With global virus surveillance and the speed at which safe and effective vaccines have been developed, we are well poised to tackle the ever-evolving target that is SARS-CoV-2. Influenza is endemic and evolves quickly, but seasonal vaccination enables life to go on as normal. We can expect the same for SARS-CoV-2 eventually.

Four seasonal coronaviruses circulate in humans endemically already. They tend to recur annually, usually during the winter months, and affect children more than adults. The virus that causes COVID-19 has not yet settled down into these predictable patterns and instead is flaring up unpredictably around the globe in ways that are sometimes difficult to predict.

Once rates of SARS-CoV-2 stabilize, we can call it endemic. But this transition may look different based on where you are in the world. For instance, countries with high vaccine coverage and plentiful boosters may soon settle into predictable spikes of COVID-19 during the winter months when the environmental conditions are more favorable to virus transmission. In contrast, unpredictable epidemics may persist in regions with lower vaccination rates.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Read this article:
Is COVID-19 here to stay? A team of biologists explains what it means for a virus to become endemic - The Apopka Voice

Human Behavior

How Would Your Prayer Life Change If You Saw It As An Opportunity For Fellowship, Rather Than An Obligation? – WFMZ Allentown

LANDENBERG, Pa., Nov. 15, 2021 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- Author Barbara A. Richmond shares to enlighten the purpose and benefits of prayer as well as the effects of prayerlessness in Men Ought Always to Pray: God Wants an Intimate Relationship ($58.99, paperback, 9781662834011; $9.99, e-book, 9781662834028).

Even though He had no sins to confess and knew the Father better than anyone, Jesus spent a good chunk of His earthly life praying. He encouraged His followers to pray as well, providing them with a model prayer to get them started. Richmond takes His example and other Biblical teachings and helps readers see the true purpose behind prayer and how to achieve the sweet fellowship God offers.

"Prayer is the most earnest way we exemplify our love to God. During prayer, we are most conscious of God's presence, and this is the time that we can give all of our being to Him," said Richmond.

Dr. Barbara A. Richmond is a highly educated, anointed woman of God who loves to pray. She is an ordained minister, pastor and evangelist with a Ph.D. in Human Behavior, a Master's in Psychology and a Certificate in Biblical Studies.

###

Xulon Press, a division of Salem Media Group, is the world's largest Christian self-publisher, with more than 15,000 titles published to date. Men Ought Always to Pray is available online through xulonpress.com/bookstore, amazon.com, and barnesandnoble.com.

Media Contact

Dr. Barbara A. Richmond, Salem Author Services, 484-751-7551, Barbyalobruc2@gmail.com

SOURCE Xulon Press

See more here:
How Would Your Prayer Life Change If You Saw It As An Opportunity For Fellowship, Rather Than An Obligation? - WFMZ Allentown

Human Behavior

How COVID Broke the Way We Respond to Crises, and Why Experts Are Terrified of What’s Next – Daily Beast

The COP26 climate change conference held by the UN is finally at a close. World leaders and representatives descended on Glasgow for two weeks to hash out plans to save the planet from calamity, all in the midst of an ongoing public health crisis. The intersection of these two crises is remarkablenot least because how Americans have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic may be illustrative of how the country will react to an even greater threat. And for psychologists and other experts of human behavior, we should be terrified.

In a time of crisis, people tend to come together. It frequently happens after natural disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes, and during times of national strife like WWII and the months after 9/11. Regardless of their differences, people typically try to do what they can to help others when theyre facing dire circumstances.

The COVID-19 pandemic has not, however, been a time of national healing and unity in the U.S. Debates over lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination only exacerbated divisions. Polarized politics maimed the public health response to COVID. The pandemic brightened the spotlight on how tribal America has become.

Whats so strange about what happened with COVID is the world handed Republicans and Democrats a common enemyof the COVID virusand everyone could have joined together to fight it, Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist at Stanford University told The Daily Beast. In fact, it went the opposite way.

Psychologists like Krosnick have been stunned by this outcome. And they fear it is a stark warning for what may happen when climate changeone of the biggest existential threats humanity has ever facedbecomes a greater threat in our daily lives.

To better understand how psychologists have traditionally viewed human behavior in times of crisis, it may be helpful to take a look at something called the Robbers Cave experiment. In the summer of 1954, social psychologist Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues brought two groups of 11-year-old boys to a summer camp and had each group socialize and do activities in their own respective areas, with only members of their own group. They were called the Eagles and the Rattlers.

The researchers then brought these two teams together and had them compete for prizes through activities like football and hunting for treasure. A fierce rivalry soon developed between these teamsthey even started burning each others team flags.

At this point, the researchers introduced a common threat: The water supply had been cut off, and they had to work together to solve that problem. That was just one of the outside threats they introduced. Sherif and his colleagues found that in the presence of something called a superordinate goala need that can only be addressed together, for the common goodthe rivalry dissipated.

According to Krosnick, this is typically what you would expect from people. When theres a common enemy, groups that are typically at odds will join forces to face it.

Some of the participants in the Robbers Cave experiment.

The British Psychological Society/University of Akron

Thats not what weve seen in this country during the COVID-19 pandemic. One study published in Science Advances in January found that partisanship is a far more important determinant of an individuals response to the COVID-19 pandemic than the impact of COVID-19 in that individuals local community. Regardless of what the public health guidelines and rules were where they lived, Democrats were more likely to stay home when infection rates in their community spiked; while Republicans were more likely to go out.

Krosnick was shocked the crisis wasnt a unifying moment. He said its clear politics has brought us to a place where we cant come together at times when one would expect that we would.

Its literally life or death. It couldnt have been any more non-trivial than it has been. For partisanship to win out over that is an amazing thing, Krosnick said. Its a testimony to how powerful partisanship is.

Peter Coleman, a psychologist at Columbia University, told The Daily Beast that we may be learning that national crises are no longer sufficient to overcome polarization in America. He said the political climate has become very reactionary and tribal.

I think were in an us vs. them place, and I think it could get worse, Coleman said.

The failure of Americans to come together during the pandemic doesnt inspire hope that Americans will be able to unite to face an even bigger crisis: climate change. President Bidens appearance at the UNs climate change summit in Glasgow this month was hampered by the fact Congress cant seem to come together to pass the Build Back Better bill to address the climate issue. Even more fundamentally, cultural divisions in America could greatly intensify if climate change gets bad enough that people are feeling desperate, angry and lacking basic resources.

If it turns out that we start to run out of resourcesif we start running out of food, if we start running out of places to live, if the price of air conditioning goes way up so poor people are getting cooked at homethat kind of stuff very much has the potential to create social conflict, Krosnick said.

Between the constant wildfires out West, a battery of hurricanes hitting the South every year, and temperatures increasing annually, there are concerns that civil society could burst at the seams if things continue to get worse and resources start to become much more scarce.

Its literally life or death. It couldnt have been any more non-trivial than it has been. For partisanship to win out over that is an amazing thing.

Jon Krosnick

Humans arent particularly good at responding to those kinds of conditions, Coleman added. When we dont feel like our basic needs are covered and were facing great uncertainty, we dont tend to behave logically.

I think it puts us on edge, and when were in places where were exhausted, worried, frustratedwe tend not to be our best selves, Coleman said. Were more easily manipulated, and theres so much manipulation thats been happening.

Climate change could exacerbate divisions in a number of ways. People may differ on how to respond to disasters based on whether a more conservative or more liberal area is facing the worst conditions. We could see subdivisions along class lines because the wealthy arent facing the brunt of the issue, Krosnick said.

Polls do show the vast majority of Americans76 percent see climate change as an important or critical threat. Where we tend to divide in these polls is when were asked what to do about the problem.

Ezra Markowitz, an environmental social scientist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, told The Daily Beast that its sometimes the belief that society is very divided that is the hardest problem to tackle. That belief can affect how people behave and how they view others.

Theres the potential for climate change to be taken seriously in future years, across the board, but it still leads to very divisive responses, Markowitz said.

One way we could help fix these perceptions, Markowitz said, is by simply informing people what the people in their area think about these issues. He pointed to the Yale Climate Opinion Maps as a good example of how this can be done. If people know that were not quite as divided as we might think we are, that could help reduce conflict and encourage consensus actions.

The Yale Climate Opinion Map lets you zoom in on different parts of the country and see what people in those areas think about climate change.

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

Coleman said were not particularly good at reducing tensions with people we disagree with on our own, so we need more organizations working on mediating these kinds of conversations in our communities. A trained professional can help make such conversations more fruitful. He said it has to be treated like a widespread addiction.

I liken our current state of toxic polarization to addiction, said Coleman, because toxic polarization is a biopsychosocial structural phenomenon, which means its in my neurological structures now. Im easily triggered by things. Its in my psychology. Its in the relationships that I do have and dont have. Its in my social networks. Its in my social media. Im surrounded by this thing.

Like an addiction, what you have to start to realize is that its bigger than you, and you cant just deal with it yourself. You need some kind of support for that.

We could have people engage in a kind of group therapy, Coleman said. Those who have been most influenced by increasing polarization couldif theyre able to recognize the signsbe persuaded to enter into a program to help them essentially get deprogrammed. This could help them identify whats contributing to this tribal mindset and change their perspective long-term.

If it sounds like many of these solutions take their cues from mental health therapies, thats not entirely a coincidence. America is still very flawed when it comes to addressing the mental health needs of its citizens, but we have seen a rising awareness of these issues over the last several years, and Coleman and others suggest that applying these strategies on a grander scale could bring America back to unifying around superordinate goals.

These kinds of initiatives will have to be made a priority soon. In the aftermath of the Trump administrations dismantling of many critical climate initiatives, COP26 was a welcome course correction, if a bit too modest. Even the U.S. and China managed to come together on a joint pledge for reducing carbon emissions.

But those initiatives wont go anywhere if the next president simply reverses them like the previous one didand they will have no qualms with doing so if half the country gives their consent. The window to save the world from climate-related reckoning is shrinking with every passing month, and its better to be prepared than caught off guard.

See the rest here:
How COVID Broke the Way We Respond to Crises, and Why Experts Are Terrified of What's Next - Daily Beast

Human Behavior

Five Poets Who Find Music in the Personal, the Political or in Music Itself – The New York Times

HOWDIE-SKELPBy Paul Muldoon179 pp. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $27.

Howdie-skelp: the slap a midwife gives a newborn. Poem-sequences dominate Muldoons storm of slaps against piety, prudery, cruelty and greed. American Standard, named after a toilet brand, riffs for pages on lines from T. S. Eliots The Waste Land while churning through contemporary concerns like gerrymandering, immigration, and grotesque politicians and their media platforms. Like Eliot, Muldoons after big, apocalyptic vision; unlike Eliot, Muldoon is willing no, compelled to clown.

In one long sequence Muldoon dives into the human ook that underlies great paintings. His bawdiness is political. Muldoons version of Leonardos Last Supper pictures the tablecloth as Mary Magdalenes bedsheet, the crease in it A gutter filled with candle grease. / The semen stain where Judas spilled his salt. Like many important poets before him, from John Milton to Tim Rice, Muldoon knows that sinners and villains are more interesting, maybe more human, than self-appointed good guys. Poems, for Muldoon, are occasions to plumb the language for a truth thats abysmal: as in appalling, and as in deep. Its clear that underneath the play Muldoon is furious, maybe even terrified, about the state of things.

PLAYLIST FOR THE APOCALYPSEPoemsBy Rita Dove114 pp. Norton. $26.95.

Plenty of poems here address disability, history and quotidian human behavior, but racism and economic oppression are the former poet laureates primary concerns in this book, her first in 12 years. In Aubade West, set in Ferguson, Mo., the speaker might be Michael Brown or anyone subject to poverty and racism in a small town. A day just like all the others, / me out here on the streets / skittery as a bug crossing a skillet. In less fraught poems, Doves affable voice occupies a tonal middle distance. I love the hour before takeoff, / that stretch of no time, no home, she writes in Vacation, observing a bachelorette trying / to ignore a babys wail, and an athlete waiting to board like a seal trained for the plunge. The poem doesnt lift off, and doesnt want to after all, the passengers are still at the gate. But Bellringer, the books first poem, certainly does. Here Dove assumes the voice of Henry Martin, born to slavery at Monticello the day Thomas Jefferson died, who worked as a bellringer at the University of Virginia. Voiced by Dove, Martin imagines that, hearing his bells ring, down in that/ shining, blistered republic, /someone will pause to whisper / Henry!and for a moment / my name flies free. A fitting way to start a book trying to understand saving graces and the things they save us from.

Explore the New York Times Book Review

Want to keep up with the latest and greatest in books? This is a good place to start.

PROGNOSISPoemsBy Jim Moore102 pp. Graywolf. Paper, $16.

I am still so very thirsty, ends one poem in Prognosis. Moore is preoccupied with old age, loneliness, mortality, and also with the American body politics own failure. These are poems of arresting lyric reportage; whimsical, tragic, a touch fantastical. Watching from a window in The Pandemic Halo the poet notices a glow appearing around the nurse who wears a pink cape and parks / in the lot across from me, almost always empty now.

Read the original here:
Five Poets Who Find Music in the Personal, the Political or in Music Itself - The New York Times

Human Behavior

Teen Girls Survive Tragic Accident, Only To Have To Take Drastic Action To Stay Alive In Yellowjackets – Forbes

(L-R): Jane Widdop as Laura Lee, Alexa Barajas Plante as Mari, Mya Lowe, Courtney Eaton as Lottie, ... [+] Sophie Thatcher as Natalie, Princess Davis and Sophie Nlisse as Shauna in YELLOWJACKETS.

If she was to become stranded in the wilderness, Christine Ricci feels like she would know what to do.

I'm personally a huge survival TV fan, she says, I know how to do pull-ups, because I know if you fall off a cliff, you need to be able to pull your body weight onto things.So, I would actually do very well, she says with a slight laugh.

She may not exactly need that knowledge for her new show, because its a scripted series, but it is all about survival.

Ricci and a bevy of actresses star in Yellowjackets, a drama about a high school girls soccer team who survive a plane crash deep in the wilderness. The series chronicles their descent from a thriving team to a cannibalistic clan, while also tracking them years later as they attempt to move forward in their lives.

Melanie Lynskey, Juliette Lewis, Tawny Cypress, and Ricci portray the teammates as adults, while Sophie Nlisse, Sophie Thatcher, Samantha Hanratty, Jasmin Savoy Brown and Ella Purnell play the teammates in their younger years.

Lynskey says that she was drawn to the project because, honestly, I just was so excited to read something that was so different. There was a genuine edge to this, and I really loved [that] it was so female centered; the story really got to the heart of female relationships.

Lewis agrees, adding, This script was one of the best scripts I'd read in the last ten plus years. It was absolutely riveting on the page, which is so rare. And I'm always interested in dichotomies or contrasts and all these multi-layered problems within a human being.

For Nlisse, her interest was heightened by the extreme conditions examined in the series. I think we've all imagined what it would be like to be facing a life and death situation.It brings out the worst in us, but also the best in us. We all think we know ourselves, until we're put in this situation.[So], just to see how far these women will go is just very interesting.

Playing the same character, Lewis and Thatcher connected in a unique manner, says Lewis. Sophie and I, we would just share music. We had old music swapping that was fun.

Music was a really big thing for me, because I think it's really important to her, says Thatcher. She also recalled, one of our first phone calls how [Juliette] talked about how the way that [our character] dresses is just so important. We were just on the same path.

Working with their younger counterparts was inspiring, admits Lynskey. seeing the [them] and how much talent there is, and [seeing] people who are just so full of enthusiasm and that their voices are so strong.

Crafting the narrative, Creator/Executive Producer/Showrunner Ashley Lyle says that, we knew we didn't want to be a show about what happened, but about why it happened.And, what was interesting to us about having it be a championship soccer team is that it's all about collaboration.

She adds, Spoiler alert:[this is ] not really a soccer show. It's about how these girls were able to really work together as a group, and then to see how that might really start to fall apart and shatter over the course of a season.

Director Karyn Kusama give her take on the series, saying that its, asking a larger question.

She explains her thought-process with, to go from keggers and carpools and winning a soccer match in high school, to something so extreme, it begs the question of What are people capable of?So, it creates this internal suspense and an internal set of questions that help drive the whole series.

With this in mind, Kusama feels that what Yellowjackets is truly exploring isnt just about survival, its really about the mysteries of human behavior.

Yellowjackets airs Sundays at 10e/p on Showtime and is available for streaming at Showtime.com.

Original post:
Teen Girls Survive Tragic Accident, Only To Have To Take Drastic Action To Stay Alive In Yellowjackets - Forbes

Human Behavior

Letter: Spread the message – Concord Monitor

Published: 11/12/2021 7:00:01 AM

Since August, I have seen five different healthcare providers. Each time, I was asked for my insurance information and asked to consent to treatment. Not once was I provided with any information about the COVID vaccine. In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman describes research into what motivates human behavior. Individuals who read a short piece describing the benefits of something are more inclined to react favorably to it. Dr. Kahneman has also researched the familiarity bias, which states that the more often people hear something, the more likely they are to believe it is true, even when it is not. Donald Trump exploited this principle, with the result that many people endorsed election fraud.

Research also shows that people are less likely to opt out of the default option than to opt into a different or novel one. Healthcare providers can use this research to increase the vaccination rates. At every visit, every healthcare provider could hand each patient a non-argumentative, one-page sheet about the benefits of the COVID vaccine either at the reception desk, where patients sign other forms, or in the waiting room before the doctor comes in. The default position should be vaccination. Those who dont want to vaccinate themselves or their children should have to affirmatively opt out, not opt in. Particularly now that COVID rates in New Hampshire are the highest theyve been since January 2021, we must get this pandemic under control.

Sheila Zakre

Concord

Original post:
Letter: Spread the message - Concord Monitor

Human Behavior

Spotlight: German Artist Louisa Clement Has Transformed a Milan Gallery Into a Mannequin-Filled DystopiaSee the Oddly Alluring Images Here – artnet…

Every month, hundreds of galleries showcase new exhibitions on the Artnet Gallery Networkand every week, we shine a spotlight on the exhibitions we think you should see. Check out what we have in store, and inquire more with one simple click.What You Need to Know: German artistLouisa Clements first solo exhibition, Counterpain, at Milans Cassina Projects transforms the gallery into an eerie, dystopian world through photography, video, and installation. A work calledRepresentative presents an avatar of the artist herselfan artificial clone made to simulate both Clements body and personality. The personality of the avatar has been developed based on an algorithmic simulation encoded by a team of the Saarland University led by Vera Dember. The figure itself, meanwhile, was made in collaboration with a sex-doll manufacturer who translated this information into an ultra-realistic life-size thermoplastic elastomer doll supported by a wired aluminum skeleton that enables movements. The uncanny and disquieting work is an artistic investigation into the hybridization and standardization of the human body,

Why We Like It: The exhibition explores a strange and seemingly inevitable future marked by trans-humanism with its disappearing divide between the real and the artificial. Body Fallacy, a new series of photographs, presents images of the dolls nude body at a variety of angles, some of which are alarmingly hard to distinguish from that of a real person. Clements works Gliedermenschand Disruption,meanwhile, employ mannequins as foreboding symbols of dehumanization, but in which this lifelessness is counteracted by an eerie aspect of allure.

Through these varied artistic experiments, Clement focuses on the commodification of both identity and thought, but, while foreboding, her works are not resigned. In fact, Clement perceives her creations as radical attempts to draw attention to the nuances and vulnerable intricacies of our human behavior, against the tide of data that tries to monetize them.

What the Gallery Says: Existential questionings concerning the binary notion of self and other resonate as Clement explores the dichotomy of the digital ageabsence and presence, online and offline, integration and isolationmorphing our existence and critically reshaping paradigms of individuality and consciousness. Addressing the ethical, philosophical, social, and legal implications inherent to the recognition of the self at a point in time when technology and social media enact valid extensions of our persona, her AI-equipped, sexually functional doppelganger also lays bare issues of control and authority in the sphere of interdependence between human experience and machine learning.

See images from the exhibition below.

Installation view Louisa Clement: Counterpain 2021. Courtesy of Cassina Projects.

Installation view Louisa Clement: Counterpain 2021. Courtesy of Cassina Projects.

Installation view Louisa Clement: Counterpain 2021. Courtesy of Cassina Projects.

Installation view Louisa Clement: Counterpain 2021. Courtesy of Cassina Projects.

Louisa Clement: Counterpain is on view at Cassina Projects, Milan, through January 15, 2022.

Read this article:
Spotlight: German Artist Louisa Clement Has Transformed a Milan Gallery Into a Mannequin-Filled DystopiaSee the Oddly Alluring Images Here - artnet...

Human Behavior

The things we carried EJINSIGHT – EJ Insight

A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. The Things They Carried.

In a somewhat esoteric yet oddly fitting manner, Tim OBriens seminal text and the damning passage outlined above has curious uses and applications beyond the strict context of war. One such context, Id like to think, is Hong Kong and the neoliberal logic that has undergirded our citys economy over the many past decades, which have inadvertently, though by no means unforeseeably, spewed the radical inequalities that have come to characterise this city that we inhabit.

A home in name to 7.4 million people; yet it sure doesnt feel that way, for the thousands living in literal cages, or the tens of thousands struggling to make ends meet in subdivided and subpar housing, or indeed the 1.65 million people who, prior to policy intervention, could be classified as living in poverty in 2020. Thats more than one in five Hong Kongers.

In this city of dazzling skyscrapers, glitzy rooftop bars, and ostentatious displays of luxury (look at the Peak! Or, indeed, the opulent West Kowloon!), we have always known that there exists an underbelly Children of Omelas, so to speak to the lavishness that some of us take pride in. Hong Kong is as much a heaven for shoppers or a tourists haven, as it is a site of destitution, abject poverty, and preposterously prevalent suffering in certain quarters.

Officials have emphasised the numbers when taken through post-intervention lenses are starkly better. Only 7.9% of our city lives in poverty aint that an improvement over the 9.2% in 2019? If we throw in the cash handouts, non-cash handouts, and other perks offered by the government over the years, the numbers all work out its improving, isnt it?

I do not intend to discredit or negate the value and importance of ongoing state initiatives indeed, it would be reckless, foolish for me to brush over the significant contributions they have made. The trouble, however, is that this is by no means enough. These measures are working, they are there, but they arent enough. We havent done enough, we havent planned enough, and I dare say many amongst us, those endowed with relative privilege and wherewithal, do not care enough. Note the first-personal tense here were all collectively guilty.

We, collectively, carry the sins that we have inherited from our predecessors from those who advanced the view that a laissez-faire approach to the economy means that we ought to dismantle the safety net, so as to prevent people from getting lazy. Sure, money and welfare amount to all there is that people care for its not as if they yearned for careers of their own, or the opportunity to make their lives meaningful, am I right? Ah wait, we cant quantify human ambition and incentives, so lets do away with it altogether. There we go.

We, collectively, carry the burdens and costs of policy failures from the failure to (at least partially) delink our economic growth from land revenue and sales; to the failure to build ample housing (which was, ironically, voted down by a mixture of anti-government opposition and pro-business forces); to the absence of diversification in our industrial policy, which has produced a stark bifurcation to the job market. These are all errors, slip-ups, and mistakes that, accumulatively and over the years, add up to substantial slights and devastating consequences. We are bearing the consequences of our past inaction, present ineptitude, and should we refuse to engage or correct course future complacency.

Now, some may accuse me of being unjudiciously scathing in my criticisms of the state. Surely, the private sector, the market players, the doyens who have instructively acted in accordance with their natural instincts are also to blame?

This pushback misses the point. Im not suggesting here that the state, or private businesses, or the tycoons, must bear moral responsibility for their actions. If anything, Im advancing a converse thesis that the responsible agent(s) is all of us. Were all complicit. Were all responsible. We should not be preoccupied with identifying and pinpointing blame, which does very little in resolving persisting injustices. Instead, its imperative that we looked to collective solutions that we can all contribute our fair share in carrying forth.

From creating a sustainable ladder of progressive job opportunities for low-skilled labour, to providing tenable healthcare and childcare support to working-class, single mothers, to combating ethnic and gender discrimination (as well as discrimination aimed at migrants from the mainland), there is much that we can do. Now that the Legislative Council has been reformed in a way that has essentially eradicated the most obstinate and intransigent of the opposition, there should be no excuses its high time that we all acted, in bringing about long-overdue justice, for those who have no one to speak on their behalf.

We cant run away from the things we carried. So we may as well try to face them up front and do the right thing.

-- Contact us at [emailprotected]

Read more:
The things we carried EJINSIGHT - EJ Insight

Human Behavior

Why You Should Assume Everyone Is Stupid, Lazy, and Possibly Insane (Including You) – Lifehacker

Since forever, philosophers, economists, and conspiracy theorists have devised any number of elaborate theories on the nature of society and the motivations of human behavior. From the ideas of Adam Smith to Karl Marx, most of these models depend (at least somewhat) on the idea of rational human actors working to achieve reasonable results for themselves, their community, or society. But they are wrong.

Similarly, there have been volumes written about how you should successfully relate to other peoplebut most assume that the person youre talking to is a relatively intelligent, functional person, even though they probably arent. You probably arent, either.

In practice, people are stupid, lazy, and behave as if theyre insane, and all human endeavors are a result of that trio of near-universal traits. So we should see the world accordingly.

When I think of smart peoplelike really smart people, not just the smartest guy on the bus, but theoretical-physicist-smartI can only conclude Im a damn idiot. But when I read the comment section on the New York Times, I feel like I might be the smartest person in the world. Thing is, there are many more New York Times commenters than theoretical physicists. In other words, forty-six percent of Americans believe ghosts exist, so were rarely dealing with the intellectual vanguard in our day-to-day lives.

Ultimately, though, it doesnt matter where anyone falls on the smartness spectrum because even the smartest person is stupid most of the time. This isnt to say that people cant be intelligent, but that what we define as intelligence is rarely the basis of decisions, opinions, and interactions, even among people who are able to score highly on IQ tests or show other outward trappings weve decided denote intelligence.

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel Prize for economics and a presidential medal of freedom for his lifelong study of the psychology of decision-making. In his 2011 book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman proposes that we have two modes of processing information to make decisions. The first is automatic. Its our first reaction, our minds formation of instant associations with no effort. Its intuitive and impressionistic, the result of connections weve built though countless past experiences.

The second is slower thoughtthe part of our brain we use when we do an Algebra problem, where we go through careful, logical steps to arrive at a conclusion. This kind of thinking is a lot of work.

According to Kahneman, no matter how smart we are, our day-to-day mode of thinking involves an interaction between these two modes of thought, with Mode 2 lightly monitoring the unformed input of Mode 1 as we navigate the world, rarely piping up to offer input. Think of how thoughtlessly you can drive a car, for instance.

Most of time, this works out fine. We take our assumptions, impressions, and biases and base our decisions and opinions upon them with no static. Even something that challenges our basic assumptions can usually be explained away with some small effort from Mode 2 mind.

The amount of effort it would take to always think with Mode 2 mind would be unsustainable and largely useless most of the time. Actually examining our assumptions and decisions with the care we give an algebra problem takes great effort, and who has the time? Most decisions dont actually have a single right answer anyway, and there are a ton of great shows streaming right now.

This could be considered lazy. While laziness is often derided as a character flaw or one of the seven deadly sins, it actually offers great evolutionary advantages. Mollusks have been around for millions of years and they dont do shit.

Many followers of evolutionary psychology (itself an often lazy discipline) contend that humans conserving energy by doing just enough to meet immediate needs was a preferable survival strategy to the effort it takes to engage in longer-term planning for some abstract goaljust go hunt a bear and dont worry about building a city. In the 2021 world, immediate gratification isnt an optimal success strategy either, but its tough for us to shake our ancient impulses, so its safe to assume that most people you meet are thinking and acting in the very short-term.

For an illustration of how lazy you are, ask yourself what percentage of your time is devoted to getting through the day, and what amount is involved in really striving for some kind of long-term, abstract gain.

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, one in five Americans live with a mental illness, and according to the CDC, more than half of us will be diagnosed with a mental illness or disorder at some time in our life. And this doesnt account for all of us who arent diagnosed but are often unreasonable.

It also doesnt account for many people with personality disorders, who are less likely to seek treatment but more likely to succeed (in business and politics) than others, even though their reduced empathy can negatively affect their decisions. Researchers call them successful psychopaths, and describe them thusly: Completely lacking in conscience and feeling for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret. Does that sound like anyone youve heard of?

Whether the prevalence of mental illness exists because mental illness provides some evolutionary advantage, is the result of a toxic society, or springs from greater awareness of mental health issues is debatable, but its safe to assume that many of us suffer to some extent, or at least behave insanely.

Its easy to think that people are dumb and lazy when youre in line at the Costcoyoure in Mode 1 Mind so your biases kick inbut the trick is realizing that everyone is just as flawed. The outward trappings weve come to associate with sanity and intelligence are as false as assuming that the guy next to you in line is a dope.

Many of us tend to think that rich and powerful people got that way because theyre smart, industriousness, and make sound decisionsrich people will tell you thatbut the true source of wealth is unlikely to have anything to do with those things. Instead, its a complicated confluence of fate, culture, and sheer luck that adds up to wealth, like a lottery so exclusive you cant even buy a ticket to play it.

This rich jerk is just as flawed as I am is an important thing to keep in mind when dealing with people with more authority or money than you have. No one, even rich powerful people, is playing 3D chess. People are barely playing 2D checkers.

Itd be nice to think that recognizing the flaws and potential pitfalls in other peoples internal worlds would make it easier to recognize them in yourselfto become more mindful, dedicated, and centeredbut it doesnt work that way. Feel free to try, of course, but you probably wont succeed. Youre almost certainly worse at understanding your own biases than you are at recognizing them in others, and knowing that fact wont help you escape the Chinese finger trap.

Neither will being smart. Researchers have long studied bias blind-spots, (our tendency to see the biases of other people over our own), but recent research suggests that cognitive sophistication more often leads to people having a larger bias blindspotbeing smarter seems to makes it harder to understand your biases compared to seeing them in others.

Youd think Daniel Kahneman, who literally wrote the book (actually several books) on the nature of flawed decision-making, would be able to avoid the pitfalls, but nope. My intuitive thinking is just as prone to overconfidence, extreme predictions, and the planning fallacy as it was before I made a study of these issues, he writes in Thinking, Fast and Slow.

Theres nothing you can do to change the mental processes of others. You can only accept them. But that acceptance can help the world make more sense, whether its personal interactions or world politics. Realizing that political and social movements spring from the decisions of individuals working with incomplete information and a set of unknowable biases, instead of from a cabal of powerful people secretly plotting world domination, could mean youre less likely to fall for conspiracy theories...and suddenly, the fact that hundreds of talented, intelligent people devoted their professional lives to producing the movie version of Cats makes sense.

Its a great relief in interpersonal relations, as well. Knowing that your fantasy football rival and your co-workers at the batting cage are just bumbling along means you can stop obsessing over their motivations. No one knows what theyre doing, after all, and theyre probably just trying to make things easier for themselves in the short term.

You shouldnt, however, mention any of this to loved ones. Just pretend it all makes sense. Its how we get along.

Original post:
Why You Should Assume Everyone Is Stupid, Lazy, and Possibly Insane (Including You) - Lifehacker

Human Behavior

Is Foundation worth watching? Watch the Foundation TV series – Android Authority

Frequently billed as Game of Thrones in space, Apple TV Plus took a bold step in its programming with its Foundation TV series. The ambitious sci-fi epic is among the streamers pricier outings, but is Foundation worth watching? Absolutely. Its one of the best new shows of 2021.

Apple TV Plus

Apple TV Plus has quickly become a major player in the streaming game since its launch in 2019. Its slate of original programming includes shows like Ted Lasso, The Morning Show, Foundation, and For All Mankind as well as movies like The Banker, Greyhound, and Palmer

1. A gripping premise

Foundation starts with a fascinating and simple premise. What if one could use advanced mathematics to predict the future based on human behavior?

Thats the story of Dr. Hari Seldon, who predicts the fall of the Galactic Empire in a distant future. This puts him at odds with the three clone brothers who run things and who wish to stop him and his followers before they lose their generations-long reign.

Knowing that killing Seldon will embolden his followers, they instead agree to let him form a foundation on the farthest reaches of the galaxy in preparation for the coming dark age. From there the series follows the far-off foundation as well as the Empire in crisis, with humans fighting for survival in uncertain times.

Often discussed alongside works like Dune and Star Wars, the original Foundation is an iconic and influential work of sci-fi by American author Isaac Asimov.

This isnt the first attempt to adapt Foundation. New Line Cinema, Sony, and HBO all held the rights to the property at various times starting in the 1990s, with Roland Emmerich and Jonathan Nolan attached at different times. The Foundation TV series on Apple TV Plus is the first project to actually materialize.

First appearing as a series of short stories in the 1940s and 50s, Foundation was collected as a trilogy of novels in the 50s: Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation. Asimov won a Hugo Award for Foundation, named best all-time series in 1966.

You might also like: Android Authority reviews Dune

The author returned to the series later, writing sequels and prequels to the original trilogy during the 80s.

So Foundation is worth watching not just on its own terms but also as an adaptation that shares a rich legacy with science fiction that came after Asimov, including Dune, Star Wars, The Expanse, and so much more.

The Foundation TV series puts forth some thoughtful political and philosophical questions. Virtually every episode offers a moral quandary with no easy answers. Theres no clear right and wrong here, which makes the drama and conflict all the more compelling.

Even the bad guys are rich and complex figures who challenge us. The Empire, with its three fraternal figureheads, is, in virtually every way, a force for evil. They rule with an iron fist. They are anti-democratic. Their rule is precisely what will end civilization if Seldon is right. And they stand firmly against change and progress.

Check out: What to watch on Apple TV Plus

And yet theyre tragic figures, locked into a generations-old system set into place by one man who also happens to be the original from which they were cloned. So what does that mean for their humanity? Do they have free will despite their positions? Can they go against one another? Once Seldon tells them their time is coming to an end, how they each respond has enormous ramifications for the universe but also for each clones sense of self.

Even Seldon, who effectively wishes to save humanity from itself, is not entirely good. His calculations and predictions leave little room for free will, and his methods similarly erase the autonomy of even his closest allies.

With a reported $45 million budget, Foundation puts every single dollar on the screen and makes it count. The series is absolutely gorgeous, with a mix of digital and practical effects that give the series a cinematic quality. Each planet, spaceship, and city feels lived-in and real.

Lee Pace has somewhat become the face of the Foundation TV series, posting (often shirtless) behind-the-scenes looks at the shows production. And Pace is absolutely brilliant as Brother Day, one of the three clones who rule the Empire. He lends a sense of humanity and introspection to a man struggling to hold onto his unearned power while coming to terms with his own peculiar mortality and role in societys inevitable downfall.

The acting in Foundation is stunningly good.

But hes joined by stellar co-stars too. Major standouts include Lou Llobell, Jared Harris, Leah Harvey, Laura Birn, Clarke Peters, and TNia Miller, who all add a great deal of substance to the shows aesthetic grandeur.

Foundation does a remarkable job of managing its many parallel storylines.

The narrative jumps across generations and solar systems, building on the questions introduced in the pilot. The fate of the Empire has incredibly far-reaching implications and is due to take place over thousands of years. What will cause it? Will it be slow, or will a single event cement what goes wrong? Seldons predictions recognize broad patterns, not individual actions, so the story has plenty of room to develop in surprising ways, even if we ostensibly know how it ends.

But for it to work, we have to have some sense of the scale were dealing with. Foundation has that covered, giving us glimpses into the lives of many key players and allowing us to believe in the interconnectedness of this vast, fictional world.

It would be all too easy to blow it, but Foundation threads that needle with great care and undeniable style.

If youre still on the fence and wondering, Is Foundation worth watching? those are our top five reasons why you should check it out. And if you like it, youre in luck, the Foundation TV series has already secured a second season for itself, so there will be more down the line.

Read this article:
Is Foundation worth watching? Watch the Foundation TV series - Android Authority