Neuroscience

Is There a Cure for Cabin Fever? – University of Virginia

Find the latest information on the Universitys response to the coronavirus here.

Feeling trapped? Are the walls closing in? Do you have a strange urge to do something a little crazy? Maybe its not that bad, but after more than a month of distancing yourself from co-workers, classmates, friends and even members of your family, you might be showing signs of a troubling illness: cabin fever.

Of course, cabin fever isnt a genuine psychological disorder. Its a folk term for that combination of anxiety and exhaustion you experience when you begin to feel trapped in your own home. But while the disease may not be real, the symptoms certainly are, and treating those symptoms early can make all the difference.

According to James Coan, an associate professor of clinical psychology and director of the Virginia Affective Neuroscience Laboratory at the University of Virginia, our natural habitat is not a cabin, a living room or a home office; its other people.

Were designed as a species to be around other people, he said. Were extremely adaptable. Thats why were all over the world. We can live anyplace, and we live on almost any kind of food. Weve even walked on the moon. But the reason that were so adaptable is that weve picked up our ecological niche, our habitat, and taken it with us. Weve turned it into each other.

Remove that access to others that we expect on a daily basis, and we start to go crazy, Coan said. And the nature of that crazy is really that our bodies and our brains are so thoroughly designed to work with other people that they dont work very well on their own.

Coan likened it to driving around an unfamiliar city while looking for an address. When you have someone in the passenger seat, he said, they can look for the address and navigate while you just operate the car. Its so much easier. Because if Im not looking for the address, I can devote all of my attention to driving. When youre deprived of that person in the passenger seat, your bandwidth is cut. When your bandwidth is cut, you start getting exhausted. And when you start getting exhausted, your world gets more chaotic, more obtrusive, and more miserable.

For some, the experience leads to nothing more than irritability, but for others who struggle with the effects of social isolation, it can trigger feelings of loneliness and depression, and thats when cabin fever can become something much more serious.

Adrienne Wood, an assistant professor of psychology at UVA who studies the impact of emotions on our behavior, said that social isolation, and in particular the experience of being lonely, is an extremely unhealthy state.

Chronic loneliness is on par with smoking a pack of cigarettes a day in terms of its health repercussions. Not just for your mental health, but also for your physical health, Wood said. Just the subjective feeling of being lonely increases inflammation in the body, which is the bodys sickness state. Your body will physically be treating itself as if it were sick, which, in the long term, is bad for it.

Wood suggested that if youre beginning to feel the effects of exhaustion or depression, there are things you can do, like spending time in the sunlight every day, finding creative activities that keep you from becoming bored and establishing a routine that can bring some predictability to your day. The most important thing you can do is to find ways to minimize your feeling of isolation.

Phone calls, videoconferencing, playing online games and actively building your network through social media are all good ideas, and Wood added that laughter remains one of the best things you can share with the people in your life.

Laughter is associated with positive emotions, Wood said, but it also has therapeutic effects on the body and is linked to the release of endorphins, which you get after exercise. Laughter increases your pain threshold, but it also helps build resiliency.

This is a very draining time that were all experiencing. Its very emotionally draining; its physically draining and its cognitively draining. Positive emotions and, in particular, humor are ways of rebuilding the resources we have available to us.

But, Wood cautioned, if youre starting to feel anything akin to depression, dont wait to take steps to connect with friends, family and colleagues and laugh a little.

Once things get bad, she said, its going to become harder for you to reach out to others. Then it becomes really hard to fix the problem.

Continued here:
Is There a Cure for Cabin Fever? - University of Virginia

Neuroscience

U of A Sophomore Named Goldwater and Amgen Scholar – University of Arkansas Newswire

Photo Submitted

Sabrina Jones is a recipient of the prestigious Goldwater Scholar and Amgen Scholar awards.

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. Sabrina Jones, a sophomore at the University of Arkansas, has been named a 2020 Barry Goldwater Scholar. The Goldwater Scholarship is the nations most prestigious award for undergraduate students who plan doctoral studies and research careers in the fields of science, mathematics, or engineering.

Jones, an honors student from Russellville, will receive a scholarship of up to $7,500 from the Barry Goldwater Scholarship Foundation.

In addition to being selected as a Goldwater Scholar, she has also recently been selected as a 2020 Amgen Scholar. She will receive a $6,420 stipend for a 10-week summer research experience at Caltech.

The Goldwater Scholarship is the most competitive undergraduate STEM award in the country, said U of A Chancellor Joe Steinmetz.The program selects students who are asking and answering important questions in their fields. Sabrina Jones is joining an august group of Goldwater Scholars from across the country and from our campus, who have gone on to distinguished research careers. The Amgen Scholars Program is also a research-centered award, and very, very competitive. Both of these awards recognize Sabrinas stellar academic record and her extensive and productive research, and both will help launch her post-graduate career. I look forward to soon be reading about her discoveries in neuroscience.

Jones is an honors physics, psychology, and Spanish major in the J. William Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences. She is a Bodenhamer Fellow, Arkansas Governors Distinguished Scholar, National Hispanic Scholar, and National Merit Finalist. She plans to pursue a career conducting clinical neuroscience research at a medical research institution.

I am truly honored to be recognized as a 2020 Goldwater Scholar, Jones said. Being a part of this class of researchers, innovators, and future scientists is an amazing recognition. I am forever grateful to the individuals who introduced me to the field of research, including my mentor at UAMS, Dr. Ryoichi Fujiwara, and my mentor at the University of Arkansas, Dr. Woodrow Shew. Though research is at times frustrating and tedious work, this pursuit has been, and will continue to be, one of the most fulfilling experiences in my life.

The Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship was established by Congress in 1986 to honor the United States senator. Nearly 400 students from across the United States were named Goldwater Scholars this year. The purpose of the program is to provide a continuing source of highly qualified scientists, mathematicians, and engineers by awarding scholarships to college students who intend to pursue careers in these fields. Universities and colleges may nominate up to four students per year.

On campus, Jones performs research with Dr. Woodrow Shew, associate professor of physics, on neuronal networks. She has also conducted research with Dr. Ryoichi Fujiwara, assistant professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, and this summer she will research with Dr. Carlos Lois, research professor of biology at Caltech in Pasadena, California.

Sabrinas current research project is aimed at understanding how the activity of very large populations of neurons in cerebral cortex is related to complex body movements, said Dr. Shew. She is working with data recorded from more than 10,000 neurons simultaneously in mouse cortex. This data set is rather mind-blowing five years ago it would have been impossible to obtain data like this. Her research questions require state-of-the-art data analytical skills and computer programming.

Though she aims to become a neuroscientist, she is obtaining a degree in physics, which develops skills ideally suited to handling the heavy data analysis that is absolutely required in neuroscience. I expect her work to result in an impactful publication within a year. She is only a sophomore and already an accomplished researcher. I can only imagine her caliber once she reaches the Ph.D. stage.

A big congratulations go out to Sabrina, her mentors, the Department of Physics, our college faculty, and those at UAMS, said Todd Shields, dean of the J. William Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences.Mentoring is such an essential part of student research and is at the core of the work we do in Fulbright College. There is no question that because of her talent, dedication and research experience with professors Shew and Fujiwara, Sabrina will thrive in a competitive M.D. or Ph.D. program. We cant wait to see the positive impact she makes in her field of neuroscience, and how she will mentor and inspire other new scientists as well.

Jones has published in the journals Pharmacology Research & Perspectives and Xenobiotica, as well as presented her work at conferences in Pittsburgh and Montreal. She was awarded a 2020 Honors College Research Grant, and she is also an active member of the Society of Physics Students, Conversation Club, and Honors College Ambassadors. In summer 2019, she studied Spanish at Universidad Nebrija in Spain.

Jones is the 57th University of Arkansas student to be named a Goldwater Scholar, with U of A students receiving awards for 24 of the last 25 years. Previous Goldwater Scholars have gone on to become Rhodes, Marshall, Gates Cambridge, Fulbright, and Udall Scholars, as well as National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellows. They have pursued doctoral work at prestigious programs including the University of Virginia, University of Michigan, University of California-Berkeley, University of Pennsylvania, Cambridge University, Columbia University, Cornell University, MIT, St. Andrews (Scotland), Oxford University, Princeton University, Stanford University, and Washington University.

University of Arkansas students interested in applying for competitive scholarships like the Goldwater Scholarship should contact the Office of Nationally Competitive Awards at awards@uark.edu.

Read more from the original source:
U of A Sophomore Named Goldwater and Amgen Scholar - University of Arkansas Newswire

Human Behavior

Crushing coronavirus means ‘breaking the habits of a lifetime.’ Behavior scientists have some tips – Science Magazine

Researchers have been deeply involved in developing messages aimed at changing people's behavior to curb the coronavirus pandemic, and studying which ones work.

By Warren CornwallApr. 16, 2020 , 10:50 AM

Science's COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center.

With no vaccine or medication to cope with the novel coronavirus, people around the world have soughtor been ordered to seekprotection by changing the way they act in ways large and small, from their washing hands more frequently to avoiding almost all physical contact. Now, government and industry leaders are turning to behavioral scientists for advice on how to persuade their citizens and workers to abide by such dramatic changes.

To beat the pandemic, we need a more rapid change of behavior than I can think of in recent human history, says Robb Willer, a sociologist at Stanford University. He recently helped recruit more than 40 top behavioral scientists to summarize their fields research on how to steer people into certain actions and how it might aid the response to the pandemic.

Politicians and executives are on the hunt for such advice. Facebook and Twitter have consulted Willer about ways to improve communicating coronavirus-related information and avoid pitfalls. Jay Van Bavel, a psychologist at New York University who led the review with Willer, shared insights from the work with approximately 700 people at an early April teleconference about pandemic misinformation hosted by the World Health Organization. Governments ranging from the United Kingdom to Sierra Leone have reached out to other behavioral researchers.

Their advice is already proving consequential, though not always successful. The government of the United Kingdom initially avoided closing schools and businesses, citing advice from its vaunted Nudge Unit, which helps policymakers develop subtle ways to incentivize certain behaviors. The unit had reportedly warned that restricting movement too soon risked behavioral fatigue. But the government reversed course in late March after novel coronavirus infections surged.

In their search for practical guidance, behavioral scientists are plumbing previous research into disease outbreaks such as the flu and Ebola, as well as seemingly unrelated subjects including cigarette warning labels and political campaigns. Meanwhile, they are rushing ahead with new studies aimed at improving measures during the current crisis.

Many of their recommendations might seem like common sense and can be distilled to this: Have a unified set of fact-based messages, tailor them to different audiences, and choose your messengers wisely. A common message can help give people confidence to take action, particularly at a moment when fear motivates people, says Shana Gadarian, a political scientist at Syracuse University who has studied how anxieties influence political action in the United States.

Even robust messages can lose power, however, when leaders send contradictory signals, or when public health advice gets refracted through a political lens. In the UnitedStates, President Donald Trump has repeatedly contradicted recommendations from public health officials, notably saying he probably wouldnt wear a face mask on the day that both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and first lady Melania Trump urged people to do just that. Early in the pandemic, figures in conservative news outlets had derided calls for an aggressive response to the virus as a hoax or an attack on the Trump administration. "When you hear [health] experts saying one thing and the head of your [political] party saying another, thats a troubling kind of thing to decide, Gadarian says. In the United States, What we're seeing evidence of is that Republicans are basically going with what the president says.

In a survey of 3000 people in the United States in mid-March, Gadarian found that political leanings were the strongest predictor of whether someone was likely to follow public health recommendations. Democrats were more inclined than Republicans to wash hands, buy hand sanitizer, and distance themselves from others. As COVID-19 has spread to more parts of the country, that partisan divide has shrunk but not vanished, according to a poll in late March by the Kaiser Family Foundation. More than 90% of people across the political spectrum reported engaging in some kind of social distancing. But Democrats were more likely to have stayed home, canceled plans for a group gathering, or fully sheltered-in-place. A survey in early April by Stanford researchers still found a partisan gap.

That ideological split is stronger in the United States than in the United Kingdom, says Gordon Pennycook, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, Canada. He and collaborators surveyed approximately 650 people in each country to see what influenced misperceptions about the pandemic, such as the coronavirus being no worse than the flu. The study, published as a preprint this week, found that in the United States, misperceptions were correlated with whether someone got their information from conservative news outlets such as Fox News. Although the United Kingdom has conservative newspapers, theres no comparable television broadcast station, Pennycook says. "Also, [Prime Minister] Boris Johnson is not treating [the pandemic] the same way that Trump is."

Whether people respond to public health messages depends partly on who delivers it. That was underscored in Liberia during the deadly Ebola outbreak of 2014 and 2015, which killed nearly 5000 people in the West African nation. There, efforts by government workers to get people to follow precautions such as social distancing were stymied by suspicions that the disease was a government ploy to win more aid money. But neighborhood volunteers recruited and trained by government officials experienced much more success, says Lily Tsai, a political behavioral scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studied the Ebola response there. She concluded that residents found neighbors more credible partly because their connections to the community made them more accountable.

The identity of a trusted messenger depends on the situation. It could be local religious leaders or politicians, sports figures or celebrities, Gadarian says. Governors leading their states pandemic responses have enjoyed a surge in popularity. In a late March Instagram chat, basketball star Stephen Curry of Californias Golden State Warriors discussed the disease and how to avoid it with Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The video has had nearly half a million views on YouTube.

Messages can come in more subtle ways as well. Proponents of nudges emphasize the ways that small visual cues, brief reminders or tiny changes in peoples surroundings can change their actions. In the case of the coronavirus, it can be as simple as painting lines on a walking path to show what a 2-meter separation looks like, says Susan Michie, a health psychologist at University College London and director of its Centre for Behaviour Change.

She is contemplating how to break people of the habit of touching their faces, because the virus infects people through the mucus membranes that line the nose and airways. She wonders whether software on a persons camera-enabled computer or smartphone could alert them of a face touch. Its about breaking the habits of a lifetime and setting up slightly different habits, she says.

It will take more than just messages to change behaviors on such a mammoth scale, says Ann Bostrom, who studies risk perception and communication at the University of Washington, Seattle. Often, compliance hinges on giving people the tools they need to easily follow new rules. The physical context in which you make these decisions is often more important than grand ideological views, Bostrom says. If theres a mask available from the dispenser at the front of the building, youre probably more likely to put it on. Ditto for easy availability of things like hand sanitizer, others say.

Making behavioral changes easy to maintain could become particularly important as lockdowns stretch on and strains build, Michie says. Past research has found compliance during an epidemic can decline over time. The U.K. government, she adds, might need to take measures to avoid backsliding and make a lockdown tolerable, including opening golf courses and private sports fields so that people can get outside without being crammed together. The government could even provide people with tablet computers and videos to help them pass the time at home.

Tsai, whose behavioral research focuses on people in the developing world, says that in poorer nations, persuading people to obey a lockdown could come down to something as simple as ensuring access to drinking water. Shes launching an ambitious project in the West African country of Sierra Leone that uses detailed behavioral data to figure out what tools can best promote social distancing and limited movement there. Shes working with the countrys public health ministry, for example, to combine cellphone movement data with surveys of almost 3000 people across this country of 6.6 million. The goal is to gauge what messages are most effective, and what incentives would encourage residents to stay homewhether its information, money, water, food, or a combination.

Eventually, Tsai plans to create a dynamic map, down to the neighborhood level, showing potential hotspots where cooperation could be difficult, and what kinds of actions are likely to help ease acceptance of physical distancing and other measures. She is also hoping to expand the project to some of the continents largest cities, Lagos, Nigeria, and Nairobi, Kenya, to help prepare them for when the virus gains a foothold there. When the disease arrives in these sprawling cities, she fears, its going to be awful.

The rest is here:
Crushing coronavirus means 'breaking the habits of a lifetime.' Behavior scientists have some tips - Science Magazine

Human Behavior

What About This? By Wayne William Cipriano – Douglas County Herald

I was wrong.

In a previous article presented here, I did not take Covid-19 as seriously as I should have. I should have taken into my consideration how resoundingly stipid so many persons have proven themselves to be.

Who would go out as before into an environment that offered a very high transmission rate of a fairly serious respiratory illness? Even before we learned how high the mortality rate was, the mere possibility of catching a very debilitating flu, you would think, would encourage all of us to stay away from places and situations where we could catch it.

In that previous article I argued that hysteria seemed to be ruling our news sources. I now realize that hysteria may well be a rational response in the face of a population that doesnt seem to understand simple precautions delivered in English and must, it seems, be scared into proper defensive behavior.

I suggested that the overall rate of illness and death would not be as damaging to us as a population as our yearly sacrifice of limb and life to automobiles. I suspect that I was wrong about that it looks like the final totals of casualties due to Covid-19 may surpass that over our use of the highways. But whether that proves to be the case or not, Covid-19 has really hurt us.

I listed the same few behaviors we have all heard so often to protect ourselves from Covid-19: wash our hands; avoid anyone coughing or sneezing; stay away from crowds; stay home if we are sick from ANYTHING. The things we seem to find so difficult to do.

In my defense, I thought many of us would follow those suggestions and I continue to believe if we had Covid-19 would not have been so bad here. But I should have recalled that if we over-react (hyper-hysteria) and we do not get sick, perhaps we look silly; if we under-react (by not following protective guidelines as so many, unaccountably, have not) we get sick, maybe dead.

We have hear of persons, cities, states that refused to recognize the danger of carrying on as normal when normal behavior could subject one to a very serious virus.

We have seen youngsters, totally lacking even the most self-protective impulses, almost dare Covid-19 to attack them. We have even seen parents and other responsible adults allow and even finance gatherings of these youngsters that place them in serious jeopardy.

But, that behavior is not simply of the young, is it?

I was wrong to rely on what I had considered rational persons would do in the face of a serious but fairly easily avoided epidemic. Some other guy might have waited to pontificate upon the hysteria that I called out in the media until the actual numbers were in. But if we always reserve our remarks until after the fact, wait until we see how each and every chip has fallen, we are not responsible social commentators, we are simply historians.

I will try to look at the future with a greater appreciation for what I have learned, once again, about human behavior. But I remain adamant that if ALL OF US washed our hands frequently, stayed away from anyone coughing or sneezing, avoided all crowds, and stayed home if we experienced any feelings of illness at all, Covid-19 would not have done to us what it has.

Has it come to pass that the only way to get people to do the right thing in cases such as this is to terrify them by what may happen even if those scary stories are irrational? But if we do we throw in the towel and admit that most of us are fools. Maybe there is a reason, maybe a very good reason to lie and exaggerate for the ultimate good. But what does that do to our (my) expectation to be told the Truth about other stuff?

I do not think that trade off is acceptable, even when it is employed in what some may think is the ultimate good. But thats just me. You have a say in this, too. What seems better to you?

Nevertheless, in that previous article in this space I was presumptively inaccurate.

I was wrong.

Related

Continue reading here:
What About This? By Wayne William Cipriano - Douglas County Herald

Human Behavior

Does Age Correspond With Altruism? – The National Interest

Looking for something to binge-watch while youre hunkering down at home?

Consider checking out the popular TV show The Good Place. Over four recently concluded seasons, the series follows the adventures and mishaps of four utterly self-centered characters on their quest to become decent and selfless human beings.

The deeper question this philosophy-laced comedy raises is: Can people be truly selfless?

The technical term for this behavior is altruism the willingness to help others, even at a cost to your own well-being. And if the answer to that question is yes, then are those of us who are selfish able to transform ourselves into kind and selfless individuals?

Im a psychologist who uses brain science to understand how people make decisions. With my team at the University of Oregon, I am investigating why many of us behave altruistically, whether human beings become more altruistic with age and even whether its possible to learn how to be altruistic.

Stumped philosophers

Whether people do altruistic deeds because of their altruistic nature or out of ulterior motives is a question that has stumped philosophers, religious thinkers and social scientists for centuries, because selfishness can inspire seemingly altruistic acts.

For example, people may give away money to show off their wealth, to appear trustworthy or simply to feel good about themselves.

Even Pamela Hieronymi, a University of California, Los Angeles philosopher who informally served as a consultant for the hit TV show, has expressed serious skepticism about whether anyone can turn from selfish to selfless.

Brain patterns

How do scholars like me study what goes on in peoples brains?

My team had participants in a series of experiments lie in MRI scanners, looking at a screen that described different scenarios. Sometimes my colleagues and I told them that US$20 was being transferred to their bank accounts. At other times, the same amount would go to a charity, such as a local food pantry. Participants simply observed these $20 transfers, either to themselves or to the charity, without having any say in the matter.

All the while, we scanned what neuroscientists consider the brains reward centers, specifically the nucleus accumbens.

This region, which is a little bigger than a peanut, plays a role in everything from sexual gratification to drug addiction and related neural sites. It becomes active when something happens that makes you happy and that you would like to see repeated in the future.

The experience of money going to the charity boosted activity in those reward areas of the brain for many of our participants. And exactly this observation, we argue, is a manifestation of peoples true altruistic nature: They felt rewarded when someone in need becomes better off, even if they didnt directly do anything to make a difference.

We found that in about half of our study participants, activity in these reward areas was even stronger when the money went to the charity than when it landed in their own bank accounts. We determined that these people could be neurally defined as altruists.

Then, in a separate stage of the experiment, all of these same participants had the choice to either give some of their money away or to keep it for themselves. Here, the neural altruists were about twice as likely as the others to give their money away.

We believe that this finding indicates that purely altruistic motives can drive generous behavior and that brain imaging can detect those motives.

Aging and altruism

In a related study my colleagues and I conducted, there were 80 participants who were between 20 and 64 years old, but otherwise were comparable in terms of their backgrounds. We found that the proportion of altruists that is, those whose reward areas were more active when money went to the charity than to themselves steadily increased with age, going from less than 25% through age 35 to around 75% among individuals 55 and older.

Also, older participants tended to become more willing to give their money to charity or to volunteer in this experiment. And when assessing their personality characteristics through questionnaires, our group found that they exhibited traits such as agreeableness and empathy more strongly than younger participants.

These observations align with growing evidence of more altruistic acts in the elderly. For example, the share of their income that 60-year-olds give to charity is three times as much as for 25-year-olds. This is significant even though they tend to have more money in general, making it easier to part with some of it.

People who are 60 and up are about 50% more likely to volunteer. They are also nearly twice as likely to vote as those under 30.

However, our results are the first to clearly demonstrate that older adults do not just act like they are nicer people, which might easily be driven by selfish motives such as making it more likely that they will be remembered fondly once they are gone. Rather, the fact that their reward areas are so much more responsive to experiencing people in need being helped suggests that they are actually, on average, kinder and genuinely more interested in the welfare of others than everyone else.

The road ahead

These findings raise lots of additional, important questions that we cover in an article we published in Current Directions in Psychological Science, an academic journal. For example, additional research is needed in which people are followed across time to make sure that the age difference in generosity truly reflects personal growth, and not just generational differences. Also, we need to generalize our results to larger samples from more varied backgrounds.

Most importantly, we dont yet know why older adults appear to be more generous than younger folks. My colleagues and I are planning to look into whether realizing that you have fewer years to live makes you more concerned about the greater good.

For the lead characters in The Good Place, the journey toward selflessness is an arduous ordeal. In real life, it may simply be a natural part of growing older.

[You need to understand the coronavirus pandemic, and we can help. Read The Conversations newsletter.]

Ulrich Mayr, Lewis Professor and Department Head of Psychology, University of Oregon

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

Image: Reuters.

Read more:
Does Age Correspond With Altruism? - The National Interest

Human Behavior

Survivor: Winners at War Recap: In Love and War – Vulture

Survivor

Full Circle

Season 40 Episode 10

Editors Rating 3 stars ***

Photo: Robert Voets/CBS Entertainment

Last year,Survivorhost and executive producerJeff Probst sent out a tweetasking if fans would like to see more two-hour-long episodes. The response was almost a resounding yes. With the increasingly complex gameplay, the influx of advantages, and time-sucking twists such as the Edge of Extinction, it was becoming near impossible to craft a coherent narrative in a regular 60-minute episode (42 minutes without commercials). Unfortunately, as mighty and powerful as Jeff is in the world ofSurvivor, he has no jurisdiction over the CBS schedule, as he explained in aWinners At Warpreseason interview. A couple of double episodes per season were as much as CBS was willing to budge.

Its episodes like this, though, that demonstrate the need for a longer weekly runtime. In an effort to cram so much in, including 19 (yes, NINETEEN) family visits, it means that we bounce all over the place with no real sense of direction. This is particularly damaging in a game where the dynamics are continually shifting and new strategies are always forming. The less time we spend at camp, the harder it is to figure out just what exactly is going on. Alliances change at a moments notice for no real rhyme or reason. Relationships we thought were meaningful are thrown aside like an old pair of underwear. And the final vote leaves us in a puddle of perplexion, our brains melting out of our ears. I understand the element of surprise, but there is a difference between a good surprise and a bad surprise. Surprise! Weve bought you a new car!Unexpected and amazing!Surprise! Mom and Dad are getting a divorce!Wait, what? Why is this happening? What does it all mean?!This episode falls firmly in the latter category.

The reason the final 15 minutes is so slapdash is in large part due to the extended family visit that takes up almost 30 minutes of the episode. A staple ofSurvivor, the family visit continues to divide the fanbase. Some people love it, others hate it. Personally, while I think the family visit has provided some classic moments over the years (Jonny Fairplays infamous dead grandma lie being the number one), its not something I find especially entertaining. That doesnt mean Im an emotionless monster, I promise. There are times I get a little choked up, including this episode, which amped up the emotion by bringing the castaways children out to the island. My issue is more with how melodramatically these moments are handled by the show itself, down to Jeffs incessant exposition, as if hes an android trying to process human behavior. It all gets a little bit Lifetime movie special with its sentimental platitudes and histrionic soundtrack.

Dont get me wrong, there are some sweet scenes. Sarah joking that her son is playing with the enemy as all the different kids run around the beach together is funny. Seeing the return of Nadiya, Val, Rachel, and John all of whom have played this game themselves is exciting. And there is some unifying power in seeing families reunite in these uncertain times when many people are separated from their closest loved ones. But boy, does this episode milk the melodrama. Just when you think this feature-length lovefest is drawing to a close, no, the eliminated players on the Edge also get a surprise visit from their families. Again, its cute seeing Parvati cuddle her baby daughter and Rob and Amber showing their four girls where their love story started. But half an hour of hugging and crying begins to grate. Obviously, the excessiveness of this family visit has some contractual bargaining behind it. I imagine the promise of a visit from their kids was what got many of these past winners to agree to return. In fact, in a pregame interview, Tyson admits as much, claiming he put his foot down about having his daughter be part of the family visit. So, I get that, and I dont begrudge these players for making demands, especially after all theyve givenSurvivorover the years. But I didnt need to see so damn much of it.

An Immunity Challenge immediately follows, which leaves us with about ten minutes for the pre-Tribal strategizing. And theres a lot going on! Tony is the only person 100 percent safe, having won his first-ever Individual Immunity necklace, ironically in a challenge that required patience, a quality diametrically opposed to Tonys usual playstyle. Slow and steady is not what Im made of, he laughs. Im more fast and sloppy. Regardless of whatever the reading is on his speedometer, Tony is bulletproof tonight, and, therefore, powerful. Various players approach him with their plans. Jeremy wants to split up Sarah and Sophie, who he perceives as a growing threat to his game. Sarah, meanwhile, is interested in taking out Kim but gets into a comical quarrel with her Cops R Us partner over whether thats the right move or not. You see, Tony would much prefer removing Tyson over Kim. Talking to Tony is like talking to a rock, says a flustered Sarah. And this is going to end badly if we cant work it out.

Things only get wilder from here. Tony checks in with Ben and Nick and presents an alternative plan blindsiding Jeremy. At this point, Im wondering what happened to the big threats alliance between Tony, Jeremy, Ben, and Tyson? Clearly, there is no time to explain, as the Jeremy plan picks up momentum, particularly after Tony tells Sarah that Jeremy threw her name out. Then, Kim, realizing shes on the outs, convinces Jeremy and Tyson that they need to stick together. Now, these three are remnants of the once-feared Poker Alliance, but there is no mention of that in the episode. Theyre just suddenly together because reasons. And Denise and Michele are with them too. Although Michele was previously aligned with Nick, who is now voting with the other alliance? You see what I mean? Some significant pieces are missing from this story. And just when you think youve got it all in place, a sack full of grenades is emptied onto the table in the form of advantages.

Kim tells her alliance about her idol and how shes happy to play it for one of them. Im willing to go to the Edge making a move, she states. Across the beach, Jeremy informs Tyson of his Safety Without Power advantage, which allows him to leave Tribal before the votes are cast. Tyson warns him not to use it because they need his vote for the numbers. Meanwhile, Sophie suggests Sarah use her Vote Steal in order to avoid a potential rock draw. This is a war, Sophie says. And when the smoke clears, well see who is dead in the trenches. Thats a quote worthy of aSurvivorepic, and I wont lie, there is an electrifying energy before and during Tribal Council. The proceedings again rapidly descend into a hodgepodge of side conversations and not-so-covert whispering. You cant ever truly know what is going on, remarks Kim as she takes a brief respite from the chaos to answer Jeffs question. Hey, at least its not just me who is lost.

Tribal Council culminates in a cavalcade of advantages. Jeremy and Sarah face off in a hilarious game of chicken as they both go to play their secret powers at the same time. You go first, says Sarah. No, ladies first, Jeremy responds. Its a tense stalemate as both players try to keep their cards hidden, not wanting to tip off the other. Sarah stands her ground, though, forcing Jeremy to make the first move, revealing his Safety Without Power advantage and saying peace out to tonights Tribal. He left his squad, comments Wendell from the jury bench. Its hard to knock Jeremys decision, though, as he was clearly the intended target judging by the disorder that follows. Sophie firmly, and smartly, puts a stop to the scrambling by loudly suggesting the five in her alliance simply huddle together and decide who theyre voting for. This leaves the minority of Kim, Denise, Michele, and Tyson to work out where the vote is going to land so that Kim can correctly play her idol. In a brilliant bit of misdirection, Sarah uses her Steal A Vote on Denise, not only bagging herself an extra vote but making it appear that Denise is the target, causing Kim to misplay her idol. The real mark is Tyson, who is sent back to the Edge, hopefully where his jar of peanut butter is waiting for him.

Exciting? Sure. But satisfying? Thats debatable. The vote count wound up being five for Tyson, two for Denise, and two for Sophie, which, when you think about it for a second, doesnt make any sense. Why were there only two Sophie votes when Kim, Michele, and Tyson were supposedly voting together? Did one of them flip? They must have, but the episode didnt bother to show us the who or the why. Logic would dictate the flipper was Michele, but that requires us as viewers to fill in the gaps, which shouldnt be how this works. You dont get to the end of a book only to be told to write the final chapter yourself although, I wouldnt have minded that option forThe Girl on the Train. Maybe if we hadnt spent half the runtime watchingSurvivor Family Robinson,we could have had a more comprehensible and, ultimately, a more rewarding story. Either that or CBS givesSurvivorwhat it deserves, longer weekly episodes!

Its fitting that Tyson leaves in the episode he gets to see his wife and daughter, given his story has focused on how fatherhood has changed him.

Jeff randomly thanking Fiji Airways for flying all the family members out is a little jarring. But I get it, that must have been a noisy plane journey!

As tired as I was with the family stuff by the end, the post-credits sequence of the Edge inhabitants group hugging Jeff to thank him for bringing their loved ones out was sweet.

Im glad we didnt have to compete for our children. Dont speak too soon Ben, thats the next twist!

Keep up with all the drama of your favorite shows!

Go here to see the original:
Survivor: Winners at War Recap: In Love and War - Vulture

Human Behavior

Pandemic has a Silver Lining – Newport This Week

By ohtadmin | on April 16, 2020

To the Editor:

While millions have been horribly affected by COVID-19, there is a silver lining to this pandemic. With the resulting global shutdown, the environments health is actually improving, and with that comes undeniable proof that humans are largely to blame for longstanding environmental degradation. In Indias Punjab region, the Himalayan Mountains are viewable with the naked eye for the first time in 30 years. In Venice, fish and dolphins are seen swimming in the canals, whose waters are now clear for the first time in decades. For now, Los Angeles is free of its perpetual smog blanket, and the Northeast corridors air is also clearer and cleaner.

Globally, 8.8 million people die prematurely due to air pollution. That happens mainly in areas near major highways and/or coal-burning facilities. Researchers are studying the probability that the higher number of COVID-19 deaths reported in industrial northern Italy stem from the added hazards of air pollution in that region. This is compared to fewer virus attributed deaths thanks to the less polluted skies in Italys more agricultural southern regions.

Humans arent alone in their suffering. All of natures creatures are plagued by the ecological devastation caused by complicit governments, together with corporate entities greedy desire to maximize profits at the ecosystems expense.

We must encourage and actively support the critical work of environmental and educational nonprofits with increasing pace. Individuals and governments must realize our newly emerging cleaner environment is a direct product of mankinds forced curtailment of polluting activities, due to COVID-19s heavy restrictions on transportation and industry. Proof that human behavior is guilty of degrading the worlds air, water, and soil is visible and undeniable now more than ever. That it took a pandemic to begin lifting the veil from skeptics eyes is discouraging and saddening, but truth is often more visible during a real, unexpected challenge.

Elizabeth Lisette PrinceNewport

See the original post here:
Pandemic has a Silver Lining - Newport This Week

Human Behavior

How Devs Explores the Silicon Valley God Complex – The Ringer

At times Devs can seem utterly, obviously fake. From its opening shots of glossy, well-manicured grass below a bright, phony sun, to aerial shots of the Golden Gate Bridge that look computer-rendered, to the generic luxury homes, Devs can come off as though it purposely wants to convey how staged it is. Its as though the inhabitants are playing out a script, meant to fill a role in a life already constructed.

Its certainly the way Forestthe PTSD-suffering, megalomaniac tech genius at the center of Devs (played by Nick Offerman)sees the world. In the first episode, he remarks upon the deterministic nature of the universe, detailing how everything that unfolds has already been set in motion long before it happens. In the fourth episode, he fires an employee for daring to bring a multiverse theory into the titular Devs project, as it provides deviation from the apparent blueprint of our reality.

This universal order Forest obsesses over also doubles as a justification, a way to absolve his grief over the loss of his wife and child. It also exonerates him, in his own mind, of his role as a villain who murders or threatens employees, bends laws to his will, and thumbs his nose at government oversight. If the world is following a script, then he is no longer responsible for the evil hes perpetuated; hes merely a pawn in a game thats been played a million times before.

DevsAlex Garlands limited FX series about a mysterious tech firm that seems to have devised a way to know the futureportrays a highly nuanced version of the Silicon Valley God Complex archetype. Forest is the founder of Amaya, a mysterious tech firm named for his deceased daughter and complete with a giant statue of her haunting the premises. Within the company, he leads a small team of developers in an effort to realize his ambitious goal of seeing through time. Forest is uninterested in political gain or worldly affairs and, as he tells his head of security and general attack dog Kenton, he doesnt give a fuck about the environment. What motivates him is a selfish desire to resolve his unending grief through a secretive, controversial, and clearly irresponsible experiment of traveling through time and revealing free will to be imaginary. In news that would appeal to Rust Cohle, time indeed turns out to be a flat circle.

Forest is Garlands latest edition of technology-fueled madness inflicted on the world, following his breakthrough 2014 film Ex Machina, which featured Oscar Isaac as a secluded genius losing control through a combination of cabin fever and being overtaken by his own obsessions. Both characters reflect the extremes of a Silicon Valley culture that has elevated its leaders as geniuses and often scoffed when government oversight has tried to rein it in. You dont have to look further than Elon Musks Twitter page to see how the genius label can drive someone mad.

In Forest, obsessiveness is driven primarily by a deep, unflinching depression. Since he cant physically resurrect his family, he has dedicated his life to doing it in the abstract. This along with Forests flowing hair and unruly beard pushes for obvious comparisons to Jesus. (If the religious undertones are too subtle for you, the Devs team seems to spend much of their time watching the life of the actual Jesus or Joan of Arc being burned at the stake.) Creating objects and ideas that change humanity is the quest for technological gurus and scientists in both media and real life. Since we cant see God, becoming one is the next best thing.

Forest is dedicated fully to this project of understanding the universe and selfishly getting to revisit memories of his daughter, who died in a car accident an undisclosed number of years before the events of the series. In order to achieve it he is willing to murder, psychologically torture his staff, and literally bend this fictional San Francisco to his will. Because of his wealth and power, Forests pathology goes unchecked as he is given a comical level of free rein. But based on the rules of Devs universe, its hard to hate or hold Forest responsible for the destruction hes caused. If free will is a lie and the universe is deterministic, Forests behavior was inevitable, decided upon the moment he came to exist; to paraphrase a line he says to Sergei, a developer at Amaya, upon discovering hes a Russian spy in the first episode: He could only have done what he did.

With that in mind, Forest feels less like a threat than just another bystander watching his life happen. Offermans portrayal of the character is increasingly weighed down by that knowledge, as the Devs team perfects their system. This unfortunately carries the adverse side effect of making the secondary plot line involving Lilya programmer at Amaya and girlfriend of the murdered Sergeitrying to uncover the shady business happening in the Devs building somewhat of a chore. Not only is Lily constantly a step behind the audience, but as more information on the Devs system is revealed, the threats and questions it poses to the laws of the universe and the nature of human behavior render Lilys freelancing detective work ultimately meaningless.

So much of science fiction, from 2001: A Space Odyssey to the books of Octavia Butler to Blade Runner, posits that human progress cannot be divorced from human violence. The advancement of our world ultimately includes the advancement of our destruction. Whether its HAL 9000, humanoid robots or cyborgs, or the radioactive effect that technological advancement takes on the planet, societyif given the time and resourceswill create its own undoing. While its the tech itself in these stories that is meant to be unnerving, the people behind the invention should truly frighten. The kind of ego and audacity to challenge whats possible has led to a dearth of incredible progress, but that same hubris has gone on to fuel addictive behavior as well as challenge our privacy, the environment, and necessary regulations put in place by the state.

There is a reason the word techno-utopianism exists. Its an idea thats existed long before Silicon Valley and will likely persist after its gone. The internet, space travel, cell phones and tablets, robotsthese are objects meant to lead us closer to an idealized society. Even the ways in which these creators have changed work culture and the cities they live in are thought of as revolutionary. They are gods in their own playground, with their wide campuses, state-of-the-art offices, and private buses; they continue to lead by example with the sophisticated restructuring of work-life to make it a more ideal environment, and something aspirational. But most things that are aspirational often reveal how few people get to benefit from progress, ultimately left without a vote in the way the world grows around them. The tech mavens are agents of change, and change is typically deemed good. If utopia is achievable on earth, they are the ones who decide what it will look like.

The good intentions behind things like the internet cant erase how that same invention also led to an advancement in our worst impulses. The rise in misinformation, the loss of privacy, a more expedient method for committing crimes have all come along with our growing dependence on the internet. Society needs to advanceit has no choicebut human behavior wont necessarily grow with it. We are still bound by hubris and prone to giving in to our basest instincts.

Devs takes place in a world and time similar to ours. In it, San Francisco can look at a distance like the kind of utopia that Apple commercials are made of. And yet at the edges of the ambient lighting of the streets and luxurious homes, you see the homeless, particularly the guy who sleeps in front of Lilys apartment complex who turns out to be more than he seems. Itd be highly unlikely if this werent meant to play on the real San Francisco, which despite being one of the wealthiest cities in the country, has one of the largest homeless populations in the U.S. Its a subtle addition, but its an effective one considering how much the show questions the futility of life: If theres no free will, no fairness, does what has happened or yet to happen even matter? Being homeless is no more a happenstance than the car crash that took Forests family away. For as much as Devs dramatizes the psychological effect that loss, combined with egomania and wealth, can create, if you live in that world long enough, Forest and Katie, his no. 2 and lead developer, seem to be the only ones who make sense.

The only thing that seems to stir up any real emotion or passion in Forest is someone daring to validate the multiverse. That theory of the universe, the idea that our existence is just one of a vast, unending series of other versions, has existed for centuries in fiction and philosophy, and its especially familiar to those who read comic books or watch Marvel movies. The scientific basis for it is much more recent, and incredibly controversial, with some scientists admonishing it as God with another name. Forest is adamantly opposed, more than likely because it involves the capacity to make choices on some level. It would imply that Forest exists in the wrong reality, rather than one in which his daughter is alive. With one episode left, the multiverse is the potential wrench in the system that could upend everything.

Devs has been slowly building up to an earth-shattering event to be revealed in this Thursdays finale. Whatever it isas Katie tells Lily during their heart-to-heartwill lead to a total collapse in cause and effect. Its a monumental happening that both Katie and Forest have watched over and over. Its not really a question of acceptance so much as an understanding that whatever takes place is going to unfold exactly as expected; they are essentially just watching themselves do it at this point.

Everything about Forest, and the show itself, has been obsessively hurtling toward total destruction. Whether or not some sort of apocalypse is on the horizon, theres certainly going to be a collapse within time and space. The music at the forefront of the show has set the stage for it as much as anything else. The score, by Ben Salisbury, Geoff Barrow, and the group the Insects, continues their working relationship with Alex Garland: Salisbury and Barrow both worked on Ex Machina and Annihilation. Their music for Devs is truly their best yet, hauntingly capturing the sensation of a world collapsing in on itself. Their Hans Zimmeresque droning synths, hair-raising buzzes, and dystopic samples capture profound grief and an unstable universe breaking apart. Its a magnetic and discomforting atmosphere that elevates the show dramatically. The score, combined with the Kubrickian visual palette and the emotional vacancy of its lead performance, draws you in only to reveal an intense agony tearing the world at the seams.

There is an insatiable need in people to figure out the universe. Its an admirable ambition that has led to incredible scientific advancement and discovery, but inevitably and without fail, humanity hits a wall. There will always be something unknowable and inscrutable, which is obviously maddening. But the unknowable also can be humbling, for knowing too much can be just as tormenting. Forest has used his power and wealth to achieve a utopian dream of reliving moments with his daughter again, both symbolicallyin the form of a giant and disturbing shrine of herand through visualizing the universes timeline. In creating this personal heaven and space to act out his grief, he killed and destroyed others. While Devs is a vision of malevolent tech genius and power turned up to a preposterous degree, the sentiment is relevant. Human behavior can go as far as technological advance can take it, for better or worse. Forest is one in a long line of sci-fi egomaniacs with unchecked power, but hes also a chilling warning of the dangers posed by a certain kind of hubris that exists in our own world.

Israel Daramola is a writer based in Brooklyn. His work has appeared in Pitchfork, Spin, BuzzFeed, and Rolling Stone.

More:
How Devs Explores the Silicon Valley God Complex - The Ringer

Human Behavior

CARES Act grants $10 billion to aid airports during pandemic – WJFW-TV

RHINELANDER - The recently signed CARES Act will grant $10 billion to airports across the country to help during the coronavirus pandemic.

"Most airports around the state are down about 95% when it comes to passengers," said Rhinelander-Oneida County airport director Matthew Leitner. "The Rhinelander-Oneida County Airport is set to receive $1,100,712. As the year progresses, the loss of revenue will become more prevalent, and we'll need to tap into these grant funds to make up for it."

The money must be used for capital improvement projects. Leitner said there are already a few in the works at the Rhinelander-Oneida County Airport.

"Those projects include rehabilitation on our passenger terminal, a new fuel farm over at Rhinelander Flying Service, a lot of pavement improvement projects, painting, and some design work for years to come," said Leitner.

Despite a decrease in travelers, the airport is still fully operational with extra safety measures in place.

"Safety is always paramount" said Leitner. "We would never compromise safety for the sake of a decrease in revenue. We would close the airport before we did anything like that."

Leitner hopes to see a rise in flights once stay-at-home orders are eventually lifted.

"Human behavior is hard to predict, especially at unprecedented times like this. We certainly hope that will be the case, and I think we are well prepared for it," said Leitner.

Link:
CARES Act grants $10 billion to aid airports during pandemic - WJFW-TV

Human Behavior

Star Wars: Are droids property, pets or people in the galaxy? – Dork Side of the Force

The first character to appear in the entire Star Wars Saga was a droid. Then that droid was subjected to on-screen bullying for three movies (I can think of seven instances where C-3PO is told to shut up explicitly or physically restrained from speaking in the original trilogy.) Viewer relationship to C-3PO is typically separated into three camps Hate him, Love him, or hopelessly identify with him on a personal level.

These relationships with C-3PO only work for one reason his emotions and personality are clearly defined on-screen. Droids have a complex role in the Star Wars Universe, and its tough to pin down their social status in the galaxy.

Just about every droid on the hero side has defining qualities that make them original and almost human. Each of our droid characters tends to have highly personalized relationships with our living heroes. R2 was loyal to Anakin and Luke, K2-SO was close with Cassian Andor, and Lando had aum complicated relationship with L-3. Despite these qualities, they are frequently dismissed in-universe as by-products of programming and other alterations. They cant think, have a programmed purpose and their autonomy is viewed as a malfunction.

If droids could think, there would be none of us here would there Obi-Wan Kenobi

There is an expectation that droids are meant to behave exactly as they were designed. Obviously, with any artificial intelligence, things dont always go as planned. K-2S0 developed a seemingly self-aware personality with the ability to disobey orders, make jokes, and make decisions that he deemed productive to his mandate. Cassian Andor explained this behavior as a by-product of his reprogramming. But it feels more like evolution to become closer to his organic companions.

L3 follows a similar path to K2. She is opinionated, dreams of a crusade for droid liberation, and bitterly refers to her organic overlords. The origins of L3s personality are never explained beyond Lando saying he doesnt have her mind wiped because She has the best damn navigational database in the galaxy.

There is an acknowledged level of control over droids by our living characters throughout the Star Wars Universe meaning to reduce a droid to its essential functions. C-3PO had his mind wiped at the end of Revenge of the Sith, K-2SO is reprogrammed to serve Cassian, and restraining bolts play a major role in controlling a droids movement and behavior, emphasizing their need to fulfill their purpose.

In this case, droids are property. By the Jawas placing bolts on R2 and 3PO, the two droids were confined to being farmhands and tools for moisture farmers. The transaction between Owen Lars might be the perfect microcosm for the existence of droids in the Galaxy. They can be bought, controlled with restraining bolts, and repurposed to serve their owners. Its tough to give this more than a second thought. They are just non-living robots after all.

Droids are not good or bad. They are Neutral reflections of those who imprint them Kuiil

The Original trilogy struggles to convince viewers that our living characters care about our droids on a human level. And this might not be illogical. If droids are not living things, they cannot feel. And if they do not feel, it might be easy to disregard their capacity to experience life as living things (this concept is confusing if we consider this scene from ROTJ).

In the season finale of The Mandalorian, IG-11 sacrifices himself for the group, not out love for his friends, but to fulfill his purpose of protecting the Child. He cant get around his original source programming of self-destructing to avoid capture. Again, a droid is an instrument for a specific means and takes action to fulfill that means, instead of making a conscious decision. Battle Droids, for example, were built for pone purpose Destruction. They follow orders and were built in mass to overwhelm and eventually be destroyed. They were tools. Same for Probe Droids, Gonk Droids, and countless other units. Even C-3PO was programmed to understand human behavior and cant exceed his mandate on Endor despite motivation from his friends.

Donald Glover is Lando Calrissian and Phoebe Waller-Bridge is L3-37 in SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY.

However, it seems possible that droids have the capacity to learn behavior, either intentionally or unintentionally. Of any character in Star Wars, R2 had had the strongest relationship with Anakin. R2 was loyal and eventually brought his loyalty to the next generation with Luke and Leia.

The loyal and opinionated astromech superseded his programming as a mechanic and became a message courier, swiss army knife, and regular savior of his companions, (until he is stored in the Resistance attic next to a box of Christmas decorations for who knows how long but whatever.) Ultimately, R2-D2 becomes more than his programming, likely the results of never having his memory erased.

Dave Filoni compared R2 to the family dog and Chopper to a cat when describing the moody astromech from Rebels. Despite both droids having the same utility and same role within their companions, they, like our own pets have different personalities and behavior. Your pet can be your companion and they can be trained for certain tasks, but you are ultimately held responsible for their well being and transgressions.

Comparing droid companions to pets might be selling droids short I mean C-3P0 knows over six million forms of communication, R2-D2 is elite hacker, and K-2SO can handle a blaster when given the opportunity. But if you consider their roles and relationships with other characters, it might not be a total stretch. They can be valued members of their families or teams, even loved, but its tough to place them in the same in-universe social standing their living counterparts.

Of course, L3 would have a serious problem being compared to a pet. And she might have a point.

If we take L3s point of view, the next logical question has to be asked are droids people too?In The Mandalorian, Kuiil points to an interesting argument in defense of the reprogramming and trusting IG-11. He tells Mando, Droids are not good or bad. They are neutral reflections of those who imprint them. There are parallels to the age-old philosophical questions of whether people are inherently good or bad. You can take a neutral approach and say people are neither good or bad, but products of their environment.

Thats similar to what Kuiil says in support of IG-11. They arent created in one way or another, but dependent on those around them. You can even teach them to be good, as Kuiil did, just as you can teach them to be bad.

IG-11 (Taika Waititi) in THE MANDALORIAN, exclusively on Disney+

Droids might be programmed to perform or behave in a certain capacity, but we already know that certain behaviors can be learned. L3 wasnt programmed to be a droid revolutionary and R2-D2s behavior surely surpassed that of a mechanic.

These behaviors make certain droids closer to living than not. Such characteristics inevitably generate responses from living characters. For instance, Mandos PTSD results in his distrust of all droids until IG-11 protects The Child and saves the group.

Perhaps one of the more belligerent examples is the bartender in the Mos Eisley Cantina. In a strange and offputting display of prejudice, the Bartender shouts to Luke that C-3PO and R2 must wait outside, since they dont serve their kind there. Generating such a horrible and emotional response seems strange for a non-living patron who wouldnt even be interested in their drink service anyway. The response is akin to any other prejudice against a race or species. It doesnt align with our typical notions of robots. So in some respects, droids must be viewed as a counterpart by living beings in the Star Wars Universe. Perhaps not all droids, but some.

Im not sure there is a proper way to categorize droids in a Star Wars social hierarchy. We know what L3 thinks, and we know Anakin valued R2 way more than property. R2 was a friend. Yet throughout the Saga, there is a limited amount of empathy and consideration in regards to droids, despite droid characters displayed varying levels of autonomy and capacity for relationships. So droids must be pets. Or people. Or maybe just property.

Who is the best droid in the Star Wars Saga? Let us know your opinions below.

Go here to read the rest:
Star Wars: Are droids property, pets or people in the galaxy? - Dork Side of the Force