In anticipation of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindmans recent public testimony in the Houses impeachment inquiry, the Fox News host Laura Ingraham and a guest concocted an insulting fantasy on her show: the idea that Colonel Vindman might be a Ukrainian spy.

It may have shocked a lot of Americans that Fox News televangelists and establishment conservatives like John Yoo are spinning the narrative of the courageous Colonel Vindman a man who put his countrys interests ahead of his own into one that suggests, as an immigrant, he wasnt loyal to the United States. But as a former Fox News opinion talk-show guest host and contributor for 14 years, it didnt shock me.

I can explain the art and purpose behind throwing a Purple Heart veteran under the Fox News bus. First, we must talk about narratives. In my time at Fox News, narratives were weapons of mass emotional manipulation, what the Nobel laureate Robert J. Shiller defines in Narrative Economics as contagious stories as he put it in a paper of the same name, a simple story or easily expressed explanation of events that many people want to bring up in conversation or on news or social media because it can be used to stimulate the concerns or emotions of others, and/or because it appears to advance self-interest. One recent report said that we find information or misinformation 22 times more memorable in narrative form.

Theres little in this world that has the emotional manipulative power of a good tribalized us versus them narrative. Its a contagion, and thanks to social media, or participatory propaganda, highly viral.

The Fox News counternarrative model is as simple as it is cunning. The segment producers job is to get the answers to two questions: What is the most emotionally engaging story we have right now (in 2019, thats the most recent damaging attack House impeachment hearings on President Trump). The next question is, how do we construct a counternarrative that includes as many existing other believable meta-narratives as possible?

The hunt for the killer narrative starts with the Morning Memo to the producers. It shares the interpretation from the vice president of news of the highest-trending articles on Foxnews.com and Drudge. In the old days, the memo from the C.E.O. Roger Ailes dictated the narratives of the day. The next move is to get a few Fox News contributor regulars elected officials and paid pundits not just to deliver the new counternarrative but also to wrap it inside an existing or new meta-narrative.

What do the ratings tell the producers are the most engaging meta-narratives for the over 80 million Fox News viewers on all digital platforms?

Conspiracy theories.

Why do people love conspiracy stories? Its human behavior. Being in on a good conspiracy theory makes you feel like you know something the other guy in this case, any liberal does not. The emotional payoff from being on the inside of a conspiracy is a self-esteem jolt that makes you feel smarter than your tribal foe and keeps your eyeballs glued to screens television, laptops, tablets, cellphones where the network makes money from advertising.

The Vindman coverage followed the Fox News conspiracy segment playbook perfectly. In the days after Fox News produced it, the spy tale was distributed by other dealers of conspiracy theory. Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida tweeted that Donald Trump is innocent. The deep state is guilty. The congressmans message was amplified by an account tied to the online conspiracy movement QAnon to 160,000 of its followers as well as posted on a QAnon Facebook page.

If some of those who consumed the story go back to the original source, Fox, its more business for the network.

Every successful Fox News segment producer has the conspiracy script down cold. These segments work best when the proof of a conspiracy against a tribal leader in this case the Republican president makes the viewer feel under attack as well. It elevates the fight-or-flight juices. And it helps when a proposed conservative thought leader mixes in the meta-narrative to the effect that we are victimized again by the condescending Beltway elites.

Weaponized and tribalized political video narratives in the hands of Fox News producers can become something like drug-abuse epidemics keeping addicts of that conspiracy theory high and coming back for more.

Believing in conspiracy theories is a psychological construct for people to take back some semblance of control in their lives. It inflates their sense of importance. It makes them feel they have access to special knowledge that the rest of the world is too blind, too dumb or too corrupt to understand.

And that is why they wrote Colonel Vindman into the wrong side of a spy novel.

Read the original here:
Why Fox News Slimed a Purple Heart Recipient - The New York Times

Taking the broadest cultural and political view, the past two weeks or so have provided a solid, sobering representation of where women stand in America right now.

All of us are passing through a time of triumph and trial, obviously. Proof of this is playing out across TV in examples ranging from moving to enraging to outright depressing.

But in this context Im mostly speaking about watching women in three different settings playing out within the same general time frame: the public hearings portion of Congress impeachment inquiry, Wednesdays Democratic debates in Atlanta, and a disheartening parable dispatched from the Mamanuca Islands of Fiji.

That third mention refers to CBS' Survivor: Island of the Idols, unscripted entertainment edited to fit whatever narrative producers deem to be most provocative. The 39th season is embroiled in a controversy involving several women being subjected to unwanted touching by castaway Dan Spilo, a Hollywood talent manager .

Dan is still part of the game whereas Kellee Kim, the contestant who raised her voice about Spilos groping both directly to him and to other women, ended up being voted off the island. Kim's confessionals about the experience are raw and charged; at one point she visibly tears up, and a producer, speaking off camera, lets her know that if she's says the word they'll step in.

With $1 million on the line, however, taking such action would not have been without penalty. Then again, her trust that the tribe's other women would stand with her was misplaced. Several of them used her candor with them against her to blindside her, saying "me too" to her face and then putting her on the chopping block at Tribal Council.

"Survivor executive producer and host Jeff Probst likes to remind people that the game plays out as a microcosm of society. Its also a program run by producers who have an obligation to ensure the people in their charge feel safe. The first half of the Nov. 13 back-to-back episodes actually includes an onscreen message that Spilo received an official warning from producers.

Given everything Probst and Survivor producers knew about Spilos behavior before Kim and the man who defended her, Jamal Shipman, were voted off, the general consensus from passionate fans is that Spilo should have been ousted from the game instead of Kim, the woman whose boundaries he violated. (Shipman, it must be said, made an unrelated strategic mistake that doomed him. His eloquent, empathetic defense of Kim still stands.)

But this is Survivor; this is television. As Shipman told Entertainment Weekly in his exit interview, the understanding is that once you set foot on the island, the game is in play and barring a medical emergency of which the show has had its share there is no pause or reset button aside from the ones producers toss in as part of the game.

The consequences for a player asking for production to get involved are monumental, Shipman said. . . . Therefore, I think it is a judgment call that only the producers can make. They are monitoring the camp 24/7. They need to be the ones to decide when to prioritize the safety of the players. They should recognize that we are in a situation where we cannot advocate for ourselves without the fear of compromising our endgame.

I am not a regular Survivor viewer. In fact, it only occurred to me to watch the Nov. 13 and 20 episodes when it came up in a number of conversations. My friend and colleague Andy Dehnarts rapier-pointed critique of the situation, by the way, is a must-read for anyone seeking a concise breakdown of the ethical quandaries this development presents.

And he concisely spells out one of the main reasons for the general outcry among viewers sensitive to a womans right to have her personal and physical boundaries respected:

At Tribal Council, Probst was more concerned about making a Survivor Cultural Touchstone Moment than just being honest and open about what he already knew. For Probst to get irritated with Dan while simultaneously pretending like he had no idea what was going on was quite the choice.

The Nov. 13 Survivor is fascinating to watch now, in the wake of five days worth of impeachment inquiry testimony and Wednesdays debate, because of what events of the day prove about the Survivor theory of human behavior and society.

The common denominators in all three events the reality show, the hearings and to some degree, the debate stem from our feelings concerning right or wrong, and consequence, with women playing key roles at each juncture.

Even more starkly, it shows why movements like #MeToo and the struggle for gender inequality are not blown out of proportion or the latest social justice fever to hit the entertainment industry. And they also remind us that our problems are far from solved.

The fifth Democratic primary face-off,held at Tyler Perry Studios in Atlanta, Georgia, was moderated by four women, MSNBCs Rachel Maddow and Andrea Mitchell, NBC White House correspondent Kristen Welker, and Ashley Parker, White House reporter for The Washington Post, which co-hosted the event along with MSNBC.

Among the topics candidates fielded on Wednesday were substantive exchanges about abortion rights, family leave, and gender inequity lines of questioning underrepresented or completely omitted in previous debates.

Out of the 10 contenders on the stage, three out of the four women shone brightest. Sen. Elizabeth Warren was the popular winner in post-debate assessments, but Sen. Kamala Harris also received her share of upvotes.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar performed better than she ever has, while also distinguishing herself by making a reasonable and fai22r stand for gender equality. Referring to a comment Klobuchar previously made about the double standard of Mayor Pete Buttigieg being taken seriously as a candidate given his youth and experience relative to her own, Mitchell asked her to clarify what she meant.

Pete is qualified to be up on this stage, and I am honored to be standing next to him. But what I said is true: Women are held to a higher standard, she told Mitchell Otherwise we could play a game called name your favorite woman president, which we cant do because it has all been men.

On the other hand, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard attempted to reprise her attack on Harris and was smacked down badly, and Vice President Joe Bidens second greatest gaffe of the night involved erasing Harris career achievements in attempting to burnish his own by claiming that his strong support among black voters is because they know me, they know who I am. Three former chairs of the black caucus, the only African-American woman that's ever been elected to the United States Senate

No, thats not true, Harris said, stepping in along with Cory Booker. The other one is here.

At the end of the night, the general if unscientific consensus is that Maddow, Mitchell, Welker, and Parker kept the debate running smoothly, allowing candidates to fully deliver their answers while keeping them within their allotted time limits. Maddow, in the post-show, cited the flawless set-up at Tyler Perry Studios, which she says ensured that everyone heard one another and reduced the frequency of outburst and cross-talk

She also opined that the perceived toughness of her fellow moderators may have had influenced the better behavior this time around, jokingly referring to her NBC co-workers Welker and Mitchell as people you dont want to cross "in a dark alley, with no one around you."

The candidates, in turn, refrained from squabbling over one another. For the most part.

The presumption that women would simply run things better is lovely, and I support it. Its also facile. To wit: on "Survivor," two of the other women on the island with Kim played their discomfort with Spilo as a strategy, which paints a repulsive picture in several respects.

At the debate, Welker tried some gamesmanship of her own when she set up Harris to take a shot at Buttigieg for his bungled attempts to inflate his support among African Americans. But the moderator didnt go into specifics of what those missteps are basically putting the weight on Harris to do the work for her and viewers at home and somehow not look like a heel.

Harris strategically pivoted away from the trap, likely aware of the potential optics of a black woman going on the offensive against nice Mayor Pete.

And while debate moved quickly and covered a lot of ground, it sill fell short on depth and substance. LGBTQ issues were barely discussed; the topic of violence and discrimination against transgender Americans did not come up at all.

And yet, taking into account that it came at the end of 10 hours of live political coverage, women got the job done and did it well.

Women, too, put their careers on the line in service of the impeachment inquiry. A week before Wednesdays debates, Former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch appeared before the House Intelligence Committee, and I imagine her testimony might have hit anyone smarting from the events of that Nov. 13 Survivor episode differently than other viewers.

Yovanovitch is a story of a career diplomat who did her job well and was fully versed in the players behind corruption in the Ukraine, and as a reward for doing her job, was pushed out of her position and smeared by her former boss as she testified. (She was sidelined and silenced, in other words. You know, like one of those jurors made to silently witness Tribal Council from the sidelines.)

The unblinking cameras showed America a composed, capable witness who remained even-keeled throughout her testimony, as did Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence who listened in on Trumps July 25 phone call to Ukraine PresidentVolodymyr Zelensky and testified on Day Three, or Tuesday of this week, that she found it unusual.

But two other women who appeared as witnesses this week packed more perceptual punch, in part due to how they were scheduled. From most accounts the inquirys climax arrived on Wednesday of this week when EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland sauntered into the Capitol in the way of all entitled rich men who pay their way into positions theyre not qualified to perform.

Sondland, who bought his diplomatic position by writing a $1 million check to Trumps presidential inaugural committee, joked and smiled his way through many hours of questions by Democrats and Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee after kicking off the proceedings with this bombshell:

I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a `quid pro quo? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.

Certainly it was a tremendous performance designed for the cameras. His resting grin, in particular, spoke volumes: it was that of a man who knew he could say or do anything without suffering any significant penalty or alteration to his lifestyle because of it. But his role was mainly that of ending a flimsy argument; the rest was artful dodging and schtick.

The more thankless duty fell to the woman who followed Sondland on the schedule, deputy assistant secretary of Defense Laura Cooper, who dispelled the notion that Ukraine didnt know that funds for military assistance were being held up. She confirmed that, indeed, government workers asked about it on the same day as Trumps famous phone call.

In contrast to Sondland, Cooper was not afforded the luxury of engaging in performative hamminess, because she is a career servant; as far as we know she doesnt have a cushion of millions to fall back on if shes fired. The viewer saw a serious woman who chose her words very carefully and let GOP attacks roll off on her when they came her way.

Besides, it was not she who reminded viewers of the inequalities that exist within government, or this situation, or workplaces in general. That fell to Thursdays fact witness, Dr. Fiona Hill, the former top National Security Council official for Europe and Russia.

Questioned about her reaction to Sondland cutting her and her department out of the loop (which includes John Bolton) in terms of their dealings with Ukraine, she admitted having a couple of testy encounters with him.

One of those was in June 18 when I actually said to him, Who put you in charge of Ukraine? Ill admit I was a bit rude, but thats when he told me the president, which shut me up, she said. What she said next speaks to something women face in every setting.

I was actually, to be honest, angry with him, she said. And you know, I hate to say it, but often when women show anger its not fully appreciated. Its often pushed onto emotional issues, perhaps, or deflected onto other people.

She continued, And what I was angry about was that he wasnt coordinating with us. I now actually realize, having listened to his deposition, that he was absolutely right. That he wasnt coordinating with us because we werent doing the same thing that he was doing."

With this, she calmly delivered the coup de grace by characterizing Sondlands actions as being involved in a domestic political errand. And we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged. So he was correct . . . And I did say to him, Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, I think this is all going to blow up. And here we are.

Recency bias, that phenomenon of easily recalling the latest events in a timeline with most accuracy, can be a wonderful thing . . . when and if it works in your favor, that is. The problem always is that the latest chapter in a saga doesnt tell the whole tale, which is why researchers and other types of chroniclers caution us about its influence.

Hill, though, gave a hell of a finale, coming across as unshakable even in the face of attempts to besmirch her reputation, even chastising members of the GOP without calling them out by name or party for perpetuating the debunked conspiracy that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 elections, not Russia.

Yet I am left to wonder, at the end of it all, what will happen to this steely survivor and others like her.

If the Senate embarks upon the trial portion of the impeachment, the focus will not be on weighing the evidence but tearing apart the people who submitted it to the public. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republicans got quite a preview of what to expect from Hill, Cooper, Williams, and Yovanovitch.

On the other hand, the hearing also served as a coming-out party for Republican New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, who tag teamed with Ohio GOP Congressman Jim Jordan in attacking witnesses.

Politics is a messy, bloody business, even more so when our diplomatic efforts become overtly politicized. Typically, though, what alarms people who consume current events mainly through TV news are acts that have already happened, actions that have been discussed in the halls of Congress or occur in places far away.

The real-time collision of political theater and unscripted reality showbiz adds a new kind of anxiety to what were seeing, in that the manufactured product has the misfortune of auguring the truth of how things are. Four women did a better job of moderating the latest presidential debate than any of the predecessors, yet the debate was the least watched so far, with only 6.6 million viewers tuning in.

Hill's testimony was strong, and her unflappable comportment read brilliantly on live TV. A few hours later, Sean Hannity got an early start on the campaign to discredit Hill on Thursday's installment of his Fox News primetime program.

And some Survivor viewers are upset because they expected an artificial society formed and endured for 39 days, overseen by multiple witnesses behind many cameras, would mete out justice in ways the real world rarely does. The producers saw everything, and we saw enough. Even so, the alleged perpetrator is still on the road to a $1 million payday.

Its super upsetting because its like you cant do anything about it, Kim says on the show. There are always consequences for standing up. This happens in real life, in work settings, in school. You cant say anything because its going to affect your upward trajectory. Its going to affect how people look at you.

Her anger, I think, has not been fully appreciated it. But I do hope what happened to her serves as a warning, perhaps, to prepare for whatever obfuscating storm is coming after these weeks of hard transparency, transmitted via live television.

See original here:
From Survivor to D.C., women are showing up strong on TV, but does patriarchal America care? - Salon

NOVEMBER 21, 2019

THE PINNACLE OF human civilization is junk food. More than any pyramid or tomb, it represents the apex of how humanity has mastered itself and its innate desires. It combines three of the rarest elements in nature salt, fat, and sugar in an affordable, easy to consume package. It preys on our primal instincts to seek out these elements and covet them at any cost, behaviors burned into the core of our minds from a time when our ancestors had to fight to attain even tiny amounts of them. Add to that corporations whose sole purpose is to exploit that instinct, which pump untold amounts of money into research, refinement, and marketing, and we are nearly powerless in the face of it. Even compared to the realms of politics, science, and academia, there may be no entities on earth who understand human behavior better.

Now consider the idea of a corporation that has tapped into emotional desires just as deeply if you could exist as a dual consciousness, one that experienced the happy successes of life while the other existed in gray mediocrity, would you take it? If they promised to reshape your waking reality in order to increase your unconscious productivity, could you still enjoy it with the terrible knowledge that you are living a lie? In the newest novel from Shane Jones, Vincent and Alice and Alice from Tyrant Books, the titular Vincent is confronted with this very question. Rather than being offered a red pill or a blue pill, Vincent has a different choice: the unremarkable pain of real life, or the emotional equivalent of a cheeseburger and fries exploding in his brain every second of the day.

On the day I start reading the novel, my manager informs me that Im participating in an all-day seminar for Process Improvement and Collaborative Governance on Friday. Its mandatory. If I had the choice to minimize the time spent on it, I would, but I get a feeling I dont have a choice in the matter. I usually try to ignore coincidences and apophenia in my life, but I cant help but notice the parallels between the book and this inane task.

Shane Jones is a well-known name due to the success and controversy of his debut novel, Light Boxes, released in 2010 by Penguin Books. It follows the surrealist tale of a small towns war against February, who exists both as a season and a person, and which has cursed them with an endless winter. It is a cathartic story that blends a frontier landscape with sensual elements, tragedy highlighted by sharpness of mint, depression softened by the sweet lull of flowers. In Crystal Eaters (Two Dollar Radio, 2014), Jones creates a village being physically encroached on by a city, following the story of Remy and her family as they deal with the literally impending doom. The characters live their lives imprisoned by the properties of different colored crystals, some hewn from the earth in a desperate attempt to improve the crystal count inside them. What happens here are the choices of the individual: either to scratch, dig, and claw at an unyielding, inorganic surface, desperate to connect despite the damage to the physical body, or to remain frozen inside of a quartz-tinted life. Both action and inaction result in catastrophic consequences, and Jones paints this world for us in a mythological, yet utterly real, fashion.

While Light Boxes and Crystal Eaters could be set in the past, present, or distant future, Vincent and Alice and Alice takes place in a time that could be solidly defined as the present and near-future, much closer in relation to our own reality than his previous works. The timeline starts in 2017 and stretches to 2037, and Vincents world is a landscape dominated by Walmart rather than woodland. He has an office job with the State, a job that seems to involve the same trappings as our own, in which co-worker birthdays and reams of copier paper make up the minutiae of the day. There is Elderly, an old man who lives in a car on his street, who for all intents and purposes seems to be Vincents best friend. Between Vincents mediocrity and Elderlys eccentric nature, they seem to balance each other out, neither conflicting nor agreeing on anything in particular. In a bland existence, Elderly could be considered Vincents tether to reality, a reminder that chaos exists as a part of life. But of course, these are just ancillary details to the person that consumes Vincents mind, despite being physically absent: Alice.

When we meet Vincent, he is dominated (in every sense of the word) by thoughts of his ex-wife, Alice. No matter where he goes or whom he interacts with, he is followed by permutations of Alice, which drift back and forth from the melancholy to the obsessive. Apparently, this is a pattern of behavior that has always been a part of him:

Alice said I was incapable of living in reality. She said I spent too much time in my head, which is impossible because my reality was Alice, planning our days together. We spent weekends in bed eating sushi, reading the first ten pages of novels, binging shows, sleeping to no clock, no rules, no guidelines, no sense of time. If my imagination did wander, it always included her.

Jones writes Vincent as a man diving head first into just about anything, even adopting an old dog on a whim, to get away from the pain of Alices physical absence in his life. While outwardly composed, Vincent is flailing, searching for meaning in a life where its focal point has got up and left.

One of the people to reach out and steady Vincents hand comes from within his workplace, when he is scheduled to meet with an enigmatic figure named Dorian Blood. While the average person would already be sensing the ominous overtones, Vincent attends the meeting anyway. There, Dorian a square-jawed yet erratic executive type gives him the option of participating in PER, a new kind of mental strategy designed to increase worker productivity. Vincent is promised with the reward of the gate, which, when entered, will turn him into a split consciousness, physically toiling while mentally rejoicing. He will still be working at his dead-end job, but will experience a new simultaneous reality in which anything is possible. Even in the context of this review, you can probably guess that Vincent agrees to do this. With language clouded in the kind of obfuscation reserved for New Age seminars and corporate retreats, Vincent is given the instructions to reach the gate, as well as rules for engagement with it. I recognize this language from my own workplace, where I am pelted with acronyms and esoteric phrases as solutions to problems: Post Deltas, HRO, KANO, EBP, DMAIC. I am told to focus on innovation, to adhere to the white belt method, to identify problem statements and vision statements. I still dont understand how this fits into my job.

As Vincent works with the Patrick Batemanesque Dorian, he is told to learn and adhere to the rules of the gate at all costs:

1. Do not confront the gate about its plausibility.

2. Do not question the humans inside the gate.

3. Do not control the gate.

4. Let the gate guide you.

5. Do not attempt to escape from the gate.

6. Documenting the gate by video or photo is prohibited.

When Vincent asks, How will I know whats real and what isnt? Dorian replies, We get that one a lot. But at this stage in your life, does it matter? In our own lives, we have to make so many decisions and sacrifices, which the PER system is satirizing. Do we go out after work, or stare at a different screen at home? As we get older, the future begins to loom over us as a cold reality instead of a bright tomorrow. The days become obstacles to get through instead of opportunities, our precious lives poured into the forge of capitalism to create a solid plan a future we can have, hold, depend on in other words, an impossible thing. Every day we are confronted with news of climate change and the unrest that has resulted because of it. The picture only becomes grimmer with each passing day, as resources dwindle and small collapses nick away at the foundations of the world. Its enough to make fantasy seem like an attractive alternative, even compared to connecting with others. Vincent says of Alice, From her point of view the reason our marriage ended wasnt because I couldnt fulfill her sexually, but I stopped connecting. She said I wasnt there with her mentally because I was either commuting to work, at work, coming home from work, or dead-eyed from having sat for eight hours at work. How many of us, whether supporting the ever-increasing cost of rent, family, education, or costs of living, could not say we are the same?

Vincent follows the rules of PER, and engages with his work on a level he never has before. Ironically, all details of his work fall to the wayside there are no more pithy comments from co-workers, the state of his zone in the cubicle, or what he does in off-hours. Everything that creates the landscape of his day, and thus the story as we read it, falls away into a void. As his productivity increases, he starts to notice changes. He sleeps for 25 hours at a time. The days turn into one-sentence chapters, sitting at his desk and not saying a word. Dorian and his cronies monitor him, impressed by his progress, promising that he is rapidly approaching the gate.

Elderly and his car, which previously functioned as Vincents anchor to reality, have vanished.

In my own world, the instructor at the mandatory seminar tells us that in order to adhere to the Lean Six Sigma process (created by Toyota in the wake of their airbag failures) all projects must be formatted on an A3 sized sheet of paper. This is the size used on auto factory floors, and it is big enough to see while on the line. It is written in pencil so changes can be made easily and quickly. I ask how we are supposed to create these sheets when the companys printers only fit a maximum paper size of A4. They promise to get back to my question, and they never do.

After a day of work only marked by a co-worker conversation of what to get for lunch, Vincent returns to his apartment to find someone inside it. It is Alice, acting as if their separation has never happened. Vincent tests the reality several ways, but comes to the same conclusion: it is Alice, and she is real, and she is here. The gate has worked. But all this ignores an important fact: the book begins not with Vincents dialogue, but with an excerpt from Alice, in 2037. Is this Alice solely a creation of Vincents mind? If thats true, then when Vincent finds out that Dorian is an undercover cop and Elderly owns four houses with his own wife is that real? Or does it not matter, like Dorian says? The apex philosophical question of the novel remains, in A Scanner Darklytype psych-noir twist: what happens when Alice meets Alice?

In Vincent and Alice and Alice, Jones has created a sharp modern allegory, fueled with the issues so prevalent in society. The desperate coping mechanisms we turn to in the face of grief. The near-satirical level of process improvement in our workplaces, to the point where any real changes are moot in the face of bureaucracy. Our obsessive natures, tempered by the sterile drudgery of white-collar work, and the humor we find in trying to adapt to it. Most importantly, the novel addresses the nature of love how we love others and treat them in a society that values disposal over sentimentality, what we give and what we ask of those we love, and how this will change in a growing world that is constantly breaking apart and reforming itself into something new.

Is this really what our future will look like? A world dominated by productivity, distraction, and consumerism over the pitfalls of human connection? I think what Jones is saying is that it doesnt have to be. As the world changes, we will change with it, and the only way to create a sustainable future is to find greater empathy with each other. Vincents marriage failed because he lost sight of the actual Alice, he slipped into a pattern of complacency that is warm and familiar. Relationships cant thrive in stagnation. In a time when nothing is certain and entities try to guide us the way they want to, we need to remember that our human connection is what grounds us. The answers are not there yet, but the only way we can figure them out is together.

At the end of the meeting at my workplace, we are given a coupon to a fast food place for a discount when you buy a cheeseburger and fries. I leave mine on the desk.

Matt E. Lewis is the editor of Ayahuasca Publishing.

Follow this link:
A New Simultaneous Reality: On Shane Jones's Vincent and Alice and Alice - lareviewofbooks

Reading Time: 4 minutes

As technology became more affordable and started to integrate into our daily lives through smart devices, online stores, and numerous other technologies that facilitate and power businesses across the world, brand promotion shape-shifted and adapted to these new circumstances. Nowadays, digital marketing is the cornerstone of revenue growth and market expansion, providing business owners with a series of channels to interact with the audience.

Furthermore, digital marketing utilizes the analytical capabilities of modern software solutions to enhance the value of each dollar we invest in the promotion of our enterprises. The versatility of content, mobile and desktop platforms, audience targeting, and numerous marketing metrics are what makes digital marketing such a powerful tool thats steadily becoming the mainstream advertisement approach.

The evolution of digital marketing is a constant struggle to keep up with the development of current technology and market requirements, which is why we are going to let you in on the latest innovations in digital marketing that you should keep in mind for the year 2020.

AI predicting human behavior

Its one thing to have an AI-driven software taking care of your schedule, organizing traffic routes, or managing your storage, however, next year well have AI predicting consumer behavior to enhance the performance of your digital marketing strategy. Well no longer only know what our target audience is interested in but also how each of the followers reacts to different inputs.

The development of deep learning algorithm allows Artificial Intelligence to learn human languages, predict events based on previous trends, and thats just scratching the surface of possibilities of the latest tech. The benefits of this innovation include cost-efficiency, the potential for higher retention rate, and overall improvement of marketing strategy.

Well have the ability to contact an essay writing service and provide means to create marketing content that will provoke just the reaction we are looking for with our readers. If targeted ads were a jump to hyperspace of the advertisement industry, this innovation will transcend the future of digital marketing. The technology is already in use, however, for now, only the largest corporate entities have the infrastructure for it. Keeping in mind the pace in which technology is moving forward and the latest announcements of Google reaching quantum supremacy, we can expect 2020 to be the first year in which marketers can predict what youre going to say to their offer.

AR growing strong

The problem with online shopping is that you cant try on for size those shoes you found or test the firmness of the couch youre looking to buy for your living room. Still, the number of online shoppers is growing and is expected to reach a figure higher than 2 billion shoppers by 2021, according to research published on the Statista website. These numbers are high already, nevertheless, the issue at hand is how to battle through the unforgiving competition and you become the one that sells more products that the guy next to you?

Augmented reality (AR) is a technology that allows us to mix reality with digital content in real-time. Its the same technology that brought us Pokemon chasers a few years back if you remember that trend at all. Nowadays, AR evolved so much so that there are commercial real estate companies offering virtual tours of their assets during which you could change the furniture design and layout, change the paint, and add new features, all so that you could make the most informed purchasing decision.

Companies like Modiface are pushing forward AR implementation capabilities for digital marketing, providing customized commercial AR software that allows users to try on products in a mixed reality environment. Simply put, if you wanted to buy a piece of makeup, you could try it on even if youre on a bus, browsing the internet on your mobile while going to work.

Chatbots

Natural language processing and deep learning algorithms allowed software developers to improve chatbots effectiveness to an astonishing rate. Instead of supplying customers with predetermined answers to questions that include certain keywords, as it was the case in the old days, these new customer support software solutions can understand the client that interacts with them.

Moreover, the answers chatbots provide are not drawn from a database with previously set series of potential answers rather the result of analysis based on the question asked and the resources available online. Also, chatbots can serve multiple clients simultaneously, which we could expect, should render human customer service agents obsolete.

The benefits of these super-intelligent chatbots include increased quality of service at a lower price, which is a business model to which every business owner would subscribe to without a question.

Conclusion

Digital marketing, as well as any other software related industry is rapidly changing, bringing new potential for business scaling and customer satisfaction with each passing year. These are the innovations that will certainly plant deep roots next year and reshape the way we conduct online business. Its important to stay ahead of these events and implement every strategy that improves the cost-efficiency and effectiveness of our marketing endeavors.

Written by: Nicholas Smith, BOSS contributor

Nicholas Smith is a professional writer, editor, and essay reviewer engaged with a series of respectful online publishers. He is dedicated to his family, work and friends. He is keen on reading, playing the guitar and traveling. He is interested in educational, marketing and blogging issues. Feel free to connect with him by email: writernicholassmith5@gmail.com

See the original post:
Digital Marketing: Innovations to Watch out for in 2020 - BOSS Magazine

Research out of the University of California, Berkeley has again emphasized the importance of restful nightly sleep with regards to emotions.

Woman in Deep Sleep

When a person is unable to sleep well at night, their anxiety levels can surge by up to 30 percent, according to the study. A night full of sleep, on the other hand, soothes the anxious brain.

Findings from the study appeared in Nature Human Behavior. They provide very strong evidence of the neural links of sleep to anxiety.

UC Berkeley researchers reported that the particular type of sleep that produced the most-restful effect was a deep sleep. This sleep state, also referred to as non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep, is described as one of behavioral and physiological quiescence. While in it, neural oscillations become well synchronized, with both blood pressure and heart rates falling.

Deep sleep seems to be a natural anxiolytic (anxiety inhibitor), so long as we get it each and every night, said Matthew Walker, study senior author and a professor of neuroscience and psychology at UC Berkeley.

The study suggests sleep as a natural alternative to drugs for managing anxiety disorders, cases of which are rising in America.

Read Also: Researchers May Have Found A New Cure For Anxiety

The researchers made their findings in a series of experiments involving a full night of sleep and a night of no sleep. They first recruited 18 young adults for their study. These subjects were made to view video clips that were emotionally moving after a full night of sleep and also after a wakeful night.

While the subjects view the clips, researchers scanned their brains. They also used the state-trait anxiety inventory, a questionnaire, to assess the anxiety levels of the participants after each session.

The sleepless night resulted in the failure of the medial prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain helping with anxiety control. There was also over-activity in the deeper emotional centers of the brain.

Walker described the effect of a sleepless night as almost as if the brain is too heavy on the emotional pedal, without enough brake.

A night of no sleep caused anxiety levels to spike by up to 30 percent, the researchers found.

The results showed, on the other hand, that a full night of sleep led to a considerable drop in anxiety levels. This effect was particularly marked in subjects who had better NREM sleep. The brain waves of the participants were evaluated with the aid of electrodes placed on their heads.

Deep sleep had restored the brains prefrontal mechanism that regulates our emotions, lowering emotional and physiological reactivity and preventing the escalation of anxiety, said Eti Ben Simon, study lead author and a postdoctoral fellow at UC Berkeleys Center for Human Sleep Science.

The scientists were also able to replicate their results in another study of 30 subjects. They observed that participants who had more deep sleep the previous night had the lowest anxiety levels during the day that followed.

Anxiety disorders are a big problem in the industrialized world. Around 40 million adults in the United States suffer from an anxiety disorder. The incidence of the conditions is rising among children and teenagers as well.

The UC Berkeley researchers also carried out an online study, in addition to their lab experiments. They assessed variations in sleep and anxiety levels of 280 people over a period of four days. Their findings showed that the amount of sleep participants got on any night determined their anxiety level the day after.

Slight changes in sleep still produced an effect on anxiety levels of the subjects.

According to Walker, the findings imply that the decimation of sleep throughout most industrialized nations is possibly a major contributor to the increasing incidence of anxiety disorders in those countries.

Yet, sleep is hardly considered a standard recommendation for combating anxiety, the researchers noted.

Simon said the study confirms the causal relationship between sleep and anxiety. Also, deep sleep appeared to be particularly useful for dealing with anxiety disorders.

Our study strongly suggests that insufficient sleep amplifies the levels of anxiety and, conversely, that deep sleep helps reduce such stress, he said.

Regulating Gut Bacteria May Help Treat Anxiety

Social Media: increasing anxiety among youths

Being Addicted to Your Smartphone Can Depress You

Study Shows That Living near an Airport Can Raise Blood Pressure

Stress May Cause Spontaneous Abortions of Male Fetuses According to Study

View post:
Deep Sleep Reduces Anxiety Levels Considerably During The Day, UC Berkeley Study Shows - Gilmore Health News

SALT LAKE CITY--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Franklin Covey Co. (NYSE:FC) is mourning the passing of Hyrum W. Smith, a renowned speaker, entrepreneur, author, and philanthropist, who co-founded the company nearly four decades ago. Smith died on Monday, after a courageous battle with terminal cancer. He was 76.

FranklinCovey CEO, Bob Whitman, said, We extend our deepest heartfelt sympathies and condolences to Gail and the family. The world lost a truly great and remarkable human being in Hyrum. He made significant contributions to our company, to our community, and to our lives. He truly achieved his deeply held desire to make a positive difference on this planet. His legacy will continue to influence the lives of millions around the world. And, his enduring impact will be missed, but not forgotten.

Of Smiths many successes and achievements, he counted his marriage to his loving wife Gail and his relationship with his six children, their spouses, and his 24 grandchildren as his greatest success in life.

A family reception will be held December 2, from 6-8 p.m. at The Tuacahn Center For The Arts, 1100 Tuacahn Dr., Ivins, Utah 84738 and the funeral will be held on December 3, at Noon at 260 East 1060 South, Ivins, Utah 84738. In lieu of flowers, please send donations to the Hyrum & Gail Smith Tuacahn Legacy Endowment. For additional details, visit http://www.metcalfmortuary.com.

ABOUT FRANKLIN COVEY CO.

Franklin Covey Co. (NYSE: FC) is a global, public company specializing in organizational performance improvement. We help organizations and individuals achieve results that require a change in human behavior. Our expertise is in seven areas: leadership, execution, productivity, trust, sales performance, customer loyalty and education. FranklinCovey clients have included 90 percent of the Fortune 100, more than 75 percent of the Fortune 500, thousands of small and mid-sized businesses, as well as numerous government entities and educational institutions. FranklinCovey has more than 100 direct and partner offices providing professional services in over 160 countries and territories.

More:
Franklin Covey Co. Announces the Passing of Hyrum W. Smith, Renowned Speaker, Entrepreneur, Author, and Philanthropist - Business Wire

Consumers are the cornerstone of any organizations existence. As an organization, you must work on devising solutions for issues that the consumers of tomorrow may run into in order to improve the lives of these future consumers. But what are these issues? I set off on a journey into the magical land of trend analysis and came across five trends in consumer behaviour that have a shadowy side. That shadowy side is something that we should shed a little light on. And when there is a shadowy side to something, then theres something that needs to be polished up. As in, something can actually be done to make sure that tomorrow is good.

Whoa, we humans are slaves to addiction. Although some people are more susceptible to addiction than others, almost every person is sensitive to some form of addiction. For instance, we are sensitive to an addiction to media. Media outlets like Netflix are so quick in delivering the next episode, that its much more difficult for the average consumer to stop their media consumption than it is to maintain their media usage. You become addicted as a result.

Our social media consumption has often been associated with addiction in recent years. It has already been scientifically mapped out which personal characteristics fuel social media addiction. How social media addiction affects your satisfaction with your life. Or what the negative impact of social media addiction is on (school) performance. I could go on and on. Consequently, there are calls for us to regulate media consumption and to protect consumers from excessive media consumption.

Although our online world is characterized by words like connection and connectedness, in reality we are gradually becoming more and more lonely. Instead of heading into town with your girlfriends to find a new dress, you simply browse through webshops on your own. You no longer venture out on a pub crawl anymore to find an exciting new love interest. You simply swipe through Tinder profiles. Loneliness caused by the impact of social media and the digital world is starting to surface to such an extent, that it is being referred to as a loneliness epidemic. There is an increasing need to reconnect by seeking out actual physical and offline contact with each other again.

Then there is one more trend that goes against our evolutionary roots as hunters and gatherers. While hunting and gathering may act as an impetus for more consumerism, we are now seeing more and more signs directed towards downsizing and minimalism. We build tiny houses, we reuse furniture and we hardly own any books, music albums or films. Minimalism has become a way of life for many.

Some minimalists not only filter their own consumer pattern in excessive ways, but also do that on behalf of others. And thats where the shadowy side comes in. We are not talking about the minimalists who simply consider minimalism more aesthetically pleasing (e.g. fans of Scandinavian design). Nor the minimalists who for practical reasons aspire to a minimalist existence (e.g. which makes it easier for them to travel). But rather about the minimalists who aspire to nonconsumerism based on moral conviction with a focus on sustainability. Although, of course, there is nothing wrong with that moral conviction.

Many people share that conviction in principle. However, one may have some reservations about those minimalists who act as activists in their approach to others where flight shame, plastic shame or meat shame are concerned. There appears to be a razor-thin line between raising awareness or instilling feelings of shame on others. We should honestly ask ourselves whether we are making our society more appealing when we step over that line. Guilt and shame can certainly change behaviors. Nevertheless, the question remains whether there are not more charming roads to the Rome in question.

A trend associated with that of minimalism is that of nonmaterialism. Nonmaterialistic consumers consume without any tangible consequence of that consumerism. On the one hand, nonmaterialism is the result of a changing pattern of consumerism. We prefer to spend our money on experiences and adventures rather than on products. On the other hand, we are replacing some products with subscriptions. We no longer buy a CD, but a subscription to Spotify instead.

Especially this second development is beginning to take on such significant proportions that we now speak of a subscription economy. Subscription models are penetrating markets, meaning that the relationship between provider and consumer is undergoing considerable change. Not only does this relationship become more long-term and stable, but is also characterized by a higher level of dependence. The more subscriptions, the less diversification in the consumer pattern and the greater the dependence on a number of behemoth corporations. From research carried out by McKinsey, it appears that consumers are indeed buying subscriptions en masse, yet only about 11% of them are fans of the subscription model.

When it comes to consumers, we mean people. Its almost time to change that mindset. As the consumer robot is gaining ground. For example, a study by Ericsson shows that 70% of consumers think that within three years virtual assistants will be making purchasing decisions for them. Some researchers have even gone a step further and claim that in a few years time, 85% of shopping behaviour will take place without human interaction. It is impossible to pin an exact number on this in the future, but the trend is very clear.

Personally I find this the one of most cool trends. I am a huge fan of a society where artificial intelligence provides human intelligence with support wherever possible. Of course, there is also a shadowy side to this trend. How do we integrate ethics into the purchasing decisions of a consumer robot? And how do we ensure that consumers are happy to entrust their wallets to a robot? Together with my research group, Im working hard on designing solutions to these questions.

Tomorrow is good for our customers if we work on the shadowy side of these developments. When we brighten up something that is shadowy, turn negatives into positives and turn anything thats a grey area into something that shines!

Follow this link:
Tomorrow is good: 5 trends in consumer behavior that have a shadowy side - Innovation Origins