Podcasts about nature human behavior

Send us a text*Causal Inference From Human Behavior, Reproducibility Crisis & The Power of Causal Graphs*Is Jonathan Heidt right that social media causes the mental health crisis in young people?If so, how can we be sure?Can other disciplines learn something from the reproducibility crisis in Psychology, and what is multiverse analysis?Join us for a conversation on causal inference from human behavior, the reproducibility crisis in sciences, and the power of causal graphs!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Audio version available on YouTube: https://youtu.be/YQetmI-y5gMRecorded on May 16, 2025, in Leipzig, Germany.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*About The Guest*Julia Rohrer, PhD, is a researcher and personality psychologist at the University of Leipzig. She's interested in the effects of birth order, age patterns in personality, human well-being, and causal inference. Her works have been published in top journals, including Nature Human Behavior. She has been an active advocate for increased research transparency, and she continues this mission as a senior editor of Psychological Science. Julia frequently gives talks about good practices in science and causal inference. You can read Julia's blog at https://www.the100.ci/*Links*Papers- Rohrer, J. (2024) "Causal inference for psychologists who think that causal inference is not for them" (https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12948)- Bailey, D., ..., Rohrer, J. et al (2024) "Causal inference on human behaviour" (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01939-z.epdf)- Rohrer, J. et al (2024) "The Effects of Satisfaction with Different Domains of Life on GenInspiring Tech Leaders - The Technology PodcastInterviews with Tech Leaders and insights on the latest emerging technology trends.Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the showCausal Bandits PodcastCausal AI || Causal Machine Learning || Causal Inference & DiscoveryWeb: https://causalbanditspodcast.comConnect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aleksandermolak/Join Causal Python Weekly: https://causalpython.io The Causal Book: https://amzn.to/3QhsRz4

We discuss the recent retraction of a paper that reported the effects of rigour-enhancing practices on replicability. We also cover James' new estimate that 1 out of 7 scientific papers are fake. Links * The story (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02907-3) about data integrity concerns in 130 women's health papers * James' new preprint (https://osf.io/23zcr) with the estimate that 1 out of 7 scientific papers are fake * The retracted paper in Nature Human Behavior (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01749-9) by Protzko and coworkers * The Matters Arising article (https://rdcu.be/dVXN8) from Bak-Coleman and Devezer, who initially raised concerns about the paper from Protzko and coworkers. * The Everything Hertz merch store (https://everything-hertz-podcast.creator-spring.com) * The paper (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0165551507086261) about puns/jokes in paper titles * The "Everything Hertz" paper (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2014.00177/full) from James * Dan's only paper (https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(15)00528-4/abstract) with a pun in the title Other links Everything Hertz on social media - Dan on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Citation Quintana, D. S., & Heathers, J. (2024, Oct 4). 185: The Retraction, Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/528SF

Internationally acclaimed poet, comedian, actor and author of “Beyond the Gender Binary” Alok Vaid-Menon critiques the LGBTQ+ movement's myopia around intersectional politics, and, thanks to This Way Out's archives, discovers that their perspective echoes their Aunt Urvashi Vaid's analysis of “Virtual Equality” in the 1990s (Part 1, interviewed by Brian DeShazor). And in NewsWrap: Thailand King Maha Vajiralongkorn's royal assent officially redefines marriage as a legal union of two individuals, the Duma gives initial approval to a ban on the adoption of Russian children to countries that allow gender-affirming healthcare and marriage equality, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sues the federal government to avoid training prospective foster families to support a child's potential LGBTQ+ identity, free expression advocate PEN America finds that the number of books banned in U.S. public schools tripled during the 2023-2024 academic year, the FBI's annual Crime in the Nation report reveals that one-in-five of the exploding number of hate crimes in the U.S. were motivated by anti-queer animus, a study in the journal Nature Human Behavior based on The Trevor Project's new peer-reviewed research proves the link between anti-transgender legislation and youth suicides, and more international LGBTQ news reported by David Hunt and Michael LeBeau (produced by Brian DeShazor).  All this on the September 30, 2024 edition of This Way Out! Join our family of listener-donors today at http://thiswayout.org/donate/ NOTE TO RADIO STATIONS: Beginning October 1, 2024, the weekly program uploaded to SoundCloud will include a pitch for This Way Out/Overnight Productions (Inc.). Stations can download a pitch-free version from radio4all.net or Pacifica's AudioPort.Org. For more information, contact Brian@ThisWayOut.org.

Plus AI Outperforms Humans (subscribe in the links below) Get a free 20-page AI explainer: AI FROM ZERO plus these stories and more, delivered to your inbox, every weekday. Subscribe to our newsletter at https://aidaily.us  Like this? Get AIDAILY, delivered to your inbox, every weekday. Subscribe to our newsletter at https://aidaily.us OpenAI in Talks with Scarlett Johansson Over AI Voice Similarity OpenAI is in discussions with Scarlett Johansson's team after pulling a ChatGPT voice, "Sky," that resembled her voice from the film Her. The company did not intend to mimic Johansson and is taking feedback seriously. OpenAI emphasizes customization to make user interactions feel natural and comfortable. AI Learns to Draw Inspiration, Not Copy Researchers at The University of Texas at Austin have developed Ambient Diffusion, a framework to train AI models using corrupted images to avoid replicating original works. The technique maintains high-quality image generation while reducing memorization of source data. This method, beneficial for scientific and medical applications, addresses ethical concerns in AI image creation. AI Models Outperform Humans in Mental State Tests New research in Nature Human Behavior shows AI models, like OpenAI's GPT-4 and Meta's Llama, match or surpass humans in tests for understanding mental states, known as “theory of mind.” While these models excel in tasks involving irony and indirect requests, they don't truly grasp human emotions. Experts caution against overestimating AI's human-like abilities. New AI Algorithm Enhances Autoimmune Disease Prediction and Treatment A new AI algorithm developed by Penn State researchers improves predictions and therapies for autoimmune diseases by analyzing genetic data more accurately. Named EXPRESSO, it identifies genes linked to autoimmune conditions, such as lupus and Crohn's disease, and suggests potential treatments. This advancement offers hope for earlier interventions and better therapies. Windows AI Feature Raises Privacy Concerns Microsoft's new AI-powered "Recall" feature for Windows 11 records users' activities by taking snapshots of the screen every few seconds, storing them locally and encrypted. While designed to help users retrieve past activities, it raises privacy concerns. Users can manage or delete captured content, but the feature requires specific hardware and ample storage. AI Boosts Creativity and Productivity in Marketing AI is transforming industries, with 75% of marketing teams considering it essential. Canva's AI tools enhance creativity and efficiency, allowing employees to generate on-brand assets quickly. AI aids in design, writing, and brainstorming, freeing up creative teams for strategic work. However, data privacy and security concerns remain. As AI adoption grows, companies must build guardrails around its use. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/aidaily/message

Trauma transgeneracyjna… kit, czy coś, co faktycznie waży na naszym funkcjonowaniu? Nie znam się na biologicznych mechanizmach na tyle, aby być tu głosem eksperckim. Zatem zamiast głosić magiczne treści, zapraszam do rozmowy wybitnego specjalistę w tej dziedzinie, lekarza i naukowca, autora publikacji w takich czasopismach jak Nature czy Science, przed Wami rozmowa z dr Ali Jawaid.Ten odcinek nie powstałby bez wsparcia Patronów i Patronek.Podcast realizowany jest w języku angielskim, ale tłumaczenie rozmowy znajdziecie na moim blogu www.joannagutral.pl (jeśli nie już, to będzie lada moment!)  – bierzcie i ślijcie w świat, bo wierzę, że rozumienie jest ważne w życiu bardzo. Zapraszam do wysłuchania rozmowy.Fot. moje @opowiedziane_swiatlemGość:Dr Ali Jawaid -  lekarz i naukowiec o wykształceniu zarówno klinicznym, jak i neurologicznym. Ukończył studia medyczne na Uniwersytecie Aga Khan w Karachi, w Pakistanie, a następnie odbył staż w zakresie neuropsychiatrii na Baylor College of Medicine w Houston, TX, USA. Następnie ukończył studia doktoranckie (MD-PhD) w dziedzinie neurologii w Szwajcarii. Obecnie dr Ali Jawaid jest kierownikiem Pracowni Badań Translacyjnych w Chorobach Neuropsychiatrycznych (TREND Lab) w Instytucie Nenckiego w Warszawie. Dr Jawaid pracował intensywnie w dziedzinach traumy dzieciństwa, pamięci, zaburzeń neurodegeneracyjnych, neuroepigenetyki i dziedziczenia epigenetycznego. Jest autorem ponad 75 publikacji w znaczących czasopismach naukowych, takich jak Nature, Science, Nature Neuroscience, Nature Human Behavior, Neuron, Nature Communications, Trends in Genetics, EMBO Journal i Molecular Neurodegeneration (h-index=29). Obecnie jest stypendystą FENS-Kavli Network of Excellence, platformy 30 najwybitniejszych neurologów w Europie w ciągu 15 lat od uzyskania doktoratu. Poza pracą naukową jest autorem fikcji, poetą i entuzjastą wirtualnej rzeczywistości.Montaż: Eugeniusz Karlov

Hillary Anger Elfenbein has been a business school professor at the Olin School of Washington University in St. Louis since 2008.  She holds a Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior, a Master's degree in Statistics, and undergraduate degrees in Physics and Sanskrit, all from Harvard University.Dr. Elfenbein served for five years on faculty at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, two years as a Senior Researcher at the Harvard Business School, and two years as a management consultant with the Monitor Group in Cambridge, MA.Her research focuses on emotion in the workplace, with particular emphasis on emotional intelligence, emotion in negotiations, and the cultural differences in emotion that can create challenges to working in global environments.Her work has appeared in the Academy of Management Annals, the Academy of Management Journal, the Annual Review of Psychology, the Journal of Applied Psychology, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Nature Human Behavior, Organization Science, Psychological Bulletin, and Psychological Science.  She served as an Associate Editor of Management Science.Support the show

What role does morality play in communication? How are moral messages cognitively processed, how are they represented in the neural realm, and in what way do they motivate behavior? For our first episode of 'The Ivory Tower', we will be speaking to Dr. Frederic Hopp. Frederic is Assistant Professor at the University of Amsterdam's School of Communication Research.During this episode we discuss an article that was recently published in the journal Nature Human Behavior. We break down its method and theoretical foundation, explore avenues for future research, and Frederic tells us a bit about his formation as an academic. The link to the paper: 'Moral foundations elicit shared and dissociable cortical activation modulated by political ideology'. More about Frederic: https://fhopp.github.ioMore about us: Our Website Our Instagram Our Twitter Our Linkedin 

How do we really get happier? In a new review in the journal Nature Human Behavior, researchers Elizabeth Dunn and Dunigan Folk found that many common strategies for increasing our happiness may not be supported by strong evidence. In today's Short Wave episode, Dunn tells co-host Aaron Scott about changes in the way scientists are conducting research, and how these changes led her team to re-examine previous work in the field of psychology. Want to hear Dunn read the paper? Check it out here. Questions? Email us at shortwave@npr.org.

Transcript with LinksEric Topol (00:00):This is Eric Topol, and I'm so excited to have the chance to speak to Melanie Mitchell. Melanie is the Davis Professor of Complexity at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico. And I look to her as one of the real, not just leaders, but one with balance and thoughtfulness in the high velocity AI world of large language models that we live in. And just by way of introduction, the way I got to first meet Professor Mitchell was through her book, Artificial Intelligence, A Guide for Thinking Humans. And it sure got me thinking back about four years ago. So welcome, Melanie.Melanie Mitchell (00:41):Thanks Eric. It's great to be here.The Lead Up to ChatGPT via Transformer ModelsEric Topol (00:43):Yeah. There's so much to talk about and you've been right in the middle of many of these things, so that's what makes it especially fun. I thought we'd start off a little bit of history, because when we both were writing books about AI back in 2019 publishing the world kind of changed since . And in November when ChatGPT got out there, it signaled there was this big thing called transformer model. And I don't think many people really know the difference between a transformer model, which had been around for a while, but maybe hadn't come to the surface versus what were just the deep neural networks that ushered in deep learning that you had so systematically addressed in your book.Melanie Mitchell (01:29):Right. Yeah. Transformers are, were kind of a new thing. I can't remember exactly when they came out, maybe 2018, something like that, right from Google. They were an architecture that showed that you didn't really need to have a recurrent neural network in order to deal with language. So that was one of the earlier things, you know, and Google translate and other language processing systems, people were using recurrent neural networks, networks that sort of had feedback from one time step to the next. But now we have the transformers, which instead use what they call an attention mechanism where the entire text that the system is dealing with is available all at once. And the name of the paper, in fact was Attention is All You need. And that by attention is all you need they meant this particular attention mechanism in the neural network, and that was really a revolution and enabled this new era of large language models.Eric Topol (02:34):Yeah. And as you aptly pointed out, that was in, that was five years ago. And then it took like, oh, five years for it to become in the public domain of Chat GPT. So what was going on in the background?Melanie Mitchell (02:49):Well, you know, the idea of language models (LLMs) that is neural network language models that learn by trying to predict the next word in a, in a text had been around for a long time. You know, we now have GPT-4, which is what's underlying at least some of ChatGPT, but there was GPT-1 and GPT-2, you probably remember that. And all of this was going on over those many years. And I think that those of us in the field have seen more of a progression with the increase in abilities of these increasingly large, large language models. that has really been an evolution. But I think the general public didn't have access to them and ChatGPT was the first one that like, was generally available, and that's why it sort of seemed to appear out of nothing.SPARKS OF ARTIFICIAL GENERAL INTELLIGENCESentience vs IntelligenceEric Topol (03:50):Alright. So it was kind of the, the inside world of the computer science kinda saw a more natural progression, but people were not knowing that LLMs were on the move. They  were kinda stunned that, oh, look at these conversations I can have and how, how humanoid it seemed. Yeah. And you'll recall there was a fairly well-publicized event where a Google employee back I think last fall was, put on suspension, ultimately left Google because he felt that the AI was sentient. Maybe you'd want to comment that because that's kind of a precursor to some of the other things we're going to discuss,Melanie Mitchell (04:35):Right? So yeah, so one of the engineers who was working with their version of ChatGPT, which I think at the time was called LaMDA was having conversations with it and came to the conclusion that it was sentient, whatever that means, , you know, that, that it was aware that it had feelings that it experienced emotions and all of that. He was so worried about this and he wanted, you know, I think he made it public by releasing some transcripts of his conversations with it. And I don't think he was allowed to do that under his Google contract, and that was the issue.  tThat made a lot of news and Google pushed back and said, no, no, of course it's not sentient. and then there was a lot of debate in the philosophy sphere of what sentient actually means, how you would know if something is sentient. And it Yeah. and it's kind of gone from there.Eric Topol (05:43):Yeah. And then what was interesting is then in March based upon GPT-4 the Microsoft Research Group published this sparks paper where they said, it seems like it has some artificial general intelligence, AGI qualities, kind of making the same claim to some extent. Right?Melanie Mitchell (06:05):Well, that's a good question. I mean, you know, intelligence is one thing, sentience is another. There's a question of whether, you know, how they're related, right? Or if they're related at all, you know, and what they all actually mean. And these terms, this is one of the problems. Of course, these terms are not well-defined, but most, I think most people in AI would say that intelligence and sentience are different. You know something can be intelligent or act intelligently without having any sort of awareness or sense of self or, you know, feelings or whatever sentience might mean. So I think that the sparks of AGI paper from Microsoft was more about this, that saying that they thought GPT-4 four, the system they were experimenting with, showed some kind of generality in its ability to deal with different kinds of tasks. You know, and this, this contrasts with the old, older fashioned ai, which typically was narrow only, could do one task, you know, could play chess, could play Go, could do speech recognition, or could, you know, generate translations. But it, they couldn't do all of those things. And now we have these language models, which seemed to have some degree of generality.The Persistent Gap Between Humans and LLMsEric Topol (07:33):Now that gets us perfectly to an important Nature feature last week which was called the “Easy Intelligence Test that AI chatbots fail.” And it made reference to an important study you did. First, I guess the term ARC --Abstract and Reasoning Corpus, I guess that was introduced a few years back by Francois Chollet. And then you did a ConceptARC test. So maybe you can tell us about this, because that seemed to have a pretty substantial gap between humans and GPT-4.Melanie Mitchell (08:16):Right? So, so, so Francois Chollet is a researcher at Google who put together this set of sort of intelligence test like puzzles visual reasoning puzzles that tested for abstraction abilities or analogy abilities. And he put it out there as a challenge. A whole bunch of people participated in a competition to get AI programs to solve the problems, and none of them were very successful. And so what, what our group did was we thought that, that the original challenge was fantastic, but the prob one of the problems was it was too hard, it was even hard for people. And also it didn't really systematically explore concepts, whether a, a system understood a particular concept. So, as an example, think about, you know, the concept of two things being the same, or two things being different. Okay?(09:25):So I can show you two things and say, are these the same or are they different? Well, it turns out that's actually a very subtle question. 'cause when we, you know, when we say the same we, we can mean sort of the, the same the same size, the same shape, the same color, this, you know, and there's all kinds of attributes in which things can be the same. And so what our system did was it took concepts like same versus different. And it tried to create lots of different challenges, puzzles that had that required understanding of that concept. So these are very basic spatial and semantic concepts that were similar to the ones that Solei had proposed, but much more systematic. 'cause you know, this is one of the big issues in evaluating AI systems is that people evaluate them on particular problems.(10:24):For example, you know, I think a lot of people know that ChatGPT was able to answer many questions from the bar exam. But if you take like a single question from the bar exam and think about what concept it's testing, it may be that ChatGPT could answer that particular question, but it can't answer variations that has the same concept. So we tried to take inside of this arc domain abstraction and reasoning corpus domain, look at particular concepts and say, systematically can the system understand different variations of the same concept? And then we tested this, these problems on humans. We tested them on the programs that were designed to solve the ARC challenges, and we tested them on G P T four, and we found that humans way outperformed all the machines. But there's a caveat, though, is that these are visual puzzles, and we're giving them to GPT-4, which is a language model, a text, right? Right. System. Now, GPT four has been trained on images, but we're not using the system that can deal with images. 'cause that hasn't been released yet. So we're giving the system our problems in a text-based format rather than like, like giving it to humans who actually can see the pictures. So this, this can make a difference. I would say our, our our, our results are, are preliminary .Eric Topol (11:57):Well, what do you think will happen when you can use in inputs with images? Do you think that it will equilibrate there'll be parity, or there still will be a gap in that particular measure of intelligence?Melanie Mitchell (12:11):I would predict there, there will still be a big gap. Mm-hmm. , but, you know, I guess we'll seeThe Biggest Question: Stochastic Parrot or LLM Real Advance in Machine Intelligence?Eric Topol (12:17):Well, that, that's what we want to get into more. We want to drill down on the biggest question of large language models. and that is, are they really you know, what is their level of intelligence? Is it something that is beyond the so-called stochastic parrot or the statistical ability to adjudicate language and words? So there was a paper this week in Nature Human Behavior, not a journal that normally publishes these kind of papers. And as you know it was by Taylor Webb and colleagues at U C L A. And it was basically saying for analogic reasoning ,making analogs, which would be more of a language task,  I guess, but also some image capabilities that it could do as well or better than humans. And these were college students. So , just to qualify, they're, they're not, maybe not, they're not fully representative of the species, but they're at least some learned folks. So what did, what did you think of that study?Melanie Mitchell (13:20):Yeah, I found it really fascinating. and, and kind of provocative. And, you know, it, it kind of goes along with a, a many, there's been many studies that have, have been applying tests that were kind of designed for humans, psychological tests to large language models. And this one was applying sort of analogy tests that, that psychologists have done on humans to, to, to large language models. But there's always kind of an issue of interpreting the results because we know these large language models most likely do not think like we do. Hmm. And so one question is like, how are they performing these analogies? How are they making these analogies? So this brings up some issues with evaluation. When we try to evaluate large language models using tests that were designed for humans. One question is, were these tests at all actually in the training data of a large language model? Like, had they, you know, these language models are trained on enormous amounts of text that humans have produced. And some of the tests that that paper was using were things that had been published in the psychology literature.(14:41):So one question is, you know, to what extent were those in this training data? It's hard to tell because we don't know what the training data exactly is. So that's one question. Another question is are these systems actually using analog reasoning the way that we humans use it? Or are they using some other way of solving the problems? Hmm. And that's also hard to tell. 'cause these systems are black boxes, but it might actually matter because it might affect how well they're able to generalize. You know, if I can make an analogy usually you would assume that I could actually use that analogy to understand some new, you know, some new situation by an analogy to some old situation. But it's not totally clear that these systems are able to do that in any general way. And so, you know, I tdo hink these results, like these analogy results, are really provocative and interesting.(15:48):But they will require a lot of further study to really make sense of what they mean, like to when you give, when, when the, the, you know, ChatGPT passes a bar exam, you might ask, well, and let's say it's, you know, it does better than most humans, can you say, well, can it now be a lawyer? Can it go out and replace human lawyers? I mean, a human who passed the bar exam can do that. But I don't know if you can make the same assumption for a language model, because it's the way that it's doing, answering the questions in a way that its reasoning might be quite different and not imply the same kinds of more general abilities.Eric Topol (16:32):Yeah. That's really vital. And something else that you just brought up in multiple dimensions is the problem of transparency. So we don't even know the, the specs, the actual training, you know, so many of the components that led to the model. and so you, by not knowing this we're kind of stuck to try to interpret it. And I, I guess if you could comment about transparency seems to be a really big issue, and then how are we going to ever understand when there's certain aspects or components of intelligence where, you know, there does appear to be something that's surprising, something that you wouldn't have anticipated, and how could that be? Or on the other hand, you know, why is it failing? so what is, is transparency the key to this? Or is there something more to be unraveled?Melanie Mitchell (17:29):I think transparency is, is a big part of it. Transparency, meaning, you know, knowing what data, the system was trained on, what the architecture of the system is. you know, what other aspects that go into designing the system. Those are important for us to understand, like how, how these systems are actually work and to assess them. There are some methods that people are using to try and kind of tease out the extent to which these systems have actually developed sort of the kind of intelligence that people have. So, so one, there was a paper that came out also last week, I think from a group at MIT where they looked at several tasks that were given that GPT-4 did very well on that seemed like certain computer programming, code generation, mathematics some other tasks.(18:42):And they said, well, if a human was able to generate these kinds of things to do these kinds of tasks, some small change in the task probably shouldn't matter. The human would still be able to do it. So as an example in programming, you know, generating code, so there's this notion that like an array is indexed from zero. The first number is, is indexed as zero, the second number is indexed as one, and so on. So but some programming languages start at one instead of zero. So what if you just said, now change to starting at one? Probably a human programmer could adapt to that very quickly, but they found that GPT-4 was not able to adapt very well.Melanie Mitchell (19:33):So the question was, is it using, being able to write the program by sort of picking things that it has already seen in its training data much more? Or is it able to, or is it actually developing some kind of human-like, understanding of the program? And they were finding that to some extent it was more the former than the latter.Eric Topol (19:57):So when you process all this you lean more towards because of the pre-training and the stochastic parrot side, or do you think there is this enhanced human understanding that we're seeing a level of machine intelligence, not broad intelligence, but at least some parts of what we would consider intelligence that we've never seen before? Where do you find yourself?Melanie Mitchell (20:23):Yeah, I think I'm, I'm, I'm sort of in the center ,Eric Topol (20:27):Okay. That's good.Melanie Mitchell (20:28):Everybody has to describe themselves as a centrist, right. I don't think these systems are, you know, stochastic parrots. They're, they're not just sort of parroting the data that they, they've been trained on, although they do that sometimes, you know, but I do think there is some reasoning ability there. Mm-hmm. , there is some, you know, what you might call intelligence. You know, it's, it's, but the, the question is how do you characterize it and, and how do you, I for the most important thing is, you know, how do you decide that it, that these systems have a general enough understanding to trust them,Eric Topol (21:15):Right? Right. You know,Melanie Mitchell (21:18):You know, in your field, in, in medicine, I think that's a super important question. They can, maybe they can outperform radiologists on some kind of diagnostic task, but the question is, you know, is that because they understand the data like radiologists do or even better, and will therefore in the future be much more trustworthy? Or are they doing something completely different? That means that they're going to make some very unhuman like mistakes. Yeah. And I think we just don't know.End of the Turing TestEric Topol (21:50):Well, that's, that's an important admission, if you will. That is, we don't know. And as you're, again I think really zooming in on, on for medical applications some of them, of course, are not so critical for accuracy because you, for example, if you have a, a conversation in a clinic and that's made into a note and all the other downstream tasks, you still can go right to the transcript and see exactly if there was a potential miscue. But if you're talking about making a diagnosis in a complex patient that can be, if, if you, if we see hallucination, confabulation or whatever your favorite word is to characterize the false outputs, that's a big issue. But I, I actually really love your Professor of Complexity title because if there's anything complex this, this would fulfill it. And also, would you say it's time to stop talking about the Turing tests that retire? It? It's, it's over with the Turing test because it's so much more complex than that .Melanie Mitchell (22:55):Yeah. I mean, one problem with the Turing test is there never was a Turing test. Turing never really gave the details of how this, this test should work. Right? And so we've had Turing tests with chatbots, you know, since the two thousands where people have been fooled. It's not that hard to fool people into thinking that they're talking to a human. So I, I do think that the Turing test is not adequate for the, the question of like, are these things thinking? Are they robustly intelligent?Eric Topol (23:33):Yeah. One of my favorite stories you told in your book was about Hans Clever and the you know, basically faking out the potent that, that there was this machine intelligence with that. And yeah, I, I think this, this is so apropo a term that is used a lot that a lot of people I don't think fully understand is zero shot or one shot, or can you just help explain that to the non-computer science community?Melanie Mitchell (24:01):Yeah. So, so in the context of large language models, what that means is so I could, so do I give you zero, zero shot means I just ask you a question and expect you to answer it. One shot means I give you an example of a question and an answer, and now I ask you a new question that you, you should answer. But you already had an example, you know, two shot is you give two examples. So it's just a ma matter of like, how many examples am I going to give you in order for you to get the idea of what I'm asking?Eric Topol (24:41):Well, and in a sense, if you were pre-trained unknowingly, it might not be zero shot. That is, if, if the, if the model was pre-trained with all the stuff that was really loaded into that first question or prompt, it might not really qualify as a zero shot in a way. Right?Melanie Mitchell (24:59):Yeah. Right. If it's already seen that, if it's learned, I think we're getting, it's seen that in its training data.The Great LLM (Doomsday?) Debate: An Existential ThreatEric Topol (25:06):Right. Exactly. Now, another topic that is related to all this is that you participated in what I would say is a historic debate. you and Yann LeCun, who I would not have necessarily put together . I don't know that Yan is a centrist. I would say he's more, you know, on one end of the spectrum versus Max Tegmark and Yoshua BengioEric Topol (25:37):Youshua Bengio, who was one of the three notables for a Turing award with Geoffrey Hinton So you were in this debate. I think called a Musk debate.Melanie Mitchell (25:52):Monk debate. Monk.Eric Topol (25:54):Monk. I was gonna say not right. Monk debate. Yeah. the Monk Debates, which is a classic debate series out of, I think, University of TorontoMelanie Mitchell (26:03):That's rightEric Topol (26:03):And it was debating, you know, is it all over ? Is AI gonna, and obviously there's been a lot of this in recent weeks, months since ChatGPT surfaced. So can you kind of give us, I, I tried to access that debate, but since I'm not a member or subscriber, I couldn't watch it, and I'd love to actually but can you give us the skinny of what was discussed and your position there?Melanie Mitchell (26:29):Yeah. So, so actually you can't, you can access it on YouTube.Eric Topol (26:32):Oh, good. Okay. Good. I'll put the link in for this. Okay, great.Melanie Mitchell (26:37):Yeah. so, so the, the resolution was, you know, is AI an existential threat? Okay. By an existential, meaning human extinction. So pretty dramatic, right? and there's been, this debate actually has been going on for a long time, you know, since, since the beginning of the talks about this, the “singularity”, right? and there's many people in the sort of AI world who fear that AI, once it becomes quote unquote smarter than people will be we'll lose control of it.(27:33):We'll, we'll give it some task like, you know, solve, solve the problem of carbon emissions, and it will then misinterpret or mis sort of not, not care about the consequences. it will just sort of maniacally try and achieve that goal, and in, in the process of that, for accidentally kill us all. So that's one of the scenarios. There's many different scenarios for this, you know and the, you know, debate. The debate was, it was very a debate is kind of an artificial, weird structured discussion where you have rebuttals and try, you know. But I think the debate really was about sort of should we right now be focusing our attention on what's called existential risk, that is that, you know, some future AI is going to become smarter than humans and then somehow destroy us, or should we be more focused on more immediate risks, the ones that we have right now like AI creating disinformation, fooling people and into thinking it's a human, magnifying biases in society, all the risks that people, you know, are experiencing immediately, right. You know, or will be very soon. and that the debate was more about sort of what should be the focusEric Topol (29:12):Hmm.Melanie Mitchell (29:13):And whether we can focus on very shorter, shorter immediate risks also, and also focus on very long-term speculative risks, and sort of what is the likelihood of those speculative risks and how would we, you know, even estimate that. So that was kind of the topic of the debate. SoEric Topol (29:35):Did, did you all wind up agreeing then thatMelanie Mitchell (29:38):? No. Were youEric Topol (29:38):Scared or, or where, where did it land?Melanie Mitchell (29:41):Well, I don't know. Interestingly what they do is they take a vote at the beginning of the audience. Mm-hmm. And they say like, you know, how many people agree with, with the resolution, and 67 percent of people agreed that AI was an existential threat. So it was two thirds, and then at the end, they also take a vote and say like, how many, what percent of minds were changed? And that's the side that wins. But ironically, the, the voting mechanism broke at the end, . So technology, you know, for the win ,Eric Topol (30:18):Because it wasn't a post-debate vote?Melanie Mitchell (30:21):But they did do an email survey. Oh. Oh. Which is I think not very, you know,Eric Topol (30:26):No, not very good. No, you can't compare that. No.Melanie Mitchell (30:28):Yeah. So I, you know, technically our side won. Okay. But I don't take it as a win, actually. ,Are Your Afraid? Are You Scared?Eric Topol (30:38):Well, I guess another way to put it. Are you, are you afraid? Are you scared?Melanie Mitchell (30:44):So I, I'm not scared of like super intelligent AI getting out of control and destroying humanity, right? I think there's a lot of reasons why that's extremely unlikely.Eric Topol (31:00):Right.Melanie Mitchell (31:01):But I am, I do fear a lot of things about ai, you know, some of the things I mentioned yes, I think are real threats, you know, real dire threats to democracy.Eric Topol (31:15):Absolutely.Melanie Mitchell (31:15):That to our information ecosystem, how much we can trust the information that we have. And also just, you know, to people losing jobs to ai, I've already seen that happening, right. And the sort of disruption to our whole economic system. So I am worried about those things.What About Open-Source LLMs, Like Meta's Llama2?Eric Topol (31:37):Yeah. No, I think the inability to determine whether something's true or fake in so many different spheres is putting us in a lot of jeopardy, highly vulnerable, but perhaps not the broad existential threat of the species. Yeah. But serious stuff for sure. Now another thing that's just been of interest of late is the willingness for at least one of these companies Meta to put out their model as an open Llama2. Two I guess to, to make it open for everyone so that they can do whatever specialized fine tuning and whatnot. Is that a good thing? Is that, is that a, is that a game changer for the field? Because obviously the computer resources, which we understand, for example, GPUs [graphic processing units] used-- over 25,000 for GPT-4, not many groups or entities have that many GPUs on hand to do the base models. But is having an open model, like Meta's available is that good? Or is that potentially going to be a problem?Melanie Mitchell (32:55):Yeah, I think probably I would say yes to both .Eric Topol (32:59):Okay. Okay.Melanie Mitchell (33:01):No, 'cause it is a mixed bag. I, I think ultimately, you know, we talked about transparency and open source models are transparent. I mean, I, I don't know if, I don't think they actually have released information on the data they use to train it, right? Right. So that, it lacks that transparency. But at least, you know, if you are doing research and trying to understand how this model works, you have access to a lot of the model. You know, it would be nice to know more about the data it was trained on, but so there's a lot of, there's a lot of big positives there. and it also means that the data that you then use to continue training it or fine tuning it, is not then being given to a big company. Like, you're not doing it through some closed API, like you do for open AI(33:58):On the other hand, these, as we just saw, talked about, these models can be used for a lot of negative things like, you know, spreading disinformation and so on. Right. And giving, sort of making them generally available and tuneable by anyone presents that risk. Yeah. So I think there's, you know, there's an analogy I think, you know, with like genetics for example, you know, or disease research where I think there was a, the scientists had sequenced the genome of the smallpox virus, right? And there was like a big debate over should they publish that. Because it could be used to like create a new smallpox, right? But on the other hand, it also could be used to, to, to develop better vaccines and better treatments and so on. And so I think there, there are, you know, any technology like that, there's always the sort of balance between transparency and making it open and keeping it closed. And then the question is, who gets to control it?The Next Phase of LLMs and the Plateau of Human-Derived Input ContentEric Topol (35:11):Yeah. Who gets to control it? And to understand the potential for nefarious use cases. yeah. The worst case scenario. Sure. Well, you know, I look to you Melanie, as a leading light because you are so balanced and, you know, you don't, the interest thing about you is what I have the highest level of respect, and that's why I like to read anything you write or where you're making comments about other people's work. Are you going write another book?Melanie Mitchell (35:44):Yeah, I'm thinking about it now. I mean, I think kind of a follow up to my book, which as you mentioned, like your book, it was before large language models came on the scene and before transformers and all of that stuff. And I think that there really is a need for some non-technical explanation of all of this. But of course, you know, every time you write a book about AI, it becomes obsolete by the time it's published.Eric Topol (36:11):That that's I worry about, you know? And that was actually going be my last question to you, which is, you know, where are we headed? Like, whatever, GPT-5 and on and it's going, it's the velocity's so high. it, where can you get a steady state to write about and try to, you know, pull it all together? Or, or are we just going be in some crazed zone here for some time where the things are moving too fast to try to be able to get your arms around it?Melanie Mitchell (36:43):Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I, I think there's a question of like-- can AI keep moving so fast? You know, we've obviously it's moved extremely fast in the last few years and, but the way that it's moved fast is by having huge amounts of training data and scaling up these models. But the problem now is it's almost like the field is run out of training data generated by people. And if people start using language models all the time for generating text, the internet is going be full of generated text, right? Right. HumanEric Topol (37:24):WrittenMelanie Mitchell (37:24):Text. And it's been shown that if these models keep, are sort of trained on the text that they generate themselves, they start behaving very poorly. So that's a question. It's like, where's the new data going to come from?Eric Topol (37:39):, and there's lots of upsettedness among people whose data are being used.Melanie Mitchell (37:44):Oh, sure.Eric Topol (37:45): understandably. And as you get to is there a limit of, you know, there's only so many Wikipedias and Internets and hundreds of thousands of books and whatnot to put in that are of human source content. So do we reach a, a plateau of human derived inputs? That's really fascinating question. I perhaps things will not continue at such a crazed pace so we can I mean, the way you put together A Guide for Thinking Humans was so prototypic because it, it was so thoughtful and it brought along those of us who were not trained in computer science to really understand where the state of the field was and where deep neural networks were. We need another one of those. And you're no one, I nominate you to help us to give us the, the, the right perspective. So Melanie, Professor Mitchell, I'm so grateful to you, all of us who follow your work remain indebted for keeping it straight. You know, you don't get ever get carried away. and we learn from that, all of us. It's really important. 'cause this, you know, there's so many people on one end of the spectrum here, whether it's doomsday or whether this is just stochastic parrot or open source and whatnot. It's really good to have you as a reference anchor to help us along.Melanie Mitchell (39:13):Well, thanks so much, Eric. That's really kind of you. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

The divide between the two ends of the political spectrum in the United States is deeper than ever, and both sides seem poised to exploit that in the 2024 electionPolitical science researchers at UC Berkeley think that this polarity can end, and experts at Stanford agree, because they recognized a new Berkeley study as the best way to strengthen democracy and reduce polarization. The key may be getting voters on the two sides to understand each other better, and not fall for the divisive rhetoric and authoritarian messaging of candidates like former President Trump. For more on this, Doug Sovern, Patti Reising and Brett Burkhart spoke with Alia Braley, a PhD candidate in political science at UC Berkeley who holds a Masters in Divinity from Harvard and specializes in the study of democratic resilience in cases of political polarization. She is the co-author of this new study, which was published today in the journal Nature Human Behavior.   

Rachel chats with Moshe Hoffman, a Lecturer and Independent Scholar at Harvard's Department of Economics. Moshe uses game theory to explore the evolutionary bases of human behavior, from altruistic donations to our taste in music. His recent book, co-authored with Dr. Erez Yoeli, is “Hidden Games: The Surprising power of Game Theory to Explain Irrational Human Behavior.” In this episode, Rachel and Moshe discuss how incentives shape empathy, how saying "I love you" enables social coordination, and why we appreciate the music of rapper MF Doom.If you found this episode interesting at all, subscribe on our Substack and consider leaving us a good rating! It just takes a second but will allow us to reach more people and make them excited about psychology.Links:"Hidden Games: The Surprising power of Game Theory to Explain Irrational Human Behavior" "An Evolutionary Explanation for Ineffective Altruism" Bethany Burum, Martin Nowak, Moshe Hoffman (Appendix), Nature Human Behavior (2020)Twitter: @Moshe_HoffmanWebsite: https://sites.google.com/site/hoffmanmoshe/ Podcast Twitter @StanfordPsyPodPodcast Substack https://stanfordpsypod.substack.com/Let us know what you thought of this episode, or of the podcast! :) stanfordpsychpodcast@gmail.com

Welcome back to Environmental Professionals Radio, Connecting the Environmental Professionals Community Through Conversation, with your hosts Laura Thorne and Nic Frederick! On today's episode, we talk with Daron Duke, Principal Investigator archaeologist at Far Western Anthropological Research Group about Archeology, Ancient Footprints, and Working Collaboratively.  Read his full bio below.Help us continue to create great content! If you'd like to sponsor a future episode hit the support podcast button or visit www.environmentalprofessionalsradio.com/sponsor-formShowtimes: 3:44  Nic & Laura discuss their flawless sense of direction9:25   Interview with Daron Duke starts13:52   Archeology23:31   Ancient Footprints35:14   Working collaborativelyPlease be sure to ✔️subscribe, ⭐rate and ✍review. This podcast is produced by the National Association of Environmental Professions (NAEP). Check out all the NAEP has to offer at NAEP.org.Connect with Daron Duke at https://www.linkedin.com/in/daronduke/Guest Full Bio:Dr. Daron Duke is a Principal Investigator archaeologist at Far Western Anthropological Research Group, a California-based Cultural Resources Management (CRM) consulting firm. He serves as the company's Chief Operating Officer and the Director of its Desert Branch office in Henderson, Nevada. With 25 years of experience in the Desert West, His expertise spans a wide range of industry sectors and archaeological techniques. He works closely with Native American tribes on both archaeological and ethnographic projects. Dr. Duke is an active researcher, and clients benefit from his scientific expertise when faced with evolving standards in cultural resource evaluation. He actively disseminates scientific findings, including publications in American Antiquity, Journal of Archaeological Science, PaleoAmerica, and Nature Human Behavior.Music CreditsIntro: Givin Me Eyes by Grace MesaOutro: Never Ending Soul Groove by Mattijs MullerSupport the show

歡迎留言告訴我們你對這一集的想法： https://open.firstory.me/user/cl81kivnk00dn01wffhwxdg2s/comments 每日英語跟讀 Ep.K526: 疫情讓學生損失三分之一學年 Third of School Year Lost, Study of Pandemic Finds Children experienced learning deficits during the COVID pandemic that amounted to about one-third of a school year's worth of knowledge and skills, according to a new global analysis, and had not recovered from those losses more than two years later. 一項新的全球研究指出，新冠疫情期間，學童經歷學習損失，相當於大約三分之一學年的知識與技能，且兩年多後的現在，仍無法彌補這些損失。 Learning delays and regressions were most severe in developing countries and among students from low-income backgrounds, researchers said, worsening existing disparities and threatening to follow children into higher education and the workforce. 研究人員指，來自發展中國家與低收入家庭學生，面臨最嚴重學習落後與損失問題，導致現存社會不平等加劇，且恐持續影響這些學生至高等教育甚至職場階段。 The analysis, published in the journal Nature Human Behavior and drawing on data from 15 countries, provided the most comprehensive account to date of the academic hardships wrought by the pandemic. The findings suggest that the challenges of remote learning — coupled with other stressors that plagued children and families throughout the pandemic — were not rectified when school doors reopened. 這項分析研究刊登於「自然人類行為」科學期刊，依據15個國家的資料，為疫情造成的學習困境提供至今最全面的報告。研究顯示，遠距學習的挑戰，加上疫情期間孩子與家庭蒙受的其他壓力，導致的學習損失在校門重開之後也無法彌補。 “In order to recover what was lost, we have to be doing more than just getting back to normal,” said Bastian Betthäuser, a researcher at the Center for Research on Social Inequalities at Sciences Po in Paris, who was a co-author on the review. He urged officials worldwide to provide intensive summer programs and tutoring initiatives that target poorer students who fell furthest behind. 研究主要作者之一、法國「巴黎政治學院」社會不平等研究中心研究員貝特豪瑟說：「若要彌補損失，我們需做得比回歸正常更多。」他籲各國針對學習落後狀況最嚴重的貧窮學生提供暑期密集課程，制定輔導計畫。 In the United States, one study showed that the average public elementary or middle school student lost the equivalent of a half-year of learning in math, and 6% of students were in districts that lost more than a full year. Standardized math test scores in 2022, when compared with those in 2019, showed the largest drop ever recorded in the three decades since the exam was first administered. 在美國，一項研究顯示，一般的公立小學或中學學生在數學領域損失了約半年的學習量，而6%學生所處的學區讓他們損失超過一整年的學習量。學生在2022年的數學普考成績大幅低於2019年的成績，是該考試舉辦30年來的最大退步幅度。 The findings challenge the perceptions of many parents, almost half of whom said in 2022 surveys that they did not believe their children had suffered any achievement loss during the pandemic, and only 9% of whom expressed concern about whether their children would catch up. 這項發現顛覆了許多家長的認知，根據2022年民調，近半數受訪家長不認為孩子的學習因疫情受到損失，只有9%的家長擔心他們的小孩是否能趕上。 A separate review of test scores from 2.1 million students in the United States highlighted the impacts of economic disparity. Students at schools in communities with high poverty levels spent more of the 2020-21 school year learning remotely than those at schools in wealthier communities did, and students in poorer schools experienced steeper declines in performance when they were remote. 另一份研究針對210萬名美國學生的考試成績分析，發現了貧富不均造成的影響。2020至2021學年，在較高貧窮率社區的學校，學生比較富裕社區的學校接受了更長時間遠端授課，且較窮學校學生的學業表現在遠端授課期間也出現了更顯著的退步。Source article: https://udn.com/news/story/6904/6964365 Powered by Firstory Hosting

Una de las víctimas silenciosas de la pandemia de Covid-19 son los niños… Por distintas razones… Muchos enfermaron gravemente… Otros más perdieron a alguno de sus padres… O a los dos… En muchos casos, los ingresos de sus familias cayeron… Pero uno de los aspectos olvidados es el rezago en la educación que provocó… Según un estudio publicado por la revista “Nature Human Behavior” las infancias experimentaron déficits de aprendizaje durante la pandemia que equivalieron a un tercio de año escolar… Es decir, los niños en edad escolar perdieron el conocimiento y las habilidades equivalentes al 35 por ciento de un año escolar… Un 95 por ciento de los estudiantes del planeta se vieron afectados por cierres, confinamientos, cuarentenas o programas improvisados de formación híbrida o semipresencial… El daño es aún mayor entre las familias desfavorecidas y los países más pobres… Estas pérdidas no se han recuperado, más de dos años después… Para hablar de este importante tema, platicamos con MARCO FERNÁNDEZ, PROFESOR-INVESTIGADOR DE LA ESCUELA DE GOBIERNO DEL TEC DE MONTERREY E INVESTIGADOR ASOCIADO DE MÉXICO EVALÚA

Una de las víctimas silenciosas de la pandemia de Covid-19 son los niños… Por distintas razones… Muchos enfermaron gravemente… Otros más perdieron a alguno de sus padres… O a los dos… En muchos casos, los ingresos de sus familias cayeron… Pero uno de los aspectos olvidados es el rezago en la educación que provocó… Según un estudio publicado por la revista “Nature Human Behavior” las infancias experimentaron déficits de aprendizaje durante la pandemia que equivalieron a un tercio de año escolar… Es decir, los niños en edad escolar perdieron el conocimiento y las habilidades equivalentes al 35 por ciento de un año escolar… Un 95 por ciento de los estudiantes del planeta se vieron afectados por cierres, confinamientos, cuarentenas o programas improvisados de formación híbrida o semipresencial… El daño es aún mayor entre las familias desfavorecidas y los países más pobres… Estas pérdidas no se han recuperado, más de dos años después… Para hablar de este importante tema, platicamos con MARCO FERNÁNDEZ, PROFESOR-INVESTIGADOR DE LA ESCUELA DE GOBIERNO DEL TEC DE MONTERREY E INVESTIGADOR ASOCIADO DE MÉXICO EVALÚA

①China says it is taking a historical step toward achieving national reunification, after the Communist Party of China enshrined the rejection of the so-called Taiwan independence into its constitution. Is the Chinese mainland closer than ever to realizing the reunification with Taiwan? (00:55) ②China's top economic planning agency has issued 15 measures to facilitate the implementation of foreign-invested projects. (12:16) ③Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has used an address to parliament to erase concerns about her support for the EU. What has prompted her to do so? (24:34) ④A study published in Nature Human Behavior finds the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered an unprecedented rise in death globally, leading to falls in life expectancy. (32:57) ⑤In a dramatic U-turn, US congressional Democrats withdraw a letter urging Biden to talk with Putin. What does this tell us about the influence of partisan politics on Washington's support for Ukraine? (41:54)

Science is supposed to be objective, an undeniable source for truth not subject to fads or fashion. The phrases “scientists say” or “the science is settled” is supposed to inspire hushed awe and open ears. Scientists are supposed to serve as arbiters of truth, at least on questions within their fields of expertise, able to settle disputes and sort fact from fiction. Many progressives, especially, employ the phrase “the science says” to silence disagreement about everything from climate policy to gender ideology. “The science,” at least in certain circles, is an authority appealed to in order to end debate and dismiss critics of favored policies. Increasingly, the theory that science is a neutral arbiter or source of truth looks shaky, especially when scientific publications openly announce their commitment to ideology over evidence. Bell Curve author Charles Murray recently tweeted an editorial published by the peer-reviewed journal, Nature Human Behaviour. Murray (who is no stranger to what happens to those who publish politically incorrect findings) highlighted a section in which the editors announced they will be censoring scientific results that do not conform to a favored political narrative. Specifically, the editors reserved the right to amend, refuse, or retract “[c]ontent that is premised upon the assumption of inherent biological, social, or cultural superiority or inferiority of one human group over another based on race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, [or] (dis)ability …” They also reserved the right to censor content that “undermines — or could be reasonably perceived to undermine — the rights and dignities of an individual or human group on the basis of” any of these categories, as well as to refuse submissions that are “exclusionary of a diversity of voices …” It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how language this sweeping could be used. For instance, studies that find children do best in homes with their biological mother and father could be “reasonably perceived” by the editors of Nature Human Behaviour to suggest the “inherent inferiority” of same-sex parents. Research that finds female athletes are disadvantaged when competing against biological men could “undermine the rights and dignities” of transgender opponents. A study that finds little girls do better in societies that don't practice female genital mutilation could be censored for its “assumption of inherent … cultural superiority.” As Murray tweeted, “It is hard to exaggerate the scientific insanity this represents.” Even psychologist and science author Steven Pinker, no friend of Christians or religious conservatives, slammed the journal, tweeting: “Nature Human Behavior [sic] is no longer a peer-reviewed scientific journal but an enforcer of a political creed … how do we know articles have been vetted for truth rather than political correctness?” It's a good question, and one more people should be asking. Increasingly, the scientific enterprise itself is looking shaky, not only because of political correctness but because the practices on which science depends — peer review and replication — are breaking down. Consider an analysis published in the journal Science last year in which behavioral economists at the University of California found that the least reliable studies are the ones other scientists cite the most. This team analyzed over 20,000 papers in some of the top psychology, economy, and science journals, and found that “studies that failed to replicate since their publication were on average 153 times more likely to be cited” than studies that did — mostly because their findings were more “interesting.” And this problem was found to be worst in leading journals Nature and Science. The takeaway here is not that science is bad. On the contrary, science is a gift of God, made possible in how He made the world and His image bearers. Science has made the world immeasurably richer, and the world arguably owes a debt for these riches to Christian assumptions and pioneers. However, scientists and science editors are human and just as vulnerable to bad ideas and dangerous ideologies as other humans. Reform can happen within a field of knowledge. Thus, science can regain its authority as a source of truth and public good, rather than propaganda. Christians in the sciences have an especially important role to play, as voices protesting ideologically loaded conclusions and as examples of integrity and objectivity. Until that reform happens, anything announced with “the science says,” especially on intensely politically charged issues, should be greeted with suspicion. As Pinker said, we have a right to know whether their claims “have been vetted for truth rather than political correctness.”

In this 139th in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), we discuss the state of the world through an evolutionary lens. This week, we discuss whether reality is going to be tolerated—by internet randos, by magazines supposedly devoted to disseminating scientific findings to an interested public, and by actual scientific journals. A new editorial in Nature Human Behavior is breath-taking in its rejection of the scientific process and values, and, therefore, of reality. Then: what anti-scientific buffoonery is behind not allowing unvaccinated-against-Covid Novak Dvokovic, argued by some to be the best tennis player ever, to compete in the U.S. Open? And: what is the New York Times up to? ***** Support the sponsors of the show: Wisdom Health: Get your health back by working with functional medicine practitioners. Join today and get $100 off your first appointment at wisdomhealth.co/DARKHORSE MUDWTR: is a coffee alternative with mushrooms and herbs (and cacao!) and is delicious, with 1/7 the caffeine as coffee. Visit www.mudwtr.com/darkhorse and use DARKHORSE at check out for 15% off.  LMNT: Electrolyte drink mix with all the good salts, and none of the bad stuff. Free sample pack of all 8 flavors with any purchase at DrinkLMNT.com/DARKHORSE. ***** Our book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, is available everywhere books are sold, and signed copies are available here: https://darvillsbookstore.indielite.org Check out our store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://darkhorsestore.org Heather's newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.com Find more from us on Bret's website (https://bretweinstein.net) or Heather's website (http://heatherheying.com). Become a member of the DarkHorse LiveStreams, and get access to an additional Q&A livestream every month. Join at Heather's Patreon. Like this content? Subscribe to the channel, like this video, follow us on twitter (@BretWeinstein, @HeatherEHeying), and consider helping us out by contributing to either of our Patreons or Bret's Paypal. Looking for clips from #DarkHorseLivestreams? Check out our other channel:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAWCKUrmvK5F_ynBY_CMlIA Theme Music: Thank you to Martin Molin of Wintergatan for providing us the rights to use their excellent music. ***** Q&A Link: https://youtu.be/08XQm4phScs Mentioned in this episode: On reality not being tolerated by internet randos: https://twitter.com/queersing/status/1560472435991883777 On reality not being tolerated by Scientific American: https://twitter.com/HeatherEHeying/status/1563018397562327040 On reality not being tolerated by scientific journals: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2.pdf On Fraud: https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/onfraud?r=83qgf&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web Djokovic can't play in the U.S. Open: https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/34457783/unvaccinated-novak-djokovic-withdraws-us-open-travel-united-states The New York Times confuses journalism with politics: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/us/politics/trump-affidavit-intelligence-spies.htmlSupport the show

How do scientists and inventors decide what kinds of projects are interesting and valuable? Likely their individual life experiences influence these judgments, and one place we can see this is in the different research choices of men and women.This podcast is an audio readthrough of the (initial version of the) article Gender and What Gets Researched, published on New Things Under the Sun.Articles Mentioned:West, Jevin D., Jennifer Jacquet, Molly M. King, Shelley J. Correll, and Carl T. Bergstrom. 2013. The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066212Koning, Rembrand, Sampsa Samila, and John-Paul Ferguson. 2021. Who do we invent for? Patents by women focus more on women's health, but few women get to invent. Science 372 (6548). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba6990Einiö, Elias, Josh Feng, and Xavier Jarvel. 2019. Social Push and the Direction of Innovation. SSRN Working Paper. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3383703Nielsen, Mathias Wullum, Jens Peter Andersen, Londa Schiebinger, and Jesper W. Schneider. 2017. One and a half million medical papers reveal a link between author gender and attention to gender and sex analysis. Nature Human Behavior 1: 791-796. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0235-xTruffa, Francesca, and Ashley Wong. 2021. Undergraduate Gender Diversity and Direction of Scientific Research. PhD Job Market Paper.Holman, Luke, Devi Stuart-Fox, and Cindy E. Hauser. 2018. The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLOS Biology https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956

2020 年疫情初始，被迫宅在家里的硅谷技术宅们兴致勃勃地打造了从办公室到咖啡厅全都囊括的虚拟硅谷「 Stay At Home Valley 」，程序员们也有了与工作搭档进行线上互动的舞台。《 Nature Human Behavior 》2021 年 9 月也发布了一篇针对远程工作与人员效率之间关系的研究文章，指出社交活动的缺乏导致员工关系不紧密，将会打击人的工作热情并降低工作效率，而填补工作社交空白的虚拟办公室正是在此背景下应运而生，获得了硅谷投资人的密切关注。 虚拟办公平台 Gather 在今年 11 月 4 日宣布获得由红衫及 Index Ventures 领投的 5000 万美元 B 轮融资，而 Gather 的主要竞争对手 Teamflow 也在今年 7 月完成了由 Coatue 领投的 3500 万美元的 B 轮融资。虚拟办公室将如何帮助人们在远程工作的同时获得真实的社交体验？这种技术又将在工作之外的哪些场景里继续延伸？ 本期节目，我们邀请到了由腾讯联合创始人曾李清所创立的天使投资机构-德迅投资的北美负责人 Keyan ，一起探讨投资人为什么关注虚拟办公领域，备受瞩目的玩家都有谁，未来哪种商业模式将胜出，该模式背后的技术又将发展至何处，相关领域的创业者还有哪些细分赛道可以探索。 #加入我们# 声动活泼正在招聘「内容研究员」、「业务拓展和合作管理总监/经理」、「声音设计师」、「播客制作实习生」、「内容营销负责人」及「节目制作人」，查看详细讯息请在公号「声动活泼」回复暗号：入场券 。简历接收邮箱

Are you guilty of performative allyship? Today's guest, Dr. Maxine Davis, a scholar, activist, and author, breaks down the pitfalls of performative allyship and how even well-meaning professionals can perpetuate oppression and social harms in the workplace. In early 2021, Dr. Davis authored an article in Nature Human Behavior, Anti-black practices take heavy toll on mental health. We chat about Dr. Davis's own experiences with anti-black practices in the workplace and recommendations for a more inclusive workplace. Find links and show notes at https://breakconcrete.com/bc046. Topics Covered: Defining cultural appropriation and how it shows up in the workplace How cultural appropriation causes harm Distinguishing cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation Defining performative allyship and how it shows up at work Tips for moving beyond performative allyship How professionals in helping professions can perpetuate oppression and social harms Finding a mental health therapist/social worker  How to hold organizations accountable to move beyond performative allyship Dr. Davis's experience with anti-black practices in academia Why it's difficult for some to talk about race and interrogate their practices How institutions can address anti-Black practices Follow us on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/breakconcrete/ Twitter https://twitter.com/BreakConcrete/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/breakconcrete/ E-mail feedback to breakconcrete@gmail.com. If you like this episode, please leave a review and rating.

Novo estudo da Microsoft analisa o trabalho remoto e a formação de silos e falta de colaboração entre equipes, estudo foi publicado pela Nature Human Behavior.A economia das assinaturas chegou também para os Fast Foods, e a Farma, nada?Olay empresa de skin care quer combater o viés racial, uma maneira de entregar muito mais do que produto ou tratamento. E para finalizar estudos mostram como podemos utilizar das informações e postagens das redes sociais para ser mais Patient Centricity.Acesse o Site Aqui ouhttp://bit.ly/TomouEP82

James proposes that peer review reports should be published as their own citable objects, provided that the manuscript author thinks that the peer review report is of sufficient quality and the peer reviewers agree Other links and things we discuss * An update on James' start up job * The American service industry * Dan's first outing since the pandemic started * The villlage of Hell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Norway), in Norway * The villiage of Fucking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugging,_Upper_Austria) (now changed to Fugging) in Austria * The Hertz long term archive (https://osf.io/zj7y3/) on Open Science Framework * We're up for doing a syllabus episodes that you can assign to your classes * Dan's recent piece (https://rdcu.be/cx3H0) in Nature Human Behavior on replication projects for undergraduate research theses * What about a replication study as part of a PhD thesis? * The trope of, “future replications are needed' * Collaborative Replications and Education Project (CREP (https://osf.io/wfc6u/)) * Daniel Lakens mentioning (https://twitter.com/lakens/status/1435696324708642816?s=20) that his paper might be the most cited Frontiers article ever * How thorough should peer review be? * James' new articles isn't online yet, but he will pin it to his Twitter profile as soon as it is * The Julian Koenig-led paper (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/psyp.13688) James mentioned (that Dan and James are co-authors on) * The Psychophysiology liviing meta-analysis (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/psyp.13933) article Other links Everything Hertz on social media - Dan on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 per month: A 20% discount on Everything Hertz merchandise, a monthly newsletter, access to the occasional bonus episode, and the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 per month or more: All the stuff you get in the one dollar tier PLUS a bonus episode every month Music credits Our outro music is by Lee Rosevere (https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/) Episode citation Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2021, September 20) "140: You can't buy cat biscuits with ‘thank you' emails", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/BW65N

We talk with Emma Pierson, PhD in Computer Science from Stanford and incoming assistant professor of Computer Science at Cornell Tech, about her paper "Daily, weekly, seasonal and menstrual cycles in women's mood, behaviour and vital signs" published in Nature Human Behavior, 2021. This was joint work with fellow computer scientists (Tim Althoff and Jure Leskovec), head of data science at a partner company (Daniel Thomas), and professor of obstetrics and gynecology (Paula Hillard). Emma shared with us strategies for normalizing research on women's health and the menstrual cycle and creating trust with industry partners. She emphasized that math is a universal language that can transcend the boundaries of individuals' personal experiences. Paper link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01046-9

In this episode of The Purple Principle, we wonder, what's behind those red and blue maps of American political and social geography and our deepening urban-rural divide?  To find out, we consult not one but two political scientists named Ryan who have extensively researched the social geography of polarization in the U.S. – Ryan Enos of Harvard University (author of The Space Between Us) and Ryan Strickler of Colorado State ( co-author of Demography, Politics and Partisan Polarization in the US from 1828 to 2016).  We start with Dr. Enos by asking what led him to study the politics of place and what factors contribute most to the deepening divisions among those blue and red map areas. The conversation quickly turns to social psychology, as Enos emphasizes the importance of neighbors and neighborhoods in shaping our political views.  Ryan Strickler of Colorado State also notes the dangers of our polarizing trends. He notes how much attention is devoted to the siloing effects of social media, while the siloing of physical spaces, such as our neighborhoods, is underappreciated. Is there hope for bridging this chasm? The Purple Principle throws out the possibility of mandatory empathy zones and summer picnics with grape popsicles. But it's likely that Dr. Enos' recommendation for changes to housing policy may be more substantive.  Tune into Season 2, Episode 3, “What's Behind Those Red and Blue Maps?” for these other salient insights into the social and political polarization on our maps, across our cities, counties, and right down into our neighborhoods.  Original Music by Ryan Adair Rooney. For show notes, transcripts, and to sign up for our newsletter, The Purple Principle in Print, please visit our website: fluentknowledge.com/shows/the-purple-principle/the-geography-of-polarization Show Notes Ryan D. Enos Ryan Enos (2017). The Space Between Us: Social Geography and Politics. Cambridge University Press.  Brown, J.R., Enos, R.D. The measurement of partisan sorting for 180 million voters. Nature Human Behavior (2021). Emily Badger, Kevin Quealy, Josh Katz (3/17/21). “A Close-Up Picture of Partisan Segregation, Among 180 Million Voters.” The New York Times.  Ryan Strickler  David Darmofal & Ryan Strickler (2019). Demography, Politics, and Partisan Polarization in the United States, 1828–2016. Thomas Pettigrew & Linda Tropp (2008). “Allport's Intergroup Contact Hypothesis: Its History and Influence.”  Mark DiCamillo (2020). “The profound changes that have occurred in the California electorate over the past thirty years.” UC Berkeley Institute of Government Studies. Israel Shenker (12/28/72). “2 Critics Here Focus on Films As Language Conference Opens.” The New York Times. Laura J. Nelson, Joe Mozingo (2/14/19). “Bullet train went from peak California innovation to the project from hell.” Los Angeles Times. 

Do we really know what implicit bias is, and whether we have it? This is the second episode on our two-part series on implicit bias; the first part was an https://yourparentingmojo.com/captivate-podcast/implicitbias/ (interview with Dr. Mahzarin Banaji), former Dean of the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, and co-creator of the Implicit Association Test. But the body of research on this topic is large and quite complicated, and I couldn't possibly do it justice in one episode. There are a number of criticisms of the test which are worth examining, so we can get a better sense for whether implicit bias is really something we should be spending our time thinking about - or if our problems with explicit bias are big enough that we would do better to focus there first. [accordion] [accordion-item title="Click here to read the full transcript"] References: Banaji, M.R., & Greenwald, A.G. (2002). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. New York: Delacorte. Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2008). Unconscious racism: A concept in pursuit of a measure? Annual Review of Sociology 34, 277-297. Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., Strauts, E., Mitchell, G., & Tetlock, P.E. (2015). Toward a meaningful metric of implicit prejudice. Journal of Applied Psychology 100(5), 1468-1481. Brown, E.L., Vesely, C.K., & Dallman, L. (2016). Unpacking biases: Developing cultural humility in early childhood and elementary teacher candidates. Teacher Educators’ Journal 9, 75-96. Cao, J., Kleiman-Weiner, M., & Banaji, M.R. (2017). Statistically inaccurate and morally unfair judgements via base rate intrusion. Nature Human Behavior 1(1), 738-742. Carlsson, R. & Agerstrom, J. (2016). A closer look at the discrimination outcomes on the IAT Literature. Scandanavian Journal of Psychology 57, 278-287. Charlesworth, T.E.S., Kurdi, B., & Banaji, M.R. (2019). Children’s implicit attitude acquisition: Evaluative statements succeed, repeated pairings fail. Developmental Science 23(3), e12911. Charlesworth, T.E.S., Hudson, S.T.J., Cogsdill, E.J., Spelke, E.S., & Banaji, M.R. (2019). Children use targets’ facial appearance to guide and predict social behavior. Developmental Psychology 55(7), 1400. Charlesworth, T.E.S., & Banaji, M. (2019). Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: I. Long-term change and stability from 2007-2016. Psychological Science 30(2), 174-192. Chugh, D. (2004). Societal and managerial implications of implicit social cognition: Why milliseconds matter. Social Justice Research 17(2), 203-222. Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., Maddox, C. D., Nosek, B. A., Rudman, L. A., Devos, T. Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., Steffens, M. C., Lane, K., Horcajo, J., Ashburn-Nardo, L., Quinby, A., Srivastava, S. B., Schmidt, K., Aidman, E., Tang, E., Farnham, S., Mellott, D. S., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (in press). Meta-analytic use of Balanced Identity Theory to validate the Implicit Association Test. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Forscher, P.S., Lai, C.K., Axt, J.R., Ebersole, C.R., Herman, M., Devine, P.G., & Nosek, B.A. (2019). A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2017). Beyond persons and situations: An interactionist approach to understanding implicit bias. Psychological Inquiry 28(4), 268-272. Goode, E. (1998). A computer diagnosis of prejudice. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/13/health/a-computer-diagnosis-of-prejudice.html Greenwald, A.G., & Lai, C.K. (2020). Implicit social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 71, 419-445. Greenwald, A.G., & Lai, C.K. (2020). Implicit social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 71, 419-445. Greenwald, A.G., Banaji, M.R., & Nosek, B.A. (2015). Statistically small effects of the Implicit Association Test can have societally large effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108, 553-561. Greenwald, A.G., Poehlman,...

Ep55-T2 Aprendiendo a Ser Felices. En este episodio comparto 03 noticias de Bienestar Emocional y Psicología. 1. Aprendiendo a ser felices. Según algunos neurocientíficos, parece que es muy fácil ser feliz. 2. ¿Cuánto dinero se necesita para ser feliz? Un estudio de la Universidad de Purdue publicada en la revista Nature Human Behavior trata de ello. 3. Herramientas de impacto positivo en la salud emocional de los empleados. IG: @micalmainteriorpodcast

En la primera parte del programa, comentaremos algunos de los titulares de la semana. Hablaremos de la condena a prisión de Alexei Navalny, adversario de Putin, por una supuesta violación de la libertad condicional, entre protestas en todo el país. Después comentaremos el golpe de Estado militar ocurrido en Myanmar el 1 de febrero. Continuaremos discutiendo un nuevo estudio, publicado el 28 de enero en la revista científica Nature Human Behavior, que indica que la competición por ser el primero en publicar descubrimientos podría afectar a la investigación científica. También hablaremos de un pueblo francés que hereda una fortuna de un hombre austríaco al que protegió de los nazis durante la guerra. En la segunda parte del programa, “Trending in Spain”, hablaremos de dos temas controvertidos, ambos relacionados con el arte. En la primera noticia comentaremos el acuerdo al que ha llegado el gobierno español con una coleccionista de arte para exponer parte de su colección en un museo de la capital española. En la segunda noticia hablaremos de arte urbano y la movilización que están haciendo los vecinos de un distrito madrileño para conservar un mural que el actual ayuntamiento ahora quiere borrar. - Alexey Navalny, adversario de Putin, enviado a prisión por violar la libertad condicional entre multitudinarias protestas - El golpe de Estado militar en Myanmar pone en peligro el proceso democrático - ¿Cómo afecta a la investigación científica el premiar de manera prioritaria los descubrimientos? - Un pueblo francés hereda una fortuna de un judío austríaco al que protegió de los nazis - Acuerdo para que el Mata Mua de Gauguin vuelva a España - Polémica por un mural feminista en Madrid

Marko Sarstedt is a chaired professor of marketing at the Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg (Germany) and an adjunct professor at Monash University Malaysia. His main research interest is the advancement of research methods to further the understanding of consumer behavior. His research has been published in Nature Human Behavior, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Organizational Research Methods, MIS Quarterly etc

Ashley Whillans Bio: I received my PhD in Social Psychology from the University of British Columbia in November 2017 and started working as an Assistant Professor at the Harvard Business School in July 2017. During my PhD, I was a member of UBC's Public Scholar Initiative and was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. My PhD Dissertation won the CAGS Distinguished Thesis Award for being the best dissertation across the fine arts, social sciences, and humanities in Canada in 2017. In 2015 and 2018, I was named a Rising Star of Behavioral Science by the International Behavioral Exchange & Behavioral Science and Policy Association. In 2016, I co-founded the Department of Behavioral Science in the Policy, Innovation, and Engagement Division of the British Columbia Public Service Agency. I am part of the , and advise on the well-being strategy of numerous non-profit and for-profit partners. I am a member of the  at Harvard Business School, a member of the  at Harvard Chan School of Public Health, and a member of Harvard Kennedy School of Public Policy's . I am also a  at Harvard University, where my ongoing research examines the welfare benefits of alleviating time poverty among working poor women living in developing markets. ​​More broadly, my research focuses on understanding how the daily and long-term decisions people make about time and money (in their personal lives, relationships, and at work) impact well-being. My research has been published in numerous academic outlets, including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Social Psychological and Personality Science, Health Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, Nature Human Behavior, Science Advances, and Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

NUGGET CONTEXT Ashley speaks about the notion of Time Poverty and how it is structural and psychological. She goes on to say that while have more time for leisure now than in 1950s, we still “feel” time poor. She speaks about the role of technology in exacerbating this further. GUEST Dr. Ashley Whillans is an Assistant Professor in the Negotiation, Organizations & Markets Unit, teaching Negotiations and Motivation and Incentives courses to MBA students and Executives. Her first book "Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life" was published in October 2020 by Harvard Business Publishing. In both 2015 and 2018, she was named a Rising Star of Behavioral Science by the Behavioral Science and Policy Association. In 2016, she co-founded the Department of Behavioral Science in the Policy, Innovation, and Engagement Division of the British Columbia Public Service Agency. Her research has been published in top academic journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Nature Human Behavior, and Science Advances and popular media outlets including Harvard Business Review, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.  Professor Whillans earned her BA, MA, and PhD in Social Psychology from the University of British Columbia. Prior to joining HBS, she was a visiting scholar and guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Her dissertation research on time and happiness won the 2017 CAGS Distinguished Dissertation Award for being the single best PhD thesis in Canada across the fine arts, humanities, and social sciences. Published in Dec 2020. HOST Deepak is a Leadership Advisor and an Executive Coach. He works with leaders to improve their effectiveness and in helping them make better decisions specifically around organizational and career transitions. He currently runs Transition Insight (www.transitioninsight.com) and works with leaders to handle phases of transition thoughtfully. He has worked as an Operations Consultant with KPMG in UK, Strategy Consultant with McKinsey in the US and as a Leadership Consultant with EgonZehnder (a Swiss Leadership Advisory firm) where he helped companies recruit CEOs, CXOs and Board Members and worked on Leadership Development. Deepak is a certified CEO Coach and is an alumnus of IIT Madras, IIM Ahmedabad and London Business School. His detailed profile can be found at https://in.linkedin.com/in/djayaraman OTHER GUESTS 1.Vijay Amritraj 2.Amish Tripathi 3.Raghu Raman 4.Papa CJ 5.Kartik Hosanagar 6.Ravi Venkatesan 7.Abhijit Bhaduri 8.Viren Rasquinha 9.Prakash Iyer 10.Avnish Bajaj 11.Nandan Nilekani 12.Atul Kasbekar 13.Karthik Reddy 14.Pramath Sinha 15.Vedika Bhandarkar 16.Vinita Bali 17.Zia Mody 18.Rama Bijapurkar 19.Dheeraj Pandey 20.Anu Madgavkar 21.Vishy Anand 22. Meher Pudumjee 23.KV Shridhar (Pops) 24.Suresh Naraynan 25.Devdutt Pattanaik 26.Jay Panda 27.Amit Chandra 28.Chandramouli Venkatesan 29.Roopa Kudva 30.Vinay Sitapati 31.Neera Nundy. 32.Deepa Malik 33.Bombay Jayashri. 34.Arun Maira 35.Ambi Parameswaran 36.OP Bhaat 37.Indranil Chakraborty 38.Tarun Khanna 39. Ramachandra Guha 40. Stewart Friedman 41. Rich Fernandez 42. Falguni Nayar 43. Rajat Gupta 44. Kartik Hosanagar 45. Michael Watkins 46. Matt Dixon 47. Herminia Ibarra 48. Paddy Upton 49. Tasha Eurich 50. Alan Eagle 51. Sudhir Sitapati 52. James Clear 53. Lynda Gratton 54. Jennifer Petriglieri. 55. Matthew Walker 56. Raj Raghunathan 57. Jennifer Garvey Berger 58. BJ Fogg 59. R Gopolakrishnan 60. Sir Andrew Likierman. 61. Atul Khatri 62. Whitney Jonson 63. Venkat Krishnan 64. Marshall Goldsmith 65. Ashish Dhawan 66. Vinay Sitapati DISCLAIMER All content and opinions expressed in the podcast are that of the guests and are not necessarily the opinions of Deepak Jayaraman and Transition Insight Private Limited. Views expressed in comments to blog are the personal opinions of the author of the comment. They do not necessarily reflect the views of The Company or the author of the blog. Participants are responsible for the content of their comments and all comments that are posted are in the public domain. The Company reserves the right to monitor, edit, and/or publish any submitted comments. Not all comments may be published. Any third-party comments published are third party information and The Company takes no responsibility and disclaims all liability. The Company reserves the right, but is not obligated to monitor and delete any comments or postings at any time without notice.

NUGGET CONTEXT Ashley speaks about research that suggests that above USD 60,000 money does not necessarily buy more happiness. She goes on to say that above USD 100,000, people might start to feel worse off because they start comparing themselves with a different economic stratum. She speaks about how the pursuit of wealth for the sake of it being a happiness trap. GUEST Dr. Ashley Whillans is an Assistant Professor in the Negotiation, Organizations & Markets Unit, teaching Negotiations and Motivation and Incentives courses to MBA students and Executives. Her first book "Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life" was published in October 2020 by Harvard Business Publishing. In both 2015 and 2018, she was named a Rising Star of Behavioral Science by the Behavioral Science and Policy Association. In 2016, she co-founded the Department of Behavioral Science in the Policy, Innovation, and Engagement Division of the British Columbia Public Service Agency. Her research has been published in top academic journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Nature Human Behavior, and Science Advances and popular media outlets including Harvard Business Review, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.  Professor Whillans earned her BA, MA, and PhD in Social Psychology from the University of British Columbia. Prior to joining HBS, she was a visiting scholar and guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Her dissertation research on time and happiness won the 2017 CAGS Distinguished Dissertation Award for being the single best PhD thesis in Canada across the fine arts, humanities, and social sciences. Published in Dec 2020. HOST Deepak is a Leadership Advisor and an Executive Coach. He works with leaders to improve their effectiveness and in helping them make better decisions specifically around organizational and career transitions. He currently runs Transition Insight (www.transitioninsight.com) and works with leaders to handle phases of transition thoughtfully. He has worked as an Operations Consultant with KPMG in UK, Strategy Consultant with McKinsey in the US and as a Leadership Consultant with EgonZehnder (a Swiss Leadership Advisory firm) where he helped companies recruit CEOs, CXOs and Board Members and worked on Leadership Development. Deepak is a certified CEO Coach and is an alumnus of IIT Madras, IIM Ahmedabad and London Business School. His detailed profile can be found at https://in.linkedin.com/in/djayaraman OTHER GUESTS 1.Vijay Amritraj 2.Amish Tripathi 3.Raghu Raman 4.Papa CJ 5.Kartik Hosanagar 6.Ravi Venkatesan 7.Abhijit Bhaduri 8.Viren Rasquinha 9.Prakash Iyer 10.Avnish Bajaj 11.Nandan Nilekani 12.Atul Kasbekar 13.Karthik Reddy 14.Pramath Sinha 15.Vedika Bhandarkar 16.Vinita Bali 17.Zia Mody 18.Rama Bijapurkar 19.Dheeraj Pandey 20.Anu Madgavkar 21.Vishy Anand 22. Meher Pudumjee 23.KV Shridhar (Pops) 24.Suresh Naraynan 25.Devdutt Pattanaik 26.Jay Panda 27.Amit Chandra 28.Chandramouli Venkatesan 29.Roopa Kudva 30.Vinay Sitapati 31.Neera Nundy. 32.Deepa Malik 33.Bombay Jayashri. 34.Arun Maira 35.Ambi Parameswaran 36.OP Bhaat 37.Indranil Chakraborty 38.Tarun Khanna 39. Ramachandra Guha 40. Stewart Friedman 41. Rich Fernandez 42. Falguni Nayar 43. Rajat Gupta 44. Kartik Hosanagar 45. Michael Watkins 46. Matt Dixon 47. Herminia Ibarra 48. Paddy Upton 49. Tasha Eurich 50. Alan Eagle 51. Sudhir Sitapati 52. James Clear 53. Lynda Gratton 54. Jennifer Petriglieri. 55. Matthew Walker 56. Raj Raghunathan 57. Jennifer Garvey Berger 58. BJ Fogg 59. R Gopolakrishnan 60. Sir Andrew Likierman. 61. Atul Khatri 62. Whitney Jonson 63. Venkat Krishnan 64. Marshall Goldsmith 65. Ashish Dhawan 66. Vinay Sitapati DISCLAIMER All content and opinions expressed in the podcast are that of the guests and are not necessarily the opinions of Deepak Jayaraman and Transition Insight Private Limited. Views expressed in comments to blog are the personal opinions of the author of the comment. They do not necessarily reflect the views of The Company or the author of the blog. Participants are responsible for the content of their comments and all comments that are posted are in the public domain. The Company reserves the right to monitor, edit, and/or publish any submitted comments. Not all comments may be published. Any third-party comments published are third party information and The Company takes no responsibility and disclaims all liability. The Company reserves the right, but is not obligated to monitor and delete any comments or postings at any time without notice.

GUEST Dr. Ashley Whillans is an Assistant Professor in the Negotiation, Organizations & Markets Unit, teaching Negotiations and Motivation and Incentives courses to MBA students and Executives. Her first book "Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life" was published in October 2020 by Harvard Business Publishing. In both 2015 and 2018, she was named a Rising Star of Behavioral Science by the Behavioral Science and Policy Association. In 2016, she co-founded the Department of Behavioral Science in the Policy, Innovation, and Engagement Division of the British Columbia Public Service Agency. Her research has been published in top academic journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Nature Human Behavior, and Science Advances and popular media outlets including Harvard Business Review, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.  Professor Whillans earned her BA, MA, and PhD in Social Psychology from the University of British Columbia. Prior to joining HBS, she was a visiting scholar and guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Her dissertation research on time and happiness won the 2017 CAGS Distinguished Dissertation Award for being the single best PhD thesis in Canada across the fine arts, humanities, and social sciences. Published in Dec 2020. HOST Deepak is a Leadership Advisor and an Executive Coach. He works with leaders to improve their effectiveness and in helping them make better decisions specifically around organizational and career transitions. He currently runs Transition Insight (www.transitioninsight.com) and works with leaders to handle phases of transition thoughtfully. He has worked as an Operations Consultant with KPMG in UK, Strategy Consultant with McKinsey in the US and as a Leadership Consultant with EgonZehnder (a Swiss Leadership Advisory firm) where he helped companies recruit CEOs, CXOs and Board Members and worked on Leadership Development. Deepak is a certified CEO Coach and is an alumnus of IIT Madras, IIM Ahmedabad and London Business School. His detailed profile can be found at https://in.linkedin.com/in/djayaraman OTHER GUESTS 1.Vijay Amritraj 2.Amish Tripathi 3.Raghu Raman 4.Papa CJ 5.Kartik Hosanagar 6.Ravi Venkatesan 7.Abhijit Bhaduri 8.Viren Rasquinha 9.Prakash Iyer 10.Avnish Bajaj 11.Nandan Nilekani 12.Atul Kasbekar 13.Karthik Reddy 14.Pramath Sinha 15.Vedika Bhandarkar 16.Vinita Bali 17.Zia Mody 18.Rama Bijapurkar 19.Dheeraj Pandey 20.Anu Madgavkar 21.Vishy Anand 22. Meher Pudumjee 23.KV Shridhar (Pops) 24.Suresh Naraynan 25.Devdutt Pattanaik 26.Jay Panda 27.Amit Chandra 28.Chandramouli Venkatesan 29.Roopa Kudva 30.Vinay Sitapati 31.Neera Nundy. 32.Deepa Malik 33.Bombay Jayashri. 34.Arun Maira 35.Ambi Parameswaran 36.OP Bhaat 37.Indranil Chakraborty 38.Tarun Khanna 39. Ramachandra Guha 40. Stewart Friedman 41. Rich Fernandez 42. Falguni Nayar 43. Rajat Gupta 44. Kartik Hosanagar 45. Michael Watkins 46. Matt Dixon 47. Herminia Ibarra 48. Paddy Upton 49. Tasha Eurich 50. Alan Eagle 51. Sudhir Sitapati 52. James Clear 53. Lynda Gratton 54. Jennifer Petriglieri. 55. Matthew Walker 56. Raj Raghunathan 57. Jennifer Garvey Berger 58. BJ Fogg 59. R Gopolakrishnan 60. Sir Andrew Likierman. 61. Atul Khatri 62. Whitney Jonson 63. Venkat Krishnan 64. Marshall Goldsmith 65. Ashish Dhawan 66. Vinay Sitapati DISCLAIMER All content and opinions expressed in the podcast are that of the guests and are not necessarily the opinions of Deepak Jayaraman and Transition Insight Private Limited. Views expressed in comments to blog are the personal opinions of the author of the comment. They do not necessarily reflect the views of The Company or the author of the blog. Participants are responsible for the content of their comments and all comments that are posted are in the public domain. The Company reserves the right to monitor, edit, and/or publish any submitted comments. Not all comments may be published. Any third-party comments published are third party information and The Company takes no responsibility and disclaims all liability. The Company reserves the right, but is not obligated to monitor and delete any comments or postings at any time without notice.

NUGGET CONTEXT Ashley speaks about how the current context around COVID has really made it that much harder for us to switch off. People are feeling more and more overwhelmed despite having more time at their disposal given commute has been taken out of the equation. GUEST Dr. Ashley Whillans is an Assistant Professor in the Negotiation, Organizations & Markets Unit, teaching Negotiations and Motivation and Incentives courses to MBA students and Executives. Her first book "Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life" was published in October 2020 by Harvard Business Publishing. In both 2015 and 2018, she was named a Rising Star of Behavioral Science by the Behavioral Science and Policy Association. In 2016, she co-founded the Department of Behavioral Science in the Policy, Innovation, and Engagement Division of the British Columbia Public Service Agency. Her research has been published in top academic journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Nature Human Behavior, and Science Advances and popular media outlets including Harvard Business Review, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.  Professor Whillans earned her BA, MA, and PhD in Social Psychology from the University of British Columbia. Prior to joining HBS, she was a visiting scholar and guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Her dissertation research on time and happiness won the 2017 CAGS Distinguished Dissertation Award for being the single best PhD thesis in Canada across the fine arts, humanities, and social sciences. Published in Dec 2020. HOST Deepak is a Leadership Advisor and an Executive Coach. He works with leaders to improve their effectiveness and in helping them make better decisions specifically around organizational and career transitions. He currently runs Transition Insight (www.transitioninsight.com) and works with leaders to handle phases of transition thoughtfully. He has worked as an Operations Consultant with KPMG in UK, Strategy Consultant with McKinsey in the US and as a Leadership Consultant with EgonZehnder (a Swiss Leadership Advisory firm) where he helped companies recruit CEOs, CXOs and Board Members and worked on Leadership Development. Deepak is a certified CEO Coach and is an alumnus of IIT Madras, IIM Ahmedabad and London Business School. His detailed profile can be found at https://in.linkedin.com/in/djayaraman OTHER GUESTS 1.Vijay Amritraj 2.Amish Tripathi 3.Raghu Raman 4.Papa CJ 5.Kartik Hosanagar 6.Ravi Venkatesan 7.Abhijit Bhaduri 8.Viren Rasquinha 9.Prakash Iyer 10.Avnish Bajaj 11.Nandan Nilekani 12.Atul Kasbekar 13.Karthik Reddy 14.Pramath Sinha 15.Vedika Bhandarkar 16.Vinita Bali 17.Zia Mody 18.Rama Bijapurkar 19.Dheeraj Pandey 20.Anu Madgavkar 21.Vishy Anand 22. Meher Pudumjee 23.KV Shridhar (Pops) 24.Suresh Naraynan 25.Devdutt Pattanaik 26.Jay Panda 27.Amit Chandra 28.Chandramouli Venkatesan 29.Roopa Kudva 30.Vinay Sitapati 31.Neera Nundy. 32.Deepa Malik 33.Bombay Jayashri. 34.Arun Maira 35.Ambi Parameswaran 36.OP Bhaat 37.Indranil Chakraborty 38.Tarun Khanna 39. Ramachandra Guha 40. Stewart Friedman 41. Rich Fernandez 42. Falguni Nayar 43. Rajat Gupta 44. Kartik Hosanagar 45. Michael Watkins 46. Matt Dixon 47. Herminia Ibarra 48. Paddy Upton 49. Tasha Eurich 50. Alan Eagle 51. Sudhir Sitapati 52. James Clear 53. Lynda Gratton 54. Jennifer Petriglieri. 55. Matthew Walker 56. Raj Raghunathan 57. Jennifer Garvey Berger 58. BJ Fogg 59. R Gopolakrishnan 60. Sir Andrew Likierman. 61. Atul Khatri 62. Whitney Jonson 63. Venkat Krishnan 64. Marshall Goldsmith 65. Ashish Dhawan 66. Vinay Sitapati DISCLAIMER All content and opinions expressed in the podcast are that of the guests and are not necessarily the opinions of Deepak Jayaraman and Transition Insight Private Limited. Views expressed in comments to blog are the personal opinions of the author of the comment. They do not necessarily reflect the views of The Company or the author of the blog. Participants are responsible for the content of their comments and all comments that are posted are in the public domain. The Company reserves the right to monitor, edit, and/or publish any submitted comments. Not all comments may be published. Any third-party comments published are third party information and The Company takes no responsibility and disclaims all liability. The Company reserves the right, but is not obligated to monitor and delete any comments or postings at any time without notice.

NUGGET CONTEXT Ashley speaks about how we should think about bringing time affluence in our lives. She speaks about the notion of time being a collective resource and therefore the need for us to engage our friends, our family members and our colleagues at our workplaces to move from cognition to behavioural change.   GUEST Dr. Ashley Whillans is an Assistant Professor in the Negotiation, Organizations & Markets Unit, teaching Negotiations and Motivation and Incentives courses to MBA students and Executives. Her first book "Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life" was published in October 2020 by Harvard Business Publishing. In both 2015 and 2018, she was named a Rising Star of Behavioral Science by the Behavioral Science and Policy Association. In 2016, she co-founded the Department of Behavioral Science in the Policy, Innovation, and Engagement Division of the British Columbia Public Service Agency. Her research has been published in top academic journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Nature Human Behavior, and Science Advances and popular media outlets including Harvard Business Review, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.  Professor Whillans earned her BA, MA, and PhD in Social Psychology from the University of British Columbia. Prior to joining HBS, she was a visiting scholar and guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Her dissertation research on time and happiness won the 2017 CAGS Distinguished Dissertation Award for being the single best PhD thesis in Canada across the fine arts, humanities, and social sciences. Published in Dec 2020. HOST Deepak is a Leadership Advisor and an Executive Coach. He works with leaders to improve their effectiveness and in helping them make better decisions specifically around organizational and career transitions. He currently runs Transition Insight (www.transitioninsight.com) and works with leaders to handle phases of transition thoughtfully. He has worked as an Operations Consultant with KPMG in UK, Strategy Consultant with McKinsey in the US and as a Leadership Consultant with EgonZehnder (a Swiss Leadership Advisory firm) where he helped companies recruit CEOs, CXOs and Board Members and worked on Leadership Development. Deepak is a certified CEO Coach and is an alumnus of IIT Madras, IIM Ahmedabad and London Business School. His detailed profile can be found at https://in.linkedin.com/in/djayaraman OTHER GUESTS 1.Vijay Amritraj 2.Amish Tripathi 3.Raghu Raman 4.Papa CJ 5.Kartik Hosanagar 6.Ravi Venkatesan 7.Abhijit Bhaduri 8.Viren Rasquinha 9.Prakash Iyer 10.Avnish Bajaj 11.Nandan Nilekani 12.Atul Kasbekar 13.Karthik Reddy 14.Pramath Sinha 15.Vedika Bhandarkar 16.Vinita Bali 17.Zia Mody 18.Rama Bijapurkar 19.Dheeraj Pandey 20.Anu Madgavkar 21.Vishy Anand 22. Meher Pudumjee 23.KV Shridhar (Pops) 24.Suresh Naraynan 25.Devdutt Pattanaik 26.Jay Panda 27.Amit Chandra 28.Chandramouli Venkatesan 29.Roopa Kudva 30.Vinay Sitapati 31.Neera Nundy. 32.Deepa Malik 33.Bombay Jayashri. 34.Arun Maira 35.Ambi Parameswaran 36.OP Bhaat 37.Indranil Chakraborty 38.Tarun Khanna 39. Ramachandra Guha 40. Stewart Friedman 41. Rich Fernandez 42. Falguni Nayar 43. Rajat Gupta 44. Kartik Hosanagar 45. Michael Watkins 46. Matt Dixon 47. Herminia Ibarra 48. Paddy Upton 49. Tasha Eurich 50. Alan Eagle 51. Sudhir Sitapati 52. James Clear 53. Lynda Gratton 54. Jennifer Petriglieri. 55. Matthew Walker 56. Raj Raghunathan 57. Jennifer Garvey Berger 58. BJ Fogg 59. R Gopolakrishnan 60. Sir Andrew Likierman. 61. Atul Khatri 62. Whitney Jonson 63. Venkat Krishnan 64. Marshall Goldsmith 65. Ashish Dhawan 66. Vinay Sitapati DISCLAIMER All content and opinions expressed in the podcast are that of the guests and are not necessarily the opinions of Deepak Jayaraman and Transition Insight Private Limited. Views expressed in comments to blog are the personal opinions of the author of the comment. They do not necessarily reflect the views of The Company or the author of the blog. Participants are responsible for the content of their comments and all comments that are posted are in the public domain. The Company reserves the right to monitor, edit, and/or publish any submitted comments. Not all comments may be published. Any third-party comments published are third party information and The Company takes no responsibility and disclaims all liability. The Company reserves the right, but is not obligated to monitor and delete any comments or postings at any time without notice.

NUGGET CONTEXT Ashley speaks about the notion of how we should outsource the task of staying productive to tools and apps that are out there and not leave it to the vagaries of our will power. She also speaks about how we should have a conversation with ourselves on why we might be reaching out to technology whenever we have a few residual moments to kill. GUEST Dr. Ashley Whillans is an Assistant Professor in the Negotiation, Organizations & Markets Unit, teaching Negotiations and Motivation and Incentives courses to MBA students and Executives. Her first book "Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life" was published in October 2020 by Harvard Business Publishing. In both 2015 and 2018, she was named a Rising Star of Behavioral Science by the Behavioral Science and Policy Association. In 2016, she co-founded the Department of Behavioral Science in the Policy, Innovation, and Engagement Division of the British Columbia Public Service Agency. Her research has been published in top academic journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Nature Human Behavior, and Science Advances and popular media outlets including Harvard Business Review, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.  Professor Whillans earned her BA, MA, and PhD in Social Psychology from the University of British Columbia. Prior to joining HBS, she was a visiting scholar and guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Her dissertation research on time and happiness won the 2017 CAGS Distinguished Dissertation Award for being the single best PhD thesis in Canada across the fine arts, humanities, and social sciences. Published in Dec 2020. HOST Deepak is a Leadership Advisor and an Executive Coach. He works with leaders to improve their effectiveness and in helping them make better decisions specifically around organizational and career transitions. He currently runs Transition Insight (www.transitioninsight.com) and works with leaders to handle phases of transition thoughtfully. He has worked as an Operations Consultant with KPMG in UK, Strategy Consultant with McKinsey in the US and as a Leadership Consultant with EgonZehnder (a Swiss Leadership Advisory firm) where he helped companies recruit CEOs, CXOs and Board Members and worked on Leadership Development. Deepak is a certified CEO Coach and is an alumnus of IIT Madras, IIM Ahmedabad and London Business School. His detailed profile can be found at https://in.linkedin.com/in/djayaraman OTHER GUESTS 1.Vijay Amritraj 2.Amish Tripathi 3.Raghu Raman 4.Papa CJ 5.Kartik Hosanagar 6.Ravi Venkatesan 7.Abhijit Bhaduri 8.Viren Rasquinha 9.Prakash Iyer 10.Avnish Bajaj 11.Nandan Nilekani 12.Atul Kasbekar 13.Karthik Reddy 14.Pramath Sinha 15.Vedika Bhandarkar 16.Vinita Bali 17.Zia Mody 18.Rama Bijapurkar 19.Dheeraj Pandey 20.Anu Madgavkar 21.Vishy Anand 22. Meher Pudumjee 23.KV Shridhar (Pops) 24.Suresh Naraynan 25.Devdutt Pattanaik 26.Jay Panda 27.Amit Chandra 28.Chandramouli Venkatesan 29.Roopa Kudva 30.Vinay Sitapati 31.Neera Nundy. 32.Deepa Malik 33.Bombay Jayashri. 34.Arun Maira 35.Ambi Parameswaran 36.OP Bhaat 37.Indranil Chakraborty 38.Tarun Khanna 39. Ramachandra Guha 40. Stewart Friedman 41. Rich Fernandez 42. Falguni Nayar 43. Rajat Gupta 44. Kartik Hosanagar 45. Michael Watkins 46. Matt Dixon 47. Herminia Ibarra 48. Paddy Upton 49. Tasha Eurich 50. Alan Eagle 51. Sudhir Sitapati 52. James Clear 53. Lynda Gratton 54. Jennifer Petriglieri. 55. Matthew Walker 56. Raj Raghunathan 57. Jennifer Garvey Berger 58. BJ Fogg 59. R Gopolakrishnan 60. Sir Andrew Likierman. 61. Atul Khatri 62. Whitney Jonson 63. Venkat Krishnan 64. Marshall Goldsmith 65. Ashish Dhawan 66. Vinay Sitapati DISCLAIMER All content and opinions expressed in the podcast are that of the guests and are not necessarily the opinions of Deepak Jayaraman and Transition Insight Private Limited. Views expressed in comments to blog are the personal opinions of the author of the comment. They do not necessarily reflect the views of The Company or the author of the blog. Participants are responsible for the content of their comments and all comments that are posted are in the public domain. The Company reserves the right to monitor, edit, and/or publish any submitted comments. Not all comments may be published. Any third-party comments published are third party information and The Company takes no responsibility and disclaims all liability. The Company reserves the right, but is not obligated to monitor and delete any comments or postings at any time without notice.

NUGGET CONTEXT Ashley discusses how our approach towards getting the “best deal” in a situation can actually accentuate time poverty. She says that we end up finessing on getting the best deal but miss out on savouring the experience (called life!). To borrow from John Lennon, she says something to the effect of “Life is what happens when you are busy trying to get the best deal” GUEST Dr. Ashley Whillans is an Assistant Professor in the Negotiation, Organizations & Markets Unit, teaching Negotiations and Motivation and Incentives courses to MBA students and Executives. Her first book "Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life" was published in October 2020 by Harvard Business Publishing. In both 2015 and 2018, she was named a Rising Star of Behavioral Science by the Behavioral Science and Policy Association. In 2016, she co-founded the Department of Behavioral Science in the Policy, Innovation, and Engagement Division of the British Columbia Public Service Agency. Her research has been published in top academic journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Nature Human Behavior, and Science Advances and popular media outlets including Harvard Business Review, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.  Professor Whillans earned her BA, MA, and PhD in Social Psychology from the University of British Columbia. Prior to joining HBS, she was a visiting scholar and guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Her dissertation research on time and happiness won the 2017 CAGS Distinguished Dissertation Award for being the single best PhD thesis in Canada across the fine arts, humanities, and social sciences. Published in Dec 2020. HOST Deepak is a Leadership Advisor and an Executive Coach. He works with leaders to improve their effectiveness and in helping them make better decisions specifically around organizational and career transitions. He currently runs Transition Insight (www.transitioninsight.com) and works with leaders to handle phases of transition thoughtfully. He has worked as an Operations Consultant with KPMG in UK, Strategy Consultant with McKinsey in the US and as a Leadership Consultant with EgonZehnder (a Swiss Leadership Advisory firm) where he helped companies recruit CEOs, CXOs and Board Members and worked on Leadership Development. Deepak is a certified CEO Coach and is an alumnus of IIT Madras, IIM Ahmedabad and London Business School. His detailed profile can be found at https://in.linkedin.com/in/djayaraman OTHER GUESTS 1.Vijay Amritraj 2.Amish Tripathi 3.Raghu Raman 4.Papa CJ 5.Kartik Hosanagar 6.Ravi Venkatesan 7.Abhijit Bhaduri 8.Viren Rasquinha 9.Prakash Iyer 10.Avnish Bajaj 11.Nandan Nilekani 12.Atul Kasbekar 13.Karthik Reddy 14.Pramath Sinha 15.Vedika Bhandarkar 16.Vinita Bali 17.Zia Mody 18.Rama Bijapurkar 19.Dheeraj Pandey 20.Anu Madgavkar 21.Vishy Anand 22. Meher Pudumjee 23.KV Shridhar (Pops) 24.Suresh Naraynan 25.Devdutt Pattanaik 26.Jay Panda 27.Amit Chandra 28.Chandramouli Venkatesan 29.Roopa Kudva 30.Vinay Sitapati 31.Neera Nundy. 32.Deepa Malik 33.Bombay Jayashri. 34.Arun Maira 35.Ambi Parameswaran 36.OP Bhaat 37.Indranil Chakraborty 38.Tarun Khanna 39. Ramachandra Guha 40. Stewart Friedman 41. Rich Fernandez 42. Falguni Nayar 43. Rajat Gupta 44. Kartik Hosanagar 45. Michael Watkins 46. Matt Dixon 47. Herminia Ibarra 48. Paddy Upton 49. Tasha Eurich 50. Alan Eagle 51. Sudhir Sitapati 52. James Clear 53. Lynda Gratton 54. Jennifer Petriglieri. 55. Matthew Walker 56. Raj Raghunathan 57. Jennifer Garvey Berger 58. BJ Fogg 59. R Gopolakrishnan 60. Sir Andrew Likierman. 61. Atul Khatri 62. Whitney Jonson 63. Venkat Krishnan 64. Marshall Goldsmith 65. Ashish Dhawan 66. Vinay Sitapati DISCLAIMER All content and opinions expressed in the podcast are that of the guests and are not necessarily the opinions of Deepak Jayaraman and Transition Insight Private Limited. Views expressed in comments to blog are the personal opinions of the author of the comment. They do not necessarily reflect the views of The Company or the author of the blog. Participants are responsible for the content of their comments and all comments that are posted are in the public domain. The Company reserves the right to monitor, edit, and/or publish any submitted comments. Not all comments may be published. Any third-party comments published are third party information and The Company takes no responsibility and disclaims all liability. The Company reserves the right, but is not obligated to monitor and delete any comments or postings at any time without notice.

NUGGET CONTEXT Ashley speaks about how having a number attached to a unit of time can sometimes lead us to optimize for money thereby leading to us solving for the short term while missing out on some of the elements required us for us to be effective and happy in the long run. GUEST Dr. Ashley Whillans is an Assistant Professor in the Negotiation, Organizations & Markets Unit, teaching Negotiations and Motivation and Incentives courses to MBA students and Executives. Her first book "Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life" was published in October 2020 by Harvard Business Publishing. In both 2015 and 2018, she was named a Rising Star of Behavioral Science by the Behavioral Science and Policy Association. In 2016, she co-founded the Department of Behavioral Science in the Policy, Innovation, and Engagement Division of the British Columbia Public Service Agency. Her research has been published in top academic journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Nature Human Behavior, and Science Advances and popular media outlets including Harvard Business Review, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.  Professor Whillans earned her BA, MA, and PhD in Social Psychology from the University of British Columbia. Prior to joining HBS, she was a visiting scholar and guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Her dissertation research on time and happiness won the 2017 CAGS Distinguished Dissertation Award for being the single best PhD thesis in Canada across the fine arts, humanities, and social sciences. Published in Dec 2020. HOST Deepak is a Leadership Advisor and an Executive Coach. He works with leaders to improve their effectiveness and in helping them make better decisions specifically around organizational and career transitions. He currently runs Transition Insight (www.transitioninsight.com) and works with leaders to handle phases of transition thoughtfully. He has worked as an Operations Consultant with KPMG in UK, Strategy Consultant with McKinsey in the US and as a Leadership Consultant with EgonZehnder (a Swiss Leadership Advisory firm) where he helped companies recruit CEOs, CXOs and Board Members and worked on Leadership Development. Deepak is a certified CEO Coach and is an alumnus of IIT Madras, IIM Ahmedabad and London Business School. His detailed profile can be found at https://in.linkedin.com/in/djayaraman OTHER GUESTS 1.Vijay Amritraj 2.Amish Tripathi 3.Raghu Raman 4.Papa CJ 5.Kartik Hosanagar 6.Ravi Venkatesan 7.Abhijit Bhaduri 8.Viren Rasquinha 9.Prakash Iyer 10.Avnish Bajaj 11.Nandan Nilekani 12.Atul Kasbekar 13.Karthik Reddy 14.Pramath Sinha 15.Vedika Bhandarkar 16.Vinita Bali 17.Zia Mody 18.Rama Bijapurkar 19.Dheeraj Pandey 20.Anu Madgavkar 21.Vishy Anand 22. Meher Pudumjee 23.KV Shridhar (Pops) 24.Suresh Naraynan 25.Devdutt Pattanaik 26.Jay Panda 27.Amit Chandra 28.Chandramouli Venkatesan 29.Roopa Kudva 30.Vinay Sitapati 31.Neera Nundy. 32.Deepa Malik 33.Bombay Jayashri. 34.Arun Maira 35.Ambi Parameswaran 36.OP Bhaat 37.Indranil Chakraborty 38.Tarun Khanna 39. Ramachandra Guha 40. Stewart Friedman 41. Rich Fernandez 42. Falguni Nayar 43. Rajat Gupta 44. Kartik Hosanagar 45. Michael Watkins 46. Matt Dixon 47. Herminia Ibarra 48. Paddy Upton 49. Tasha Eurich 50. Alan Eagle 51. Sudhir Sitapati 52. James Clear 53. Lynda Gratton 54. Jennifer Petriglieri. 55. Matthew Walker 56. Raj Raghunathan 57. Jennifer Garvey Berger 58. BJ Fogg 59. R Gopolakrishnan 60. Sir Andrew Likierman. 61. Atul Khatri 62. Whitney Jonson 63. Venkat Krishnan 64. Marshall Goldsmith 65. Ashish Dhawan 66. Vinay Sitapati DISCLAIMER All content and opinions expressed in the podcast are that of the guests and are not necessarily the opinions of Deepak Jayaraman and Transition Insight Private Limited. Views expressed in comments to blog are the personal opinions of the author of the comment. They do not necessarily reflect the views of The Company or the author of the blog. Participants are responsible for the content of their comments and all comments that are posted are in the public domain. The Company reserves the right to monitor, edit, and/or publish any submitted comments. Not all comments may be published. Any third-party comments published are third party information and The Company takes no responsibility and disclaims all liability. The Company reserves the right, but is not obligated to monitor and delete any comments or postings at any time without notice.

NUGGET CONTEXT Ashley speaks about implication of valuing time (as a Taylor) or money (as a Morgan) on how we make career choices. She speaks about how it is all the important for us to self-select ourselves into a career that we are intrinsically passionate about given that the paradigm is shifting from driving on a highway to navigating a maze. GUEST Dr. Ashley Whillans is an Assistant Professor in the Negotiation, Organizations & Markets Unit, teaching Negotiations and Motivation and Incentives courses to MBA students and Executives. Her first book "Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life" was published in October 2020 by Harvard Business Publishing. In both 2015 and 2018, she was named a Rising Star of Behavioral Science by the Behavioral Science and Policy Association. In 2016, she co-founded the Department of Behavioral Science in the Policy, Innovation, and Engagement Division of the British Columbia Public Service Agency. Her research has been published in top academic journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Nature Human Behavior, and Science Advances and popular media outlets including Harvard Business Review, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.  Professor Whillans earned her BA, MA, and PhD in Social Psychology from the University of British Columbia. Prior to joining HBS, she was a visiting scholar and guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Her dissertation research on time and happiness won the 2017 CAGS Distinguished Dissertation Award for being the single best PhD thesis in Canada across the fine arts, humanities, and social sciences. Published in Dec 2020. HOST Deepak is a Leadership Advisor and an Executive Coach. He works with leaders to improve their effectiveness and in helping them make better decisions specifically around organizational and career transitions. He currently runs Transition Insight (www.transitioninsight.com) and works with leaders to handle phases of transition thoughtfully. He has worked as an Operations Consultant with KPMG in UK, Strategy Consultant with McKinsey in the US and as a Leadership Consultant with EgonZehnder (a Swiss Leadership Advisory firm) where he helped companies recruit CEOs, CXOs and Board Members and worked on Leadership Development. Deepak is a certified CEO Coach and is an alumnus of IIT Madras, IIM Ahmedabad and London Business School. His detailed profile can be found at https://in.linkedin.com/in/djayaraman OTHER GUESTS 1.Vijay Amritraj 2.Amish Tripathi 3.Raghu Raman 4.Papa CJ 5.Kartik Hosanagar 6.Ravi Venkatesan 7.Abhijit Bhaduri 8.Viren Rasquinha 9.Prakash Iyer 10.Avnish Bajaj 11.Nandan Nilekani 12.Atul Kasbekar 13.Karthik Reddy 14.Pramath Sinha 15.Vedika Bhandarkar 16.Vinita Bali 17.Zia Mody 18.Rama Bijapurkar 19.Dheeraj Pandey 20.Anu Madgavkar 21.Vishy Anand 22. Meher Pudumjee 23.KV Shridhar (Pops) 24.Suresh Naraynan 25.Devdutt Pattanaik 26.Jay Panda 27.Amit Chandra 28.Chandramouli Venkatesan 29.Roopa Kudva 30.Vinay Sitapati 31.Neera Nundy. 32.Deepa Malik 33.Bombay Jayashri. 34.Arun Maira 35.Ambi Parameswaran 36.OP Bhaat 37.Indranil Chakraborty 38.Tarun Khanna 39. Ramachandra Guha 40. Stewart Friedman 41. Rich Fernandez 42. Falguni Nayar 43. Rajat Gupta 44. Kartik Hosanagar 45. Michael Watkins 46. Matt Dixon 47. Herminia Ibarra 48. Paddy Upton 49. Tasha Eurich 50. Alan Eagle 51. Sudhir Sitapati 52. James Clear 53. Lynda Gratton 54. Jennifer Petriglieri. 55. Matthew Walker 56. Raj Raghunathan 57. Jennifer Garvey Berger 58. BJ Fogg 59. R Gopolakrishnan 60. Sir Andrew Likierman. 61. Atul Khatri 62. Whitney Jonson 63. Venkat Krishnan 64. Marshall Goldsmith 65. Ashish Dhawan 66. Vinay Sitapati DISCLAIMER All content and opinions expressed in the podcast are that of the guests and are not necessarily the opinions of Deepak Jayaraman and Transition Insight Private Limited. Views expressed in comments to blog are the personal opinions of the author of the comment. They do not necessarily reflect the views of The Company or the author of the blog. Participants are responsible for the content of their comments and all comments that are posted are in the public domain. The Company reserves the right to monitor, edit, and/or publish any submitted comments. Not all comments may be published. Any third-party comments published are third party information and The Company takes no responsibility and disclaims all liability. The Company reserves the right, but is not obligated to monitor and delete any comments or postings at any time without notice.

NUGGET CONTEXT Ashley speaks about two broad archetypes in the world – Morgans (people who prioritize money) and Taylors (people who prioritize time). She speaks about how this impacts some of our daily choices and some of our macro choices. She goes onto say that interestingly enough Taylors often end up making more money than Morgans. She links it to how this is often impacted by our upbringing and the impact on our overall happiness levels. GUEST Dr. Ashley Whillans is an Assistant Professor in the Negotiation, Organizations & Markets Unit, teaching Negotiations and Motivation and Incentives courses to MBA students and Executives. Her first book "Time Smart: How to Reclaim Your Time & Live a Happier Life" was published in October 2020 by Harvard Business Publishing. In both 2015 and 2018, she was named a Rising Star of Behavioral Science by the Behavioral Science and Policy Association. In 2016, she co-founded the Department of Behavioral Science in the Policy, Innovation, and Engagement Division of the British Columbia Public Service Agency. Her research has been published in top academic journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Nature Human Behavior, and Science Advances and popular media outlets including Harvard Business Review, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.  Professor Whillans earned her BA, MA, and PhD in Social Psychology from the University of British Columbia. Prior to joining HBS, she was a visiting scholar and guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Her dissertation research on time and happiness won the 2017 CAGS Distinguished Dissertation Award for being the single best PhD thesis in Canada across the fine arts, humanities, and social sciences. Published in Dec 2020. HOST Deepak is a Leadership Advisor and an Executive Coach. He works with leaders to improve their effectiveness and in helping them make better decisions specifically around organizational and career transitions. He currently runs Transition Insight (www.transitioninsight.com) and works with leaders to handle phases of transition thoughtfully. He has worked as an Operations Consultant with KPMG in UK, Strategy Consultant with McKinsey in the US and as a Leadership Consultant with EgonZehnder (a Swiss Leadership Advisory firm) where he helped companies recruit CEOs, CXOs and Board Members and worked on Leadership Development. Deepak is a certified CEO Coach and is an alumnus of IIT Madras, IIM Ahmedabad and London Business School. His detailed profile can be found at https://in.linkedin.com/in/djayaraman OTHER GUESTS 1.Vijay Amritraj 2.Amish Tripathi 3.Raghu Raman 4.Papa CJ 5.Kartik Hosanagar 6.Ravi Venkatesan 7.Abhijit Bhaduri 8.Viren Rasquinha 9.Prakash Iyer 10.Avnish Bajaj 11.Nandan Nilekani 12.Atul Kasbekar 13.Karthik Reddy 14.Pramath Sinha 15.Vedika Bhandarkar 16.Vinita Bali 17.Zia Mody 18.Rama Bijapurkar 19.Dheeraj Pandey 20.Anu Madgavkar 21.Vishy Anand 22. Meher Pudumjee 23.KV Shridhar (Pops) 24.Suresh Naraynan 25.Devdutt Pattanaik 26.Jay Panda 27.Amit Chandra 28.Chandramouli Venkatesan 29.Roopa Kudva 30.Vinay Sitapati 31.Neera Nundy. 32.Deepa Malik 33.Bombay Jayashri. 34.Arun Maira 35.Ambi Parameswaran 36.OP Bhaat 37.Indranil Chakraborty 38.Tarun Khanna 39. Ramachandra Guha 40. Stewart Friedman 41. Rich Fernandez 42. Falguni Nayar 43. Rajat Gupta 44. Kartik Hosanagar 45. Michael Watkins 46. Matt Dixon 47. Herminia Ibarra 48. Paddy Upton 49. Tasha Eurich 50. Alan Eagle 51. Sudhir Sitapati 52. James Clear 53. Lynda Gratton 54. Jennifer Petriglieri. 55. Matthew Walker 56. Raj Raghunathan 57. Jennifer Garvey Berger 58. BJ Fogg 59. R Gopolakrishnan 60. Sir Andrew Likierman. 61. Atul Khatri 62. Whitney Jonson 63. Venkat Krishnan 64. Marshall Goldsmith 65. Ashish Dhawan 66. Vinay Sitapati DISCLAIMER All content and opinions expressed in the podcast are that of the guests and are not necessarily the opinions of Deepak Jayaraman and Transition Insight Private Limited. Views expressed in comments to blog are the personal opinions of the author of the comment. They do not necessarily reflect the views of The Company or the author of the blog. Participants are responsible for the content of their comments and all comments that are posted are in the public domain. The Company reserves the right to monitor, edit, and/or publish any submitted comments. Not all comments may be published. Any third-party comments published are third party information and The Company takes no responsibility and disclaims all liability. The Company reserves the right, but is not obligated to monitor and delete any comments or postings at any time without notice.

First they said it wasn't important to study opioid addiction. Then they said it wasn't possible to do it her way. Hear how Yasmin Hurd, PhD, learned to tune out the noise and take control.Links:Addiction Institute at Mount Sinai - https://bit.ly/2Ic9vfBHurd Laboratory - http://labs.neuroscience.mssm.edu/project/hurd-lab/"Addressing racism and disparities in the biomedical sciences" (article in Nature Human Behavior) - https://go.nature.com/3osFyau

Stefano Puntoni is Professor of Marketing at the Rotterdam School of Management. He joined RSM after completing a PhD in marketing at London Business School. His research has appeared in leading journals, including Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Marketing, Nature Human Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and Management Science, and has been featured in media outlet such as Harvard Business Review, The Times, and the Wall Street Journal.

We chat with Marike Schiffer, who is a Senior Editor at Nature Human Behavior, about her journal's push to increase reproducibility in the behavioral sciences. She also shares how her team evaluates manuscripts and some common misunderstandings about scientific publishing. Here's what else we cover: * Marike's experiencing making the switch from researcher to full-time editorial work * The day-to-day tasks of an editor * The Manifesto for reproducible science (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0021) * Why has Nature Human Behavior made such a big push towards reproducibility * The benefits of transparent peer review comments * The importance of posting rich datasets * Transparency in how journals deal with manuscripts * The Editorial describing how Nature Human Behavior deals with manuscripts (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0778-0) * The future of scientific publishing * Audio versions of papers * Two common misunderstanding that scientists have about scientific publishing * Dan's synthetic data paper (https://elifesciences.org/articles/53275) Other links - Marike on twitter (https://twitter.com/marike_cogneuro) - Dan on twitter (www.twitter.com/dsquintana) - James on twitter (www.twitter.com/jamesheathers) - Everything Hertz on twitter (www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast) - Everything Hertz on Facebook (www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/) Music credits: Lee Rosevere (freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/) Support us on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/hertzpodcast) and get bonus stuff! $1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the $1 tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes) Episode citation and permanent link Quintana, D.S., Heathers, J.A.J. (Hosts). (2020, April 6) "105: Tell it like it is (with Marike Schiffer)", Everything Hertz [Audio podcast], DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U9QRN, Retrieved from https://osf.io/u9qrn/ Special Guest: Marike Schiffer.

Few psychological terms carry such negative implications as the diagnosis of “psychopath.” We know, for example, that adults with psychopathy often leave a path of interpersonal destruction and emotional devastation behind them. We also know that that criminal psychopaths tend to offend far more often – and commit more serious crimes - than their antisocial peers.   Dr. Abigail Marsh But what causes someone to become a psychopath? How early does it start and what can we do about it? In this episode of Thread of Evidence, Dr. Joni Johnston talks with Georgetown University professor and researcher Dr. Abby Marsh about the controversy surrounding childhood psychopathy and what the implications are for parents and the criminal justice system. Abigail Marsh is a Professor of Psychology, Neuroscience, and Cognitive Science at Georgetown. She received her Ph.D. from Harvard University and conducted her post-doctoral research at the National Institute of Mental Health. She is the author of over 70 publications in journals that include Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nature Human Behavior, American Journal of Psychiatry, and JAMA Psychiatry, as well as an award-winning trade book about her research on the brain basis of empathy and compassion called THE FEAR FACTOR.

Episode 9:  In this episode, the host, Angie Gust, continues discussing John Travis’s 12 dimensions of wellness as a way to improve your own personal health and wellness - this episode focuses on communication. Truly listening is a gift.  Listening can relieve stress in the speaker in that they know they are acknowledged and affirmed.  For the person listening, it can relieve stress in that they can become harmonious with another individual.  Angie talks about how while this year, 2020, is a critical year for our planet, unfortunately, the outcome of last month’s United Nations Climate Change Conference was another lost opportunity. Several personal actions are suggested, such as keeping a look out for gatherings in your area hosted by World War Zero, a bipartisan effort to unify the public in support of climate action. References Berg, N. 2019. Six inexpensive things cities can do to become more sustainable now. Ensia. Accessed 2 December 2019 https://ensia.com/articles/six-inexpensive-or-even-money-saving-things-cities-can-do-to-become-more-sustainable-now/ Blankenship, A. October 18, 2017. Who is richer? Democrats or Republicans? The answer probably won’t surprise you. Accessed 10 December 2019 https://budgetandthebees.com/who-is-richer-democrats-or-republicans/ Carnegie, D.  A combined edition of How to win friends and influence people and How to stop worrying and start living.  Dale Carnegie and Associates Inc., Hauppauge NY, 1936/1944. CBS Channel 3. Minnesota. Gov. Walz signs executive order on climate change Accessed 8 December 2019 https://cbs3duluth.com/2019/12/02/gov-walz-signs-executive-order-on-climate-change/ Fourth National Climate Assessment Vol II. Accessed 9 December 2019 https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ Friedman, L. Nov 30, 2019. John Kerry Launches Star-Studded Climate Coalition.New York Times. Accessed 2 December 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/climate/john-kerry-climate-change.html Hatemi, PK, McDermott, Eaves, LJ, Kendler, KS, Neale, MC. 2013.Fear as a Disposition and an Emotional State: A Genetic and Environmental Approach to Out‐Group Political Preferences. American J of Political Science. Accessed 12 December 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12016 Meyer, R. Dec 2, 2019. The Atlantic. John Kerry’s New Bipartisan, Star-Studded ‘War’ on Climate Change https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/john-kerry-interview-climate-catastrophic-world-war-zero/602833/ Miller, E. Cheap at Last, Batteries Are Making a Solar Dream Come True. https://www.wired.com/story/cheap-at-last-batteries-are-making-a-solar-dream-come-true/ Nam, HH et al. Amygdala structure and the tendency to regard the social system as legitimate and desirable. Nature Human Behavior  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0248-5 Sengupta,S. Dec 15, 2019. U.N. Climate Talks End With Few Commitments and a ‘Lost’ Opportunity. Accessed 15 December 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/climate/cop25-un-climate-talks-madrid.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage Stracqualursi, V. November 30, 2019.CNN. Pelosi to lead group of Democratic lawmakers to UN climate change conference. Accessed 30 November 2019 https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/30/politics/nancy-pelosi-un-climate-change/index.html United Nations Climate Change. 2019. COP25 to Be the Launchpad for Significantly more Climate Ambition. Accessed 3 December 2019 https://unfccc.int/news/cop25-to-be-the-launchpad-for-significantly-more-climate-ambition-0 Werrell, K. and Femia, F.  October 25, 2019. U.S. Army War College: Climate Change Presents Serious Threat to the Military Mission in 20 Years. Accessed 5 December 2019.. https://climateandsecurity.org/2019/10/25/u-s-army-war-college-possible-collapse-of-the-military-mission-in-20-years-due-to-climate-change/ Wicker A. 10 things you can do to shop more sustainably. Accessed 14 December 2019 https://www.racked.com/2017/8/22/16179784/sustainable-shopping-how-to    

Show Notes for Podcast Eleven of seX & whY Host: Jeannette Wolfe Interview with Dr. Cara Tannenbaum, Professor in the Faculties of Medicine and Pharmacy at the Université de Montréal in Canada, and Scientific Director of the Institute of Gender and Health of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Definitions Biological Sex- chromosomes, hormones, reproductive anatomy, usually binary Gender- social and cultural construct- falls on a spectrum For a really nice summary of current use of definitions please see this excellent review. Excellent websites with tons of resources Institute of Gender and Health- Canadian Institutes of Health Research Video on how to conduct better science that considers the potential influence of sex and gender Historically factors that limited the inclusion of women in clinical trials. Belief that outside of reproductive zones, males and females were the same Dogma that the female estrous cycle screwed up data and that male animals produced “cleaner” results Two interesting facts: 1) Many female rodents' entire estrous cycle is only 4 days!; and 2) We now know that male animals also have significant hormonal fluxes and that overall they are actually just as variable as females- see review Concern after the worldwide thalidomide nightmare* and the public backlash from the discovery of several unethical government sponsored clinical trials, that fetuses (along with prisoners and children) needed extra protection from the potential of unnecessary harm by participation in a research trial. This led to regulatory protection via the Common Rule. As any women of child-bearing age could theoretically become pregnant, they (and ultimately by cultural proxy all women) were essentially excluded from most human trials and early clinical phase drug trials from 1970's to the mid 1990's. To read and an inspiring story as to why most of American was saved from the limb-shortening horrors of thalidomide, read here. (Essentially, FDA scientist Dr. Oldham Kelsey refused to sign off on its application, even amidst considerable pressure from the drug company, due to concern of inadequate evidence.) Interesting sex and gender differences in car crashes Crash dummy 101 Historically crash dummy is Hybrid III which is 5'9'' 170 pounds representing an average male Hybrid III female model- 5' 110 pounds Other models- used by NHTSA Why injury patterns may be different between men and women Differences in baseline anthropometric measures (like height) Biomechanical differences (women more prone to whiplash due to differences in neck muscular) Mechanical design (Smaller adults sit closer to steering wheel and increase risk of lower extremity injury, and are more vulnerable to side impact since more of their head is in front of window) NASS CDS data Weight annual sample of US 5000 police reported tow away crashes Collects data on Occupant demographics (Age, sex, weight, BMI; Restraint use; Injuries obtained (via medical records and interviews) standardized into an abbreviated injury scale (AIS). It examines fatality and whole body and regional injuries, on a 1-6 scale of severity Vehicle properties (Type, model year) Crash conditions (Estimated speed, mechanism of impact) What we know from NHTSA data and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Overall, males represent about 70% of overall fatalities for crashes Greatest gender differences is in 20-29 age group Men more likely to have alcohol involved in accident On average men drive about 5000-6000 miles/yr more than women Women more likely to work closer to home Crashes more likely to be low speed and to occur in more congested areas If a man and a woman are both in car Males more likely to be driver Summary of Bose study Vulnerability of female drivers involved in motor vehicle crashes: An analysis of US population at risk. Question they asked- for a comparable crash do male and female drivers sustain similar rates of injuries. Examined injury outcomes in men and women using 1998-2008 NASS CDS data set For a comparable crash, women had 47% percent greater chance of being severely injured than men (had a higher risk of chest and spine injuries) Of note the researchers controlled for weight and BMI Other evidence that the clinical relevance of studying different sized and biomechanical models in crashes is important is shown by data obtained in 2011 after the NHTSA changed their safety star ratings to include testing of a female sized dummy in the front passenger seat. Many cars found their ratings go down, for example the 2011 Sienna minivan saw its ratings for passenger frontal crashes go from 5 star to 2 after it was shown that at 35mph that 20-40% of female dummies were killed or seriously injured compared to the industry average of 15%. Underscoring the “literal” blind spots that can occur if you don't consider factors associated with diversity in study design, a recent study from Georgia Tech suggested that some of the visual recognitions systems used that are critical for self-driving car safety may not adequately recognize dark skinned faces showing a 5% increased chance of error in recognition compared to that of fair skinned faces. Of note, there is a significant lack of gender and racial diversity in the self-driving car technology teams and in artificial intelligence/tech research overall. Who makes up the team influences what gets studied, click here for a recent Lancet article and here for a Nature Human Behavior one both  showing that sex-related outcomes are far more likely to be reported in medical research consisting of diverse teams. Take home points Including the variables of biological sex and gender in research results in better science and has led to the discovery of huge knowledge gaps that need to be closed if we want to optimize the care of all of our patients Our historical medical research model has been predominately based on the study of male animals. There are multiple reasons for this including a true belief that: outside our reproductive zones that men are women are exactly the same; using males animal produces cleaner data; and including women of child bearing age in clinical research trials exposes women to unnecessary risks without significant benefit. We now know that all these reasons are fundamentally flawed. Every cell has a sex and the differences between men and women outside their reproductive zones are often quite clinically important. Studying males and females side by side helps us to optimize the care of both sexes. In women it allows us to double check that therapies that were originally developed in men actually work in women and have the same benefit/side effects profiles. And for men, in instances when it is discovered that women have more favorably outcomes, it allows us to go back to the lab, figure out why there is a difference and then to use that knowledge to develop new therapies to help men. To move the scientific community and its deeply ingrained culture to a new model that incorporates the variables of sex and gender will require a comprehensive multi-targeted approach. Key considerations include- engagement, education, skill building around research methodology and analysis, mentoring and funding incentivization. Of note Institutional review boards, journal editors, grant reviewers and conferences directors have great power to jump start this transition by including an expectation of sex and/or gender inclusion in submission requirements. As we live in an ever increasingly complex world, now more than ever, it is essential that we pay attention to who is actually doing the research and developing new technologies. A diverse world requires diverse teams. Next month we will look at the science pipeline from bench to bedside to identify opportunities to do better science.

Listen NowApproximately 8,700 Americans die annually awaiting a kidney donation or become too ill to receive one.  This is half the number of those who annually receive a kidney, or 17,000.   Over 100,000 at any time are awaiting a kidney.  The median wait time is over three and a half years.  One-third of kidney donations are live donations typically from a child, parent, sibling, spouse or other relative.  However, an increasing number of live donations are made by strangers voluntarily choosing to donate. The number of these donations while small, at less than 400 annually, has doubled in recent years.  The benefits of receiving a donated kidney are pronounced, the expected benefits to the recipient are estimated at 100xs the expected costs to the donor. During this 26 minute conversation Professor Marsh explains why she became interested in altruism particularly extraordinary altruism, what her and her colleagues' research has found that explains donor reasoning in providing a kidney, how "social discounting" and other factors play into their decision making, how brain development, or the size of a donor's amygdala (the part of the brain responsible for decision making and emotional reactions including compassion), plays a factor and to what extent normalizing voluntary kidney donations may over time reduce or eliminate the shortage of kidney donations.Professor Abigail Marsh is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology and the Interdisciplinary Program in Neuroscience at Georgetown.  Prior to Georgetown, Dr. Marsh conducted post-doctoral work at the National Institute of Mental Health at the National Institutes of Health from 2004 to 2008.   Her areas of expertise include social and affective neuroscience, particularly understanding emotional processes like empathy and how they related to altruism, aggression and psychopathy.   Her work has appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Psychological Science, the American Journal of Psychiatry, JAMA Psychiatry and Nature Human Behavior.  Dr. Marsh was graduated with a BA in Psychology from Dartmouth and a Ph.D. in Social Psychology from Harvard.   Professor Marsh's June 2016 TED talk, "Why Some People Are More Altruistic Than Others," is at: https://www.ted.com/talks/abigail_marsh_why_some_people_are_more_altruistic_than_others.A 10-page, footnoted discussion weighing the pros and cons of voluntary donating a kidney can be found on the Effective Altruism Forum website, at: http://effective-altruism.com/ea/ay/kidney_donation_is_a_reasonable_choice_for/.  This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com

The moral judgment of terrorists, en Nature Human Behavior, por Agustín Ibáñez de la Universidad de Favaloro en Buenos Aires, Argentina, y colaboradores. http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0118 ¿Tienes una idea para el próximo gran PODCAST? Concursa en el Call for pitches de CUONDA junto a la City University of New York este junio http://www.cuonda.com/callforpitches/ El Método es un podcast producido por @Luis_Quevedo para los que, enamorados del mundo, queremos aprender más de él a través de la mejor herramienta que ha desarrollado la humanidad, la ciencia. Suscríbete y escucha todos los episodios elmetodo.fm. Deja comentarios y valoraciones en iTunes e ivoox, por favor, y no olvides compartir este episodio con alguien a quien creas le pueda alegrar el día. Si quieres más ideas de buenos podcasts en español, visita cuonda.com, la comunidad independiente de podcasts en tu lengua. Suscríbete al correo semanal de El Método en https://tinyletter.com/luisquevedo Puedes verme en televisión, cada día 12:30 y 2:30 pm EDT [New York] en NTN24 en este stream. The moral judgment of terrorists, en Nature Human Behavior, por Agustín Ibáñez de la Universidad de Favaloro en Buenos Aires, Argentina, y colaboradores. http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0118 ¿Tienes una idea para el próximo gran PODCAST? Concursa en el Call for pitches de CUONDA junto a la City University of New York este junio http://www.cuonda.com/callforpitches/ El Método es un podcast producido por @Luis_Quevedo para los que, enamorados del mundo, queremos aprender más de él a través de la mejor herramienta que ha desarrollado la humanidad, la ciencia. Suscríbete y escucha todos los episodios elmetodo.fm. Deja comentarios y valoraciones en iTunes e ivoox, por favor, y no olvides compartir este episodio con alguien a quien creas le pueda alegrar el día. Si quieres más ideas de buenos podcasts en español, visita cuonda.com, la comunidad independiente de podcasts en tu lengua. Suscríbete al correo semanal de El Método en https://tinyletter.com/luisquevedo Puedes verme en televisión, cada día 12:30 y 2:30 pm EDT [New York] en NTN24 en este stream. Este contenido es gratis y sólo te pido que, si te ha gustado, entretenido, iluminado de algún modo, lo compartas en tus redes y nos valores en tu plataforma de pódcast favorita. Gracias ;)

2017-05-09 Special EnglishThis is Special English. I'm Ryan Price in Beijing. Here is the news.China is expected to establish a national emergency and coordination committee to deal with nuclear accidents.The draft law on nuclear safety states that the committee is responsible for organizing a response to nuclear accident. The draft was first read among legislators in November.The latest draft highlights the need for transparency of nuclear information. It requires government departments in charge of nuclear safety supervision to publish information about nuclear accidents and other nuclear-related data.In addition, the draft clarifies the importance of disposing of radioactive waste. Data on the source, amount, character and location of such waste should be recorded and stored permanently. This is Special English.China's conversion of coal into natural gas could prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths each year. But there's a catch. Researchers say as China shifts its use of vast coal reserves to send less smog-inducing chemicals into the air, the move threatens to undermine efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.The environmental trade-off points to the difficult choices confronting leaders of the world's second largest economy as they struggle to balance public health and financial growth with international climate change commitments.Between 20,000 and 41,000 premature deaths annually could be prevented by converting low-quality coal in the country's western provinces into synthetic natural gas for residential use.The findings by researchers from the United States and China have been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.The researchers said that if the gas were used for industrial purposes, fewer deaths would be averted and they would carry a steeper price - a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide emissions.You're listening to Special English. I'm Ryan Price in Beijing. U.S. Space Agency NASA's Cassini spacecraft has survived an unprecedented trip between Saturn and its rings, and has amazing pictures to show for it.Flight controls regained contact with Cassini, one day after it became the first craft to cross this hazardous region. The rings are made up of countless icy particles, any of which could have smacked Cassini. The spacecraft's big dish antenna served as a shield as it hurtled through the narrow gap, temporarily cutting off communications.Cassini skimmed 3,100 kilometers above Saturn's cloud tops, closer than ever before. It came within 320 kilometers of the innermost visible ring. Scientists say Saturn continues to surprise them, after 13 years of Cassini orbiting the planet. The pictures show details never seen before. For example, there's an incredible close-up of a gigantic swirling hurricane at Saturn's North Pole.Given their importance, data from the crossing are being sent to Earth twice, to make certain nothing is lost. It takes more than an hour for the signals to travel the 1.6 billion kilometer distance between Saturn and Earth.Cassini was launched in 1997 from Cape Canaveral in Florida, and reached Saturn in 2004.This is Special English.Astronaut Peggy Whitson broke the U.S. record recently for the most time in space and talked up Mars during a congratulatory call from President Donald Trump.The International Space Station's commander surpassed the record of 534 days, two hours and 48 minutes for most accumulated time in space by an American.Trump said that it is a very special day in the glorious history of American spaceflight. His daughter and close adviser Ivanka Trump also offered congratulations to Whitson from the Oval Office.Whitson said it's a huge honor for her to break such a record. She said it's an exciting time", as NASA prepares for human expeditions to Mars in the 2030s. The program has been included in new legislation signed by Trump last month. Whitson called the space station "a key bridge" between living on Earth and traveling into deep space. She singled out the station's recycling system that transforms astronauts' urine into drinking water.Whitson was already the world's most experienced spacewoman and female spacewalker, as well as the oldest woman in space, at 57 years old. By the time she returns to Earth in September, she'll have logged 666 days in orbit over three flights.The world record is 879 days. It is held by Russian Gennady Padalka. Whitson broke the NASA cumulative record set last year by astronaut Jeffrey Williams. Scott Kelly holds the U.S. record for consecutive days in space, at 340.You're listening to Special English. I'm Ryan Price in Beijing. Three African countries have been chosen to test the world's first malaria vaccine.Ghana, Kenya and Malawi will be piloting the injectable vaccine next year with hundreds of thousands of young children, who have been at the highest risk of death.The World Health Organization said the vaccine has the potential to save tens of thousands of lives if used with existing measures. The challenge is whether impoverished countries can deliver the required four doses of the vaccine for each child.Malaria remains one of the world's most stubborn health challenges. It infects more than 200 million people every year and kills about half a million. Most of the victims are children in Africa. Bed netting and insecticides are the chief protection.Sub-Saharan Africa is hardest hit by this disease. The area had around 90 percent of the world's cases in 2015. Malaria spreads when a mosquito bites someone already infected, sucks up blood and parasites, and then bites another person.The World Health Organization says a global effort to counter malaria has led to 62 percent cut in deaths between 2000 and 2015.This is Special English.The White House says President Donald Trump is appointing the former president of a leading anti-abortion organization to a senior position at the Department of Health and Human Services.Charmaine Yoest, who actively supported Trump in his campaign, will serve as assistant secretary of public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services. From 2008 until February 2016, she was president of Americans United for Life, which campaigned at the federal and state level for tough restrictions on abortion.Among the many state bills backed by the group under Yoest's leadership were measures that would ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. These measures require women seeking abortions to undergo a sonogram and impose tough regulations on abortion clinics that could lead to their closure.The appointment was assailed by abortion-rights groups.Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood, said Charmaine Yoest has spent her whole professional life opposing access to birth control and a woman's right to safe, legal abortion.You're listening to Special English. I'm Ryan Price in Beijing. You can access the program by logging on to crienglish.com. You can also find us on our Apple Podcast. Now the news continues.Increasingly strict government controls on genetic information have resulted in longer, slower registration procedures for new and developing drugs. However, experts say the procedures could pose a threat to the people's privacy.An expert at the Chinese Academy of Sciences says that rather than providing extra safeguards, the precautions are actually making genetic information less secure. He urged greater streamlining of the procedures to the bottleneck and shorten the registration process.In late 2015, China issued a statement outlining extra application and approval procedures for clinical drug trials conducted in collaboration with foreign pharmaceutical companies. The document also cover drug trials by research institutions funded by investment from overseas. The same rules apply if projects are overseen by foreign nationals.The measures require tests to be conducted on a greater number of people. This has resulted in a substantial rise in the amount of personal information being collected and stored.Scientists are saying the stricter procedures have had a negative effect on many new potential treatments in China. Many companies have reported six to nine months extra waiting time, which has seriously slowed down the approval process for badly needed new drugs.This is Special English.Global warming's milder winters will likely nudge Americans off the couch more in the future, which is a rare, small benefit of climate change.A new study finds that with less chilly winters, Americans will be more likely to get outdoors, increasing their physical activity by as much as 2.5 percent by the end of the century. Areas including North Dakota, Minnesota and Maine are likely to see the most dramatic increases, usually the result of more walking. The study was published in the journal Nature Human Behavior.But this good global warming side effect is not likely to extend to the Deep South and especially the desert southwest, where hotter summer days keep people inside. The study found that Arizona, southern Nevada and southeastern California are likely to see activity drop off the most by the year 2099.A lead author of the study said it is a small little tiny silver lining amid a series of very bad and very unfortunate events that are likely to occur. The scientist added that global warming "almost certainly will be very costly for humanity".You're listening to Special English. I'm Ryan Price in Beijing. U.S. marine scientists say collisions of whales and boats off of the New England coast may be more common than previously thought.The scientists focused on the humpback whale population in the southern Gulf of Maine, a body of water off of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine. They found that almost 15 percent of the whales had injuries or scarring consistent with at least one vessel strike. The wales come to New England to feed every spring.The researchers published their findings in the March issue of the journal Marine Mammal Science. The study shows that the occurrence of such strikes is most likely underestimated. The figure is likely low because it does not account for whales that are killed in ship strikes.A lead author of the study said vessel strikes are a significant risk to both whales and to boaters. Long term studies can help people figure out if the outreach programs to boaters are effective.This is Special English.When Logan Snyder got hooked on pills after a prescription to treat pain from a kidney stone, she joined the millions already swept up in the nation's grim wave of addiction to opioid painkillers. She was just 14.Youth is a drawback when it comes to kicking drugs. Only half of U.S. treatment centers accept teenagers and even fewer offer teen-focused groups or programs. After treatment, adolescents find little structured support. They are outnumbered by adults at self-help meetings. Sober youth drop-in centers are rare. Returning to school means resisting offers to get high with old friends.But Snyder is lucky. Her slide ended when her father got her into a residential drug treatment program. Now 17 years old and clean, she credits her continued success to Hope Academy in Indianapolis, a tuition-free recovery school where she is enrolled as a junior.The opioid epidemic is the worst addiction crisis in U.S. history. It has mostly ensnared adults, especially those in their 20s, 30s and 40s. But teens have not been spared. Each day, 1,100 start misusing pain pills. Federal data show that opioids killed 521 teens in 2015.Not enough is known about opioids and teen brains. But getting hooked early is trouble. The vast majority of adults in treatment reports say they started using as teenagers.This is the end of this edition of Special English. To freshen up your memory, I'm going to read one of the news items again at normal speed. Please listen carefully.（全文见周日微信。）

It might not be quite ready for prime time but in this case I think you might want to get a head’s up about this innovation in exposure therapy. And you can't talk about the future without understanding the present form of exposure therapy treatment.  Also a look at some of the goodies over at the ADAA site; i.e. webinars and podcasts. Resources Mentioned:  Nature.com journal of Nature Human Behavioral somewhat accessible version of Hacking the Brain to Overcome Fear Academic version of the study in the journal Nature Human Behavior, Article 0006 (2016) Anxiety and Depression Association of America page on past webinars, these are recorded information sessions that you can access at any time.  ADAA.org also has a podcast on anxiety and depression topics.  Good Therapy.org has a full page on Exposure Therapy The Conversation's article about What Is Exposure Therapy and How It Can Treat Social Anxiety??  Brainline Military has a post on Exposure Therapy with a focus on veterans that have PTSD. If you're having suicidal thoughts, contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline for immediate help: 1-800-273-TALK (8255).   Disclaimer:  Always seek the advice of a qualified health provider with questions you may have regarding a medical or mental health disorder. This podcast is intended for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing in this program is intended to be a substitute for professional psychological, psychiatric or medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.