Big ideas.
Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Why We Love Bad News: Understanding Negativity Bias
90% of the news in the newspaper and on television is negative because that’s what we pay attention to.
Every second of every day our brain is bombarded by way too much data than we can possibly process and because nothing is more important to our survival to the species than survival all our visual data, auditory data is funneled to a sliver of the temporal lobe called the amygdala.
The amygdala is our danger detector. It’s our early warning system. It literally combs through all of the sensory input looking for any kind of a danger on putting in on high alert and it evolved during an era of human evolution that was of the immediate type, the tiger in the bush. You would hear a rustle in the leaves and you would think tiger, not wind and the point—one percent of the time that it was a tiger it saved your life, but today the amygdala literally calls our attention to all the negative stories and if you see a thousand stories you’re going to focus on the negative ones and the media takes advantage of this and you know the old saw if it bleeds it leads. Well that’s why 90% of the news in the newspaper and on television is negative because that’s what we pay attention to.
And as it turns out we also have a number of what are called cognitive biases. The Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman first addressed these and these cognitive biases keep us negative. We have a negativity bias, which is the tendency to give far more information to negative details than positive ones and the confirmation bias, which is our tendency to selectively look at information or see information that confirms our preexisting notions, which is fine except that our preexisting notions are typically negative and therefore, we’re reconfirming our negative expectations.
So ultimately we are kept in this negative state of mind and when the amygdala goes on high alert because much of the dangers around us today are probabilistic dangers, a pandemic might strike, an asteroid might hit, we end up in a situation that our amygdala is always on high alert and it’s screening out the positive news and allowing in the negative news.
In Their Own Words is recorded in Big Think's studio.
Image courtesy of Shutterstock
Popular
What early US presidents looked like, according to AI-generated images
"Deepfakes" and "cheap fakes" are becoming strikingly convincing — even ones generated on freely available apps.
03 February, 2021
Abraham Lincoln, George Washington
Magdalene Visaggio via Twitter
Technology & Innovation
- A writer named Magdalene Visaggio recently used FaceApp and Airbrush to generate convincing portraits of early U.S. presidents.
- "Deepfake" technology has improved drastically in recent years, and some countries are already experiencing how it can weaponized for political purposes.
- It's currently unknown whether it'll be possible to develop technology that can quickly and accurately determine whether a given video is real or fake.
<p>After former U.S. President William Henry Harrison delivered his inaugural speech on March 4, 1841, he posed for a daguerreotype, the first widely available photographic technology. It became the first photo taken of a sitting American president.</p><p>As for the eight presidents before Harrison, history can see them only through artistic renderings. (The exception is a handful of surviving daguerreotypes of John Quincy Adams, taken after he left office. In his <a href="https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2015/here-are-15-presidential-media-firsts/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">diary</a>, Adams described them as "hideous" and "too true to the original.")</p><p>But a recent project offers a glimpse of what early presidents might've looked like if photographed through modern cameras. Using FaceApp and Airbrush, <a href="https://magsvisaggio.com/story" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Magdalene Visaggio</a>, author of books such as "Eternity Girl" and "Kim & Kim," generated a collection of convincing portraits of the nation's first presidents, from George Washington to Ulysses S. Grant.</p>
<div id="91f62" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b7550060df5503dadbd856b4d4bc8942"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1355252052977459200" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Modern Presidents
George Washington https://t.co/CURJQB0kap</div> — Magdalene Visaggio (@Magdalene Visaggio)<a href="https://twitter.com/MagsVisaggs/statuses/1355252052977459200">1611952243.0</a></blockquote></div><p>What might be surprising is that Visaggio was able to generate the images without a background in graphic design, using freely available tools. She <a href="https://twitter.com/MagsVisaggs/status/1355527401745297411" target="_blank">wrote on Twitter</a>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"A lot of people think I'm a digital artist or whatever, so let me clarify how I work. Everything you see here is done in Faceapp+Airbrush on my phone. On the outside, each takes between 15-30 mins. Washington was a pretty simple one-and-done replacement."</p>
<div id="d2dcc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c96b2a10e87c3cf078723c9672e96b42"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1355282408359284741" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Ulysses S Grant https://t.co/L1IGXLI3Vl</div> — Magdalene Visaggio (@Magdalene Visaggio)<a href="https://twitter.com/MagsVisaggs/statuses/1355282408359284741">1611959480.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Visaggio <a href="https://twitter.com/MagsVisaggs/status/1355527401745297411" target="_blank">added</a>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Other than that? I am not a visual artist in any sense, just a hobbyist using AI tools see what she can make. I'm actually a professional comics writer."</p>
<div id="4a39e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b4adae1fc9d015d1e1cc866614aa2034"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1355343084704423937" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Did another pass at Lincoln. https://t.co/PdT4QVpMbn</div> — Magdalene Visaggio (@Magdalene Visaggio)<a href="https://twitter.com/MagsVisaggs/statuses/1355343084704423937">1611973947.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Of course, Visaggio isn't the first person to create deepfakes (or "<a href="https://datasociety.net/library/deepfakes-and-cheap-fakes/" target="_blank">cheap fakes</a>") of politicians. </p><p>In 2017, many people got their first glimpse of the technology through a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch/cQ54GDm1eL0" target="_blank">video</a> depicting former President Barack Obama warning: "We're entering an era in which our enemies can make it look like anyone is saying anything at any point in time." The video quickly reveals itself to be fake, with comedian Jordan Peele speaking for the computer-generated Obama.</p><p>While deepfakes haven't yet caused significant chaos in the U.S., incidents in other nations may offer clues of what's to come.</p>
The future of deepfakes
<p>In 2018, Gabon's president Ali Bongo had been out of the country for months receiving medical treatment. After Bongo hadn't been seen in public for months, rumors began swirling about his condition. Some suggested Bongo might even be dead. In response, Bongo's administration released a video that seemed to show the president addressing the nation.</p><p>But the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=324528215059254" target="_blank">video</a> is strange, appearing choppy and blurry in parts. After political opponents declared the video to be a deepfake, Gabon's military attempted an unsuccessful coup. What's striking about the story is that, to this day, experts in the field of deepfakes can't conclusively verify whether the video was real. </p><p>The uncertainty and confusion generated by deepfakes poses a "global problem," according to a <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/is-seeing-still-believing-the-deepfake-challenge-to-truth-in-politics/#cancel" target="_blank">2020 report from The Brookings Institution</a>. In 2018, the U.S. Department of Defense released some of the first tools able to successfully detect deepfake videos. The problem, however, is that deepfake technology keeps improving, meaning forensic approaches may forever be one step behind the most sophisticated forms of deepfakes. </p><p>As the 2020 report noted, even if the private sector or governments create technology to identify deepfakes, they will:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"...operate more slowly than the generation of these fakes, allowing false representations to dominate the media landscape for days or even weeks. "A lie can go halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on," warns David Doermann, the director of the Artificial Intelligence Institute at the University of Buffalo. And if defensive methods yield results short of certainty, as many will, technology companies will be hesitant to label the likely misrepresentations as fakes."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Surprising Science
The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced a number of new behaviours into daily routines, like physical distancing, mask-wearing and hand sanitizing. Meanwhile, many old behaviours such as attending events, eating out and seeing friends have been put on hold.
<p>However, one old behaviour that has persisted, and <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.pcad.2020.04.005" target="_blank">has arguably been amplified due to COVID-19, is sitting</a> — and it is not surprising to see why. Whether sitting during transportation, work, screen time or even meals, everyday environments and activities are tailored nearly exclusively to prolonged sitting. As such, sedentary behaviours, like sitting, make up the vast majority of our waking day. </p><p>Pre-COVID-19 estimates place the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-00925-8" target="_blank">average Canadian adult's sedentary behaviour at around 9.5 hours per day</a>. Current daily sedentary time is likely even higher as a result of stay-at-home orders, limitations on businesses and recreational facilities, and <a href="https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200527/dq200527b-eng.htm" target="_blank">elevated health anxieties</a>. </p><h2>Health vs. well-being</h2><p>This is a problem, given that chronic excessive levels of sedentary time have been linked to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105620" target="_blank">greater risk of diabetes, heart disease, mortality and even some cancers</a>. However, for many people, their own judgments and feelings about their quality of life (also known as <a href="https://dictionary.apa.org/subjective-well-being" target="_blank">subjective well-being</a>) may be more important and relevant for informing their health decisions and behaviours than potentially developing chronic diseases.</p><p>Subjective well-being encompasses <a href="https://nobaproject.com/modules/happiness-the-science-of-subjective-well-being" target="_blank">an individual's own evaluation of their quality of life</a>. It includes concepts like <a href="https://dictionary.apa.org/affect" target="_blank">affect</a> (positive and negative feelings) and <a href="https://dictionary.apa.org/life-satisfaction" target="_blank">life satisfaction</a>. Interestingly, these evaluations can conflict with physical health outcomes. For example, a person could have diabetes but still report good subjective well-being, while someone with no physical health conditions may report poor subjective well-being. </p><p>This is important, as it means how an individual feels about their own health may not always align with what their body may demonstrate. That's why evaluating subjective well-being is vital for painting a holistic picture of health. </p><h2>Different contexts of sitting</h2><p>Relatively little research has examined the relationships between sedentary behaviour and subjective well-being. Exploring these relationships is important, as different contexts of sitting — such as socializing versus screen time — may yield different feelings or judgments of subjective well-being, unlike relationships between physical health and sedentary behaviour, which <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094201" target="_blank">tend to be more consistent</a>. </p><p>As health psychologists focused on physical activity and sedentary behaviour, we <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.101920" target="_blank">reviewed the scientific literature</a> describing relationships between measures of sedentary behaviours such as physical inactivity and screen time, and subjective well-being as reflected by affect, life satisfaction and overall subjective well-being. </p><p><a href="https://www.sedentarybehaviour.org/2021/03/04/relationships-between-indices-of-sedentary-behavior-and-hedonic-well-being-a-scoping-review/" target="_blank">Our review</a> highlights three main findings. First, sedentary behaviour, physical inactivity and screen time demonstrated weak but statistically significant correlations with subjective well-being. In other words, those who reported sitting more often and spending longer periods with no physical activity reported lower positive affect, higher negative affect and lower life satisfaction than those who sat less and moved more. </p><p>We also found that this relationship was most apparent in studies that compared people who were very sedentary to those who had more active lifestyles. </p><h2>Not all sitting is bad sitting</h2><p>Our second main finding relates to the context of the sedentary behaviour. While many studies examined overall sedentary behaviour and physical inactivity, some studies looked at specific contexts or domains of sitting and its relationship with subjective well-being. These studies revealed that different domains of sedentary behaviour have unique relationships with subjective well-being. </p><p>For example, screen time was consistently and negatively associated with subjective well-being. However, domains like socializing, playing an instrument and reading actually demonstrated positive associations with subjective well-being. These results differ from the traditional health-related sedentary behaviour research, in which <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094201" target="_blank">all sedentary behaviour is viewed as harmful to health</a>. </p><p>Our review suggests that some types of sedentary behaviour may be beneficial to quality of life. Rather, not all sitting is the same in terms of subjective well-being. So when people work towards reducing their sitting time, they should consider not just how much to reduce, but what kind to reduce.</p><h2>Less sitting is good for everyone</h2><p>Our third main finding concerns overall sitting and self-perceived levels of sedentary behaviour. Most studies found a weak statistically significant association between higher overall sedentary time and lower subjective well-being. However, in studies where participants were asked to compare their sedentary behaviour to how much they normally sit, those who perceived themselves as more sedentary than usual reported significantly poorer subjective well-being.</p><p>These findings suggest that how much an individual sits overall may not be as important as how much an individual sits compared to their usual level of sitting. This infers that anyone, regardless of how much they normally sit or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30370-1" target="_blank">are physically active</a>, may potentially benefit from sitting less.</p><p>COVID-19 continues to influence daily life and routines. Even as businesses and gyms eventually reopen, and we feel more comfortable gathering with others and eventually stop wearing masks, we will almost certainly continue to sit and sitting will continue to change how we feel. While we may not be able to eliminate all of our sitting, we can all be mindful of both how much we can reduce it and where we can reduce it from to be healthier <em>and</em> feel better.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156289/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1"></p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wuyou-sui-1024154" target="_blank">Wuyou Sui</a>, Postdoctoral fellow, Behavioural Medicine Lab, School of Exercise Science, Physical & Health Education, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-victoria-1182" target="_blank">University of Victoria</a></em> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/harry-prapavessis-1115239" target="_blank">Harry Prapavessis</a>, Professor, Kinesiology, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/western-university-882" target="_blank">Western University</a></em></p><p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/too-much-sitting-is-bad-for-you-but-some-types-are-better-than-others-156289" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
VR experiments manipulate how people feel about coffee
A new study looks at how images of coffee's origins affect the perception of its premiumness and quality.
11 April, 2021
Expert drinking coffee while wearing a VR headset.
Credit: Escobar / Petit / Velasco, Frontiers in Psychology
Surprising Science
- Images can affect how people perceive the quality of a product.
- In a new study, researchers show using virtual reality that images of farms positively influence the subjects' experience of coffee.
- The results provide insights on the psychology and power of marketing.
<p>Are coffee consumers influenced by the imagery and story around the production of the drink? Such was one of the central questions of a new <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.586983/full" target="_blank">study</a> that explored the power of marketing on how "premium" aficionados consider coffee to be. </p><p>The researchers set out to explore whether the origins of the coffee can affect the perception of its quality in the minds of the drinkers. In particular, they focused on the concept of terroir, the special characteristics conferred upon the coffee by the specific terrain in which it was grown. </p><p>"Terroir is more than a mere geographical link between product and land," write the authors. "It relates to the idea that products are a unique expression of different environmental and sociocultural characteristics of a specific place." Thus, focusing a customer's attention on the environment in which the coffee was grown might make the product seem more authentic and of better quality.</p><p>Therefore, the researchers examined the effect of images on the coffee-drinking experience in three experiments. The study was carried out by the food scientist Francisco Barbosa Escobar from Aarhus University in Denmark and marketing experts Olivia Petit from the Kedge Business School in Marseille, France, and Carlos Velasco from the BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, Norway. Incidentally, Norwegians are among the world's top coffee consumers, with an average Norwegian adult consuming around 4 cups of coffee a day, reports<a href="https://www.ssb.no/utenriksokonomi/artikler-og-publikasjoner/kaffeavhengige-nordmenn" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> Statistics Norway</a>.</p><p>The first experiment involved 770 non-expert participants from the UK. They were shown online images and descriptions of four different specialty coffees, traded by a Norwegian coffee company. The researchers found that coffees with pictures of farms were rated higher in premiumness by the subjects than coffees with pictures of cities.</p><p>For the second and third experiments, the study used virtual reality environments of Times Square in New York City and a farm in Kenya as well as a control setting of a white room. The second experiment engaged 143 non-expert participants recruited via a behavioral studies platform at the BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, Norway. The participants were asked to smell a sample of quality ground coffee from Kenya while at the same time traversing a virtual reality atmosphere. The subjects were then asked to rate the coffee. </p><p><br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAzOTYxMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMzM1OTM3Mn0.Bo8fM6zWiMO6cz0q8sgWy94OKPq48Q18W3gKnvB3cd0/img.jpg?width=980" id="ef190" width="660" height="1339" data-rm-shortcode-id="0ee1c7ccc92b9b1ec616aebb7fa00ff7" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption..."> Image (A) shows the instruments used in Experiment 2: Oculus GO virtual reality (VR) headset and sample coffee bag. The other panels show the VR environments used in the study - (B) farm, (C) city, and (D) control.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Credit: Escobar / Petit / Velasco, Frontiers in Psychology</small></p><p><br></p><p>Compared to the control (white room), subjects in the farm VR atmosphere rated the coffee as more acidic. Conversely, subjects rated coffee as sweeter when inside the control VR atmosphere compared to the city VR atmosphere. Furthermore, coffee was considered more premium when subjects were in the farm VR atmosphere compared to the control, but there was no difference in premiumness score between farm and city.</p><p>For the third experiment, the research team involved 34 people who were professionals in the coffee industry. They were asked to taste and score Kenyan coffee while being in the same city and farm VR environments used in the previous experiment. The results revealed a strong effect of atmosphere on how much the experts enjoyed their experience, with a much greater preference for the farm setting versus the control environment of a white room. </p><p>But the different VR atmospheres had little effect on how the experts rated the premiumness of the coffee. The researchers believe that "given their specialized knowledge, coffee professionals examined more objective attributes of the coffee and could discriminate intrinsic factors relevant for the assessment of the coffee from irrelevant extrinsic cues."</p><p>The researchers think their results can lead to developing more immersive marketing experiences in virtual reality, which could be groundbreaking in many industries. A premium experience can lead to customers paying premium prices.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Videos
Is empathy always good?
Research has shown how important empathy is to relationships, but there are limits to its power.
Scroll down to load more…
