from the world's big
The Neuroscience of Why People Won’t Budge on Their Beliefs
When it comes to climate change, gun control, and vaccinations, facts don’t change people’s minds—but there is one technique that might.
Dr. Tali Sharot is the author of The Influential Mind (2017) and The Optimism Bias (2012). She is an Associate Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, and the founder and director of the Affective Brain Lab, at University College London. Her papers on decision making, emotion, and influence have been published in Nature, Science, Nature Neuroscience, Psychological Science, and many others. She has been featured in numerous outlets and written for The New York Times, Time Magazine, Washington Post, CNN, BBC, and more.
Tali Sharot: So most of us think that information is the best way to convince people of our truth, and in fact it doesn’t work that well.We see that all the time. We see it with climate change, where there’s tons of data suggesting that climate change is man-made but about 50 percent of the population doesn’t believe it, or with people arguing about things like how many people were in the presidential inauguration. So we have facts but people decide which facts they want to listen to, which facts they want to take and change their opinions, and which they want to disregard. And one of the reasons for this is when something doesn’t conform to what I already believe, what people tend to do is either disregard it or rationalize it away; because information doesn’t take into account what makes us human, which is our emotions, our desires, our motives and our prior beliefs.
So for example, in one study my colleagues and I tried it to see whether we could use science to change people’s opinions about climate change. The first thing we did was ask people, “Do you believe in man-made climate change? Do you support the Paris Agreement?” And based on their answers we divided them into the strong believers and the weak believers. And then we gave them information.
For some people we said that scientists have reevaluated the data and now conclude that things are actually much worse than they thought before, that the temperature would rise by about seven degrees to ten degrees. For some people we said the scientists have reevaluated the data and they now believe that actually this situation is not as bad as they thought, it’s much better, and the rise in temperature would be quite small.
And what we found is that people who did not believe in climate change, when they heard that the scientists are saying, “Actually it’s not that bad,” they changed their beliefs even more in that direction, so they became more extremist in that direction, but when they heard that the scientists think it’s much worse they didn’t nudge.
And the people who already believe that climate change is man-made, when they heard that scientists are saying things are much worse than they said before, they moved more in that direction, so they became more polarized, but when they heard scientists are saying it’s not that bad they didn’t nudge much. So we gave people information and as a result it caused polarization, it didn’t cause people to come together.
So the question is, what’s happening inside our brain that causes this? And in one study my colleagues and I scanned brain activity of two people who were interacting, and what we found was when those two people agreed on a question that we gave them, the brain was really encoding what the other person was saying, the details that they gave; but when the two people disagreed it looked metaphorically as if the brain was switching off and not encoding what the other person was saying.And as a result when the two agreed they became even more confident, but when they disagreed there wasn’t as much of a change in their confidence in their own view.
What has been shown by Kahan and colleagues from Yale University is that the more intelligent you are the more likely you are to change data at will. So what they did is they first gave participants in their experiment analytical and math questions to solve, and then they gave them data about gun control: is gun control actually reducing violence? And they found that more “intelligent” people actually were more likely to twist data at will to make it conform to what they already believed.So it seems that people are using their intelligence not necessarily to find the truth, but to take in the information and change it to conform to what they already believe. So that suggests that just giving people information without considering first where they’re coming from may backfire at us, but we don’t always need to go against someone’s conviction in order to change their behavior, and let me give you an example.
So this is a study that was conducted at UCLA where what they wanted to do is convince parents to vaccinate their kids. And some of the parents didn’t want to vaccinate their kids because they were afraid of the link with autism.So they had two approaches, first they said, “Well the link with autism is actually not real, here’s all the data suggesting there isn’t a link between vaccines and autism.” And it didn’t really work that well. But instead they used another approach. So instead of going that way they used another approach, which was: let’s not talk about autism, we don’t necessarily need to talk about autism to convince you to vaccinate your kids. Instead they said, “Well look, these vaccines protect kids from deadly diseases, from the measles,” and they showed them pictures of what the measles are. Because in this argument about vaccines people actually forgot what the vaccines are for, what are they protecting us from. And they highlighted that and didn’t necessarily go on to discuss autism. That had a much better outcome. The parents were much more likely to say, “Yes we are going to vaccinate our kids.”
So the lesson here is that we need to find the common motive. The common motive in this case was the health of the children, not necessarily going back to the thing that they were arguing about, that they disagreed about.
If you want someone to see an issue rationally, you just show them the facts, right? No one can refute a fact. Well, brain imaging and psychological studies are showing that, society wide, we may be on the wrong path by holding evidence up as an Ace card. Neuroscientist Tali Sharot and her colleagues have proven that reading the same set of facts polarizes groups of people even further, because of our in-built confirmation biases—something we all fall prey to, equally. In fact, Sharot cites research from Yale University that disproves the idea that the social divisions we are experiencing right now—over climate change, gun control, or vaccines—are somehow the result of an intelligence gap: smart people are just as illogical, and what's more, they are even more skilled at skewing data to align with their beliefs. So if facts aren't the way forward, what is? There is one thing that may help us swap the moral high ground for actual progress: finding common motives. Here, Sharot explains why identifying a shared goal is better than winning a fight. Tali Sharot's newest book is out now: The Influential Mind: What the Brain Reveals about Our Power to Change Others.
Ready to see the future? Nanotronics CEO Matthew Putman talks innovation and the solutions that are right under our noses.
Innovation in manufacturing has crawled since the 1950s. That's about to speed up.
President Putin announces approval of Russia's coronavirus vaccine but scientists warn it may be unsafe.
Russia's President Putin announced on Tuesday, August 11th, that his country was the first to approve a coronavirus vaccine, provoking skepticism from Russian and international scientists. Putin said the vaccine has met the Health Industry's standards and was even tested on his own daughter. Others aren't so sure, pointing to the lack of evidence from Russia and the seeming fact that the vaccine did not undergo the necessary phase 3 trials and was only administered to dozens of people. Such a sample is not enough to determine the vaccine's effectiveness on a large scale, but the Russian authorities will start giving the vaccine to doctors on the virus frontlines first and move on to mass vaccination as early as October.
Putin, leading a country that has had almost 900,000 cases of Covid-19 by this point, stood by the vaccine's effectiveness:
"I know it has proven efficient and forms a stable immunity," said the Russian President. "We must be grateful to those who made that first step very important for our country and the entire world."
Putin also claimed that the vaccine was tested on one of his daughters, sharing that the day of the first injection her temperature reached 100.4 degrees but then fell to a bit over 98.6 degrees the following day. The second shot also led to a slight fever. Overall, this resulted in the daughter developing a "high number of antibodies," according to President Putin.
Russia's own Association of Clinical Trials Organizations offered a note of caution, stating that "Fast-tracked approval will not make Russia the leader in the race, it will just expose consumers of the vaccine to unnecessary danger," as reported by the Associated Press.
International scientists were also much more guarded with their optimism, pointing out that without a phase 3 trial, which usually engages tens of thousands of people and lasts months, you can't truly tell if the vaccine is safe and works. By comparison, American vaccine trials require 30,000 people each during final stages. Several such studies are currently underway.
A new coronavirus vaccine on display at the Nikolai Gamaleya National Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology in Moscow, Russia.
Credit: Alexander Zemlianichenko Jr/ Russian Direct Investment Fund via AP
Professor Danny Altmann of Imperial College London, shared his reservations about releasing an ill-researched vaccine:
"The collateral damage from release of any vaccine that was less than safe and effective would exacerbate our current problems insurmountably," he commented in a statement.
Rushing a vaccine can be damaging to the health of millions and contribute to the further spread of Covid-19 by fostering a false sense of protection. It can also erode trust in vaccines in the general population.
Medical workers draw blood from volunteers participating in a trial of a coronavirus vaccine at the Budenko Main Military Hospital outside Moscow, Russia.
Credit: Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP
The developers of the Russian vaccine have used a technology that's similar to what is being studied by other labs looking to stop the coronavirus spread – Oxford University, AstraZeneca and China's CanSino Biologics. This method involves modifying the adenovirus, which causes the common cold, to transport genes for the protein coating the coronavirus. This essentially prepares the body to spot a real COVID-19 infection if it comes.
The vaccine is being researched by the Gamaleya Institute in Moscow with help from Russia's Defense Ministry. The goal of the vaccine is to provide immunity of up to two years.
Further trials of the Russian vaccine will begin shortly, with thousands of participants not just from Russia but the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines. Brazil might also participate.
Viewing art that doesn't look like anything makes your brain take extra steps to try and get it.
- A new study finds that viewing modern art causes real cognitive changes in the viewer.
- Abstract art causes the viewer to place more psychological distance between themselves and the art than with more typical works.
- Exactly how this works is not yet known.
Abstract art alters your cognitive state? Kandinsky would be proud to hear it.<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="SlxuWYpH" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="c6729aae7d0a5a84ff0da7d8a99104a1"> <div id="botr_SlxuWYpH_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/SlxuWYpH-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/SlxuWYpH-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/SlxuWYpH-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p><a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-94-007-0753-5_2306#:~:text=Psychological%20distance%20is%20a%20cognitive,persons%2C%20events%2C%20or%20times." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">Psychological distance</a> is the mental distance you place between yourself and other people, things, times, and events. We tend to view abstract notions as very distant and concrete thoughts as very close. Likewise, events that are occurring tomorrow are often more "real" to us than things happening next <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construal_level_theory" target="_blank">year</a>.</p><p>As an example of how we all use this, imagine that you've made plans to spend the day go-karting with your friends. If it is a month away, you might focus on the general details like how much fun you'll have. If it is tomorrow, your focus might be on small details like the logistics of getting there. The first event is psychologically and temporally distant, so we tend to view it abstractly; the second case is the opposite.</p><p>For this <a href="https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/abstract-art-mindset-study" target="_blank">experiment</a>, the researchers gathered 840 subjects to test how the viewing of abstract art related to how psychologically closely or distantly they viewed it. </p><p>The test subjects were asked to view artworks defined as purely abstract, having a clearly defined object, or partly abstract with a definable object. They were then asked to imagine that they were going to decide where to place the painting on display. They could either put it in a gallery "around the corner" or "in another state." The date of the showing could either be "tomorrow" or "in a year."</p><p>The subjects were substantially more likely to choose to place the abstract works in a distant gallery in the future than to do the same with the more grounded works. This tendency to associate abstract art with faraway places or times, even after controlling for how much people liked the artwork in question, indicates that we tend to place psychological distance between ourselves and abstract art. </p><p>Study co-author Daphna Shohamy generalized these findings for <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/people/behaviour/evocations-of-abstract-art/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">Cosmos</a>:</p><p>"This means that art has an effect on our general cognitive state that goes beyond how much we enjoy it, to change the way we perceive events and make decisions."</p><p>This study, published in the <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/07/29/2001772117" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a>, points in the same direction as previous investigations into how we interact with abstract art. One <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21734876/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">2011 study</a> tracked the eye movements of people viewing representational art and those considering the work of Jackson Pollock and found that people tend to view all of an abstract work as they scour it for meaning as opposed to focusing on small details in a more representational painting. </p><p>Exactly how abstract art causes our brain to take a step back when considering it is a subject for further research.</p><p>The notion that a work of art must evoke a particular reaction from the viewer is the subject of some debate, though it is unlikely that many of the people advocating for that idea had the findings of this study in mind. While this study won't settle any debates in aesthetics or make a modern art lover out of everybody, it might lead to new understandings of how art affects the viewer and serve as a reminder of how much artwork and beauty influence the mind. </p>
A new Harvard study finds that the language you use affects patient outcome.
- A study at Harvard's McLean Hospital claims that using the language of chemical imbalances worsens patient outcomes.
- Though psychiatry has largely abandoned DSM categories, professor Joseph E Davis writes that the field continues to strive for a "brain-based diagnostic system."
- Chemical explanations of mental health appear to benefit pharmaceutical companies far more than patients.
Challenging the Chemical Imbalance Theory of Mental Disorders: Robert Whitaker, Journalist<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="41699c8c2cb2aee9271a36646e0bee7d"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-8BDC7i8Yyw?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>This is a far cry from Howard Rusk's 1947 NY Times editorial calling for mental healt</p><p>h disorders to be treated similarly to physical disease (such as diabetes and cancer). This mindset—not attributable to Rusk alone; he was merely relaying the psychiatric currency of the time—has dominated the field for decades: mental anguish is a genetic and/or chemical-deficiency disorder that must be treated pharmacologically.</p><p>Even as psychiatry untethered from DSM categories, the field still used chemistry to validate its existence. Psychotherapy, arguably the most efficient means for managing much of our anxiety and depression, is time- and labor-intensive. Counseling requires an empathetic and wizened ear to guide the patient to do the work. Ingesting a pill to do that work for you is more seductive, and easier. As Davis writes, even though the industry abandoned the DSM, it continues to strive for a "brain-based diagnostic system." </p><p>That language has infiltrated public consciousness. The team at McLean surveyed 279 patients seeking acute treatment for depression. As they note, the causes of psychological distress have constantly shifted over the millennia: humoral imbalance in the ancient world; spiritual possession in medieval times; early childhood experiences around the time of Freud; maladaptive thought patterns dominant in the latter half of last century. While the team found that psychosocial explanations remain popular, biogenetic explanations (such as the chemical imbalance theory) are becoming more prominent. </p><p>Interestingly, the 80 people Davis interviewed for his book predominantly relied on biogenetic explanations. Instead of doctors diagnosing patients, as you might expect, they increasingly serve to confirm what patients come in suspecting. Patients arrive at medical offices confident in their self-diagnoses. They believe a pill is the best course of treatment, largely because they saw an advertisement or listened to a friend. Doctors too often oblige without further curiosity as to the reasons for their distress. </p>
Image: Illustration Forest / Shutterstock<p>While medicalizing mental health softens the stigma of depression—if a disorder is inheritable, it was never really your fault—it also disempowers the patient. The team at McLean writes,</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"More recent studies indicate that participants who are told that their depression is caused by a chemical imbalance or genetic abnormality expect to have depression for a longer period, report more depressive symptoms, and feel they have less control over their negative emotions."</p><p>Davis points out the language used by direct-to-consumer advertising prevalent in America. Doctors, media, and advertising agencies converge around common messages, such as everyday blues is a "real medical condition," everyone is susceptible to clinical depression, and drugs correct underlying somatic conditions that you never consciously control. He continues,</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Your inner life and evaluative stance are of marginal, if any, relevance; counseling or psychotherapy aimed at self-insight would serve little purpose." </p><p>The McLean team discovered a similar phenomenon: patients expect little from psychotherapy and a lot from pills. When depression is treated as the result of an internal and immutable essence instead of environmental conditions, behavioral changes are not expected to make much difference. Chemistry rules the popular imagination.</p>
Why Depression Isn't Just a Chemical Imbalance<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="fbc027c9358dad4a6d9e2704fc9ddb04"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GAC9ODvSxh0?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Many years ago, my best friend tried to quit smoking. He asked for help. While I'm no addiction expert, I offered what I knew from my fitness toolkit: breathing exercises and cardiovascular training, methods for strengthening his body and mind that could, I hoped, inspire him to take better care of himself in general. He replied, "No, I meant something like a pill."</p><p>A few years later, he quit for good. After failing the cold turkey method a number of times, it finally stuck. Maybe it was watching his children grow up—the reason my parents quit when I was young. This method is not easy, however. It challenges you; it forces you to confront your demons; it drastically affects your brain chemistry. Yet, in the long run, it sometimes works. </p><p>Sometimes pills work, too. But often they do not. The journalist Robert Whitaker, author of "Anatomy of an Epidemic," discussed the clinical trial process <a href="https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/antidepressants-dangers" target="_self">during our recent conversation</a>. While the FDA process appears thorough from the outside, pharmaceutical companies only need to prove that a drug works better than placebo, not that it works for the most amount of people. He continues, </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Let's say you have a drug that provides a relief of symptoms in 20 percent of people. In placebo, it's 10 percent. How many people in that study do not benefit from the drug? Nine out of 10. How many people are exposed to the adverse effects of the drug? 100 percent."</p><p>Even though some pharmacological interventions show little efficacy, and even though Xanax, an addictive and destructive benzodiazepine that only showed <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5846112/" target="_blank">short-term (four weeks) efficacy</a> in clinical trials, is being prescribed for many months and years, doctors continue to use the language of clinical neuroscience to describe mental health issues. If chemistry is the problem, people will turn to chemistry for the solution. </p><p>Perhaps we should, as psychiatrist Dean Schuyler <a href="https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/antidepressant-effects" target="_self">writes</a> in a 1974 book, recognize that most depressive episodes "will run their course and terminate with virtually complete recovery without specific intervention." The problem is that idea isn't profitable. As long as the gatekeepers continue to use the language of chemical imbalances to describe what for many is just an episodic case of the "blahs," we'll continue creating more problems than we solve.</p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>
There are several things both men and women can do to actively boost low libido, according to research.
- Low libido, or sudden changes in your sex drive, can be overwhelming and cause embarrassment or shame, but this is a common problem that could have many different solutions.
- According to research, managing your anxiety/stress levels, maintaining a healthy diet and proper sleeping habits, and cutting down on things such as alcohol or smoking can all boost your libido.
- Low libido can have many causes (physical, emotional, medical, etc). If you find you are struggling with this and are not able to find a solution, consider consulting a doctor and/or sex therapist to discuss your concerns.
How to boost low libido in men<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU1MDI1Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5NzUzOTY5NH0.BXq9uzNS94ZwfC-VXQ3rH0eAyamxicB0-92Oc3mq2_U/img.jpg?width=980" id="e2e29" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6f283deba8e4978da62652c7823e03ba" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="man sitting on couch frustrated" />
Properly managing your stress and anxiety can boost libido in both men and women.
Photo by G-Stock Studio on Shutterstock<p>Struggling with low libido can feel isolating and embarrassing. However, according to a study linked in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 19 percent of participants reported a low libido at the baseline of <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/91/7/2509/2656285" target="_blank">this testosterone study</a>.</p><p><strong>If a male is experiencing low libido, there are several things that could be causing it: </strong></p><ul><li>Physical issues such as low testosterone, prescription medications, alcohol, and drug abuse</li><li>Psychological issues such as depression, stress, relationship tension</li><li>Outside factors such as problems at work, a death in the family, emotional turmoil</li></ul><p><strong>Talk to your partner about what you're experiencing. </strong></p><p>Low libido can be incredibly difficult to talk about with your partner, especially if it's causing problems in the relationship, but it could give you support and help you find alternative ways to connect until you find an answer. </p><p><strong>Check your hormone levels and your health with a doctor. </strong></p><p>According to WebMD, around 28 percent of men with low testosterone also struggle with low libido. Having low or decreased testosterone levels can impact more than just your sex drive, as testosterone plays a few important roles in the body. Testosterone <a href="https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/understanding-how-testosterone-affects-men" target="_blank">has also been linked</a> to bone mass, fat distribution, muscle mass, and strength. </p><p>Completing a physical and bringing up low libido concerns with your doctor can help you rule out any physical things that could be causing your low sex drive. Perhaps a medication that you're on is giving an unwanted side effect. Medications such as morphine, opioid pain relievers, corticosteroids, and certain antidepressants <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/low-testosterone/conditions-that-cause-low-libido#medications" target="_blank">can impact your libido</a>. You may have the option to be moved to another, or your doctor may insist on checking your testosterone levels.</p><p>According to the American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines, adult men are considered to have low testosterone (or low T) if their levels fall below <a href="https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/testosterone-deficiency-guideline" target="_blank">300 nanograms per deciliter</a>. <a href="https://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/low-testosterone/low-testosterone-diagnosis#:~:text=A%20simple%20blood%20test%20can,blood%20test%20in%20the%20morning." target="_blank">A simple blood test</a> will be able to tell your doctor your testosterone levels. </p><p>Consider meeting with a sex therapist or counselor about any relationship struggles that could be impacting your libido. </p><p><strong>Manage your anxiety. </strong></p><p>High levels of anxiety and stress are extremely common barriers to sexual functioning for both men and women. You can manage your anxiety by practicing good sleeping habits, exercising regularly, working to improve your relationship(s), speaking with a therapist, or consulting a doctor about anti-anxiety medications. </p><p><strong>Regular exercise could be key to maintaining proper hormone levels and boosting sexual function. </strong></p><p>Strength training, walking, and swimming may all work to improve sexual function and libido (in both men and women). In fact, <a href="https://www.mdlinx.com/article/5-exercises-scientifically-proven-to-boost-libido/lfc-3510#:~:text=Strength%20training%2C%20Kegels%2C%20yoga%2C,finding%20holds%20in%20habitual%20exercisers." target="_blank">one-time acute exercise sessions have been linked to boosted sexual arousal</a> because of the activation of the sympathetic nervous system. </p>
How to boost low libido in women<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU1MDI1NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NTAyMDQwMX0.6mhDbzwIAjy5shAQWEE8mxxg0bMgSMdM_ET-84pnT-A/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=42%2C0%2C42%2C0&height=700" id="f5748" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="33aa9ece89b1a3af296d5e68fb23e072" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="woman running on pavement in city" />
Creating a healthy lifestyle (healthy eating and exercise habits) can help boost libido in both men and women.
Photo by lzf on Shutterstock<p>The sexual desires of women naturally fluctuate over the years for various reasons (pregnancy, menopause, illness, life events), and navigating the lows can be incredibly difficult.</p><p><strong>If a female is experiencing low libido, there are several things that could be causing it, such as: </strong></p><ul><li>Physical problems, including medical diseases, medications, where you are in your menstruation cycle, hormone changes, etc. can all be causes of low sex drive in women. </li><li>Many women experience severe changes in their hormones and sex drive during and even years after pregnancy or breast-feeding. </li><li>Lifestyle habits including alcohol or drug consumption or smoking can also dull your sex drive. </li><li>Fatigue or exhaustion are commonly reported problems that impact sex drive among women. </li></ul><p><strong>Communicate with your partner about what you're experiencing. </strong></p><p>According to <a href="http://www.healthywomen.org/sites/default/files/FSD_infographic_mech.pdf" target="_blank">a survey from the National Women's Health Resource Center</a>, 59 percent of women report that low sex drive has had a negative impact on their relationship, with up to 66 percent of women reporting the low sexual desire impacted communication in their relationship. </p><p>Struggling with low sex drive and being unable to find an immediate fix can feel embarrassing and bring up a lot of insecurities - but talking openly about it with your partner can allow you to both understand what's happening and work together to solve the problem. </p><p><strong>What you're eating could also impact your libido. </strong></p><p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27784600" target="_blank">According to a 2015 review study</a>, adding things like maca, tribulus, gingko, and ginseng to your food could help improve sexual function. Additionally, maintaining a healthy (low sugar/high lean protein) diet <a href="https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323918#natural-ways-to-boost-libido" target="_blank">can boost your sex drive</a> by promoting proper circulation and heart health. </p><p><strong>Could a good night's sleep help? </strong></p><p><a href="https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/111751/jsm12858.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y" target="_blank">According to a small-scale study</a>, many women explained that a good night's sleep helped increase their sexual desire and arousal the next day. Women who reported longer sleeping times also reported better arousal levels the next day compared to those with shorter sleeping times. </p>