Self-Motivation
David Goggins
Former Navy Seal
Career Development
Bryan Cranston
Actor
Critical Thinking
Liv Boeree
International Poker Champion
Emotional Intelligence
Amaryllis Fox
Former CIA Clandestine Operative
Management
Chris Hadfield
Retired Canadian Astronaut & Author
Learn
from the world's big
thinkers
Start Learningfrom the world's big
thinkers
Write It Down: My Best Career Advice
Tal Ben-Shahar
Tal Ben-Shahar is an author and lecturer at Harvard University. He currently teaches the largest course at Harvard on "Positive Psychology" and the third largest on "The Psychology of Leadership"--with a total of over 1,400 students.
Tal consults and lectures around the world to executives in multi-national corporation, the general public, and at-risk populations. Topics include happiness, self-esteem, resilience, goal setting, mindfulness, and leadership.
An avid sportsman, Tal won the U.S. Intercollegiate and Israeli National squash championships. He obtained his PhD in Organizational Behavior and BA in Philosophy and Psychology from Harvard.
Question: What is the best career advice you've ever received?
Tal Ben Shahar: The best advice that I got was from my philosophy teacher, Ohad Kamin. After graduating from college and feeling very lost, I went to him, and his advice was, Tal, think about the things that you want to do and write them down. Then look at these things and identify the things that you really want to do, and write these down. And from those things, identify the things that you really, really want to do, and then go ahead and do it. You know, life is short. We don't have that much time. And it's too short to do what we feel that we have to do; it's barely long enough to do what we want to do.
Recorded on: September 23, 2009
Tal Ban Shahar’s best career advice involved getting some important words on paper.
Remote learning vs. online instruction: How COVID-19 woke America up to the difference
Educators and administrators must build new supports for faculty and student success in a world where the classroom might become virtual in the blink of an eye.
14 July, 2020
Credit: Shutterstock
Sponsored by Charles Koch Foundation
- If you or someone you know is attending school remotely, you are more than likely learning through emergency remote instruction, which is not the same as online learning, write Rich DeMillo and Steve Harmon.
- Education institutions must properly define and understand the difference between a course that is designed from inception to be taught in an online format and a course that has been rapidly converted to be offered to remote students.
- In a future involving more online instruction than any of us ever imagined, it will be crucial to meticulously design factors like learner navigation, interactive recordings, feedback loops, exams and office hours in order to maximize learning potential within the virtual environment.
<p>If there is one thing that the COVID-19 pandemic should teach educators, it's the fragility of long-cherished assumptions about what is best or desirable for learning. It seems like just yesterday that the arguments were raging about whether colleges were going to be diminished if they relied too much on technology and online learning. Access to college classes, it seemed at the time, was something that must be added carefully to an existing way of learning. One thing that drew nods at faculty meetings was the conviction that making college accessible would not be at the expense of a quality residential experience. It never occurred to any of us (even those of us who were actively promoting online learning as an alternate but equally effective educational experience) that traditional residential classrooms would disappear, not because they had been destroyed by online courses, but because they might become obsolete in a world in which congregating in groups of dozens or hundreds is simply not possible.</p><p>Your child may now be staring at their computer screen instead of going to a physical classroom, but that doesn't mean that they are necessarily participating in quality, online learning. Your student is more than likely learning through emergency remote instruction, <em>which is not the same as online learning</em>. As we face this new era of remote instruction for everyone from K-12 students to graduate students and adult learners, it's essential that we properly define and understand the difference between a course that is designed to be taught in an online format and a course that has been rapidly converted to be offered to remote students. It is also critical that we examine the respective roles of these two forms of instruction in the future of education.</p>
<blockquote>[T]here have always been and continue to be skeptics of online learning and many of their fears are not unfounded. ... However, we often find that these concerns are due to a misunderstanding of the difference between high-quality, online instruction and emergency remote education. </blockquote>
<p>In 2014, Georgia Tech partnered with AT&T and Udacity to launch what has now become the world's largest and most affordable (costing the average student around $8,000), accredited Online Master's of Science in Computer Science (known as <a href="https://omscs.gatech.edu/" target="_blank">OMSCS</a>). The design and development of this degree program was a massive undertaking involving countless faculty members, online instruction specialists, educational technologists, and instructional designers. Due to the immense work and expertise poured into the OMSCS program and its curriculum, it has become a global success and has produced hundreds of successful alumni.<br></p><p>The remote courses offered by universities across the globe as a result of COVID-19 are not the same as online courses offered by a program, like OMSCS, that has been designed from inception to be offered in a fully digital format. For example, in Ashok Goel and David Joyner's popular Knowledge-Based Artificial Intelligence course, every detail from the user experience of navigating the virtual course content, to the highly interactive, pre-recorded video lessons, to the approach to peer feedback, exams, and office hours have been meticulously designed to maximize learning potential within the virtual environment. This course has been iterated upon and honed over many semesters of offerings.</p><p>A course in, for example, physics, that has never before been offered in the online environment but has been converted to remote learning due to COVID-19 does not have the luxury of many phases of design and iteration. A faculty member teaching a course like this unexpectedly needs to rapidly determine how to offer the best possible course to remote students, even if said faculty member has never before taught an online course. Universities need to be prepared to successfully equip and support the efforts of these faculty members. In the new normal, a university must provide a framework for both online learning and emergency remote education.</p><p>This will be one of the defining questions for the future of higher education: How do we properly equip educators for a future involving more remote and online instruction than any of us ever imagined?</p>
<p>Since campuses began to shutter due to COVID-19, faculty and university staff across the country have worked around the clock to convert on-campus courses into remote learning experiences for upcoming semesters. New research data shows us that at Georgia Tech, students have generally been accepting of the newly remote experience and what the university has been able to offer as a substitute for on-campus learning, with only 30% reporting dissatisfaction.</p><p>Yet, there have always been and continue to be skeptics of online learning and many of their fears are not unfounded. Concern about the quality of instruction, the lack of human-to-human interaction, the restrictions placed on instructional methods are more than reasonable--these are the types of concerns that excellent faculty and instructors should be asking of any new approach lauded as a game changer for education. However, we often find that these concerns are due to a misunderstanding of the difference between high-quality, online instruction and emergency remote education. Research has shown that students in an online variation of one of Georgia Tech's on-campus computer science classes do just as well in the course as their in-person counterparts and also take less time to achieve comparable learning outcomes (<a href="http://www.davidjoyner.net/blog/toward-cs1-at-scale-building-and-testing-a-mooc-for-credit-candidate/" target="_blank">Joyner 2018</a>). Yet, students in online courses that are simply recordings of their in-person lessons can find success more difficult because their remote course was not designed for the digital format from inception. For example, in face-to-face classes there is an immediate feedback loop between instructors and students. If a student doesn't understand something, the instructor can instantly try a different approach to help foster understanding. In remote classes that loop is weakened or even missing entirely. Understanding the differing natures of the two modes of instruction is the first step in building a bridge between the quality of programs like Georgia Tech's online master's degrees and the immediate need for a course to be available to students who thought they would be spending those class hours in a lecture hall.</p>
<p>There is no question that we need quality online and remote instruction now more than ever. What we as educators and administrators must do is take a close look at the challenges (and successes) we've experienced over the past few months, overlay that with what we know about meaningful online learning experiences, and build new supports for faculty and student success in a world where the classroom might become virtual in the blink of an eye.</p><p>Beyond that, we need to look past the traditional curriculum, instruction, and assessment aspects of a course and try to develop the less obvious (but perhaps just as important) intangible elements that make up a high-quality educational experience. It can be difficult to build community, establish relationships between students and faculty, and find motivation and career guidance in a totally online environment. But these things are at the heart of the higher education experience and we need to look for a way to bring these intangibles to our students, regardless of instructional delivery mode and even in the midst of unthinkable and unexpected change. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
Supporting climate science increases skepticism of out-groups
A study finds people are more influenced by what the other party says than their own. What gives?
14 July, 2020
Photo by Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs
- A new study has found evidence suggesting that conservative climate skepticism is driven by reactions to liberal support for science.
- This was determined both by comparing polling data to records of cues given by leaders, and through a survey.
- The findings could lead to new methods of influencing public opinion.
<p>Among citizens of major Western nations, Americans' acceptance of the science of climate change is relatively <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/" target="_blank">low</a>. It is also highly tied to their party <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/" target="_blank">affiliation</a>. While members of the Democratic Party accept the scientific consensus on climate change at rates similar to citizens in other countries, members of the Republican Party express an unusual skepticism towards that consensus and generally do not believe that human-made climate change is an important <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/16/u-s-concern-about-climate-change-is-rising-but-mainly-among-democrats/" target="_blank">issue</a>. </p><p>But it wasn't always this way. Polling data from the late 20<sup>th</sup> century shows that conservative Americans once expressed a similar agreement with the scientific consensus as their more liberal peers. The shift towards skepticism has been more recent. </p> A new <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/9B173B1C904EC70361BBBF51C456A343/S0007123420000113a.pdf/party_cues_in_the_news_democratic_elites_republican_backlash_and_the_dynamics_of_climate_skepticism.pdf" target="_blank">study</a> published in The British Journal of Political Science suggests that this decline is related not to the barrage of denialists on television or an inability to access the data, but rather to the tendency of members of one party to say they support the science and the backlash against them. <p><br></p>
Mind the cues
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="CabkeAzx" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="169377c88f392a86f6c42180b74820a5"> <div id="botr_CabkeAzx_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/CabkeAzx-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/CabkeAzx-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/CabkeAzx-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>The gulf in accepting the science behind climate change also exists among party elites. It is well known to any American who is attentive to the news, as party leaders are often more than willing to discuss their take to journalists.</p><p>Using polling data going back to the 1980s, the researchers were able to create a chart showing the aggregate amount of climate skepticism among the general population. A similar diagram showing the Republicans' skepticism dating back to 2001 was sourced from a previous, similar study. It was shown to be highly correlated with the one produced for this study.</p><p>These charts were compared with media content from prominent newspapers that included implicit or explicit stances on climate change by significant political figures. These thousands of articles were classified by using key terms and which major political figures were quoted or referenced. The researchers compared the number of cues over time to measured skepticism and looked for "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granger_causality" target="_blank">Granger causality</a>," the tendency for one variable to predict the future value of another variable.</p><p>The model shows evidence of both in and out-group cue effects, though the repulsion to out-group cues was much more evident. A significant increase in Democratic cues in favor of climate science was followed by a rise in skepticism among Republican voters. Importantly, the cues lead, rather than follow opinion, and do so with consistency. Changes in view did not predict changes in the number or direction of cues. </p><p>The researchers also surveyed nearly 3000 adults to demonstrate the concept. This involved showing them a statement on the scientific consensus around climate change and a cue from either a Republican or a Democrat. This test confirmed the previous observation and provided further support for the notion that signals from leaders cause an increase in skepticism among some respondents.</p><p>Before my left-leaning and Democratic readers get too smug, this research references previous studies demonstrating a similar effect in the lead up to the Iraq War. However, in that case, the Democratic Party elites' mixed messages were countered by a Republican Party united behind the idea of invasion. The effect on the Democratic party rank and file was similar to that observed in this case. </p><p>Several other studies have examined effects similar to this for other issues. This study's importance is its focus on out-group cues and the effort placed into demonstrating a causal relationship between the statements of certain party elites and public opinion. Most previous studies focused purely on in-group cues or failed to differentiate between the two. </p>
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="v9hCmxo2" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="c2b5cd116329e99889d7094d148962b2">
<div id="botr_v9hCmxo2_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media"
data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/v9hCmxo2-FvQKszTI.js">
<img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/v9hCmxo2-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" />
</div>
<script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/v9hCmxo2-FvQKszTI.js"></script>
</div>
<p><strong>Okay, so I might rely on a cognitive bias that assumes certain other people are wrong because of what club they're in. How do I fix that?</strong><br><br>The mechanism that the authors attribute this result to, the tendency to use cues from party leaders as shortcuts in decision making, is something that anybody can find themselves falling back on. Like most of the logical fallacies that people fall victim to, it is a time and energy-saving process that <em>seems </em>useful when getting more information and you don't feel like working things out for yourself.</p><p>Also, like many other <a href="https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/ten-logical-mistakes-you-make-everyday-and-what-to-instead" target="_blank">logical fallacies</a>, knowing about it is half the battle in defeating it.<strong></strong></p><p>The next time that you find yourself trying to form an opinion about a complex issue, do what you can to look to primary sources rather than politicians. Remember that maintaining that a stance is correct or incorrect because somebody of importance holds it is just the appeal to authority fallacy. Lastly, remember that whatever political club you're in isn't infallible, and that sometimes people on your team can be mistaken just like people on the other side can be correct.</p><p>For anybody trying to increase the widespread acceptance of the scientific consensus in the United States, the authors suggest a few takeaways. They warn that party elites must weigh the positives and negatives of making public statements on their stances as that stance will generate at least some backlash. </p><p>On a more positive note, they point out that ideology was less important in decision making than many people suppose, suggesting that routes towards influencing popular opinion may face less difficulty when going against doctrine than is often feared. Similarly, they suggest that investment in forming consensus among party elites from both the left and right may be the best way to bring public opinion in line with the science. It would both benefit from the power of cues and work around the strong reaction against out-group stances.</p><p>The polarization of science in the United States has drastic consequences on scientists' ability to convince large portions of the population that climate change is real and that something should be done about it. A similar problem exists with the science around COVID-19. However, an improved understanding of the problem may allow us to solve it. By being aware of the biases that hinder our thinking, we may triumph over them.</p><p>Now we just have to be sure that the presentation of this information isn't done by someone who is considered to be part of an out-group. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
What is counterfactual thinking?
Can thinking about the past really help us create a better present and future?
14 July, 2020
Jacob Lund / Shutterstock
Personal Growth
- There are two types of counterfactual thinking: upward and downward.
- Both upward and downward counterfactual thinking can be positive impacts on your current outlook - however, upward counterfactual thinking has been linked with depression.
- While counterfactual thinking is a very normal and natural process, experts suggest the best course is to focus on the present and future and allow counterfactual thinking to act as a motivator when possible.
<p><em>"To some extent, your life can be thought of as the sum of the choices you have made. Of course, some choices are better than others. Looking back at past decisions (i.e., engaging in counterfactual thinking) is only natural in humans." </em>- <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201809/the-psychology-what-if" target="_blank">Psychology Today</a></p><ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
“Upward” versus “downward” counterfactual thinking
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ1NDYxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NDM2MDY2OX0.njWs1qrV1vDBxU1V75tUduUW4TjJvEHglDWsK8ZF2l4/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C556%2C0%2C209&height=700" id="a15fa" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="98314d4d2b256ed08f42d369fe4ae080" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="concept of man thinking about the past one line drawing counterfactual thinking" />What are upward and downward counterfactual thinking?
Image by one line man on Shutterstock
<p><strong>What is upward counterfactual thinking?</strong></p><p>Upward counterfactual thinking happens when we look at a scenario and ask ourselves "what if" in terms of how our life could have turned out better. </p><p>Examples of upward counterfactual thinking are: </p><ul><li><em>"I wish I had taken that other job instead of this one 10 years ago - my life would be so much better if I had." </em></li><li><em>"I wish I would have gotten the part in that high school play, maybe I could have gotten into a theatre school and became an actor…"</em> </li></ul><p>Both of these examples have the ideology that if you had made different choices, your life right now would be improved. </p><p><strong>What is downward counterfactual thinking?</strong></p><p>Downward counterfactual thinking is, naturally, the opposite of upward counterfactual thinking in that we think about how things could have been worse if other decisions had been made. </p><p>Examples of downward counterfactual thinking are: </p><ul><li><em>"I'm so thankful I studied secondary education in university instead of psychology like I had originally planned - I love teaching high school kids and I never would have gotten to do that…" </em></li><li><em>"I'm so happy I left David when I got the chance, I can't imagine still being in an unhappy marriage with someone who doesn't support me…"</em> </li></ul><p>In these examples, we see the idea that if you had made different choices your life would not be as good as it is right now. </p>How counterfactual thinking can impact your life
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ1NDYxNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNjI2MDQxOX0.DIVQ-Yk0d6yE3tc743MH1Fz2pOg1TGHLmhp8dPp9UdY/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C0&height=700" id="522d7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="da7df6ad916b043e3610223900d0f8df" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="man thinking what if written on chalkboard" />How do upward and downward counterfactual thinking impact your life?
Photo by Brasil Creativo on Shutterstock
<p>While many people don't see the point in "what if" scenarios, various studies have found that downward counterfactual thinking can be more associated with psychological health compared with upward counterfactual thinking. Not only that, but research has also shown upward counterfactual thinking can be linked with current and future depression.</p> <p><strong>Downward counterfactual thinking tends to be more associated with psychological health </strong></p><p>According to a <a href="http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06136.pdf" target="_blank">2000 study</a>, downward counterfactual thinking can be linked with better psychological health compared to upward counterfactual thinking. More importantly, in cases where downward counterfactual thinking did lead to negative feelings, those feelings acted as something of a motivator for people to take productive actions to better their current situation. </p> <p><strong>Upward counterfactual thinking tends to be more associated with depression </strong></p><p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272735816301714#:~:text=An%20upward%20counterfactual%20(as%20opposed,Markman%20and%20McMullen%2C%202003)." target="_blank">According to a 2017 study</a> that pooled a sample of over 13,000 respondents, thoughts about "better outcomes" and regret (upward counterfactual thinking) were associated with current and future depression. </p> <p><strong>Downward counterfactual thinking can actually improve your relationships and is more often engaged in by women than men.</strong></p><p>In a <a href="https://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstream/handle/1951/67589/Studer_Thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y" target="_blank">2016 research paper submitted</a> to the Department of Psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz, downward counterfactual thinking in regards to romantic relationships was associated with relatively positive relationship outcomes. Interestingly, women were more likely than men to engage in downward counterfactual thinking about their romantic life. </p> <p><strong>Upward counterfactual thinking can have some benefits in certain scenarios. </strong></p><p>When we look back after a failed test and think "I wish I would have studied more" - this motivates us to study harder the next time a test comes up. In this way, upward counterfactual thinking (or the negative version of "what if") can actually benefit us. </p> <p><strong>This can be difficult, though, because much of the time upward counterfactual thinking is more associated with a pessimistic outlook that can be unmotivating. </strong></p> <p>Thinking in the past tense can be motivational (and even healthy) at times, but the best thing to do is look forward. </p><p>While counterfactual thinking as a whole can be used to motivate us to make better choices or appreciate where we are in life, <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201809/the-psychology-what-if" target="_blank">this Psychology Today</a> article suggests that we should come up with ways to move on and focus on the present and the future instead of the past. Using counterfactual thinking as a motivational tool can be very helpful if we don't get stuck in the "what if" mindset that tends to pull us out of the present and back into the past, where things will always remain the same. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
DMT drug study investigates the ‘entities’ people meet while tripping
Why do so many people encounter beings after smoking large doses of DMT?
20 May, 2020
Pixabay
Mind & Brain
- DMT is arguably the most powerful psychedelic drug on the planet, capable of producing intense hallucinations.
- Researchers recently surveyed more than 2,000 DMT users about their encounters with 'entities' while tripping, finding that respondents often considered these strange encounters to be positive and meaningful.
- The majority of respondents believed the beings they encountered were not hallucinations.
<p>The psychedelic drug DMT can produce powerful visions. In low doses, people often hallucinate fractal patterns, geometric shapes, and distortions in the physical space around them. But things get much stranger with higher doses.</p><p>When people consume enough DMT (N,N-Dimethyltryptamine) to have a "breakthrough" experience, they often encounter beings that seem autonomous, existing in a reality separate from our own.</p><p>The form and nature of these beings vary in reports, but one thing remains curiously constant: People tend to rank these encounters among the most meaningful experiences of their lives. For some people, these encounters change their beliefs about reality, the existence of an afterlife, and God.</p><p>A recent survey provides some of the most detailed information about these encounters to date. Published in the <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881120916143" target="_blank">Journal of Psychopharmacology</a>, the survey includes responses from 2,561 adults about their single most memorable encounter with a being (or beings) after smoking or vaporizing DMT. (DMT is an endogenous chemical, meaning the body produces it naturally, though it's currently a Schedule I drug in the U.S.)</p><p>Most respondents had used DMT about a dozen times in their life. The survey excluded experiences in which people consumed other drugs with DMT, and it didn't include experiences with <a href="https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/ayahuasca-suicide" target="_blank">ayahuasca</a>, which is a brew that contains DMT. </p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzI5MTMyMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMjQ4NjQ4NH0.NXG0gVUWD8lfU-usxBqfLdWAC1Tx59QqiEVosVfcdZA/img.jpg?width=980" id="45ac3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="60ef2f872d16f3493d71f8181464082c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" /><p>The results show:</p><p><strong>The encounters produced an emotional response for 99 percent of people</strong>. The most common emotions were "joy (65%), trust (63%), surprise (61%), love (59%), kindness (56%), friendship (48%), and fear (41%) during the encounter experience, with smaller proportions reporting emotions such as sadness (13%), distrust (10%), disgust (4%), or anger (3%)." Interestingly, 58 percent of respondents said the being also had an emotional response, almost always a positive one.</p><p><strong>The encounters felt more "real" than reality</strong>. This was true for 81 percent of respondents during the encounter, and 65 percent after the encounter. One respondent wrote: "There was an indescribably powerful notion that this dimension in which the entity and I convened was infinitely more "real" than the consensus reality I usually inhabit. It felt truer than anything else I'd ever experienced."</p><p><strong>People described the entities in different ways.</strong> The most commonly chosen labels "were "being," (60%) "guide," (43%) "spirit," (39%) "alien," (39%) or "helper" (34%). Other labels selected by small proportions of respondents (range 10–16%), included the terms "angel," "elf," "religious personage," or "plant spirit," and very few (range 1–5%) reporting the terms "gnome," "monster," or a "deceased" person."</p><p><strong>Most people said the beings weren't hallucinations.</strong> About three-quarters of respondents said they believe the being was real, but it exists in some kind of different dimension or reality. Only 9 percent said the being existed "completely within myself."</p><p><strong>Most described the beings positively. </strong>"When asked about the attributes of the entity, a majority of the sample reported that the entity was conscious (96%), intelligent (96%), benevolent (78%), sacred (70%), had agency in the world (54%), and was positively judgmental (52%). Fewer reported that the entity was petitionable (23%), negatively judgmental (16%), or malicious (11%)."</p><p><strong>Most received a message during the encounter.</strong> About two-thirds of respondents said they received "a message, task, mission, purpose, or insight from the entity encounter experience."</p><p>What kinds of messages? Some people were shown that death isn't the end, that everything and everyone is connected. Others had personal insights revealed to them, such as bad behaviors that they should stop.</p><p>Some messages were strangely practical — one respondent said the beings revealed the location of a Zippo lighter that had been missing (it was buried deep in a couch, go figure). There was also the respondent who said a being "was teaching me the rules/regulations of the NFL."</p><p><strong>The encounters were often followed by lasting changes in well-being and beliefs.</strong> About one-quarter of respondents said they were atheist before the encounter, but only 10 percent said they were after.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Additionally, approximately one-third (36%) of respondents reported that before the encounter their belief system included a belief in ultimate reality, higher power, God, or universal divinity, but a significantly larger percentage (58%) of respondents reported this belief system after the encounter."</p><p>What's more, 89 percent of respondents said the encounter led to lasting improvements in well-being or life-satisfaction. Why? The researchers suggested that "ontological shock" — the state of being forced to question your worldview — may "play an important role in the enduring positive life changes in attitudes, moods, and behavior attributed to these experiences."</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"As such, it is possible that, under appropriate supportive set and setting conditions, DMT could show promise as an adjunct to therapy for people with mood and behavioral problems (e.g. depression and addiction)," the researchers wrote.</p><p>The study also noted that DMT encounters have a lot in common with near-death and alien-abduction experiences, which also have been shown to produce long-lasting changes in personal beliefs.</p>
What are DMT beings?
<p>Do DMT entities actually exist in some other dimension, or are they hallucinations that the brain generates when its visual processing system is overwhelmed by a powerful tryptamine?<br></p><p>The late American ethnobotanist Terence McKenna believed that DMT beings — which he called "machine elves" — were real. Here's how he once <a href="https://www.ranker.com/list/dmt-machine-elves-facts/inigo-gonzalez" target="_blank">described</a> one of his DMT experiences:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"I sank to the floor. I [experienced] this hallucination of tumbling forward into these fractal geometric spaces made of light and then I found myself in the equivalent of the Pope's private chapel and there were insect elf machines proffering strange little tablets with strange writing on them, and I was aghast, completely appalled, because [in] a matter of seconds... my entire expectation of the nature of the world was just being shredded in front of me. I've never actually gotten over it.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">These self-transforming machine elf creatures were speaking in a colored language which condensed into rotating machines that were like Fabergé eggs but crafted out of luminescent superconducting ceramics and liquid crystal gels. All this stuff was just so weird and so alien and so un-English-able that it was a complete shock — I mean, the literal turning inside out of [my] intellectual universe!"</p><p>McKenna believed machine elves exist in alternate realities, which form a "<a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/old-favourites-the-archaic-revival-1991-by-terence-mckenna-1.3924887" target="_blank">raging universe of active intelligence that is transhuman, hyperdimensional, and extremely alien.</a>" But he was far from the first to believe that DMT is a doorway to other realms.</p><p>Indigenous peoples of the Amazon basin have used ayahuasca in religious ceremonies for centuries, though no one is quite sure when they first started experimenting with the psychedelic brew. The Jibaro people of the Ecuadorian rainforest believed ayahuasca allowed regular people, not just shamans, to <a href="https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/17902/RichardsonG_202004_HonThesis.pdf?sequence=3" target="_blank">speak directly to the gods</a>. The 19th-century Ecuadorian geographer Villavicencio wrote of other Amazonian shamans who used ahaysuca (known as the "vine of the dead") to contact spirits and foresee enemy battle plans.</p><p>In the West, research on DMT experiences has been sparse yet interesting. The psychiatrist Rick Strassman conducted some of the first human DMT trials at the University of New Mexico in the early 1990s. He found that <a href="https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt_article3.shtml" target="_blank">"at least half"</a> of his research subjects had encountered some form of entity after taking DMT.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"I was neither intellectually nor emotionally prepared for the frequency with which contact with beings occurred in our studies, nor the often utterly bizarre nature of these experiences," Strassman wrote in his book "DMT The Spirit Molecule".</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzMwNDQ2MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNDIxMTMwMH0.sawFd1O1-YiCe47us5Nzv84tQRFIjjN_wNA7MdgT6Yo/img.jpg?width=980" id="782e0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8d0723c82e615e60ede50709945f897c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" /><p>Of course, many people believe that DMT beings are merely hallucinations. But the question remains: Why do so many people encounter similar beings, like elves and aliens?</p><p>One answer: That's exactly what people expect to encounter. After all, it's likely that people who seek out a rare and intense drug like DMT have researched it, and possibly stumbled across McKenna's machine-elf idea. So, that's the image their brain produces. (An <a href="https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt_article3.shtml" target="_blank">Erowid survey</a> on the topic of DMT beings once included the question: "Do you know who Terence McKenna is?" 54 percent of respondents reported having some knowledge of him.)</p><p>Another explanation comes from a 2004 <a href="http://tripzine.com/listing.php?id=dmt_pickover" target="_blank">DoseNation article</a> by James Kent, the author of "Psychedelic Information Theory — Shamanism in the Age of Reason". Kent argued that "humans across all cultures have alien and heavenly archetypes embedded in their subconscious, and psychedelic tryptamines can access the archetypes with a high level of success."</p><p>Kent said he's encountered "elves" during his own DMT experiences, and that he's even managed to have "rudimentary conversations of sorts" with them. In his personal experiments, he tested whether these beings could reveal to him any information that he himself would be incapable of knowing. They couldn't.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzMwNDM1MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MDM5MTE0Nn0.tTJcc3LJMlsGXhF8H0EM2YE6zypkggbT7wb9FApGdX8/img.jpg?width=980" id="03f25" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="614ffe047dca7beef3ff820aa3a37a60" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Ayahuasca Ceremony in the Peruvian Amazon" />Ayahuasca Ceremony in the Peruvian Amazon
Manuel Medir / Getty
<p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Whenever I tried to pull any information out of the entities regarding themselves, the data that was given up was always relevant only to me. The elves could not give me any piece of data I did not already know, nor could their existence be sustained under any kind of prolonged scrutiny."</p><p>It's also worth noting that not all people who smoke DMT see beings, and that some see beings that look <a href="https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt_article3.shtml" target="_blank">nothing like elves or aliens</a>. The diversity of these reports seems to count against the argument that DMT beings exist in some objective alternate reality.</p><p>In other words, if DMT beings exist in some other dimension, shouldn't they appear the same to anyone who visits that dimension? Or do the beings assume a different appearance based on who's looking? Or are there many types of beings in the DMT universe, but most look like elves? </p><p>You might start seeing elves just trying to sort this stuff out.</p><p>Ultimately, nobody knows exactly why DMT beings take the forms they do, or whether they're just figments of overstimulated imaginations. And the answers might be beside the point. </p><p>In the recent survey, 60 percent of participants said their encounter with DMT beings "produced a desirable alteration in their conception of reality whereas only 1% indicated an undesirable alteration in their conception of reality."</p><p>DMT beings may be nothing more than projections of the subconscious mind. But these bizarre encounters do help some people find real meaning, whether it's through personal revelation or the raw power of ontological shock.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Anti-vax disinformation spreads unchecked on Facebook
Despite fact check campaigns, anti-vaccination influence is growing.
13 July, 2020
Photo by Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs
- Despite announcing plans to combat disinformation, anti-vax groups continue to gain influence on Facebook.
- An analysis of over 1,300 Facebook pages with 100 million followers shows that anti-vaccination agendas are having a profound impact.
- Only 50 percent of Americans are certain they'll receive an approved COVID-19 vaccine.
<p><br></p>
<p>This morning I received a direct message from someone I'm connected to in the wellness community. By now, I'm accustomed to the language: "I would be interested in your take on xxx," followed by a video of a "medical doctor" who "appears to be knowledgeable and sincere, and also speaks from the heart." </p><p>While bedside manner is important, the ruse is immediately apparent. Another way of phrasing an anti-vaxx agenda is to claim, "I'm just asking questions," wherein the questions answer themselves. The video in question tries to connect vaccines with "Nanobots, GMO's [sic], trans humans [sic]" and "Covid-19 [sic]." </p><p>The monologue is an incoherent rambling of numerous buzzwords from different disciplines united by one goal: to make you believe a giant conspiracy is happening right in front of us that only the woke can see. </p><p>That I received the video on Facebook isn't surprising. As Media Matters <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-19/most-notorious-anti-vax-groups-use-facebook-lay-groundwork-against-novel" target="_blank">points out</a>, the social media giant has become Ground Zero for the anti-vax movement. Despite the company's stated intentions to combat anti-vax disinformation, that <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/20/health/facebook-anti-vaxxer-investigation-update/index.html" target="_blank">doesn't seem to be changing</a>. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Facebook pages for NVIC, CHD, ICAN and their associated leaders and media projects have a combined more than 950,000 followers. This represents the tip of the iceberg; according to a recent report, anti-vaxxers have a combined Facebook following of 58 million people."</p><p>Facebook's recent fact-checking efforts appear to be doing more trouble than good. A friend recently posted an NPR article discussing the dangers of conspiracy theories. Since CTs (conspiracy theories) were mentioned, Facebook's AI tagged the article with a warning. This sort of misstep causes consumers to question the validity of the fact-checking process, which only fuels the anti-vax movement. </p><p>This longstanding problem transcends social media. One <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20348365/" target="_blank">2010 study</a> found that spending 5-10 minutes on an anti-vax website is likely to sway your opinion on vaccines—<em>there are two sides to the story</em>—while the opposite <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140172/#b6-ms115_p0180" target="_blank">does not occur</a>. Anti-vaxxers dig their heels in when confronted with opposing information.</p>
Facebook announces plan to 'tackle vaccine misinformation'
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="997c512b8b8afcd4db98fdb7ece75680"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZTZ3Lq67yiY?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 trend is having real-world consequences. Only <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/just-50-americans-plan-get-covid-19-vaccine-here-s-how-win-over-rest" target="_blank">half of Americans</a> are willing to get a coronavirus vaccine, with a quarter wavering and a quarter against. While we should be confident of efficacy—gossip about a <a href="https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200511/covid-19_vaccine_by_fall_possible_but_at_what_cost" target="_blank">vaccine arriving in the Fall</a> is ambitious and potentially unsafe—the idea that a quarter of the country will refuse any vaccine is a potential public health disaster (as if we're not experiencing one now).</p><p>Making matters worse, we can't fight disinformation with data. No matter how many articles <a href="https://bigthink.com/coronavirus/the-plandemic" target="_self">debunk Plandemic</a>, Mikki Willis gains momentum. Do <a href="https://www.facebook.com/mikki.willis/posts/2875973472513592" target="_blank">27,000 doctors</a> really support his efforts to "reform our corrupt global healthcare systems?" There's no way to tell, but that's the thing about Facebook: it doesn't have to be true. Willis's claim, which he made in conjunction with a fundraising effort for the film, has been shared 4.4k times. Convincing his fanbase that perhaps tens of thousands of doctors aren't on board will be a Herculean task. </p><p>Media Matters notes the official-sounding National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), which, though sounding governmental, opposes every effort to vaccinate children. Beginning in February, the organization's website started publishing a "<a href="https://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Reports/covid-19.aspx" target="_blank">special report</a>" on COVID-19, laying the groundwork for vaccination disinformation. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The first three installments of the 'special report' adopt right-wing themes unrelated to vaccines, such as the claim that public health orders that promote social distancing result in a 'loss of civil liberties' and subject Americans to 'quarantine shaming.' The fourth installment, published on March 29, includes the first attacks on vaccine development in the series … The fifth installment of the 'special report,' published on April 1, frames the vaccine development efforts of pharmaceutical companies and other entities as a cash grab."</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ1MzkxMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0OTQ1NzQ3MX0.W1on2fdVPB_yu2_mr9VC8Z37cI-kyncWlx6T_Jnnrpg/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C71%2C0%2C35&height=700" id="5e27e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a24c926833eec7138164dba975061837" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="A truck with writing "JESUS IS MY VACCINE"" />
A truck with writing "JESUS IS MY VACCINE" drives by demonstrators rallying outside the Pennsylvania Capitol Building to protest the continued closure of businesses due to the coronavirus pandemic on May 15, 2020 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Photo by Mark Makela/Getty Images
<p>The irony is that NVIC's Facebook page is listed as an "Educational Research Center." Just today the organization posted about the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831678/" target="_blank">long-disproven link between the measles vaccine and autism</a> (via Robert F. Kennedy's anti-vax organization, Children's Health Defense), <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/wxevj5/the-coronavirus-truthers-dont-believe-in-public-health" target="_blank">opportunist Joseph Mercola</a>'s questioning whether the COVID-19 surge in Texas has anything to do with the novel coronavirus, and conspiracy theory-rich GreenMedInfo, whose founder traffics in ridiculous ideas, such as <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1720256541450732" target="_blank">germ theory being false</a>. </p><p>And so here we are: instead of reporting on pressing global issues, Reuters has to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-metal-strip-medical-masks-5/fact-check-metal-strip-in-medical-masks-is-not-a-5g-antenna-idUSKBN24A2O1?fbclid=IwAR2nqo5OaXP3unV7v3jOhtdGY5JjivJgyBSqrKcW0pcEJfhdGWieDb1K5C8" target="_blank">fact check</a> whether the metal strip in face masks is really a 5G antenna or if Wayfair is <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wayfair-human-trafficking/fact-check-no-evidence-linking-wayfair-to-human-trafficking-operation-idUSKCN24E2M2" target="_blank">involved in human trafficking</a>. (The woman that posted the "medical doctor" video above is convinced Amazon is involved as well.) No matter how ridiculous these sound—and they should, to any functioning adult—common sense is losing ground: an <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/vaccine-opponents-are-gaining-facebook-battle-hearts-and-minds-new-map-shows" target="_blank">analysis</a> of over 1,300 Facebook pages with 100 million followers shows that anti-vax agendas are becoming more influential.</p><p>When the printing press was first invented, <a href="https://apple.news/Agz3WmeyWTEKLg-9yHo2BMA" target="_blank">anyone could hire a printer</a>. The idea of objective news took some time to work out, and it is questionable that it ever did get worked out. But we're in a truly disturbing place when one of the most effective therapeutics ever discovered—the <a href="https://www.tmrjournals.com/tmr/EN/abstract/abstract321.shtml" target="_blank">millennia-old idea</a> of allowing the body to build up immunity by introducing a small dose of an offending agent—is being used as, what? A political tool? An ideological battering ram? An apocalyptic battle song sung by the woke as they laugh at all the silly sheeple? </p><p>It's impossible to tell what the end game is. Being contrarian is now its own currency. Whether or not your agenda accomplishes anything is secondary to just being on the team—a participation trophy for simply showing up. Putting in the intellectual and emotional effort demanded by the complex and nuanced realm of science is proving too much for America to tolerate. When a nation descends into such intolerance, anything becomes possible. </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>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
