Kids are spending more time than ever in front of screens, and it may be inhibiting their ability to recognize emotions, according to new research out of the University of California, Los Angeles. 

The study, published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, found that sixth-graders who went five days without exposure to technology were significantly better at reading human emotions than kids who had regular access to phones, televisions, and computers. 

The UCLA researchers studied two groups of sixth-graders from a Southern California public school. One group was sent to the Pali Institute, an outdoor education camp in Running Springs, Calif., where the kids had no access to electronic devices. 

For the other group, it was life as usual. At the beginning and end of the 5-day study period, both groups of kids were shown images of nearly 50 faces and asked to identify the feelings being modeled. 

Researchers found that the students who went to camp scored significantly higher when it came to reading facial emotions or other nonverbal cues than the students who continued to have access to their media devices. 

"We were pleased to get an effect after five days," says Patricia Greenfield, a senior author of the study and a distinguished professor of psychology at UCLA. "We found that the kids who had been to camp without any screens but with lots of those opportunities and necessities for interacting with other people in person improved significantly more." 

If the study were to be expanded, Greenfield says, she’d like to test the students at camp a third time – when they’ve been back at home with smartphones and tablets in their hands for five days. 

Kids And Screen Time: What Does The Research Say? : NPR Ed : NPR

Kids are spending more time than ever in front of screens, and it may be inhibiting their ability to recognize emotions, according to new research out of the University of California, Los Angeles.

The study, published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, found that sixth-graders who went five days without exposure to technology were significantly better at reading human emotions than kids who had regular access to phones, televisions, and computers.

The UCLA researchers studied two groups of sixth-graders from a Southern California public school. One group was sent to the Pali Institute, an outdoor education camp in Running Springs, Calif., where the kids had no access to electronic devices.

For the other group, it was life as usual. At the beginning and end of the 5-day study period, both groups of kids were shown images of nearly 50 faces and asked to identify the feelings being modeled.

Researchers found that the students who went to camp scored significantly higher when it came to reading facial emotions or other nonverbal cues than the students who continued to have access to their media devices.

"We were pleased to get an effect after five days," says Patricia Greenfield, a senior author of the study and a distinguished professor of psychology at UCLA. "We found that the kids who had been to camp without any screens but with lots of those opportunities and necessities for interacting with other people in person improved significantly more."

If the study were to be expanded, Greenfield says, she’d like to test the students at camp a third time – when they’ve been back at home with smartphones and tablets in their hands for five days.

Kids And Screen Time: What Does The Research Say? : NPR Ed : NPR

It’s been over a decade since American psychologists Leaf Van Boven and Thomas Gilovich concluded that doing things makes people happier than having things. “To Do or to Have? That Is the Question” was the title of the study they published in 2003 (PDF), and it’s been cited hundreds of times since. 

Many people now recognize that spending money on, say, a plane ticket for a vacation is more satisfying in the long run than purchasing a new television for the same price. But happiness studies keep evolving, and social scientists continue to find new ways of understanding precisely how our economic choices affect well-being. 

A new paper, this one also co-authored by Thomas Gilovich, hones in on another difference between experiential and material purchases: how people feel before they make these purchases, when they’re simply entertaining thoughts of booking flights to the Caribbean or going to the movies, or thinking about shopping for clothing or jewelry. 

Gilovich and his colleagues asked subjects to think about either an experiential or material purchase they were planning on making very soon, evaluate whether their anticipation made them feel excited or impatient, and rate the overall pleasantness of the anticipation. 

The researchers also conducted a separate study in which they polled 2,226 adults on their iPhones at random times to ask whether the individuals were, in that moment, contemplating any future purchases (and if so, whether the purchase would be experiential or material, and whether they associated the thoughts with markedly pleasant, exciting, or impatient anticipatory feelings). 

You Should Spend Money on Experiences, Not Things - CityLab

It’s been over a decade since American psychologists Leaf Van Boven and Thomas Gilovich concluded that doing things makes people happier than having things. “To Do or to Have? That Is the Question” was the title of the study they published in 2003 (PDF), and it’s been cited hundreds of times since.

Many people now recognize that spending money on, say, a plane ticket for a vacation is more satisfying in the long run than purchasing a new television for the same price. But happiness studies keep evolving, and social scientists continue to find new ways of understanding precisely how our economic choices affect well-being.

A new paper, this one also co-authored by Thomas Gilovich, hones in on another difference between experiential and material purchases: how people feel before they make these purchases, when they’re simply entertaining thoughts of booking flights to the Caribbean or going to the movies, or thinking about shopping for clothing or jewelry.

Gilovich and his colleagues asked subjects to think about either an experiential or material purchase they were planning on making very soon, evaluate whether their anticipation made them feel excited or impatient, and rate the overall pleasantness of the anticipation.

The researchers also conducted a separate study in which they polled 2,226 adults on their iPhones at random times to ask whether the individuals were, in that moment, contemplating any future purchases (and if so, whether the purchase would be experiential or material, and whether they associated the thoughts with markedly pleasant, exciting, or impatient anticipatory feelings).

You Should Spend Money on Experiences, Not Things - CityLab

Today is the 15th Anniversary of the release of this song.

Yeah, it’s stuck in our heads too.

(Source: youtube.com)

nprfreshair:

Originally Jesse Pinkman was supposed to be killed off Breaking Bad during the show’s first season. Aaron Paul says he didn’t learn that until series creator Vince Gilligan called him over one day during lunch.
"He goes, ‘Originally Jesse was supposed to die at the end of this season,’ … and instantly my heart dropped and slowed down a bit," Paul says. "And he said, ‘We don’t think we’re going to do that anymore.’ "
Gilligan told Paul that he loved the chemistry between Walt and Jesse.
"He decided to change the whole dynamic of their relationship and really the whole dynamic of the show," says Paul. "But the entire second season, the entire third season, I thought that Jesse could be a goner at any moment because there’s many things that this character could screw up on, and he could definitely meet his deathbed at any moment."
Other cast members, including Bryan Cranston, would joke around on set with Paul about his character’s potential demise.
"Bryan would come up and give me a hug and say, ‘I’m not going to say anything but it was such a pleasure working with you. It’s been an amazing past year-and-a-half, and you have a huge career ahead of you,’ " he says. "They would always joke around about it. They’ve kind of slowed down about it, but who knows — this kid could die at any second."
Hear the interview with Aaron Paul 

nprfreshair:

Originally Jesse Pinkman was supposed to be killed off Breaking Bad during the show’s first season. Aaron Paul says he didn’t learn that until series creator Vince Gilligan called him over one day during lunch.

"He goes, ‘Originally Jesse was supposed to die at the end of this season,’ … and instantly my heart dropped and slowed down a bit," Paul says. "And he said, ‘We don’t think we’re going to do that anymore.’ "

Gilligan told Paul that he loved the chemistry between Walt and Jesse.

"He decided to change the whole dynamic of their relationship and really the whole dynamic of the show," says Paul. "But the entire second season, the entire third season, I thought that Jesse could be a goner at any moment because there’s many things that this character could screw up on, and he could definitely meet his deathbed at any moment."

Other cast members, including Bryan Cranston, would joke around on set with Paul about his character’s potential demise.

"Bryan would come up and give me a hug and say, ‘I’m not going to say anything but it was such a pleasure working with you. It’s been an amazing past year-and-a-half, and you have a huge career ahead of you,’ " he says. "They would always joke around about it. They’ve kind of slowed down about it, but who knows — this kid could die at any second."

Hear the interview with Aaron Paul 

It wasn’t exactly a surprise. “This ain’t gonna last,” New Orleans City Council President Oliver Thomas told his security guard as they watched the waters of Lake Pontchartrain rising and racing and eating away at the dirt levee beneath the concrete floodwall built to protect New Orleans from disaster.

It was 4 o’clock on Sunday afternoon, Aug. 28. Hurricane Katrina was still 14 hours away, but the sea surge had begun. Thomas returned to the city’s hurricane war room and announced, to anyone who was listening, “The water’s coming into the city.”

Thomas was asleep on his office couch early Tuesday morning when he was awakened by the sound of banging on his door and someone yelling, “The levee broke!”

Thomas stood up on his soaked carpet and felt as though he were standing in concrete. He was paralyzed, he later said, by the fear of predictions coming true.

Thomas, who had been rescued off the roof of his house in New Orleans during Hurricane Betsy in 1965, had been a city councilman for a dozen years. His specialty is water. He knew all about the studies and reports and dire warnings stacked up on the desks of bureaucrats, he knew about all the relief and reconstruction and restoration projects that had been discussed but never paid for or carried out, and he knew his beloved old city was doomed. A few rescuers were ready, but precious few.

On Monday morning, as the storm slammed into the Gulf Coast, Col. Tim Tarchick of the 920th Rescue Wing, Air Force Reserve Command, got on the phone to call every agency he could think of to ask permission to take his three rescue helicopters into the disaster zone as soon as the storm abated.

The response was noncommittal. FEMA, the federal agency that is supposed to handle disasters, told Tarchick that it wasn’t authorized to task military units.

That had to come from the Defense Department. Tarchick wasn’t able to cut through the red tape until 4 p.m. Tuesday—more than 24 hours after the storm had passed. His crews plucked hundreds of people off rooftops, but when they delivered them to an assigned landing zone, there was “total chaos.

No food, no water, no bathrooms, no nothing.” There was “no structure, no organization, no command center,” Tarchick told NEWSWEEK.

The Lost City

One of Newsweek’s first analyses of the impact of Hurricane Katrina, which struck New Orleans 9 years ago today.

“I’M NOT HIDING,” Sonny Vaccaro told a closed hearing at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., in 2001. “We want to put our materials on the bodies of your athletes, and the best way to do that is buy your school. Or buy your coach.” 

Vaccaro’s audience, the members of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, bristled. These were eminent reformers—among them the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, two former heads of the U.S. Olympic Committee, and several university presidents and chancellors. 

The Knight Foundation, a nonprofit that takes an interest in college athletics as part of its concern with civic life, had tasked them with saving college sports from runaway commercialism as embodied by the likes of Vaccaro, who, since signing his pioneering shoe contract with Michael Jordan in 1984, had built sponsorship empires successively at Nike, Adidas, and Reebok. 

Not all the members could hide their scorn for the “sneaker pimp” of schoolyard hustle, who boasted of writing checks for millions to everybody in higher education. 

“Why,” asked Bryce Jordan, the president emeritus of Penn State, “should a university be an advertising medium for your industry?” Vaccaro did not blink. “They shouldn’t, sir,” he replied. “You sold your souls, and you’re going to continue selling them. You can be very moral and righteous in asking me that question, sir,” Vaccaro added with irrepressible good cheer, “but there’s not one of you in this room that’s going to turn down any of our money. You’re going to take it. I can only offer it.” 

William Friday, a former president of North Carolina’s university system, still winces at the memory. “Boy, the silence that fell in that room,” he recalled recently. “I never will forget it.” 

Friday, who founded and co-chaired two of the three Knight Foundation sports initiatives over the past 20 years, called Vaccaro “the worst of all” the witnesses ever to come before the panel. 

The Shame of College Sports - Taylor Branch - The Atlantic

“I’M NOT HIDING,” Sonny Vaccaro told a closed hearing at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., in 2001. “We want to put our materials on the bodies of your athletes, and the best way to do that is buy your school. Or buy your coach.”

Vaccaro’s audience, the members of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, bristled. These were eminent reformers—among them the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, two former heads of the U.S. Olympic Committee, and several university presidents and chancellors.

The Knight Foundation, a nonprofit that takes an interest in college athletics as part of its concern with civic life, had tasked them with saving college sports from runaway commercialism as embodied by the likes of Vaccaro, who, since signing his pioneering shoe contract with Michael Jordan in 1984, had built sponsorship empires successively at Nike, Adidas, and Reebok.

Not all the members could hide their scorn for the “sneaker pimp” of schoolyard hustle, who boasted of writing checks for millions to everybody in higher education.

“Why,” asked Bryce Jordan, the president emeritus of Penn State, “should a university be an advertising medium for your industry?” Vaccaro did not blink. “They shouldn’t, sir,” he replied. “You sold your souls, and you’re going to continue selling them. You can be very moral and righteous in asking me that question, sir,” Vaccaro added with irrepressible good cheer, “but there’s not one of you in this room that’s going to turn down any of our money. You’re going to take it. I can only offer it.”

William Friday, a former president of North Carolina’s university system, still winces at the memory. “Boy, the silence that fell in that room,” he recalled recently. “I never will forget it.”

Friday, who founded and co-chaired two of the three Knight Foundation sports initiatives over the past 20 years, called Vaccaro “the worst of all” the witnesses ever to come before the panel.

The Shame of College Sports - Taylor Branch - The Atlantic

On November 28, 1950, at the height of the Red Scare, Miriam Moskowitz was found guilty of conspiracy to lie to a grand jury in the run-up to the atomic spying case that would end in the execution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.

Now, at 98, Moskowitz is trying to clear her name in court. Reuters reports an initial federal court hearing convened Monday in New York to determine how to proceed with her case. “I just want to end my life with a clear name,” Moskowitz told the New York Post earlier this month.

The New Jersey woman was sentenced to two years in prison following her charge, several months of which she spent with Ethel Rosenburg in the Women’s House of Detention, a prison which once stood in the middle of Greenwich Village, Manhattan, where a garden sits now. Moskowitz told the New Yorker that she spent those days chatting with Rosenburg about music or Rosenberg’s children.

Not long after a friend of mine learned she was expecting her first child, her husband sought out a job at Facebook. As a dad-to-be, he found the company particularly attractive for its generous paternity leave policy — 17 weeks of paid time off.
That’s the highest, tied with Reddit, among the 13 companies surveyed by BuzzFeed about their parental leave policies — a mix of newer tech companies like Google and LinkedIn, and some of the largest companies in the U.S. by market capitalization, like Walmart, Procter & Gamble, and IBM.
The newer companies, on the whole, tended to offer much more generous paid leave policies for both parents; one company surveyed, Boeing, doesn’t offer any paid leave for new parents at all.
Then again, they don’t have to. The U.S. is among a handful of countries that don’t require employers to offer paid maternity leave. (Paid paternity leave is less universal.) U.S. law mandates only unpaid parental leave regardless of gender.
Except for Facebook and Reddit, every company surveyed offers more paid leave for new moms than for new dads. Parents who create families through adoption or surrogacy — a group that includes many same-sex couples — may also receive less than mothers who give birth.
Tech Companies Offer Workers The Most Paid Parental Leave

Not long after a friend of mine learned she was expecting her first child, her husband sought out a job at Facebook. As a dad-to-be, he found the company particularly attractive for its generous paternity leave policy — 17 weeks of paid time off.

That’s the highest, tied with Reddit, among the 13 companies surveyed by BuzzFeed about their parental leave policies — a mix of newer tech companies like Google and LinkedIn, and some of the largest companies in the U.S. by market capitalization, like Walmart, Procter & Gamble, and IBM.

The newer companies, on the whole, tended to offer much more generous paid leave policies for both parents; one company surveyed, Boeing, doesn’t offer any paid leave for new parents at all.

Then again, they don’t have to. The U.S. is among a handful of countries that don’t require employers to offer paid maternity leave. (Paid paternity leave is less universal.) U.S. law mandates only unpaid parental leave regardless of gender.

Except for Facebook and Reddit, every company surveyed offers more paid leave for new moms than for new dads. Parents who create families through adoption or surrogacy — a group that includes many same-sex couples — may also receive less than mothers who give birth.

Tech Companies Offer Workers The Most Paid Parental Leave

The prairie dog is too fat to get out of its hole.

(Source: youtube.com)

"I said, ‘Hi,’ " Knight replied. Other than that single syllable, he insisted, he had not spoken with or touched another human being, until this night, for twenty-seven years.