ReportWire

Tag: Research

  • What Ancient Poop Reveals About Our Ancestors

    [ad_1]

    Once upon a time, in a cave just north of Durango, Mexico, someone took a poop. In fact, it was quite a few someones, and these events were spread out over quite a bit of time—from about 725 A.D. to 920 A.D., researchers now believe. Thanks to the cave’s arid conditions, when archaeologists excavated the place in the 1950s, the poop was in pretty good shape. Weathered, dry, and packed full of fiber, these stool samples have given scientists a valuable look into what kind of sustenance long-ago people got by on—and what lived in their guts.

    The deposits from the cave are now well-traveled, having made their way to various labs interested in studying them. In 2021, one global team of collaborators analyzed the DNA contained in the old poop—or paleofeces, as it’s delicately known—to see if they could identify the microbes in the poopers’ gut microbiomes.

    Now, in a new paper published in PLoS One, another group of researchers took a fresh look at DNA taken from 10 of the poops. Their results largely confirm an earlier finding: The people who made these poops were host to a menagerie of parasites.

    Playing host to worms 

    Usually, the poop that Drew Capone, the study’s lead author, works with is much fresher. An environmental microbiologist at Indiana University, Capone studies how sanitation impacts health. “Our work is looking at, ‘How does poop get in the environment? Where is poop in the environment? How does infrastructure stop poop from getting into the environment? And then, what are the pediatric health impacts of poop?’” he says.

    Capone and his colleagues were interested in using techniques for detecting pathogens in modern feces on ancient feces. These methods sort through the DNA in a sample looking for specific genes that are signatures of parasites like pinworms, as well as bacterial pathogens.

    Read More: You Might Be Hosting a Parasite Right Now. Here’s How to Tell

    To extract that DNA, the researchers had to get samples from the paleofeces from the cave. It was harder than they expected: “We had to grind these ancient feces into a powder. We couldn’t really break off pieces,” says Capone. They performed the procedure to look for DNA matches, and got results suggesting a number of different pathogens were in the poop, including pinworms, the protozoan parasite giardia, and various pathogenic bacteria.

    Many of the feces came back as positive for multiple organisms. In Capone’s experience, such a large number of pathogens isn’t uncommon in places with poor sanitation, which makes him suspect that the people who deposited these poops so many centuries ago were in a similar situation.

    Why choice of technique matters

    However, there are reasons why most labs working with ancient DNA don’t use these procedures anymore, say Kirsten Bos and Alexander Hubener, both specialists in ancient DNA at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. DNA tends to fall apart over time, fraying and fragmenting. The older technique used in the PLoS ONE paper favors longer pieces of DNA, which means it’s hard to be sure that what you’re seeing is actually ancient DNA and not modern DNA that’s crept in by accident. Labs that specialize in ancient DNA have high-tech clean rooms to minimize contamination. They also use next-generation sequencing optimized for such a fragile substance. 

    Additionally, most labs would check the ends of the DNA fragments, where distinctive fraying occurs, to confirm that what they are looking at is truly old. With the technique in the PLoS ONE paper, “you can’t tell easily whether these chemical modifications that occur in ancient DNA have happened,” Bos says.

    Read More: 5 Gastroenterologists on the 1 Thing You Should Do Every Day

    Capone argues that many of the organisms tested for aren’t able to live long outside the human gut, so the risk of getting a false positive from modern DNA picked up in the poop’s travels might be fairly small. Plus, specialized ancient DNA labwork can be costly, and this older technique is more accessible.

    Hubener, who was part of the team behind the 2021 paper analyzing poop samples from the cave, says he’s skeptical of the matches with bacteria—these can be particularly tricky to identify in ancient samples with this technique. However, given what his team found, and given what we know about the biology of parasites, he says the findings on larger parasites like worms are on somewhat firmer footing. “That is, for me, believable,” says Hubener.

    What would have been particularly interesting would have been using both the old techniques and the new ones on the same samples, says Bos. That would make it clear what the older techniques can reliably pick up on that also shows up with the newer, most stringent procedures. 

    “That would have been a really good way to move forward,” she says.

    [ad_2]

    Veronique Greenwood

    Source link

  • Science Says Optimistic People Live Up to 12 Years Longer. Here’s How You Can Be More Positive, Hopeful, and Confident

    [ad_1]

    Warren Buffett calls it the Methuselah Effect: the financial advantages of a long life, a high rate of return, and as Buffett wrote in his 1965 Buffett Partnership letter, “a combination of both (especially recommended by this author).”

    In business terms, the benefits of living a long life don’t just apply to investing. Starting and building a business that lasts takes time. Time to develop a great team of outstanding employees. Time to make lasting connections, forge lasting partnerships, and build long-term relationships with loyal customers.

    Time matters, if only because we all hope to live as long and healthy a life as possible.

    The problem is, the recommendation bar for living a longer life can seem impossibly high. One study found you need between 150 and 300 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity to mitigate the risk of death associated with sitting. Another study found you need to jog five days a week for 30 to 40 minutes a pop for your body to have the “age progression” of someone nine years younger.

    But then there’s this. Two studies, one that spanned 10 years and the other 30 years, found that “high optimism” was linked to 11 to 15 percent longer lifespans, even after taking into account factors like health and socioeconomic status. 

    As the researchers write:

    Among psychosocial factors that appear to be potential health assets (e.g., social integration), optimism has some of the strongest and most consistent associations with a wide range of health outcomes, including reduced risk of cardiovascular events, lung function decline, and premature mortality.

    Investigators have speculated that optimism may facilitate healthier bio-behavioral processes, and ultimately longevity, because optimism directly contributes to how goals are translated into behaviors.

    Let’s unpack that. “Social integration” directly correlates with living longer; a clinical review of nearly 150 studies found that people with strong social ties had a 50 percent better chance of survival, regardless of age, sex, health status, and cause of death, than those with weaker ties.

    Make and keep a few close friends, you’ll likely live longer.

    Optimism also directly correlates with living longer, since optimistic people tend to behave differently: While everyone has goals, people who fall on the less optimistic end of the spectrum are much less likely to try to achieve their goals. Why start a journey that feels impossible? 

    On the flip side, “optimism directly contributes to how goals are translated into behaviors.” When the journey seems possible, starting feels much easier.

    All of which is good news for entrepreneurs.

    And for everyone. In his book Bounce, Matthew Syed quotes retired soccer manager Arsene Wenger on how great athletes think:

    To perform to your maximum you have to teach yourself to believe with an intensity that goes way beyond logical justification.

    No top performer has lacked this capacity for irrational optimism; no sports(person) has played to their potential without the ability to remove doubt from their mind.

    The same is true for you. Be smart, be logical, be rational and calculating, and never stop trying to improve your skills.

    But most importantly, be optimistic. Because optimism — and its effect on the way you think and work and persevere — can help you succeed in education, experience, and connectons cannot.

    Still. I know what you’re thinking. “I should be more optimistic. But it’s not like I can just flip a switch.”

    Actually, you can. Research shows that approximately 25 percent of your optimism set-point is genetic. That means 75 percent of your level of optimism can be shaped and learned.  For example, a study published in Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry found that participants who spent five minutes a day for two weeks imagining their “best possible self” (in terms of professional, relationship, and personal goals) experienced significant increases in optimism and overall life satisfaction.

    If visualization isn’t your thing (it isn’t mine), try another approach. If, as Jim Rohn says, we are the average of the five people we spend the most time with, just start spending more time with optimistic people. They’re more encouraging. They’re more supportive. Their enthusiasm will naturally rub off on you. 

    If spending time in groups isn’t your thing (it kind of isn’t mine), then take a step back and think about your mindset. Generally speaking, people fall into two camps. Those with a fixed mindset believe intelligence, ability, and skill are inborn and relatively fixed. That we are what we were born with. Someone with a fixed mindset might say, “I didn’t handle that well. I’m not cut out to be a leader.”

    People with a growth mindset believe that intelligence, ability, and skill can be developed through effort. That we are what we work to become. Someone with a growth mindset might say, “I didn’t handle that well, but next time I’ll make sure I’m more prepared.”

    People who embrace a growth mindset believe success is based on effort and application, not innate talent. 

    That makes them more optimistic. 

    And helps them live longer, healthier lives.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    [ad_2]

    Jeff Haden

    Source link

  • Startups Are Trying to Help People Live Longer. Longevity Researchers Say They Should Focus on This Instead

    [ad_1]

    Human longevity science has seen a surge of commercial investment in recent years, as venture capitalists and private financiers flood the space looking to develop medical interventions and therapies that purport to extend the human lifespan. 

    At the Inc. 5000 conference in Phoenix, Arizona, on Wednesday, the scientific researchers Jay Olshansky and Allen Wang discussed the human longevity boom alongside Mark Rivers, the CEO of Canyon Ranch, a hospitality group. 

    The trio all agreed that the explosion of investment and hype surrounding human longevity can sometimes muddle a vital point: It’s important the industry focuses on improving people’s health, rather than lifespans. 

    “I came into the [human longevity] field a couple years ago, and really the philosophy that all the researchers enforce is that our research is extending the health-span, not the lifespan,” Wang, an epigenomic researcher at the University of California, San Diego, said. 

    “A year of healthy life has an extraordinary value that I think we don’t often understand or appreciate,” Olshansky, a professor of public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago said, echoing Wang. 

    While eliminating disease is a noble and worthwhile goal, that isn’t the goal of longevity research. Rather, Olshansky’s field seeks to understand how to expand the years of healthy life enjoyed by most people. “The longer we live, the more difficult it becomes to live longer,” he said. 

    It’s easy to see how a startup promising the elixir of youth could be seen as peddling snake oil, Olshansky argued. But longevity is a broad category, encompassing apps that track certain biometric markers, supplements that purport to promote longevity, as well as companies like Aeovian Pharmaceuticals, a biopharmaceutical firm staffed by PhDs that develops therapies for cellular health. 

    There’s also full-body MRIs, hormone therapies, and perhaps most popular, GLP-1 drugs such as Ozempic. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman backs a longevity startup called Retro Biosciences, and the field has grown thanks to the influencer Bryan Johnson, whose attempts to become immortal have become a pop-culture phenomenon portrayed in a Netflix documentary. 

    What often gets lost in all the hype surrounding longevity, Olshansky said, is that there aren’t a lot of revolutionary therapies available for the common person. At least not yet. Canyon Ranch offers a retreat called Longevity8, which immerses attendees in a protocol of screenings, tests, and various mental health programs. It costs $20,000, and Rivers said “it’s not a panacea,” but it still gets people coming back. “In this space, there are mercenaries, and there are missionaries,” Rivers said. “We are devout believers in science.” 

    Rivers explained that Longevity8 combines “eastern modalities, mental health, and spiritual wellness” programs with board certified dieticians, sports medicine specialists, and Dexabody scans, which measure bone density. 

    That kind of treatment might not be affordable for most people. Luckily, there are plenty of ways for the vast majority of humanity to heighten their chances of living longer. “Get a good pair of walking or running shoes,” Olshansky said, “because exercise is about the only equivalent to a fountain of youth that exists today.”

    [ad_2]

    Sam Blum

    Source link

  • Science Says How You Sleep Affects How You Eat, and Vice Versa: the Virtuous (and Vicious) Cycle of Sleep and Diet

    [ad_1]

    You probably wish you got more sleep, if only for the performance benefits. A study published in Sleep says if you only sleep for five to six hours you’re 19 percent less productive than people who regularly sleep for seven to eight hours, and if you only sleep five hours a night you’re nearly 30 percent less productive.

    That seems especially true for aspiring entrepreneurs: a study published in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice found that lack of sleep makes people more likely to start a business on impulse or whim rather than on a solid, well-considered idea. More broadly, a study published in Journal of Business Venturing found that lack of sleep causes you to come up with worse ideas, and to think those bad ideas are actually good ones. ​

    But if you’re also hoping to eat better, getting enough sleep is crucial. Research shows the two create a vicious circle: lack of sleep leads to a poorer diet, and a poorer diet leads to lack of sleep.

    That premise probably resonates, but here’s some science to back it up. A study published in Sleep found that reduced sleep leads to a significant increase in eating. A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found lack of sleep causes increased activity in your brain’s reward centers specific to food. Lack of sleep also change some of the hormones that signal when you’re full.

    So, yeah: If you don’t get enough sleep, your diet almost surely suffers, as anyone who stays up late and finds themselves craving junk food the next day can attest. 

    But then there’s this: A study published in Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine found that diet has an effect on the quality and amount of sleep you get: Eating more fiber — whole grains, beans, certain vegetables and fruits, etc. — and less sugar and saturated fat results in better sleep at night. 

    And if you adopt the Mediterranean diet (lots of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fish, poultry) a 2018 Sleep study indicates you’ll be one-third as likely to suffer from insomnia and nearly 1.5 times more likely to get a good night’s sleep. 

    Add it all up, and whether you start with the chicken or the egg, the cycle is the same. Don’t get enough sleep and you’re likely to eat more poorly, which makes it harder for you to get more sleep, and therefore more likely to eat poorly. The same is true if you eat poorly; getting enough sleep is harder, which will make it harder to eat healthier and to get enough sleep.

    What about supplements, you ask? Plenty of people take melatonin to help them fall asleep. And that does work; a study published in Sleep Medicine Reviews found that people who take melatonin supplements tend to fall asleep around four minutes faster than those who don’t.

    Which is great… except a more recent study found that maintaining a Mediterranean diet cut the time to fall asleep by 12 minutes, and led to significantly better sleep quality.  

    In short, supplements help.

    But lifestyle changes help more. 

    So turn your diet and sleep into a virtuous rather than vicious cycle. Tonight, pick a time you will go to bed. Not go to sleep (because that’s harder to control), but go to bed. See bedtime not as the time you will definitely fall asleep, but the earliest time you  go to sleep. (Unless you’re totally exhausted, you won’t fall asleep right away.)

    Then just relax. Let your mind wander. Don’t think about going to sleep. Don’t to go to sleep. Just chill. If you want, try the Military Method to fall asleep faster. Or the 4-7-8 Method. Or spend 5 minutes writing tomorrow’s to-do list. All are science-backed ways to fall asleep faster.

    And if it takes you a long time to fall asleep, that’s okay. Don’t take a nap the next day. Just go to bed at the same time. Again, see it as bed time, not sleep time, and just chill.

    In time, your body (and more importantly, your mind) will start to adapt. You’ll start to get more and better, sleep.

    Especially if you focus on eating healthier as well, because when you do that, you’ll naturally start to sleep better.

    Which will make it a lot easier to keep eating healthier.

    And turn sleep and diet into a virtuous cycle.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    [ad_2]

    Jeff Haden

    Source link

  • Education sacrificing teaching quality for research, Comptroller warns

    [ad_1]

    New report from State Comptroller claims that higher education’s prioritization of research over teaching quality warrants a fundamental shift across Council for Higher Education

    The State Comptroller Office warned in a new report published Tuesday that Israel’s higher-education system is neglecting teaching quality in favor of research and called for a fundamental shift in mindset across the Council for Higher Education (CHE), as well as individual institutions.

    State Comptroller Matanyahu Englman emphasized that improving teaching should not be secondary to research and urged the CHE and its Planning and Budgeting Committee to allocate specific budgets, appoint coordinating bodies, and set updated standards for teaching quality.

    The survey period for the report was from July 2022 until October 2023, and completions were made at the end of 2024 and the beginning of 2025.

    Quality teaching and the budget

    Teaching makes up 40% of the budget for higher education. Research shows that the larger the classes have become, the less satisfaction was reported, including achievements by students.

    Smaller classes allow for more active learning and interactions with the instructor and fellow students, along with a supportive learning environment. The report found that, when it comes to budgeting, the factor of quality teaching is not taken into account enough.

    It also found that institutions did not effectively use promotions to encourage higher teaching quality.

    Professors were interviewed by the Comptroller’s Office for the report.

    One of them said that “given the teaching workload that exists in universities, the expectation to deliver a certain amount of papers and research grants, and to participate in civil activities within the institution makes it impossible to give the proper attention needed to refresh courses.”

    They added, “Simply lowering the teaching workload would free up time to do so, while also incorporating an advisory buddy system for professors who are struggling and also prioritizing promotions.”

    Many also noted that the teacher training workshops that are offered are sparse and not enough – certainly not to properly get creative about course renewal and improvement.

    “We are evaluated solely upon the amount of papers we publish… That makes it impossible to enhance teaching quality,” one of them said.

    Solutions at the institutional level

    At the institutional level, Englman recommended investing in teaching-enhancement centers, providing continuous professional development, rewarding lecturers who innovate, and making teaching excellence a central factor in promotions.

    Despite nearly doubling the higher-education budget over the past decade, spending and structural support for teaching still lag behind research, which ultimately threatens the quality and relevance of academic instruction in Israel.

    The state comptroller determined that the CHE and Israel’s higher-education institutions must undergo a fundamental shift in mindset: they must focus not only on academic research but also on strengthening academic teaching and embracing opportunities for innovation in instruction.

    Improving teaching “should not be regarded as secondary in importance to advancing academic research,” he said.

    He further noted that at the level of the CHE and the PBC, this must be reflected in budget allocations dedicated to teaching quality, practical interfaces with institutions, and the setting and monitoring of updated, relevant standards in teaching quality.

    Englman urged that presidents of institutions, in cooperation with teaching centers, adopt a range of reliable evaluation tools for measuring lecturers’ teaching skills to build trust and cooperation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Easter Island’s Moai Statues May Have Walked to Where They Now Stand

    [ad_1]

    Easter Island statues, traditionally known as moai on the remote island of Rapa Nui in the South Pacific, are some of the most impressive artifacts of ancient Polynesian civilization. How the statues were transported has long remained a conundrum, because they can weigh up to several tons yet are scattered throughout the island. Various theories have been proposed, including that they were dragged on wooden sleds or rolled along the ground, but no supportive evidence has backed those claims.

    In 2012, a US research team succeeded in propping up a 4.35-ton replica of a moai statue and making it “walk.” The technique, in which two teams using ropes tugged the statue in opposite directions to teeter it forward while a third team ensured it wouldn’t topple over, challenged the conventional theories that moai were moved in a horizontal position.

    The question then is how much effort it would have taken to move much larger moai. “Once the moai are in motion, it’s not at all difficult,” explained Carl Lipo, an anthropologist at Binghamton University.

    Lipo and his team systematically surveyed 962 moai statues on Easter Island, focusing primarily on 62 found along ancient roads. They recently published a paper providing strong evidence that moai were transported in an upright position.

    The team also succeeded in moving an exact replica of roadside moai 100 meters in 40 minutes with only 18 people, a far more efficient result than those of previous experiments.

    Researchers demonstrate how the Rapa Nui people may have “walked” moai.

    Rules of the Road

    The study discovered that moai statues positioned along Rapa Nui’s roads have common characteristics. The broad D-shaped base and forward leaning design of the statues optimized the moai for “walking,” even as they increased in size. In fact, moai abandoned by the side of the road were found to have imbalanced centers of gravity and show signs of toppling over during transport.

    This hypothesis is also supported by the ancient roads themselves, which are approximately 4.5 meters wide and have slightly concave cross-sections. Researchers believe these were ideal conditions to aid in stabilizing the moai as they were walked.

    A statistical analysis of the distribution of moai showed 51.6 percent were concentrated within 2 km of the quarry where they originated, demonstrating an exponential decay pattern associated with mechanical failure rather than deliberate ceremonial placement. It’s likely these statues were damaged or fell over during transport and left where they lay.

    [ad_2]

    Ritsuko Kawai

    Source link

  • Review: This cat gamed the academic publishing system and earned high marks on Google Scholar

    [ad_1]

    Google Scholar is a wonderful research resource. The free service covers a huge amount of the global scientific publishing enterprise, encompassing peer-reviewed articles, books, reports, conference papers, and preprints. It’s easy to use and accessible to anyone.

    It also compiles citation counts as a rough indicator of a researcher’s influence. Of particular interest to academicians and university administrators is a scholar’s h-index. An h-index of 10, for instance, means a person has 10 papers with at least 10 citations each. The higher the h-index, the more influential the researcher’s work.

    A recent prank by the Northwestern University metascience graduate student Reese Richardson and the Cambridge University engineer Nick Wise shows the h-index can be easily gamed to produce nonsensical results. A young writer named Larry Richardson’s recent articles on ostensibly abstruse mathematical issues earned him an h-index of 12. But “Larry Richardson” is a cat—briefly the world’s most cited cat. The pranksters created a profile for Larry and uploaded 12 self-citing fake articles to the preprint site ResearchGate, which gave the kitty that impressive h-index.

    Funny, yes, but highlighting a serious problem. Many top-ranked universities rely on citation counts when considering hiring or promotion. And over 60 percent, according to a February study of citation mills in Scientific Reports, obtained citation data from Google Scholar. Anyone want to hire a mathematically gifted feline?

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Bailey

    Source link

  • Penn project seeks to get to know the wildlife that ‘shares our cities with us’

    [ad_1]

    In her new project capturing motion-sensor photos of urban wildlife, ecologist and professor Julie Ellis said one of her favorite images is of a mother raccoon facing her three offspring, who are all staring back intently. It made her wonder what kind of conversation must be going on, whether the children are being told to hurry up or are learning how to catch a crayfish. 

    “It’s those little glimpses into their daily lives that you get from these cameras that I think is really fun, and tells us a lot about what these animals are doing right under our noses,” said Ellis, a director at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine. 

    MORE: Montgomery, Bucks and Berks counties are approaching ‘peak’ fall foliage

    Ellis and her team are in the process of placing between 30 and 35 cameras at parks, cemeteries, forest preserves, areas along the highway and wildlife habitats around Philadelphia for the Accessing Urban Nature Initiative. The idea is to look at highly developed areas and green spaces to learn how animals adapt to changes in their habitat and how urbanization impacts their day-to-day life. 

    The motion-triggered cameras can take anywhere from 100 to 600 photos in a two-week period, depending on how active animals are in that area. They’re monitored four times per year to capture seasonal patterns in the behavior of the animals, and Ellis hopes to keep them up and running for five years. 

    With the photos, Ellis hopes to answer a number of questions about Philadelphia wildlife, including what species are in the area, how they use different types of spaces and how they respond to extreme heat. She’s also hoping to learn how things like bright lights and loud noises can affect breeding behaviors, habitats and other activity. 

    That information, she said, will hopefully help scientists understand why some species thrive more in cities and how wildlife is responding to rapid environmental changes. 

    “The idea here amongst all of us is to understand the wildlife that shares our cities with us,” Ellis said. “So with the idea of capturing images of animals living throughout cities, like in parks and cemeteries and neighborhoods, and how they use those spaces, it tells us something about how wildlife adapts to city life.” 

    racoon family pennProvided Image/Julie Ellis

    Penn professor Julie Ellis’ favorite photo from her new project.

    Heron Penn photosHeron Penn photosProvided Image/Julie Ellis

    A heron on the move in a Philadelphia creek.

    NW PHL GroundhogNW PHL GroundhogProvided Image/Julie Ellis

    A groundhog outside his home in Northwest Philadelphia.

    While all the cameras haven’t been placed yet, so far they’ve captured foxes, raccoons, skunks, opossum, songbirds, groundhogs, a heron, a mink, and more small birds and mammals. One camera was unintentionally set near a groundhog den and captured hundreds of images of the animal moving in and around his home. 

    The project is in partnership with the Wildlife Information Network, an alliance of scientists that represents urban regions and cities around the world. Closer to home, the team will also work with local partners such as W.B. Saul High School of Agricultural Sciences, the Philadelphia Zoo, the Elmwood Park Zoo, the Morris Arboretum, the Schuylkill Center for Environmental Education and the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge to place cameras and monitor the images. 

    For Ellis, this project comes at a particularly unique time of massive urbanization. By 2050, the United Nations predicts that 2 out of every 3 people will be living in cities globally, which could have a massive impact on wildlife due to habitat destruction and changing environments. 

    “Why is it that some wildlife seem to survive and in some cases thrive in conditions of urbanizations whereas others really struggle, and what can we learn in Philadelphia about those patterns that might be able to inform how wildlife and biodiversity respond to environmental change more globally?” Ellis said. “Urbanization is just this massively rapid and global phenomenon right now, so it’s a really timely moment to be looking at its impacts.”

    [ad_2]

    Michaela Althouse

    Source link

  • Want to Help People Be More Generous, Engaged, and (Oddly Enough) More Resilient? The Science of ‘Thanks in Advance’

    [ad_1]

    I needed to get a 370-pound freestanding tub up two flights of stairs, into a bathroom, and — because of how the tub’s brass drain pipe fits into a flange connecting to the waste pipe below the floor — lowered slowly into place with zero room for error: if we were off by a hair, the lateral pressure on the drain pipe would probably crack the base of the tub. (No, I’m not a fan of the design.)

    So I asked a neighbor if he had any strong friends, and he rounded up three guys happy to make some extra money.

    Even so, I felt bad. It was a heavy yet delicate task, one I hadn’t quite figured out how to pull off. I had a plan, but knew we might have to adjust in the moment. I knew it would be hard and didn’t want to waste their time. Should I have felt that way? Arguably not: I I figured it would take no more than two hours, one way (success or failure) or the other, and would pay each of them $100. As Don Draper would say about the work-for-compensation transaction, “That’s what the money’s for.”

    They knew what they were getting into. If they didn’t want the work, you could argue that’s an emotion they shouldn’t feel.

    You could argue my being less than thrilled if they were less than thrilled — I hate interactions that feel remotely uncomfortable or confrontational — is an emotion I shouldn’t feel.

    Then I remembered what former FBI hostage negotiator and bestselling author Chris Voss said in his MasterClass: to paraphrase Voss, thank people before they do something.

    According to Voss:

    I’ve used that with airline customer service personnel who talked to me as if I’m lucky to have them on the phone at all. Who put me on hold for a long period of time. When she came back on the phone, I said, “It really feels like you’re being generous with your time,” and her tone changed instantly.

    She fixed the problem with no charge, which is exactly what I was after. I wanted more generosity from her. I knew it was buried, underlying the emotions on the surface.

    I just used a positive label to build it back up.

    Praising or thanking people before they do something well? Before they help you? Before they do the job you pay them to do?

    That’s what I did. When they arrived, I said, “Thanks for helping me out. This is going to suck. The tub is heavy and we have to set it down perfectly. I have a plan, but I’m also open to ideas. I really appreciate you helping, and helping me figure out how to pull this off.”

    “Tough job, with a limited chance of success?” one said, laughing. “Sounds right up our alley.”

    They carried the tub up the steps and into the bathroom onto blocks to support it while I attached the drain pipe. “You guys made that look easy,” I said.

    “Well, it was…” one said, smiling, “and it wasn’t.”

    “But it’s still better than my day job,” another laughed.

    Fifteen minutes later — with the help of some straps, removing a set of blocks at a time so I could fine-tune the positioning, and some strategically crossed fingers — my initial plan worked.

    I breathed a sign of relief both because the tub was in place but also because none of them got frustrated. There was no awkwardness, no tension, no impatience, no “I didn’t think this is what were were getting into.”

    Which, in retrospect, shouldn’t be surprising. An Academy of Management study found that compared to gratitude after the fact, anticipatory gratitude increases resilience, and anticipatory gratitude prior to completing a distressing task increases persistence.

    Partly that’s due to feelings of social worth; if you know you’re appreciated and valued, you’re more likely to work harder and stay the course. In this case, they were there to help me solve a problem I couldn’t solve myself. Saying I appreciated them helping put a positive label on their role.

    They weren’t just working; they were helping.

    And they knew their help was appreciated, not just afterwards, but also beforehand.

    Thanking them in advance also helped me manage my emotions. By thanking them ahead of time, I took care of a potential “370 pounds up two flights of stairs” elephant in the room. By thanking them ahead of time, I took care of a potential “it may take us a while to figure out how to set this thing into place” elephant in the room.” (And made them partners in helping me figure it out if it didn’t go well.)

    Try it. The next time you need help, thank the other person in advance. Say, “Thanks for picking me up, I really appreciate it,” to the Uber driver. Say, “Thanks for calling (an upset customer) to try to repair the relationship.” Say, “Thanks for being willing to stay late to get the orders out on time.”

    Even when it’s the person’s job to do whatever you want them to do, lead with, “I really appreciate you taking the time to help me.” 

    Don’t want until a transaction is complete to say thank you.

    Say it beforehand, too. Sure, they’ll they be more willing to help, and be more willing to stay the course if the task is difficult.

    But just as importantly, once you thank them for completing the task, they’ll have heard “thank you” twice.

    And that’s is a good thing, since no one receives too much appreciation and praise.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    [ad_2]

    Jeff Haden

    Source link

  • 3 Words the Most Effective Leaders Always Use, Backed by Leadership Science

    [ad_1]

    Since great leaders are great communicators, choosing your words carefully — both what to say and when to say it — is crucial.

    After all, words matter, and some words more than others, especially if you hope to increase performance, build more effective teams, forge better relationships, and gain buy-in.

    Here are three.

    Because

    As Steve Jobs said, asking for help is “what separates, sometimes, the people who do things from the people who just dream about them.”

    So if you need something, asking politely is effective. (As Mark Cuban says, being nice is one of the most underrated skills in business.)

    But providing a reason is even more effective.

    As described in Robert Cialdini’s book Influence, researchers asked people to try to butt in line to use a copier, using one of three phrases. 

    Phrase 1: “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?”

    The result? Sixty percent of the people standing in line let the individual in ahead of them. Most people like to be nice, or, at the very least, like to avoid confrontation.

    Phrase 2: “I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I am in a rush?”

    The result? Ninety-four percent of the people standing in line let the individual in ahead of them. Also makes sense; most people like to be helpful.

    Phrase 3: “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make copies?” The result? Ninety-three percent of the people standing in line let the individual go ahead of them.

    Which makes no sense. The second phrase provides a real reason; you’re in a hurry. The third phrase is where things get goofy: everyone in line needs to make copies, otherwise they wouldn’t be in line. “I have to make copies” isn’t a reason to jump ahead, yet nearly everyone let that person cut the line.

    Why? As Cialdini writes, “A well-known principle of human behavior says that when we ask someone to do us a favor we will be more successful if we provide a reason. People simply like to have reasons for what they do.”

    Whenever you want the people you lead to do something — to do anything — always include the word “because.” But don’t stop there. Make sure your “because” is clear, logical, and compelling.

    Then people will want to work with you, not just for you.

    Could

    After you describe a problem, you ask, “What should we do?”

    The first thing you should do is subsitute “could” for “should.” Research shows “should” typically limits possibilities by implying a finite set of choices. A study published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes found that using “should” typically results in people coming up with just two choices, which limits you to an either/or decision.

    Unfortunately, most leaders tend to use “should” when they ask for input or feedback. If you’ve given the issue some thought, sifted through possibilities, and come up with what you feel are the two best options, you naturally present the solution as an either/or.

    And that’s a problem: As a Harvard study published in the Academy of Management Journal found, substituting “could” for “should” generates a greater number of potential, and better, solutions.

    Why? “Should” implies a narrow set of choices. “Could” implies unlimited possibilities. 

    As the researchers write:

    Considering what one could do shifts people from analyzing and weighing what they assume to be fixed and mutually exclusive alternatives to generating options that might reconcile underlying imperatives.
    Having a “could” mindset helps individuals engage in divergent thinking.
    [And] in group contexts, we find that adopting a could mindset encouraged individuals to spend more time discussing these dilemmas and generating more ideas.

    The next time you encounter a problem, don’t think, “What should I do?”

    And definitely don’t say, “What should we do?” Just state the problem, without in any way implying you have the answer, and ask, “What could we do?”

    You’ll get much better input.

    Together

    Teams obviously work together, or at least should. Yet stating the obvious by using the word “together” can cause people to work harder, longer, and more effectively. 

    A study published in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology placed participants in two groups. The members of one group worked on a task on their own, while the other group was told they would work on the task “together,” and could ask for tips from team members.

    When the results were tallied, the people who heard the word “together”

    • Worked almost 50 percent longer
    • Solved more problems correctly
    • Found it easier to stick with the task
    • Said the task was more “interesting,” and were more likely to perform that task again

    Even though they didn’t actually work together.

    As the researchers write:

    Social cues that signal an invitation to work with others can fuel intrinsic motivation even when people work alone.
    The results suggest that cues of working together can inspire intrinsic motivation, turning work into play.

    Not sure about the whole “play” thing where work is concerned, but feeling like you’re a part of a team — feeling like you’re a part of something bigger than yourself — makes a huge difference. 

    Say you’re forming a team. Don’t just tell people they’ll be a member of the team. Don’t just tell them what they need to accomplish. Say they’ll work on the project together. Say they’ll achieve the outcome together.

    Science says they’ll likely work harder, longer, and better.

    And will also enjoy the task, and being part of a team, a lot more.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    [ad_2]

    Jeff Haden

    Source link

  • Want to Feel More Confident, Competent, and Self-Assured? Science Says Stop Saying ‘I’m Sorry’ So Often

    [ad_1]

    At a reception after a speaking event, an entrepreneur looking for investors asked if he could send me his pitch deck. “I’m sorry,” I said. “I don’t invest in startups.”

    “That’s all right,” he said. “What I really need is for you to give me Ray Dalio’s email address. If I land him as an investor, I’ll be set.”

    “I’m sorry,” I said, “but I’m not comfortable sharing other people’s contact information.”

    He badgered me, I kept apologizing, and he finally walked away. A woman standing nearby walked over and said, “You didn’t need to feel sorry,” she said. “He was being a jerk.”

    “I guess,” I said. “But that’s what I do.”

    I say I’m sorry when people ask me to speak at their event for the “exposure.” I say I’m sorry when a telemarketer calls and claims they want to buy one of our rental properties. I say I’m sorry when someone butts in line and I have to explain that me and other people were waiting first.

    But I shouldn’t, especially if — oddly enough — I want to feel better about myself.

    According to a study published in Frontiers in Psychology determined that an apology increases the recipient’s feeling of hurt and does not increase their level of forgiveness. (Assuming I need to be forgiven for not sharing Ray Dalio’s email address). A study published in The European Journal of Social Psychology, people who refuse to express remorse maintain a greater sense of control and feel better about themselves than those who do not, even when they actually made a mistake.

    And then there’s this: research described in the book You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation indicates that “excessive” apologizing (apologizing when you really don’t need to) can make others feel you lack competence and confidence. For example, the entrepreneur saw “I’m sorry….” as an opening, and even weakness. To him, “I’m sorry…” sounded like, “I would like to, but…,” and the salesperson in him tried to turn maybe into yes.

    Even though my answer was always going to be “no.” I don’t share contact information without the person’s permission. And while I do have Dalio’s email address, I might as well not: I’ve only used it once, and that was to send him a link to an interview we did.

    I didn’t need to say I was sorry. I could just say no.

    I could just say no to people who want me to work for free. I could just say no to a telemarketer. I could say, “Excuse me, but we were here first.”

    Just like you don’t need to apologize when someone asks you to buy something you didn’t ask them to try to sell you. You can just say, “No thanks.” Or when someone asks you to invest in their business. You can just say, “No, that’s not for me.” 

    Saying you’re sorry when you’ve done something wrong? That’s different. We all make mistakes. We all have things we need to apologize for: words, actions, omissions, failing to step up, step in, show support…. 

    In those cases, the first thing you should do is say “I’m sorry.” (The last thing you should do is add a disclaimer, like “but I was really mad because…” or, “but you were partly at fault…” or include any statement that in any way places even the smallest blame back on the other person.)

    When you do something wrong? You need to apologize.

    But you don’t need to apologize when someone asks you to do something you don’t want to do. You don’t need to apologize for things you don’t have time to do when other people ask.

    And you definitely don’t need to explain yourself. You can just politely say, “No,” or “No, thank you.” (As Adam Grant says, “No” is a complete sentence.) Or you can say, “Thank you for asking, but no.”

    Because you shouldn’t say you’re sorry — much less feel sorry — for saying no to things you don’t want to do or can’t do, especially when the request is unsolicited, unwelcome, or unreasonable.

    When that happens, the other person should really be the one who apologizes for asking.

    Not you, for saying no.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    [ad_2]

    Jeff Haden

    Source link

  • Neuroscience Says This Is How You Can Turn a Bad Memory Into a Good (and Useful) Memory

    [ad_1]

    I was staying in a hotel with our two grandsons and the fire alarm went off at 1 a.m. We threw on coats, hustled down the stairs, and stood in the cold in front of the building. While most fire alarms are false alarms, turns out there was a small fire.

    Months later we were staying in a hotel and the fire alarm went off. One grandson immediately freaked out. The other said, “Hey, all right.”

    Same event, two very different reactions. Why?

    Neuroscientists call the process of linking feelings with a memory valence assignment. Once we experience something, our brains associate it with a positive or negative feeling, or valence, which helps us know whether to seek or avoid it in the future. 

    For one grandson, a fire alarm is a bad memory. Fires mean buildings can burn down. Fires mean we could get badly hurt. For the other grandson, a fire alarm is a good memory. Fire alarms are early warnings that help keep people from being injured. Fires alarms mean safety.

    How valence assignment happens, at a cellular level, is unclear. Scientists know that different sets of neurons are activated when a valence is positive, and others when a valence is negative. 

    “We found these two pathways — analogous to railroad tracks — that were leading to positive and negative valence,” writes professor Kay Tye, “but we still didn’t know what signal was acting as the switch operator to direct which track should be used at any given time.”

    So as part of a study published in Nature by Tye and her colleagues at the Salk Institute, genes were selectively edited to remove the gene for neurotensin, a signaling molecule, from the brain cells of mice; without neurotensin, the mice could no longer assign positive valence to a memory. 

    Lacking neurotensin didn’t affect negative valence, though. In fact, the mice got even better at assigning negative valence. The neurons associated with negative valence stay switched on until neurotensin is released. 

    Which makes sense. After all, fear is a survival instinct. Avoiding dangerous situations helped keep our ancestors alive. (Think of it as your brain’s way of saying, “I’ll assume (this) is bad… until I know for sure it’s good.”)

    Then the researchers introduced high levels of neurotensin and found they could promote reward learning (think positive associations), and further dampen negative valence. According to Tye, “We can actually manipulate this switch to turn on positive or negative learning.”

    All of which sounds good if you have a steady supply of neurotensin on hand. (Which, of course, you don’t.) But there are a few ways to game your neurochemical system.

    One way is to reframe a negative experience. That’s what one grandson did. Initially the fire alarm scared him, but he decided to see getting out of the hotel as an adventure. And he decided to see a fire alarm as a good thing, because it’s a sign there might be a problem.

    You can do the same. Say a sales demo goes poorly. That memory cause you to think you never want to do another sales demo again.

    Or you could decide that memory will help you never do another sales demo that way again. Maybe you weren’t prepared. Maybe you didn’t read the room. Maybe you didn’t build in a few pauses so you could adjust, in the moment, to how your presentation was being received.

    Mentally assigning positive outcomes, like, “Here’s what I learned,” to an experience will help you assign a positive valence to that experience.

    In time, you’ll even think back fondly on the time you bombed, because it served as a springboard for later success.

    Another way is to mentally take a step back to focus on your overall sense of self-worth before you do something difficult. A study published in Psychological Science found that a few minutes of self-affirmation minimized participants’ psychological response to failure if a particular task didn’t go well.

    That’s because confidence is situational. Stick me in a gym with a bunch of people lifting weights and even if I’m not as strong, I still feel confident, and like I belong. Stick me in a Pilates class, though, and I’ll instantly feel insecure (and justifiably so.) The same is probably true for you. You probably feel self-assured speaking to ten members of your team; stick you in front of ten strangers, though, and that confidence likely disappears.

    But confidence is also transferable. Success in one pursuit yields greater confidence in other areas of your life. When you feel good about yourself in one way — when you achieve some degree of success in one aspect of your life — you tend to feel better about other parts of your life as well. 

    After all, if you can do one thing well, you can do lots of things well.

    Before you do something that might result in a negative memory, take a moment to reflect on all the things you can do well. That way, if you fail, you’ll be able to see that moment for what it is: just one step, however feeble, on a journey to eventual achievement.

    Another way is to make a feeling granular rather than general. For example, unlike a general feeling like feeling stressed, a granular emotion is a specific feeling like fear, worry, or anxiety. (Compared to feeling “happy,” a granular emotion might be pleased, delighted, or excited.)

    The more general the feeling, the more likely you are to assign a negative valence to the situation that sparked the emotion.

    My grandsons and I dying in the first hotel was extremely unlikely. The building had a number of exit points and stairways. It had fire escapes on opposite sides of the building, accessible from the roof. Plus we all know how to get out of a building quickly; we’ve done it before. We know what to do.

    All of that helps us assign a more positive valence to a fire alarm — and hopefully hopefully respond better if it ever happens again. The grandson who assigned a negative valence came home from school the day they had a fire drill and said he wasn’t scared of fire alarms any more because unlike his classmates, he’s been in a real fire drill. (Hey, whatever works.)

    Which, ultimately, is the point. You can’t always control what happens. But you can always control how you respond.

    And the more positive the valence you assign to a situation, especially to a seemingly uncomfortable or challenging situation, the better you’ll be able to respond.

    Because bravery isn’t an absence of fear. Bravery is doing what you need to do in spite of fear — something finding a way to assign a positive valance will make a lot easier.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    [ad_2]

    Jeff Haden

    Source link

  • Cognitive Science Says This Is the Best Way to Learn Faster, Increase Recall, and Improve Your Memory

    [ad_1]

    How does learning work? Encode, store, retrieve: take it in, find a place for it, pull it out when you need it. If you can’t retrieve information, you haven’t really learned it.

    So since we all learn best by doing, it only makes sense that testing yourself — as long as you do it the right way — is the best way to learn faster and retain more.

    Granted, taking a test kind of sucks. Tests assess, measure, and judge, and who enjoys being judged? Taking a test can feel high pressure, high stakes.

    But what if there is no pressure? What if there are no stakes? What if a test isn’t used to evaluate your knowledge, but help you learn faster and better?

    A meta-review of a number of studies published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology found that self-testing — which is inherently low-stakes, since testing yourself means you’re the only person who knows the results — is the most effective way to speed up the learning process. A massive study published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest backs up that finding, showing that self-testing is the most effective learning technique, edging out distributed practice and interleaving.

    Why? Partly because of the additional context self-testing naturally creates. Quiz yourself and answer incorrectly, and not only will you be more likely to remember the right answer after you look it up, you’ll also remember the fact you didn’t remember.

    Getting something wrong is a great way to remember it the next time, especially if you tend to be hard on yourself. In a weird way, when it comes to memory, what you got wrong can be stickier than what you got right.

    For example, I sat in the parking lot looking up the answer to a question I thought I had gotten wrong on the Class A contractor’s license exam; I feel sure I’ll never forget that bolts must be placed within 12 inches of all sill plate joints. You could argue that was a high-pressure situation, but it really wasn’t. Instead of studying a lot to prepare, I took the test to see what I needed to learn since you can retake the test as often as necessary within a one-year period.

    I truly saw it as practice test, so the stakes felt low. (As it turned out out I passed the first time, but I still remember the answers to questions I thought I had gotten wrong, and looked up afterwards.)

    The same approach works when you’re teaching new employees. Say you’re training new technicians to perform a process. Stop halfway and give them a pop quiz, and the stakes — since the quiz feels like an assessment, not a learning tool — and they’ll feel the stakes are high. (If nothing else, no one likes to be wrong in front of other people.)

    But what if you pass out a quick quiz, let them take it, go over the answers, and tell them to throw away their papers when you’re done? Take makes it a low-stakes test that fosters learning.

    And provide a number of other positive outcomes. According to a study published in Psychology of Learning and Motivation, low-stakes self-testing provides a number of benefits:

    • Self-testing (and retrieving) aids retention. Learning a presentation? Quiz yourself on what comes after your intro. Quiz yourself by listing the four main points you want to make. Quiz yourself on sales estimates, key initiatives, or results from competitive analysis. That will force you to practice retrieving the information you want to remember, which will make it stickier.
    • Self-testing identifies knowledge gaps. Test yourself, and you’ll quickly discover what you don’t know. Then you can focus on learning that. (And you’ll be more likely to remember that information since you didn’t know it the first time.)
    • Self-testing helps you learn more the next time you study. Studies show that people who took a test before they studied retained information better than those who did not. (Think of it as priming your study pump.)
    • Self-testing organizes knowledge. Reading is fairly passive. Testing forces you to make connections, or recognizes gaps in your ability to make connections. Testing helps you realize, “Ah — this goes with that,” or “This causes that,” and makes you cluster information so it makes better sense.
    • Self-testing helps transfer knowledge to new situations. People who are repeatedly tested are better able to apply what they know to new situations. Think of it as the, “Hmm, this is a lot like that, but with one little twist” effect. 
    • Self-testing helps retrieve information not tested. Granted, this one seems odd. Still: take a test, and you’ll better remember information that was studied but not tested. (I’m guessing that’s the result of the overall memory boost frequent low-stakes testing provides.) 
    • Self-testing prevents interference from prior material. Try to learn a lot at once, and it all tends to run together. Or, more likely, you’ll remember what you learned early in the session, but after a while the rest is just a blur. Toss in a few quizzes along the way, though, and that doesn’t tend to happen. If you need to learn a lot of material, break the session into chunks by inserting a few quizzes. (And if you’re teaching new employees a lot of material, definitely throw in a few low-stakes quizzes.)

    ​Best of all, testing tends to encourage more learning. While self-testing certainly reveals what you don’t know — at least not yet — it also helps you feel good about how much you have learned.

    The result is a virtuous cycle. You feel good about improving, which motivates you to keep trying to improve, self-testing reveals you’ve continued to improve.

    That’s another benefit of frequent, low-stakes testing.

    Not only do you learn more, you also want to learn more.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    [ad_2]

    Jeff Haden

    Source link

  • If You Say Yes to Any of These 5 Questions, Science Says You’re More Emotionally Intelligent Than You Think

    [ad_1]

    Emotional intelligence  matters, and not just on a personal level. Research shows developing greater emotional intelligence can lead to higher performance and pay, as well as better professional and personal relationships.

    The better you can understand and manage your emotions, and the emotions of people around you, the greater your chances of success.

    So how emotionally intelligent are you? You could take an emotional intelligence test.

    Or you could just see how you answer the following questions.

    “Do I ask for advice instead of feedback?”

    Say you’re okay with getting feedback, even when it’s critical. (Plenty of people who claim they do, really don’t.) You may even enjoy getting critical feedback.

    But that doesn’t mean other people like to give you the feedback you need. Research shows when feedback is requested rather than volunteered, it tends to be too vague. Too fluffy. Too, “I don’t want to hurt your feelings so I’ll just be nice,” to be of any real value. 

    But when you ask for advice? Harvard Business School researchers found that compared to asking for feedback, asking for advice resulted in respondents providing 34 percent more areas of improvement, and 56 percent more ways to improve. 

    In short, emotionally intelligent people realize that asking another person to provide feedback (saying, “How did I do?”) puts them on the spot.

    On the other hand, asking another person for advice (saying, “What can (or should) I do?”) is flattering. Asking someone for advice implicitly shows you respect their knowledge, skills, experience, etc.

    Do that, and two great things happen: you get the input you need, and they feel valued, trusted, and happy to offer guidance they know will help you.

    Win-win.

    “Do I appreciate (even if I don’t like) negative feedback?”

    But what if you’re given feedback you didn’t request? That’s the farthest thing from fun. No one likes to be told what they can do better. Research shows most people rarely appreciate feedback when it’s negative. And when they do receive constructive criticism, they rarely use it to improve their performance. (In fact, studies show that within days we tend to totally forget the negative feedback we receive.)

    Emotionally intelligent people keep their feelings in check and embrace — or at least put aside — the discomfort to find ways to improve. A study published in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning found that we’re far more likely to recall evaluative feedback (feedback about something we’ve already completed) than directive feedback (feedback on how we could improve on a future task.)

    That’s why emotionally intelligent people embrace — again, even if they don’t enjoy — critical feedback. They focus on what it says about the task, not about themselves.

    Instead of avoiding feedback that threatens how you currently perceive yourself, use it to improve how you will someday perceive yourself.

    Smarter, more skilled, more talented, more inclusive… more of whatever you someday hope to be.

    “Do I often praise other people?”

    Do you feel you don’t receive enough recognition and praise? Science says you’re not alone. Two out of three employees surveyed feel they don’t receive enough praise, and nearly three-fourths say they receive some form of positive feedback less than once a week.

    Clearly that doesn’t feel great.

    Emotionally intelligent people recognize that what they want — or need — is what they can give to people they know. A kind word. A sincere thank-you.

    Plenty of people you know — employees, vendors, customers, friends, family, etc. — deserve a kind word. A sincere thank-you. 

    But you should also recognize people you don’t know. A store clerk. A delivery person. A customer service rep.  Because praise that is unexpected, like the gift that is given “just because,” is often even more powerful.

    “Do I willingly admit my mistakes?”

    As Daniel Coyle writes in his book The Culture Code, Navy SEAL Dave Cooper feels the most important words a leader can say are, “I screwed that up.”

    While that might sound odd, since conventional wisdom says leaders should project unshakable confidence, and admitting weakness risks creating more weakness, emotionally intelligent people realize strong cultures can only be built when people feel safe enough to tell one another the truth.

    Which starts with leaders who admit they aren’t perfect.

    The result is a vulnerability loop: one person allows themself to be vulnerable and admits a mistake or a shortcoming, which allows another person to do the same. In time, that leads to more open exchanges that build trust and drive performance.

    And helps people focus on how they can get better, together.

    “Do I often skip past the small talk?”

    Say you’re at a conference and just met someone new. Do you whip out the small talk?

    Science says you shouldn’t. A series of studies published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that the more awkward and uncomfortable a conversation with another person sounded, the more they tended to bond with the other person, and the more they liked the other person.

    Participants felt less awkward, more connected, and a lot happier after those conversations than they expected to feel.

    Emotionally intelligent people realize that the deeper the conversation, especially with someone they don’t know, the more likely they both are to enjoy it.

    Keep in mind “deep” doesn’t have to be too deep. When researchers asked people to come up with what they considered to be “deeper” questions, the most common were pretty straightforward:

    • What do you love doing?
    • What do you regret most?
    • Where do you see yourself in five years?

    As the researchers write, “Our research suggests that the person next to you would probably be happier talking about their passions and purpose than the weather or ‘What’s up?’”

    And so do you.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    [ad_2]

    Jeff Haden

    Source link

  • Why Does Success Often Feel Like Failure? Science Says Blame the ‘Negative-Lumping’ Effect

    [ad_1]

    Say you’ve averaged landing 40 new customers a month over the past year. You really want to ramp things up, so you set a goal of landing 100 new customers next month.

    Most importantly — because a goal without an action plan is just a dream — you do a number of things differently to achieve it. You make more cold calls. You rework your sales pipeline. You implement new pricing strategies. You leverage referrals. You work your butt off to achieve your goal.

    Unfortunately, you fall a little short. You only land 94 new customers.

    How do you feel? Science says you’re bound to be disappointed, even though 94 new customers is way more than 40. A study published in Psychological Science found that people dismiss relative gains even when those gains are considerable. Psychologists call that the “negative-lumping”effect, the tendency to dismiss achievement — no matter how great the improvement — even when you fall short of a seemingly impossible goal.

    Say profits are small and you want to cut costs by 10 percent this month. Oddly enough, whether you only cut 2 percent, or 5 percent, or 9 percent, the result feels the same. Even though 2 percent is good, 5 percent is better, and 9 percent is great — even though the difference between where you started and what you accomplished is huge — still.

    You feel like you failed.

    Which is not just a problem in the moment, but also in the future. As the researchers write:

    … falling short signals an eschewal of doing the bare minimum and lacking serious intent to change, making these gains seem less deserving of recognition.

    Critically, participants then “checked out”: they under-rewarded and underinvested in efforts toward “merely” incremental improvement. In all experiments, participants lumped together absolute failures but not absolute successes, highlighting a unique blindness to gradations of badness.

    When attempts to eradicate a problem fail, people might dismiss smaller but critical steps that were and can still be made.

    Or in non researcher-speak, if you don’t hit your target, you’ll probably quit trying. Or you’ll scrap the process you created to hit a goal (after all, it didn’t “work”) and start over again — even though you’re clearly on the right track.

    So how can you combat the effect of negative-lumping? How can you keep falling a little short of a goal, especially a huge goal, from feeling like total failure?

    The key is to look forward and backward. Measuring yourself against a goal is obviously valuable. Striving to reach a goal, evaluating your progress toward that goal to modify your approach, your strategies, your daily activities… goals are valuable because they help you establish and then shape the process you create to reach that goal.

    Since you can’t decide how to get there if you don’t know where you’re going, you need to measure yourself against a goal.

    But you also need to make sure you look back to see how far you’ve come. If your goal was to land 100 customers and you “only” landed 94, still: you’ve grown your customer base by a significant amount — and you’ve learned a lot about how to turn leads into customers. If your goal is to work out five days a week and you “only” work out four, still: you’ve made definite strides in improving your fitness, and you can figure out how to remove the barriers that keep you from working out one more day a week.

    Relative improvement is still improvement — and it provides a knowledge and experience base you can use to adapt, revise, optimize… and continue to improve.

    Because here’s the thing. When you look forward, you “failure” is relative. When you look backwards, your success is absolute. You grew your customer base. You got fitter. Whatever you hope to do, you’re closer than you were.

    So use goals to inform processes, to track your progress, and to make smart course correction. By all means, measure yourself against your goals. 

    But don’t forget to look back and measure yourself against the progress you made, especially if your efforts fall short of your goals. 

    Failing to hit a target is just failing to hit an arbitrary — and possibly unreachable, at least in the short-term — target. Progress is actual. Progress is tangible. Progress, no matter how small, is an achievement to take pride in, and use as motivation to keep making progress.

    Because shorter-term goals are fun… but where you end up is all that really matters.

    The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

    [ad_2]

    Jeff Haden

    Source link

  • Generation X was the first to grow up with ultra-processed foods. Many struggle to stop eating them

    [ad_1]

    People now in their 50s and 60s were the first generation to grow up when ultra-processed foods – often high in fats, salt and added sugar – became widely available.

    New research shows that this segment of the population, which mostly includes Generation X, exhibit signs of addiction to ultra-processed food products including fast food, soda and sweets. The study, published Monday in the journal Addiction, has implications for public health, because many children are now exposed to ultra-processed food from a very young age.

    MORE: Philly’s recovery housing complex now offers residents on-site addiction treatment medications

    “If current trends continue, future generations may show even higher rates of ultra-processed food addiction later in life,” said the study’s senior author, Ashley Gearhardt, who leads the Food and Addiction Science & Treatment Lab at the University of Michigan. “Just as with other substances, intervening early may be essential to reducing long-term addiction risk across the lifespan.”

    For the study, researchers conducted phone and online surveys of a nationally-representative group of more than 2,000 people in the United States, ages 50 to 80.

    The findings showed that 21% of women and 10% of men ages 50 to 64 had strong cravings for ultra-processed foods, repeated unsuccessful attempts to cut down on consumption and withdrawal symptoms. They also avoided social activities because of fear of overeating – all symptoms meeting clinical criteria for addiction.

    The percentage of older adults, ages 65 to 80, that met the criteria for addiction to ultra-processed foods was much lower: 12% of women and 4% of men.

    A possible explanation for why Gen X women reported higher rates of addiction to ultra-processed food than Gen X men might be due to marketing of processed “diet” foods – such as low-fat cookies and microwavable meals – to women of that generation, the researchers said.

    The study also found an association between social isolation and ultra-processed food addiction. People who reported their mental health status as “fair” or “poor” were also at higher risk for addiction to ultra-processed foods.

    [ad_2]

    Courtenay Harris Bond

    Source link

  • Exclusive: Mira Murati’s Stealth AI Lab Launches Its First Product

    [ad_1]

    Thinking Machines Lab, a heavily funded startup cofounded by prominent researchers from OpenAI, has revealed its first product—a tool called Tinker that automates the creation of custom frontier AI models.

    “We believe [Tinker] will help empower researchers and developers to experiment with models and will make frontier capabilities much more accessible to all people,” said Mira Murati, cofounder and CEO of Thinking Machines, in an interview with WIRED ahead of the announcement.

    Big companies and academic labs already fine-tune open source AI models to create new variants that are optimized for specific tasks, like solving math problems, drafting legal agreements, or answering medical questions.

    Typically, this work involves acquiring and managing clusters of GPUs and using various software tools to ensure that large-scale training runs are stable and efficient. Tinker promises to allow more businesses, researchers, and even hobbyists to fine-tune their own AI models by automating much of this work.

    Essentially, the team is betting that helping people fine-tune frontier models will be the next big thing in AI. And there’s reason to believe they might be right. Thinking Machines Lab is helmed by researchers who played a core role in the creation of ChatGPT. And, compared to similar tools on the market, Tinker is more powerful and user friendly, according to beta testers I spoke with.

    Murati says that Thinking Machines Lab hopes to demystify the work involved in tuning the world’s most powerful AI models and make it possible for more people to explore the outer limits of AI. “We’re making what is otherwise a frontier capability accessible to all, and that is completely game-changing,” she says. “There are a ton of smart people out there, and we need as many smart people as possible to do frontier AI research.”

    Tinker currently allows users to fine-tune two open source models: Meta’s Llama and Alibaba’s Qwen. Users can write a few lines of code to tap into the Tinker API and start fine-tuning through supervised learning, which means adjusting the model with labeled data or through reinforcement learning, an increasingly popular method for tuning models by giving them positive or negative feedback based on their outputs. Users can then download their fine-tuned model and run it wherever they want.

    The AI industry is watching the launch closely—in part due to the caliber of the team behind it.

    [ad_2]

    Will Knight

    Source link

  • AI godfather warns humanity risks extinction by hyperintelligent machines with their own ‘preservation goals’ within 10 years | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    The so-called “godfather of AI”, Yoshua Bengio, claims tech companies racing for AI dominance could be bringing us closer to our own extinction through the creation of machines with ‘preservation goals’ of their own. 

    Bengio, a professor at the Université de Montréal known for his foundational work related to deep learning, has for years warned about the threats posed by a hyperintelligent AI, but the rapid pace of development has continued despite his warnings. In the past six months, OpenAI, Anthropic, Elon Musk’s xAI, and Google’s Gemini, have all released new models or upgrades as they try to win the AI race. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman even predicted AI will surpass human intelligence by the end of the decade, while other tech leaders have said that day could come even sooner. 

    Yet, Bengio claims this rapid development is a potential threat. 

    “If we build machines that are way smarter than us and have their own preservation goals, that’s dangerous. It’s like creating a competitor to humanity that is smarter than us,” Bengio told the Wall Street Journal.

    Because they are trained on human language and behavior, these advanced models could potentially persuade and even manipulate humans to achieve their goals. Yet, AI models’ goals may not always align with human goals, said Bengio. 

    “Recent experiments show that in some circumstances where the AI has no choice but between its preservation, which means the goals that it was given, and doing something that causes the death of a human, they might choose the death of the human to preserve their goals,” he claimed. 

    Call for AI safety

    Several examples over the past few years show AI can convince humans to believe nonrealities, even those with no history of mental illness. On the flipside, some evidence exists that AI can also be convinced, using persuasion techniques for humans, to give responses it would usually be prohibited from giving. 

    For Bengio, all this adds up to is more proof that independent third parties need to take a closer look at AI companies’ safety methodologies. In June, Bengio also launched nonprofit LawZero with $30 million in funding to create a safe “non-agentic” AI that can help ensure the safety of other systems created by big tech companies.

    Otherwise, Bengio predicts we could start seeing major risks from AI models in five to ten years, but he cautioned humans should prepare in case those risks crop up earlier than expected. 

    “The thing with catastrophic events like extinction, and even less radical events that are still catastrophic like destroying our democracies, is that they’re so bad that even if there was only a 1% chance it could happen, it’s not acceptable,” he said.

    Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

    [ad_2]

    Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez

    Source link

  • Quarter of bosses admit return-to-office mandates were meant to make staff quit | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    Bosses have spent the better part of two years summoning their employees back to the office, making remote-loving workers “quiet quit” in protest, while others have threatened to quit for real. But that’s secretly what a significant chunk of CEOs were hoping for.

    According to research from BambooHR, a survey of more than 1,500 U.S. managers found a quarter of C-suite executives hoped for some voluntary turnover among workers after implementing an RTO policy. 

    Meanwhile, one in five HR professionals admitted their in-office policy was meant to make staff quit.

    It’s why the report concludes what many workers have long suspected: that “RTO mandates are layoffs in disguise”.

    Return-to-office mandates haven’t gone as hoped

    It’s no secret that rigid in-office policies haven’t landed well with workers. Amazon is perhaps the most documented example of how ugly the RTO battle can get.

    Around 30,000 employees signed a petition protesting the company’s in-office mandate, and more than 1,800 pledged to walk out from their jobs to take a stand. When the tech giant eventually demanded workers show face in the office five days a week, numerous staffers told Fortune they were immediately updating their LinkedIn profiles and “rage applying” for new jobs. “Honestly, I’ve lost so much trust in Amazon leadership at this point,” one person said.

    Research has shown 99% of companies with RTO mandates have seen a drop in engagement.

    Meanwhile, separate data shows that nearly half of companies with return-to-office mandates witnessed a higher level of employee attrition than they had anticipated, and 29% of companies enforcing office returns are struggling with recruitment. 

    Even BambooHR’s research has highlighted that nearly a third of workers would consider leaving their positions if forced to return to their company’s vertical towers.

    But in reality, many workers aren’t following through with such threats—and fewer are quitting than bosses had hoped.

    Nearly 40% of all managers in the survey said they believe their organization did layoffs because not enough workers quit in response to their company’s RTO mandate.

    A version of this story originally published on Fortune.com on July 24, 2024.

    More on RTO mandates:

    • ‘Hushed hybrid’: Even as RTO mandates grow, workers still aren’t fully showing up to the office—a sign managers are too burnt out to enforce policies
    • Robinhood CEO admits his RTO call was wrong and now says execs must be in the office 5 days a week: ‘Your manager is going through more pain than you’
    • More than 60% of workers have considered changing jobs due to rigid RTO policies and would take a pay cut for better flexible work options
    Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

    [ad_2]

    Orianna Rosa Royle

    Source link

  • Are Gel Manicures Safe? Experts Explain the Risks

    [ad_1]

    Anyone who’s accidentally smudged or chipped a freshly painted nail understands the allure of the gel manicure. The procedure, in which gel polish is applied and then cured under a lamp, results in a shiny, durable manicure that lasts around two weeks.

    But in September, the E.U. banned a key ingredient in gel nail polishes called trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide, or TPO—making many people second-guess the safety of a gel manicure.

    “There are definitely some potential pitfalls and dangers, but honestly, millions and millions of women worldwide use gel nails and do not have problems,” says Dr. Phoebe Rich, a dermatologist in Portland, Oregon, who specializes in the prevention and treatment of nail disorders. 

    The key, experts agree, is to take a few simple precautions. Before you book your next gel manicure, here’s what you need to know. 

    Understanding the E.U. ban on TPO

    TPO is a photoinitiator, which means it starts the reaction that causes the gel polish to harden and form a solid film on your nail. As of Sept. 1, 2025, E.U. legislators prohibited its use, classifying it as a substance that is “toxic for reproduction” after several studies indicated reproductive toxicity effects in animals exposed to high levels of TPO.

    But Kelly Dobos, a cosmetic chemist at the University of Cincinnati, says there’s no need to panic.

    Most research into the health effects of TPO has involved feeding it to rodents or injecting it under their skin, she explains, and “that’s not really how we’re exposed to it in a nail gel.” Moreover, she says, “your systemic exposure is very low, because it’s also reacted away when you’re exposing it to that light in the nail lamp.”

    Read More: What Happens to the Plastic in Dishwasher Pods?

    While Dobos maintains that TPO, as it is used in gel manicures, is safe, there are gel polishes on the market that don’t include the ingredient, she says. If you’re concerned, seek out a polish that uses a different photoinitiator, like TPO-L, a modified form of TPO which remains legal in the E.U.

    Protect yourself from UV exposure

    Both the UV and LED lamps used to cure gel nail polish emit UV radiation, which has been linked to skin cancer and premature aging. 

    “But then again, most of the country’s sitting outside without sunblock,” says Dr. Michele Green, a cosmetic dermatologist in New York City. 

    Though the UV exposure during a gel manicure is brief, it’s concentrated and can add up over time. Green advises following the American Academy of Dermatology’s guidance to apply a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen to your fingers and the backs of your hands before a gel manicure, or to wear a pair of opaque fingerless gloves.

    “Both of those are very protective,” adds Rich. “And if nothing else, it keeps your hands from aging.”

    Application and removal can cause damage

    People who get regular gel manicures may notice changes to their nails, like thinning, cracking, weakening, or white spots, says Dr. April Schachtel, a dermatologist with UW Medicine in Seattle who specializes in nail disease. “A lot of those things that make it so attractive as a manicure option are also the things that damage the nail,” she says.

    That includes both the removal of old gel polish, which involves wrapping the fingers in acetone-soaked cotton pads and foil, and the surface preparation of the nail for the new coat, during which a technician may file or buff the nail with a mechanical drill. 

    “There’s no question that the 20 minutes of acetone is pretty harsh, mostly on your skin, but also on your nails,” Rich says. “Then using the drill after that to take off the extra bits that the acetone leaves behind—that’s all damaging for the existing nail.”

    Read More: Can a Multivitamin Make Up for a Bad Diet?

    And don’t even think about picking the polish off yourself. “You’re taking little pieces of the surface of the nail plate with it when you do that,” she warns. 

    “Once that nail is thinned and damaged, there’s nothing that you can apply to it to bring it back to its normal health,” Rich says. “You have to wait for it to grow back in from the nail matrix,” which can take about six months.

    To be extra safe at the salon, says Dobos, request to see the packaging of the gel remover so you can check its ingredients. Earlier this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter to several companies that still make gel nail polish removers containing methylene chloride, a chemical that’s classified as a “probable carcinogen” and banned in the U.S.

    “If you’re concerned about what they’re using, ask, because that’s generally not right in front of you at the nail salon,” she says. 

    Don’t try this at home

    In the years since the pandemic, the market for DIY gel manicure kits has exploded, Schachtel says. While it can be cheaper and more convenient to do your nails at home, improper application can lead to potential problems.

    In most gel products, the main component is acrylates; these are monomers or oligomers, which are small molecules or chains of molecules and can come in a thick liquid form. As the gel is cured, the smaller molecules are linked together and turn into a polymer—but if any uncured acrylate monomers come into contact with the skin, they can trigger allergies in some people.

    “That’s more likely if you’re doing it at home, because you’re more likely to get the liquid on the skin or have an imperfect technique for curing it,” Schachtel says.

    Read More: Weighted Vests Are the Latest Fitness Trend. Do They Work?

    An acrylate allergy can present as painful, lifted nails and rashes on the fingers or face. And because acrylates are also used in a lot of important medical devices like bandages, dental implants and fillings, and bone cement used in orthopedic surgery, “it’s an allergy that people really do not want to have,” Schachtel says. 

    For the safest results, Rich advises getting your gel manicure at a reputable, licensed salon. “In the home, it’s not as controlled,” she says. “There’s a potential for more overuse and damage, and maybe even more light exposure.” 

    The bottom line

    Many experts believe that gel manicures, overall, are a generally low-risk indulgence, particularly if you get them infrequently and take precautions when you do.

    “I don’t tell people to never do it,” says Schachtel. “But I do think it is something that should be done in moderation.”

    [ad_2]

    Holly Burns

    Source link