Elizabeth Loftus: The fiction of memory

Memory-manipulation expert Elizabeth Loftus explains how our memories might not be what they seem -- and how implanted memories can have real-life repercussions

The optimism bias

The optimism bias is a tendency for people to believe that they are less likely to experience a negative event compared to others. For example, we acknowledge the danger of driving a car but believe that others are more likely to get in accidents (“people who get in car accidents are bad drivers, I’m a good driver!”). Similarly, studies consistently find that smokers believe the health risks of smoking are lower for themselves than for other smokers. Compared with nonsmokers, both adolescent and adult smokers significantly demote health risks [1].  

Adapt: Problem solving in a complex world

Tim Harford combines biology, statistical physics, psychology and of course economics to explore how complex problems are solved, and the crucial role of learning from our apparently endless ability to screw up.


.

Download MP3 audio of the lecture
Download the slides of the lecture

Researchers use magnetic pulses to brain to reduce overly optimistic tendencies

Scientists have known for many years that human beings, as a general rule, are an overly optimistic bunch. We close our eyes to statistics suggesting our eating habits may be killing us, ignore warnings about texting while driving and almost always believe things will come out all right in the end if we'll just hang in there, despite sometimes obvious indications to the contrary. Research has suggested that two specific symmetrically opposite parts of the brain influence our optimism or pessimism, but until now haven't been able to offer direct proof. Now however, new research by a group of neuroscientists has found, as they describe in their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that turning off one of these areas via magnetic pulses dramatically reduces overly optimistic tendencies.

(A) In each trial participants were presented with a short description of one of 40 adverse life events and asked to estimate how likely this event was to occur to them. They were then presented with the average probability of that event occurring to a person living in the same sociocultural environment. The second session was the same as the first session, except that the average probability of the event to occur was not presented again. (B and C) Examples of trials for which the participant’s estimate was (B) higher or (C) lower than the average probability. Here, for illustration purposes only, the blue and red frames denote the participant’s response (either an overestimation or underestimation, respectively) and the blue and red filled boxes denote information that calls for an adjustment in a (B) favorable (good news) or (C) unfavorable (bad news) direction.

Source: Medical Express

Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Nobody who engages in political argument, and who isn't a moron, hasn't had to recognize the fact that decent, honest, intelligent people can come to opposite conclusions on public issues. Jonathan Haidt, in an eye-opening and deceptively ambitious best seller, tells us why. The reason is evolution. Political attitudes are an extension of our moral reasoning; however much we like to tell ourselves otherwise, our moral responses are basically instinctual, despite attempts to gussy them up with ex-post rationalizations. Our constellation of moral instincts arose because it helped us to cooperate. It helped us, in unprecedented speed and fashion, to dominate our planet. Yet the same moral reaction also means we exist in a state of perpetual, nasty political disagreement, talking past each other, calling each other names. So Mr. Haidt explains in "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion," undoubtedly one of the most talked-about books of the year. "The Righteous Mind" spent weeks on the hardcover best-seller list. Mr. Haidt considers himself mostly a liberal, but his book has been especially popular in the conservative blogosphere. Some right-leaning intellectuals are even calling it the most important book of the year.

As we sit in his new office at New York University, he professes an immodest aim: He wants liberals and conservatives to listen to each other more, hate each other less, and to understand that their differences are largely rooted in psychology, not open-minded consideration of the facts. "My big issue, the one I'm somewhat evangelical about, is civil disagreement," he says. A shorthand he uses is "follow the sacred"—and not in a good way. "Follow the sacred and there you will find a circle of motivated ignorance." Today's political parties are most hysterical, he says, on the issues they "sacralize." For the right, it's taxes. For the left, the sacred issues were race and gender but are becoming global warming and gay marriage. Yet between the lines of his book is an even more dramatic claim: The same moral psychology that makes our politics so nasty also underlies the amazing triumph of the human species. "We shouldn't be here at all," he tells me. "When I think about life on earth, there should not be a species like us. And if there was, we should be out in the jungle killing each other in small groups. That's what you should expect. The fact that we're here [in politics] arguing viciously and nastily with each other, and no guns, that itself is a miracle. And I think we can make [our politics] a little better. That's my favorite theme.

 Jonathan Haidt: He Knows Why We Fight

WHY SMART PEOPLE ARE STUPID?!