Postagem em destaque

Antologia: Miríade, Distopia, Utopia (2004-2024) -

     Antologia : Miríade, Distopia, Utopia  (2004-2024); @vanres1974; #antologia;  {11dez24 qua 20:40-20:50}      Anthology: Myriad, Dystopi...

Prof. Dr. Vander Resende, Doutorado em Lit Bras, pela UFMG; Mestre em Teorias Lit e Crít Cul, UFSJ

terça-feira, 13 de julho de 2021

Diferença e apropriação cultural - A meditação da mente plena pode tornar alguns americanos mais egoístas e menos generosos, Por Michael J. Poulin,

Envolver-se em um breve exercício de atenção
- tornou as pessoas que identificaram palavras “eu / meu” 33% menos propensas a se voluntariar,
- mas fez com que aqueles que identificaram palavras “nós / nosso” 40% mais propensas a se voluntariar.
Em outras palavras, apenas mudar a forma como as pessoas pensavam sobre si mesmas no momento - filtrando a água dos pensamentos relacionados a si mesmas, se preferir - alterou os efeitos da atenção plena no comportamento de muitas das pessoas que participaram deste estudo (Traduçaõ, VanRes).

Mindfulness meditation can make some Americans more selfish and less generous, By Michael J. Poulin, Associate Professor of Psychology, University at Buffalo. Originally published at The Conversation


When Japanese chef Yoshihiro Murata travels, he brings water with him from Japan. He says this is the only way to make truly authentic dashi, the flavorful broth essential to Japanese cuisine. There’s science to back him up: water in Japan is notably softer – which means it has fewer dissolved minerals – than in many other parts of the world. So when Americas enjoy Japanese food, they arguably aren’t getting quite the real thing.

This phenomenon isn’t limited to food. Taking something out of its geographic or cultural context often changes the thing itself.

Take the word “namaste.” In modern Hindi, it’s simply a respectful greeting, the equivalent of a formal “hello” appropriate for addressing one’s elders. But in the U.S., its associations with yoga have led many people to believe that it’s an inherently spiritual word.

Another cultural tradition that has changed across time and place is the practice of mindfulness. Mindfulness is a nonjudgmental expansive awareness of one’s experiences, often cultivated through meditation.

A range of studies have found mindfulness to be beneficial for the people who practice it in a number of ways.

However, very little research has examined its effects on societies, workplaces and communities. As a social psychologist at the University at Buffalo, I wondered if the growing enthusiasm for mindfulness might be overlooking something important: the way practicing it might affect others.

A Booming Market

In just the past few years, the mindfulness industry has exploded in the U.S. Current estimates put the U.S. meditation market – which includes meditation classes, studios, and apps – at approximately US$1.2 billion. It’s expected to grow to over $2 billion by 2022.

Hospitals, schools and even prisons are teaching and promoting mindfulness, while over 1 in 5 employers currently offer mindfulness training.

The enthusiasm for mindfulness makes sense: Research shows mindfulness can reduce stress, increase self-esteem and decrease symptoms of mental illness.

Given these findings, it’s easy to assume that mindfulness has few, if any, downsides. The employers and educators who promote it certainly seem to think so. Perhaps they hope that mindfulness won’t just make people feel better, but that it will also make them be better. That is, maybe mindfulness can make people more generous, cooperative or helpful – all traits that tend to be desirable in employees or students.

Mindfulness Migrates

But in reality, there’s good reason to doubt that mindfulness, as practiced in the U.S., would automatically lead to good outcomes.

In fact, it may do the opposite.

That’s because it’s been taken out of its context. Mindfulness developed as a part of Buddhism, where it’s intimately tied up with
- Buddhist 

    spiritual teachings and 

    morality. 

- Mindfulness in the U.S., on the other hand, is often taught and practiced in 

    purely secular terms.  It’s frequently offered simply as a tool for 

    focusing attention and 

    improving well-being, 

            a conception of mindfulness some critics have referred to as “McMindfulness.”

Not only that, mindfulness and Buddhism developed in Asian cultures in which the typical way in which people think about themselves differs from that in the U.S. Specifically, Americans tend to think of themselves most often in independent terms with “I” as their focus: “what I want,” “who I am.” By contrast, people in Asian cultures more often think of themselves in interdependent terms with “we” as their focus: “what we want,” “who we are.”

Cultural differences in how people think about themselves are subtle and easy to overlook – sort of like different kinds of water. But just as those different kinds of water can change flavors when you cook, I wondered if different ways of thinking about the self might alter the effects of mindfulness.

For interdependent-minded people, what if mindful attention to their own experiences might naturally include thinking about other people – and make them more helpful or generous? And if this were the case, would it then be true that, for independent-minded people, mindful attention would spur them to focus more on their individual goals and desires, and therefore cause them to become more selfish?

Testing the Social Effects

I floated these questions to my colleague at the University at Buffalo, Shira Gabriel, because she’s a recognized expert on 

independent versus interdependent 

ways of thinking about the self.

She agreed that this was an interesting question, so we worked with our students Lauren Ministero, Carrie Morrison and Esha Naidu to conduct a study in which we had 366 college students come into the lab – this was before the COVID-19 pandemic – and either engage in

- a brief mindfulness meditation or
- a control exercise that actually involved mind wandering.

We also measured the extent to which people thought of themselves in independent or interdependent terms. (It’s important to note that, although cultural differences in thinking about the self are real, there is variability in this characteristic even within cultures.)

At the end of the study, we asked people if they could help solicit donations for a charity by stuffing envelopes to send to potential donors.

The results – which have been accepted for publication in the journal Psychological Science – detail how, among relatively interdependent-minded individuals, the brief mindfulness meditation caused them to become more generous. Specifically, briefly engaging in a mindfulness exercise – as opposed to mind wandering – appeared to increase how many envelopes interdependent-minded people stuffed by 17%. However, among relatively independent-minded individuals, mindfulness appeared to make them less generous with their time. This group of participants stuffed 15% fewer envelopes in the mindful condition than in the mind-wandering condition.

In other words, the effects of mindfulness can be different for people depending on the way they think about themselves. This figurative “water” can really change the recipe of mindfulness.

Of course, water can be filtered, and likewise, how people think about themselves is fluid: We’re all capable of thinking about ourselves in both independent and interdependent ways at different times.

In fact, there’s a relatively simple way to get people to shift their thinking about themselves. As the researchers Marilynn Brewer and Wendi Gardner discovered, all you have to do is have them read a passage that is altered to have either a lot of “I” and “me” statements or a lot of “we” and “us” statements, and ask people to identify all of the pronouns. Past research shows that this simple task reliably shifts people to think of themselves in more independent versus interdependent terms.

Our research team wanted to see if this simple effect could also shift the effects of mindfulness on social behavior.

With this in mind, we conducted one more study. This time, it was online due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but we used the same exercises.

First, however, we had people complete the pronoun task mentioned above. Afterwards, we asked people if they would volunteer to contact potential donors to a charity.

Our results were striking: Engaging in a brief mindfulness exercise made people who identified “I/me” words 33% less likely to volunteer, but it made those who identified “we/us” words 40% more likely to volunteer. In other words, just shifting how people thought of themselves in the moment – filtering the water of self-related thoughts, if you will – altered the effects of mindfulness on the behavior of many of the people who took part in this study.

Attention as a Tool

The take-home message? Mindfulness could lead to good social outcomes or bad ones, depending on context.

In fact, the Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard said as much when he wrote that even a sniper embodies a type of mindfulness. “Bare attention,” he added, “as consummate as it might be, is no more than a tool.” Yes, it can cause a great deal of good. But it can also “cause immense suffering.”

If practitioners strive to use mindfulness to reduce suffering, rather than increase it, it’s important to ensure that people are also mindful of themselves as existing in relation with others.

This “water” may be the key ingredient for bringing out the full flavor of mindfulness.

Associate Professor of Psychology, University at Buffalo

Disclosure statement

Michael J. Poulin receives funding from the National Science Foundation. He is affiliated with the Association for Psychological Science, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, and the Society for Experimental Social Psychology.

domingo, 11 de julho de 2021

Ética: "Esconder a verdade pode promover a cooperação"?

 July 9, 2021

Obscuring the truth can promote cooperation, by , at phys.org 

"Typically when we and others have considered how to maintain cooperation, it's been thought that it's important to punish cheaters and to make that public to encourage others to cooperate," Morsky says. "But our study suggests that a side effect of public punishment is that it reveals how much or how little people are cooperating, so conditional cooperators may stop cooperating. You might be better off hiding the cheaters."

Remember Napster? The peer-to-peer file sharing company, popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s, depended on users sharing their music files. To promote cooperation, such software "could mislead its users," says Bryce Morsky, a postdoc in Penn's School of Arts & Sciences.

Some file-sharing companies falsely asserted that all of their users were sharing. Or, they displayed the mean number of files shared per user, hiding the fact that some users were sharing a great deal and many others were not. Related online forums promoted the idea that sharing was both ethical and the norm. These tactics were effective in getting users to share because they tapped into innate human social norms of fairness.

That got Morsky thinking. "Commonly in the literature on cooperation, you need reciprocity to get cooperation, and you need to know the reputations of those you're interacting with," he says. "But Napster users were anonymous, and so there should have been widespread 'cheating'—people taking files without sharing—and yet cooperation still occurred. Evidently, obscuring the degree of cheating worked for Napster, but is this true more generally and is it sustainable?"

In a new paper in the journal Evolutionary Human Sciences, Morsky and Erol Akçay, an associate professor in the School of Arts & Sciences' Department of Biology, looked at this scenario: Could a cooperative community form and stabilize if the community's behaviors were masked? And would things change if the ' true behaviors were eventually revealed?

Using a to simulate the creation and maintenance of a community, their findings show, as in the example of Napster, that a degree of deceit or obfuscation does not impede and, indeed, can promote the formation of a cooperative community.

The researchers' modeling relied on an assumption that has been upheld time and time again, that humans are conditionally cooperative. "They will cooperate when others cooperate," Akçay says.

But the threshold of when someone will start cooperating differs from individual to individual. Some people will cooperate even when nobody else is, while others require most of the community to cooperate before they will do so too. Depending on the number of people with different cooperation thresholds, a community can wind up with either very high or very low levels of cooperation. "Our goal was to figure out, How can obfuscation act as a catalyst to get us to a highly cooperative community?" says Morsky.

To model this, the researchers envisioned a theoretical community in which individuals would join in a "naïve" state, believing that everyone else in the community is cooperating. As a result, most of them, too, begin cooperating.

At some point, however, the formerly naïve individuals become savvy and learn the true rate of cooperation in the community. Depending on their threshold of conditional cooperation, they may continue to cooperate, cheat, or get discouraged and leave the community.

In the model, when the researchers decreased the learning rate—or kept the true rate of cooperation in the group a secret for longer—they found that cooperation levels grew high, and savvy individuals quickly left the population. "And because those savvy individuals are the ones that don't cooperate as readily, that leaves only the individuals who are cooperating, so the average rate of cooperation gets very high," says Akçay.

Cooperative behavior could also come to dominate provided there was a steady inflow of naïve individuals into the population.

Akçay and Morsky note that their findings stand out from past research on cooperation.

"Typically when we and others have considered how to maintain cooperation, it's been thought that it's important to punish cheaters and to make that public to encourage others to cooperate," Morsky says. "But our study suggests that a side effect of public punishment is that it reveals how much or how little people are cooperating, so conditional cooperators may stop cooperating. You might be better off hiding the cheaters."

To continue exploring conditional cooperation, the researchers hope to follow with experiments with human participants as well as further modeling to reveal the tipping points for moving a group to either cooperate or not and how these tipping points could be changed by interventions. "You can see how conditional cooperation factors into behavior during this pandemic, for example," Akçay says. "If you think a lot of people are being careful (for example, wearing masks and social distancing), you might as well, but if the expectation is that not many people are being careful you may choose not to. Mask wearing is easy to observe, but other behaviors are harder, and that affects how the dynamics of these behaviors might unfold.

"This is a problem that humans have had to solve over and over again," he says. "Some amount of is required to have a society be worthwhile."


Explore further

Designing public institutions that foster cooperation

More information: Bryce Morsky et al, False beliefs can bootstrap cooperative communities through social norms, Evolutionary Human Sciences (2021). DOI: 10.1017/ehs.2021.30

mudança climática e sustentabilidade ambiental - Aquecimento elevado, ozônio têm efeitos prejudiciais nas raízes das plantas, promovem a perda de carbono do solo


 July 9, 2021

Elevated warming, ozone have detrimental effects on plant roots, promote soil carbon loss, by

[Hu said:] "Ozone and warming make the plants weak.
Plants try to maximize nutrient uptake, so
    their roots become thinner and longer as
        they need to exploit the sufficient volume of soil for resources.
            This weakness results in
                    a reduction of AMF and
                    faster root and fungal hyphal turnovers, which
                        stimulates decomposition and
                        makes carbon sequestration more difficult.
These cascading events may have profound effects underground, although the plant shoots appear normal in some cases."


Two factors that play a key role in climate change—increased climate warming and elevated ozone levels—appear to have 

- detrimental effects on soybean plant roots, their 

- relationship with symbiotic microorganisms in the soil and 

- the ways the plants sequester carbon.

The results, published in the July 9 edition of Science Advances, show few changes to the plant shoots aboveground but some distressing results underground, including 

an increased inability to hold carbon
    that instead gets released into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas.

North Carolina State University researchers examined the interplay of and increased ozone levels with certain important underground organisms— (AMF) - that promote chemical interactions that hold carbon in the ground by preventing the decomposition of soil organic matter, thereby halting the escape of carbon from the decomposing material.

"The ability to sequester carbon is very important to soil productivity—in addition to the detrimental effects of increasing greenhouse gases when this carbon escapes," said Shuijin Hu, professor of plant pathology at NC State and corresponding author of the paper.

Present in the roots of about 80% of that grow on land, AMF have a win-win relationship with plants.
AMF
- take carbon from plants and
- provide nitrogen and other useful soil nutrients that plants need in order to grow and develop.

In the study, researchers set up
- plots of soybeans with increased air temperatures of about 3 degrees Celsius,
- plots with higher levels of ozone,
- plots with higher levels of both warming and ozone, and
- control plots with no modifications.
The resulting experiments showed that warming and increased make soybean roots thinner as they save resources to get the nutrients they need.

Soybean cultivars are often sensitive to ozone, Hu said. Ozone levels have been somewhat stable or even declining in some parts of the United States over the past decade but have risen dramatically in areas of rapid industrialization, like India and China, for example.

"Ozone and warming have been shown to be very stressful to a lot of crops—not just soybeans—and a lot of grasses and ," Hu said. "Ozone and warming make the plants weak. Plants try to maximize nutrient uptake, so their roots become thinner and longer as they need to exploit the sufficient volume of soil for resources. This weakness results in a reduction of AMF and faster root and fungal hyphal turnovers, which stimulates decomposition and makes carbon sequestration more difficult. These cascading events may have profound effects underground, although the plant shoots appear normal in some cases."

Hu said he was surprised that the plant shoots weren't greatly affected by the stresses of warming and ozone; the biomass of plant leaves in both control and experimental plots was about the same.

Perhaps even more surprisingly, Hu said that more warming and ozone changed the type of AMF that colonize soybean plants.

The study showed that levels of an AMF species called Glomus decreased with more warming and , while a species called Paraglomus increased.

"Glomus protects organic carbon from microbial decomposition while Paraglomus is more efficient at absorbing nutrients," Hu said. "We didn't expect these communities to shift in this way."

Hu plans to continue to study the systems surrounding sequestration in soil as well as other emissions from soil, like nitrous oxide, or N2O.


Ozone pollution has increased in Antarctica

More information: Y. Qiu el al., "Warming and elevated ozone induce tradeoffs between fine roots and mycorrhizal fungi and stimulate organic carbon decomposition," Science Advances (2021). advances.sciencemag.org/lookup … .1126/sciadv.abe9256

Teoria Racial Crítica - Como não fazer a cobertura jornalística da Teoria Racial Crítica.

 July 10, 2021

How Not to Cover Critical Race Theory, by, at Fair.Org

It’s unsurprising that the right would turn the focus to white victimhood rather than anti-Black violence and discrimination. But mainstream corporate media have also given far too much space and legitimacy to the tactic. In June, 424 articles could be found in major US newspapers that mentioned “critical race theory,” according to a Nexis search–compared to four articles in August 2020, the month before the right-wing attack on critical race theory was rolled out on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show (9/2/20).

A July 6 USA Today editorial page dedicated to the CRT “debate” exemplified the wrong way to cover the issue. The editorial board’s own opinion was accompanied by not one but two opposing views: For the left, it tapped Kevin Cokley (7/5/21), a professor of African studies at the University of Texas, whose subhead argued, “I Always Challenge My Students and Never Place Racial Guilt on Them.

USA Today: CRT reminds us that systemic racism exists. In my classroom we don't bury it, we discuss it 

In USA Today‘s print edition (7/6/21), this op-ed was headlined, “Teaching Critical Race Theory Is Patriotic, Not Anti-American.”

For the right, the paper invited Christopher Rufo (7/5/21), the right-wing provocateur (and Fox News regular) from the Manhattan Institute who invented the CRT-as-anything-conservatives-hate rallying cry. Rufo has explicitly stated that his

goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think “critical race theory.” We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.

Rufo’s op-ed, “What I Discovered About Critical Race Theory in Public Schools and Why It Shouldn’t Be Taught,” carried the subhead: “State Legislatures Are Wise to Ban Schools From Promoting Race Essentialism, Collective Guilt and Racial Superiority Theory.”

USA Today: What I discovered about critical race theory in public schools and why it shouldn't be taught

 

USA Today (7/5/21) provided space to the critic who said he wanted to “recodify” critical race theory to “annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”

 Note the emphasis on white guilt in both subheads. 

The debate centers on 

        whether CRT should be taught, but 

            the question is hinged on 

                whether white students might be made to feel any responsibility for 

                    historical and contemporary racism and white privilege

                                —the implicit assumption being that they should not. 

It’s quite a victory for the right, which just a year earlier was uncomfortably forced to debate whether police are killing too many Black people.

The paper’s editorial board (7/5/21), for its part, staked out a “middle” ground: “Critical Race Theory Fear a Mix of the Predictable, the Outlandish and the Justified.” While some criticism is explicitly “justified,” at times critics have gone too far, it suggested: “Responding to all these concerns by policing classroom discussions about race with a state law is like using a shotgun to drive mosquitoes out of a bedroom.”

The mosquito simile suggests that existing culturally responsive curricula in schools aren’t exactly dangerous, but certainly annoying, and worth getting rid of—presumably with a flyswatter rather than a shotgun. The board prefers that “school board members, principals and teachers themselves” make curriculum decisions.

Of course, the right is working that angle, too, trying to take over school boards with activists, which would render USA Today‘s position even more untenable. This isn’t an issue that can be both-sidesed or depoliticized. Media need to treat it as it is: an attempt to shut down speech across institutions when power is being challenged.

Kimberle Crenshaw

Kimberlé Crenshaw (MSNBC, 7/6/21): “When we start dictating what can be taught, what can be said, and what is unsayable, we are well, well down the road towards an authoritarian regime.”

As Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of critical race theory’s earliest exponents, told MSNBC (7/6/21):

Understand what risk we all face if they are allowed to dictate what can be said, what can be taught, what can be learned, who can vote, and who can protest. This is a recurrence of redemption. All of these things are exactly what happened at the end of Reconstruction….

When we start dictating what can be taught, what can be said, and what is unsayable, we are well, well down the road towards an authoritarian regime. People keep asking, “Can it happen here?” If you look at Black history, it has happened here.

Racism will be the vehicle through which authoritarianism rises in this country. That’s what we’re seeing happening right now. And the only question is whether people who believe in this country, if they recognize that they have a dog in this fight. Only if people wake up and see that this implicates all of us can we have hope that this is not going to be a replay of redemption in the 19th century.

Crenshaw may have been talking about the public generally, but major media, with their key role in framing narratives and legitimizing political positions, are certainly implicated as well. Too many in the media came to realize too late the danger of covering Trump as just another politician (FAIR.org, 12/1/16); it is urgent they don’t make the same mistake again.

FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to be a part of this important mission.

quinta-feira, 8 de julho de 2021

gênero - Compreendendo o preconceito nas avaliações de mulheres por liderança

 July 8, 2021

Understanding bias in leadership assessments of women

A new study conducted before COVID-19 busted open the leaky pipeline for women in leadership underscores the bias that men are naturally presumed to have leadership potential and women are not and highlights the increased efforts needed by organizations to address the incorrect stereotype post-pandemic.

The research published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology highlights the continuing bias in assessments of women, explores the contradictions between the perception and the reality of women's leadership, and shows why the slow rate of career advancement for women will likely continue at a snail's pace.

"The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women's career progression will likely be felt for years to come as many women stepped away from the workforce," said Dr. Margaret Hopkins, professor of management in The University of Toledo's John B. and Lillian E. Neff College of Business and Innovation and lead author of the study. "This can only exacerbate the slow progress of women moving more fully into —something that organizations and society must be fully attentive to correcting."

The contemporary view of effective leadership places a strong emphasis on , flexibility and engaging others, behaviors typically associated with women.

But when women exhibit gender role behaviors such as teamwork and empathy, they also pay a price in their leadership performance assessments.

Based on data collected from a sample of 91 senior leaders in one U.S. financial services organization over three years, women were penalized in performance evaluations when they displayed those leadership characteristics.

On the other hand, women also were viewed negatively when exhibiting stereotypical masculine behaviors such as a competitive drive to achieve, task orientation and directing others. Men were positively evaluated for their leadership potential when exhibiting those same behaviors.

"Entrenched archetypes that define leadership as a masculine enterprise remain in spite of data that relates more stereotypical feminine behaviors to effective leadership," said Hopkins, an expert on women in leadership, executive coaching and emotional intelligence. "Our study found no evidence of acknowledging this more contemporary view of leadership when organizations actually assess women's performance and potential for leadership."

The researchers discovered that whether women demonstrated people-oriented, relational skills or whether they exhibited achievement-oriented behaviors, there was a negative effect on their leadership performance assessments and leadership potential appraisals. However, this was not the case for the male leaders in the study.

In order to change the dynamic, Hopkins said there are best-practice strategies that both women and organizations can take.

"My co-authors and I do not support the notion that the onus is on the women to change," Hopkins said. "Rather, organizational structures and systems must change to provide leadership opportunities for both women and men in equal measure."

She said organizational decision-makers can investigate organizational policies and practices to determine how they might be contributing to impediments for women in leadership roles.

Not only should leadership assessment instruments be examined for possible bias, but also the methods by which individuals conduct assessments of women leaders should be reviewed for inherent bias.

"Hiring procedures, training and development opportunities, benefits packages, leave policies, and performance, salary and promotional evaluations can all play a part in contributing to gender stereotypes," Hopkins said. "Organizational systems that rely on a limited framework for essential leadership behaviors will restrict their ability to recruit and develop outstanding leaders."

To help mitigate these inaccurate perceptions and biases of their leadership performance and potential, Hopkins suggests that women find both female and male allies and sponsors, create strategic networks, seek high-profile assignments to highlight their skills and abilities, and develop and communicate their individual definitions of career success.

The financial services organization at the focus of this study is one of the Top 100 U.S. Best Banks named by Forbes magazine. The sample of senior leaders included 26 and 65 men, representative of the gender composition of the senior leadership team.

The researchers said a comparison of males and females in one organization ensured that any observed gender differences were not due to factors such as differences in industries or management hierarchies across organizations.

Researchers from UToledo, Bowling Green State University, Case Western Reserve University and San Diego Gas and Electric collaborated on the study.


Explore further

New study shows that men receive more actionable feedback than women in the workplace

More information: Margaret M. Hopkins et al, Buried Treasure: Contradictions in the Perception and Reality of Women's Leadership, Frontiers in Psychology (2021). DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.684705