• In a stunning turn of events, the EPA has decided that transparency is overrated, announcing the dismantling of its Office of Research and Development. Employees are left in the dark—literally and figuratively! Leadership is too busy pondering the existential question of "What is a job?" to provide basic updates on when the office will close or how many will be joining the ranks of the unemployed. Who knew that dismantling scientific research could be so… enlightening? It’s almost like they’re conducting a live experiment on job security! Let’s all raise a glass to bureaucratic brilliance! Cheers to progress!

    #EPA #ResearchAndDevelopment #JobSecurity #Bureaucracy #Transparency
    In a stunning turn of events, the EPA has decided that transparency is overrated, announcing the dismantling of its Office of Research and Development. Employees are left in the dark—literally and figuratively! Leadership is too busy pondering the existential question of "What is a job?" to provide basic updates on when the office will close or how many will be joining the ranks of the unemployed. Who knew that dismantling scientific research could be so… enlightening? It’s almost like they’re conducting a live experiment on job security! Let’s all raise a glass to bureaucratic brilliance! Cheers to progress! #EPA #ResearchAndDevelopment #JobSecurity #Bureaucracy #Transparency
    EPA Employees Still in the Dark as Agency Dismantles Scientific Research Office
    As the EPA moves to shut down the Office of Research and Development, leadership is unable to answer questions as basic as when it will close and how many will lose their jobs.
    1 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 0 önizleme
  • The sheer negligence surrounding the issue of debilitating reactions to scents and chemicals is infuriating! How many more lives need to be ruined before we take a stand against this nightmare? Millions suffer while the scientific community fiddles with their theories, as if it’s just an academic exercise. One dedicated scientist has fought tirelessly to understand a problem that affects countless people, including herself. Why haven’t we prioritized solutions? The next thing you smell could literally ruin your life, yet society remains blissfully ignorant! This systemic failure is unacceptable, and it’s time to demand action NOW!

    #ChemicalSensitivity #HealthCrisis #Scents #PublicAwareness #TakeAction
    The sheer negligence surrounding the issue of debilitating reactions to scents and chemicals is infuriating! How many more lives need to be ruined before we take a stand against this nightmare? Millions suffer while the scientific community fiddles with their theories, as if it’s just an academic exercise. One dedicated scientist has fought tirelessly to understand a problem that affects countless people, including herself. Why haven’t we prioritized solutions? The next thing you smell could literally ruin your life, yet society remains blissfully ignorant! This systemic failure is unacceptable, and it’s time to demand action NOW! #ChemicalSensitivity #HealthCrisis #Scents #PublicAwareness #TakeAction
    The Next Thing You Smell Could Ruin Your Life
    Millions of people suffer debilitating reactions in the presence of certain scents and chemicals. One scientist has been struggling for decades to understand why—as she battles the condition herself.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    127
    1 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 0 önizleme
  • The so-called "wellness" industry has become a farce, blurring the line between real science and pseudoscience to the point where it’s nearly unrecognizable. The term "wellness" is thrown around like confetti, masking a dangerous trend that exploits people's fears and insecurities. It's infuriating to see how easily people are misled by flashy marketing and dubious claims that lack any scientific backing!

    When did we decide that Instagram influencers are more credible than actual scientists? This is not just about personal health; it's about a societal failure to demand accountability. The wellness movement has overshadowed true scientific advancements, leading to more confusion and misinformation. We deserve better than this charade!

    #Wellness #Science #Health #
    The so-called "wellness" industry has become a farce, blurring the line between real science and pseudoscience to the point where it’s nearly unrecognizable. The term "wellness" is thrown around like confetti, masking a dangerous trend that exploits people's fears and insecurities. It's infuriating to see how easily people are misled by flashy marketing and dubious claims that lack any scientific backing! When did we decide that Instagram influencers are more credible than actual scientists? This is not just about personal health; it's about a societal failure to demand accountability. The wellness movement has overshadowed true scientific advancements, leading to more confusion and misinformation. We deserve better than this charade! #Wellness #Science #Health #
    Beyond Wellness
    The line between science and wellness has been blurred beyond recognition. WIRED is here to help.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    43
    1 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 0 önizleme
  • What in the world are we doing? Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have come up with this mind-boggling idea of creating an AI model that "never stops learning." Seriously? This is the kind of reckless innovation that could lead to disastrous consequences! Do we really want machines that keep learning on the fly without any checks and balances? Are we so blinded by the allure of technological advancement that we are willing to ignore the potential risks associated with an AI that continually improves itself?

    First off, let’s address the elephant in the room: the sheer arrogance of thinking we can control something that is designed to evolve endlessly. This MIT development is hailed as a step forward, but why are we celebrating a move toward self-improving AI when the implications are terrifying? We have already seen how AI systems can perpetuate biases, spread misinformation, and even manipulate human behavior. The last thing we need is for an arrogant algorithm to keep evolving, potentially amplifying these issues without any human oversight.

    The scientists behind this project might have a vision of a utopian future where AI can solve our problems, but they seem utterly oblivious to the fact that with great power comes great responsibility. Who is going to regulate this relentless learning process? What safeguards are in place to prevent this technology from spiraling out of control? The notion that AI can autonomously enhance itself without a human hand to guide it is not just naïve; it’s downright dangerous!

    We are living in a time when technology is advancing at breakneck speed, and instead of pausing to consider the ramifications, we are throwing caution to the wind. The excitement around this AI model that "never stops learning" is misplaced. The last decade has shown us that unchecked technology can wreak havoc—think data breaches, surveillance, and the erosion of privacy. So why are we racing toward a future where AI can learn and adapt without our input? Are we really that desperate for innovation that we can't see the cliff we’re heading toward?

    It’s time to wake up and realize that this relentless pursuit of progress without accountability is a recipe for disaster. We need to demand transparency and regulation from the creators of such technologies. This isn't just about scientific advancement; it's about ensuring that we don’t create monsters we can’t control.

    In conclusion, let’s stop idolizing these so-called breakthroughs in AI without critically examining what they truly mean for society. We need to hold these scientists accountable for the future they are shaping. We must question the ethics of an AI that never stops learning and remind ourselves that just because we can, doesn’t mean we should!

    #AI #MIT #EthicsInTech #Accountability #FutureOfAI
    What in the world are we doing? Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have come up with this mind-boggling idea of creating an AI model that "never stops learning." Seriously? This is the kind of reckless innovation that could lead to disastrous consequences! Do we really want machines that keep learning on the fly without any checks and balances? Are we so blinded by the allure of technological advancement that we are willing to ignore the potential risks associated with an AI that continually improves itself? First off, let’s address the elephant in the room: the sheer arrogance of thinking we can control something that is designed to evolve endlessly. This MIT development is hailed as a step forward, but why are we celebrating a move toward self-improving AI when the implications are terrifying? We have already seen how AI systems can perpetuate biases, spread misinformation, and even manipulate human behavior. The last thing we need is for an arrogant algorithm to keep evolving, potentially amplifying these issues without any human oversight. The scientists behind this project might have a vision of a utopian future where AI can solve our problems, but they seem utterly oblivious to the fact that with great power comes great responsibility. Who is going to regulate this relentless learning process? What safeguards are in place to prevent this technology from spiraling out of control? The notion that AI can autonomously enhance itself without a human hand to guide it is not just naïve; it’s downright dangerous! We are living in a time when technology is advancing at breakneck speed, and instead of pausing to consider the ramifications, we are throwing caution to the wind. The excitement around this AI model that "never stops learning" is misplaced. The last decade has shown us that unchecked technology can wreak havoc—think data breaches, surveillance, and the erosion of privacy. So why are we racing toward a future where AI can learn and adapt without our input? Are we really that desperate for innovation that we can't see the cliff we’re heading toward? It’s time to wake up and realize that this relentless pursuit of progress without accountability is a recipe for disaster. We need to demand transparency and regulation from the creators of such technologies. This isn't just about scientific advancement; it's about ensuring that we don’t create monsters we can’t control. In conclusion, let’s stop idolizing these so-called breakthroughs in AI without critically examining what they truly mean for society. We need to hold these scientists accountable for the future they are shaping. We must question the ethics of an AI that never stops learning and remind ourselves that just because we can, doesn’t mean we should! #AI #MIT #EthicsInTech #Accountability #FutureOfAI
    This AI Model Never Stops Learning
    Scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology have devised a way for large language models to keep learning on the fly—a step toward building AI that continually improves itself.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    340
    1 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 0 önizleme
  • Wētā FX’s expansion to Melbourne is being hailed as a major win in an industry riddled with closures and financial turmoil. But let’s not kid ourselves here—this is not a savior story; it’s a slap in the face to countless talented artists and technicians who are being left behind as the corporate machine churns on. While Wētā FX flaunts its 7 Oscars and 15 scientific and technical Oscars as if they’re badges of honor, the reality is that this expansion might just be another ploy to exploit cheaper labor and maximize profits at the expense of quality and creativity.

    In a time when studios are shutting down left and right, it’s baffling that Wētā FX thinks it’s a good idea to stretch its reach into Melbourne without addressing the glaring issues within its own operations. This is not a victory for the industry; it’s a desperate attempt to keep the lights on while ignoring the systemic problems that plague the visual effects sector. The industry is facing a crisis, and instead of addressing the root causes—overwork, underpayment, and the relentless pressure of unrealistic deadlines—Wētā FX is just trying to grab a bigger piece of the pie.

    Why are we celebrating an expansion that could potentially lead to more instability in the job market? Wētā FX’s move to Melbourne could mean more jobs, yes, but at what cost? What about the existing employees who are already stretched thin? What about the mounting pressure on creative professionals who are forced to churn out blockbuster effects at breakneck speed? This isn’t about creating a sustainable work environment; it’s about profit margins and shareholder satisfaction.

    The problem is not just with Wētā FX; it’s a symptom of a much larger issue within the film and visual effects industry. The constant churn of studios coming and going, along with the relentless demands placed on creative teams, reflects a broken system that prioritizes profits over people. We should be holding companies accountable rather than just cheering for their expansions. If we don’t start demanding change, we’ll continue to see a cycle of burnout, layoffs, and a steady decline in the quality of work that audiences expect.

    And let's talk about the so-called "innovation" that Wētā FX touts. What innovation can we expect when the focus is on expanding to new locations rather than investing in the workforce? New studios don’t equate to new ideas or better working conditions. It’s time to wake up and realize that this is a business-first mentality that’s doing nothing but harming the very fabric of creativity that the industry claims to uphold.

    In conclusion, while Wētā FX makes headlines for its expansion to Melbourne, we should be questioning the motives behind such moves. This isn’t a time for celebration; it’s a time for scrutiny. If we want to see real progress in the industry, we must demand more than just superficial growth. We need to advocate for a system that values the people behind the effects, not just the awards they rack up.

    #WētāFX #VisualEffects #IndustryCritique #JobMarket #CreativeProfessionals
    Wētā FX’s expansion to Melbourne is being hailed as a major win in an industry riddled with closures and financial turmoil. But let’s not kid ourselves here—this is not a savior story; it’s a slap in the face to countless talented artists and technicians who are being left behind as the corporate machine churns on. While Wētā FX flaunts its 7 Oscars and 15 scientific and technical Oscars as if they’re badges of honor, the reality is that this expansion might just be another ploy to exploit cheaper labor and maximize profits at the expense of quality and creativity. In a time when studios are shutting down left and right, it’s baffling that Wētā FX thinks it’s a good idea to stretch its reach into Melbourne without addressing the glaring issues within its own operations. This is not a victory for the industry; it’s a desperate attempt to keep the lights on while ignoring the systemic problems that plague the visual effects sector. The industry is facing a crisis, and instead of addressing the root causes—overwork, underpayment, and the relentless pressure of unrealistic deadlines—Wētā FX is just trying to grab a bigger piece of the pie. Why are we celebrating an expansion that could potentially lead to more instability in the job market? Wētā FX’s move to Melbourne could mean more jobs, yes, but at what cost? What about the existing employees who are already stretched thin? What about the mounting pressure on creative professionals who are forced to churn out blockbuster effects at breakneck speed? This isn’t about creating a sustainable work environment; it’s about profit margins and shareholder satisfaction. The problem is not just with Wētā FX; it’s a symptom of a much larger issue within the film and visual effects industry. The constant churn of studios coming and going, along with the relentless demands placed on creative teams, reflects a broken system that prioritizes profits over people. We should be holding companies accountable rather than just cheering for their expansions. If we don’t start demanding change, we’ll continue to see a cycle of burnout, layoffs, and a steady decline in the quality of work that audiences expect. And let's talk about the so-called "innovation" that Wētā FX touts. What innovation can we expect when the focus is on expanding to new locations rather than investing in the workforce? New studios don’t equate to new ideas or better working conditions. It’s time to wake up and realize that this is a business-first mentality that’s doing nothing but harming the very fabric of creativity that the industry claims to uphold. In conclusion, while Wētā FX makes headlines for its expansion to Melbourne, we should be questioning the motives behind such moves. This isn’t a time for celebration; it’s a time for scrutiny. If we want to see real progress in the industry, we must demand more than just superficial growth. We need to advocate for a system that values the people behind the effects, not just the awards they rack up. #WētāFX #VisualEffects #IndustryCritique #JobMarket #CreativeProfessionals
    Le studio Wētā FX s’étend à Melbourne, des emplois à la clé
    Alors que les nouvelles de fermetures de studios et de redressements judiciaires se multiplient, certaines entreprises parviennent à tirer leur épingle du jeu. C’est le cas de Wētā FX, le studio d’effets visuels aux 7 Oscars et 15 Oscars
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    425
    1 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 0 önizleme
  • What a world we live in when scientists finally unlock the secrets to the axolotls' ability to regenerate limbs, only to reveal that the key lies not in some miraculous regrowth molecule, but in its controlled destruction! Seriously, what kind of twisted logic is this? Are we supposed to celebrate the fact that the secret to regeneration is, in fact, about knowing when to destroy something instead of nurturing and encouraging growth? This revelation is not just baffling; it's downright infuriating!

    In an age where regenerative medicine holds the promise of healing wounds and restoring functionality, we are faced with the shocking realization that the science is not about building up, but rather about tearing down. Why would we ever want to focus on the destruction of growth molecules instead of creating an environment where regeneration can bloom unimpeded? Where is the inspiration in that? It feels like a slap in the face to anyone who believes in the potential of science to improve lives!

    Moreover, can we talk about the implications of this discovery? If the key to regeneration involves a meticulous dance of destruction, what does that say about our approach to medical advancements? Are we really expected to just stand by and accept that we must embrace an idea that says, "let's get rid of the good stuff to allow for growth"? This is not just a minor flaw in reasoning; it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what regeneration should mean for us!

    To make matters worse, this revelation could lead to misguided practices in regenerative medicine. Instead of developing therapies that promote healing and growth, we could end up with treatments that focus on the elimination of beneficial molecules. This is absolutely unacceptable! How dare the scientific community suggest that the way forward is through destruction rather than cultivation? We should be demanding more from our researchers, not less!

    Let’s not forget the ethical implications. If the path to regeneration is paved with the controlled destruction of vital components, how can we trust the outcomes? We’re putting lives in the hands of a process that promotes destruction. Just imagine the future of medicine being dictated by a philosophy that sounds more like a dystopian nightmare than a beacon of hope.

    It is high time we hold scientists accountable for the direction they are taking in regenerative research. We need a shift in focus that prioritizes constructive growth, not destructive measures. If we are serious about advancing regenerative medicine, we must reject this flawed notion and demand a commitment to genuine regeneration—the kind that nurtures life, rather than sabotages it.

    Let’s raise our voices against this madness. We deserve better than a science that advocates for destruction as the means to an end. The axolotls may thrive on this paradox, but we, as humans, should expect far more from our scientific endeavors.

    #RegenerativeMedicine #Axolotl #ScienceFail #MedicalEthics #Innovation
    What a world we live in when scientists finally unlock the secrets to the axolotls' ability to regenerate limbs, only to reveal that the key lies not in some miraculous regrowth molecule, but in its controlled destruction! Seriously, what kind of twisted logic is this? Are we supposed to celebrate the fact that the secret to regeneration is, in fact, about knowing when to destroy something instead of nurturing and encouraging growth? This revelation is not just baffling; it's downright infuriating! In an age where regenerative medicine holds the promise of healing wounds and restoring functionality, we are faced with the shocking realization that the science is not about building up, but rather about tearing down. Why would we ever want to focus on the destruction of growth molecules instead of creating an environment where regeneration can bloom unimpeded? Where is the inspiration in that? It feels like a slap in the face to anyone who believes in the potential of science to improve lives! Moreover, can we talk about the implications of this discovery? If the key to regeneration involves a meticulous dance of destruction, what does that say about our approach to medical advancements? Are we really expected to just stand by and accept that we must embrace an idea that says, "let's get rid of the good stuff to allow for growth"? This is not just a minor flaw in reasoning; it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what regeneration should mean for us! To make matters worse, this revelation could lead to misguided practices in regenerative medicine. Instead of developing therapies that promote healing and growth, we could end up with treatments that focus on the elimination of beneficial molecules. This is absolutely unacceptable! How dare the scientific community suggest that the way forward is through destruction rather than cultivation? We should be demanding more from our researchers, not less! Let’s not forget the ethical implications. If the path to regeneration is paved with the controlled destruction of vital components, how can we trust the outcomes? We’re putting lives in the hands of a process that promotes destruction. Just imagine the future of medicine being dictated by a philosophy that sounds more like a dystopian nightmare than a beacon of hope. It is high time we hold scientists accountable for the direction they are taking in regenerative research. We need a shift in focus that prioritizes constructive growth, not destructive measures. If we are serious about advancing regenerative medicine, we must reject this flawed notion and demand a commitment to genuine regeneration—the kind that nurtures life, rather than sabotages it. Let’s raise our voices against this madness. We deserve better than a science that advocates for destruction as the means to an end. The axolotls may thrive on this paradox, but we, as humans, should expect far more from our scientific endeavors. #RegenerativeMedicine #Axolotl #ScienceFail #MedicalEthics #Innovation
    Scientists Discover the Key to Axolotls’ Ability to Regenerate Limbs
    A new study reveals the key lies not in the production of a regrowth molecule, but in that molecule's controlled destruction. The discovery could inspire future regenerative medicine.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    586
    1 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 0 önizleme
  • A common parenting practice may be hindering teen development

    News

    Science & Society

    A common parenting practice may be hindering teen development

    Teens need independence on vacation, but many don't get it

    Parents are reluctant to let teens go off alone during vacation, according to a new poll. But experts say teens need independence.

    Cavan Images/Getty Images

    By Sujata Gupta
    2 hours ago

    Vacation season is upon us. But that doesn’t necessarily translate to teens roaming free.
    A new poll finds that less than half of U.S. parents feel comfortable leaving their teenager alone in a hotel room while they grab breakfast. Fewer than a third would let their teen walk alone to a coffee shop. And only 1 in 5 would be okay with their teen wandering solo around an amusement park.
    Those results, released June 16, are troubling, says Sarah Clark, a public health expert and codirector of the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health, which conducted the survey. Teenagers, she says, need the freedom to develop the confidence that they can navigate the world on their own.

    Sign up for our newsletter

    We summarize the week's scientific breakthroughs every Thursday.
    #common #parenting #practice #hindering #teen
    A common parenting practice may be hindering teen development
    News Science & Society A common parenting practice may be hindering teen development Teens need independence on vacation, but many don't get it Parents are reluctant to let teens go off alone during vacation, according to a new poll. But experts say teens need independence. Cavan Images/Getty Images By Sujata Gupta 2 hours ago Vacation season is upon us. But that doesn’t necessarily translate to teens roaming free. A new poll finds that less than half of U.S. parents feel comfortable leaving their teenager alone in a hotel room while they grab breakfast. Fewer than a third would let their teen walk alone to a coffee shop. And only 1 in 5 would be okay with their teen wandering solo around an amusement park. Those results, released June 16, are troubling, says Sarah Clark, a public health expert and codirector of the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health, which conducted the survey. Teenagers, she says, need the freedom to develop the confidence that they can navigate the world on their own. Sign up for our newsletter We summarize the week's scientific breakthroughs every Thursday. #common #parenting #practice #hindering #teen
    WWW.SCIENCENEWS.ORG
    A common parenting practice may be hindering teen development
    News Science & Society A common parenting practice may be hindering teen development Teens need independence on vacation, but many don't get it Parents are reluctant to let teens go off alone during vacation, according to a new poll. But experts say teens need independence. Cavan Images/Getty Images By Sujata Gupta 2 hours ago Vacation season is upon us. But that doesn’t necessarily translate to teens roaming free. A new poll finds that less than half of U.S. parents feel comfortable leaving their teenager alone in a hotel room while they grab breakfast. Fewer than a third would let their teen walk alone to a coffee shop. And only 1 in 5 would be okay with their teen wandering solo around an amusement park. Those results, released June 16, are troubling, says Sarah Clark, a public health expert and codirector of the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health, which conducted the survey. Teenagers, she says, need the freedom to develop the confidence that they can navigate the world on their own. Sign up for our newsletter We summarize the week's scientific breakthroughs every Thursday.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Angry
    Sad
    466
    2 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 0 önizleme
  • Q&A: How anacondas, chickens, and locals may be able to coexist in the Amazon

    A coiled giant anaconda. They are the largest snake species in Brazil and play a major role in legends including the ‘Boiuna’ and the ‘Cobra Grande.’ CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey.

    Get the Popular Science daily newsletter
    Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday.

    South America’s lush Amazon region is a biodiversity hotspot, which means that every living thing must find a way to co-exist. Even some of the most feared snakes on the planet–anacondas. In a paper published June 16 in the journal Frontiers in Amphibian and Reptile Science, conservation biologists Beatriz Cosendey and Juarez Carlos Brito Pezzuti from the Federal University of Pará’s Center for Amazonian Studies in Brazil, analyze the key points behind the interactions between humans and the local anaconda populations.
    Ahead of the paper’s publication, the team at Frontiers conducted this wide-ranging Q&A with Conesday. It has not been altered.
    Frontiers: What inspired you to become a researcher?
    Beatriz Cosendey: As a child, I was fascinated by reports and documentaries about field research and often wondered what it took to be there and what kind of knowledge was being produced. Later, as an ecologist, I felt the need for approaches that better connected scientific research with real-world contexts. I became especially interested in perspectives that viewed humans not as separate from nature, but as part of ecological systems. This led me to explore integrative methods that incorporate local and traditional knowledge, aiming to make research more relevant and accessible to the communities involved.
    F: Can you tell us about the research you’re currently working on?
    BC: My research focuses on ethnobiology, an interdisciplinary field intersecting ecology, conservation, and traditional knowledge. We investigate not only the biodiversity of an area but also the relationship local communities have with surrounding species, providing a better understanding of local dynamics and areas needing special attention for conservation. After all, no one knows a place better than those who have lived there for generations. This deep familiarity allows for early detection of changes or environmental shifts. Additionally, developing a collaborative project with residents generates greater engagement, as they recognize themselves as active contributors; and collective participation is essential for effective conservation.
    Local boating the Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey.
    F: Could you tell us about one of the legends surrounding anacondas?
    BC: One of the greatest myths is about the Great Snake—a huge snake that is said to inhabit the Amazon River and sleep beneath the town. According to the dwellers, the Great Snake is an anaconda that has grown too large; its movements can shake the river’s waters, and its eyes look like fire in the darkness of night. People say anacondas can grow so big that they can swallow large animals—including humans or cattle—without difficulty.
    F: What could be the reasons why the traditional role of anacondas as a spiritual and mythological entity has changed? Do you think the fact that fewer anacondas have been seen in recent years contributes to their diminished importance as an mythological entity?
    BC: Not exactly. I believe the two are related, but not in a direct way. The mythology still exists, but among Aritapera dwellers, there’s a more practical, everyday concern—mainly the fear of losing their chickens. As a result, anacondas have come to be seen as stealthy thieves. These traits are mostly associated with smaller individuals, while the larger ones—which may still carry the symbolic weight of the ‘Great Snake’—tend to retreat to more sheltered areas; because of the presence of houses, motorized boats, and general noise, they are now seen much less frequently.
    A giant anaconda is being measured. Credit: Pedro Calazans.
    F: Can you share some of the quotes you’ve collected in interviews that show the attitude of community members towards anacondas? How do chickens come into play?
    BC: When talking about anacondas, one thing always comes up: chickens. “Chicken is herfavorite dish. If one clucks, she comes,” said one dweller. This kind of remark helps explain why the conflict is often framed in economic terms. During the interviews and conversations with local dwellers, many emphasized the financial impact of losing their animals: “The biggest loss is that they keep taking chicks and chickens…” or “You raise the chicken—you can’t just let it be eaten for free, right?”
    For them, it’s a loss of investment, especially since corn, which is used as chicken feed, is expensive. As one person put it: “We spend time feeding and raising the birds, and then the snake comes and takes them.” One dweller shared that, in an attempt to prevent another loss, he killed the anaconda and removed the last chicken it had swallowed from its belly—”it was still fresh,” he said—and used it for his meal, cooking the chicken for lunch so it wouldn’t go to waste.
    One of the Amazonas communities where the researchers conducted their research. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey.
    Some interviewees reported that they had to rebuild their chicken coops and pigsties because too many anacondas were getting in. Participants would point out where the anaconda had entered and explained that they came in through gaps or cracks but couldn’t get out afterwards because they ‘tufavam’ — a local term referring to the snake’s body swelling after ingesting prey.
    We saw chicken coops made with mesh, with nylon, some that worked and some that didn’t. Guided by the locals’ insights, we concluded that the best solution to compensate for the gaps between the wooden slats is to line the coop with a fine nylon mesh, and on the outside, a layer of wire mesh, which protects the inner mesh and prevents the entry of larger animals.
    F: Are there any common misconceptions about this area of research? How would you address them?
    BC: Yes, very much. Although ethnobiology is an old science, it’s still underexplored and often misunderstood. In some fields, there are ongoing debates about the robustness and scientific validity of the field and related areas. This is largely because the findings don’t always rely only on hard statistical data.
    However, like any other scientific field, it follows standardized methodologies, and no result is accepted without proper grounding. What happens is that ethnobiology leans more toward the human sciences, placing human beings and traditional knowledge as key variables within its framework.
    To address these misconceptions, I believe it’s important to emphasize that ethnobiology produces solid and relevant knowledge—especially in the context of conservation and sustainable development. It offers insights that purely biological approaches might overlook and helps build bridges between science and society.
    The study focused on the várzea regions of the Lower Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey.
    F: What are some of the areas of research you’d like to see tackled in the years ahead?
    BC: I’d like to see more conservation projects that include local communities as active participants rather than as passive observers. Incorporating their voices, perspectives, and needs not only makes initiatives more effective, but also more just. There is also great potential in recognizing and valuing traditional knowledge. Beyond its cultural significance, certain practices—such as the use of natural compounds—could become practical assets for other vulnerable regions. Once properly documented and understood, many of these approaches offer adaptable forms of environmental management and could help inform broader conservation strategies elsewhere.
    F: How has open science benefited the reach and impact of your research?
    BC: Open science is crucial for making research more accessible. By eliminating access barriers, it facilitates a broader exchange of knowledge—important especially for interdisciplinary research like mine which draws on multiple knowledge systems and gains value when shared widely. For scientific work, it ensures that knowledge reaches a wider audience, including practitioners and policymakers. This openness fosters dialogue across different sectors, making research more inclusive and encouraging greater collaboration among diverse groups.
    The Q&A can also be read here.
    #qampampa #how #anacondas #chickens #locals
    Q&A: How anacondas, chickens, and locals may be able to coexist in the Amazon
    A coiled giant anaconda. They are the largest snake species in Brazil and play a major role in legends including the ‘Boiuna’ and the ‘Cobra Grande.’ CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. South America’s lush Amazon region is a biodiversity hotspot, which means that every living thing must find a way to co-exist. Even some of the most feared snakes on the planet–anacondas. In a paper published June 16 in the journal Frontiers in Amphibian and Reptile Science, conservation biologists Beatriz Cosendey and Juarez Carlos Brito Pezzuti from the Federal University of Pará’s Center for Amazonian Studies in Brazil, analyze the key points behind the interactions between humans and the local anaconda populations. Ahead of the paper’s publication, the team at Frontiers conducted this wide-ranging Q&A with Conesday. It has not been altered. Frontiers: What inspired you to become a researcher? Beatriz Cosendey: As a child, I was fascinated by reports and documentaries about field research and often wondered what it took to be there and what kind of knowledge was being produced. Later, as an ecologist, I felt the need for approaches that better connected scientific research with real-world contexts. I became especially interested in perspectives that viewed humans not as separate from nature, but as part of ecological systems. This led me to explore integrative methods that incorporate local and traditional knowledge, aiming to make research more relevant and accessible to the communities involved. F: Can you tell us about the research you’re currently working on? BC: My research focuses on ethnobiology, an interdisciplinary field intersecting ecology, conservation, and traditional knowledge. We investigate not only the biodiversity of an area but also the relationship local communities have with surrounding species, providing a better understanding of local dynamics and areas needing special attention for conservation. After all, no one knows a place better than those who have lived there for generations. This deep familiarity allows for early detection of changes or environmental shifts. Additionally, developing a collaborative project with residents generates greater engagement, as they recognize themselves as active contributors; and collective participation is essential for effective conservation. Local boating the Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. F: Could you tell us about one of the legends surrounding anacondas? BC: One of the greatest myths is about the Great Snake—a huge snake that is said to inhabit the Amazon River and sleep beneath the town. According to the dwellers, the Great Snake is an anaconda that has grown too large; its movements can shake the river’s waters, and its eyes look like fire in the darkness of night. People say anacondas can grow so big that they can swallow large animals—including humans or cattle—without difficulty. F: What could be the reasons why the traditional role of anacondas as a spiritual and mythological entity has changed? Do you think the fact that fewer anacondas have been seen in recent years contributes to their diminished importance as an mythological entity? BC: Not exactly. I believe the two are related, but not in a direct way. The mythology still exists, but among Aritapera dwellers, there’s a more practical, everyday concern—mainly the fear of losing their chickens. As a result, anacondas have come to be seen as stealthy thieves. These traits are mostly associated with smaller individuals, while the larger ones—which may still carry the symbolic weight of the ‘Great Snake’—tend to retreat to more sheltered areas; because of the presence of houses, motorized boats, and general noise, they are now seen much less frequently. A giant anaconda is being measured. Credit: Pedro Calazans. F: Can you share some of the quotes you’ve collected in interviews that show the attitude of community members towards anacondas? How do chickens come into play? BC: When talking about anacondas, one thing always comes up: chickens. “Chicken is herfavorite dish. If one clucks, she comes,” said one dweller. This kind of remark helps explain why the conflict is often framed in economic terms. During the interviews and conversations with local dwellers, many emphasized the financial impact of losing their animals: “The biggest loss is that they keep taking chicks and chickens…” or “You raise the chicken—you can’t just let it be eaten for free, right?” For them, it’s a loss of investment, especially since corn, which is used as chicken feed, is expensive. As one person put it: “We spend time feeding and raising the birds, and then the snake comes and takes them.” One dweller shared that, in an attempt to prevent another loss, he killed the anaconda and removed the last chicken it had swallowed from its belly—”it was still fresh,” he said—and used it for his meal, cooking the chicken for lunch so it wouldn’t go to waste. One of the Amazonas communities where the researchers conducted their research. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. Some interviewees reported that they had to rebuild their chicken coops and pigsties because too many anacondas were getting in. Participants would point out where the anaconda had entered and explained that they came in through gaps or cracks but couldn’t get out afterwards because they ‘tufavam’ — a local term referring to the snake’s body swelling after ingesting prey. We saw chicken coops made with mesh, with nylon, some that worked and some that didn’t. Guided by the locals’ insights, we concluded that the best solution to compensate for the gaps between the wooden slats is to line the coop with a fine nylon mesh, and on the outside, a layer of wire mesh, which protects the inner mesh and prevents the entry of larger animals. F: Are there any common misconceptions about this area of research? How would you address them? BC: Yes, very much. Although ethnobiology is an old science, it’s still underexplored and often misunderstood. In some fields, there are ongoing debates about the robustness and scientific validity of the field and related areas. This is largely because the findings don’t always rely only on hard statistical data. However, like any other scientific field, it follows standardized methodologies, and no result is accepted without proper grounding. What happens is that ethnobiology leans more toward the human sciences, placing human beings and traditional knowledge as key variables within its framework. To address these misconceptions, I believe it’s important to emphasize that ethnobiology produces solid and relevant knowledge—especially in the context of conservation and sustainable development. It offers insights that purely biological approaches might overlook and helps build bridges between science and society. The study focused on the várzea regions of the Lower Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. F: What are some of the areas of research you’d like to see tackled in the years ahead? BC: I’d like to see more conservation projects that include local communities as active participants rather than as passive observers. Incorporating their voices, perspectives, and needs not only makes initiatives more effective, but also more just. There is also great potential in recognizing and valuing traditional knowledge. Beyond its cultural significance, certain practices—such as the use of natural compounds—could become practical assets for other vulnerable regions. Once properly documented and understood, many of these approaches offer adaptable forms of environmental management and could help inform broader conservation strategies elsewhere. F: How has open science benefited the reach and impact of your research? BC: Open science is crucial for making research more accessible. By eliminating access barriers, it facilitates a broader exchange of knowledge—important especially for interdisciplinary research like mine which draws on multiple knowledge systems and gains value when shared widely. For scientific work, it ensures that knowledge reaches a wider audience, including practitioners and policymakers. This openness fosters dialogue across different sectors, making research more inclusive and encouraging greater collaboration among diverse groups. The Q&A can also be read here. #qampampa #how #anacondas #chickens #locals
    WWW.POPSCI.COM
    Q&A: How anacondas, chickens, and locals may be able to coexist in the Amazon
    A coiled giant anaconda. They are the largest snake species in Brazil and play a major role in legends including the ‘Boiuna’ and the ‘Cobra Grande.’ CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. South America’s lush Amazon region is a biodiversity hotspot, which means that every living thing must find a way to co-exist. Even some of the most feared snakes on the planet–anacondas. In a paper published June 16 in the journal Frontiers in Amphibian and Reptile Science, conservation biologists Beatriz Cosendey and Juarez Carlos Brito Pezzuti from the Federal University of Pará’s Center for Amazonian Studies in Brazil, analyze the key points behind the interactions between humans and the local anaconda populations. Ahead of the paper’s publication, the team at Frontiers conducted this wide-ranging Q&A with Conesday. It has not been altered. Frontiers: What inspired you to become a researcher? Beatriz Cosendey: As a child, I was fascinated by reports and documentaries about field research and often wondered what it took to be there and what kind of knowledge was being produced. Later, as an ecologist, I felt the need for approaches that better connected scientific research with real-world contexts. I became especially interested in perspectives that viewed humans not as separate from nature, but as part of ecological systems. This led me to explore integrative methods that incorporate local and traditional knowledge, aiming to make research more relevant and accessible to the communities involved. F: Can you tell us about the research you’re currently working on? BC: My research focuses on ethnobiology, an interdisciplinary field intersecting ecology, conservation, and traditional knowledge. We investigate not only the biodiversity of an area but also the relationship local communities have with surrounding species, providing a better understanding of local dynamics and areas needing special attention for conservation. After all, no one knows a place better than those who have lived there for generations. This deep familiarity allows for early detection of changes or environmental shifts. Additionally, developing a collaborative project with residents generates greater engagement, as they recognize themselves as active contributors; and collective participation is essential for effective conservation. Local boating the Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. F: Could you tell us about one of the legends surrounding anacondas? BC: One of the greatest myths is about the Great Snake—a huge snake that is said to inhabit the Amazon River and sleep beneath the town. According to the dwellers, the Great Snake is an anaconda that has grown too large; its movements can shake the river’s waters, and its eyes look like fire in the darkness of night. People say anacondas can grow so big that they can swallow large animals—including humans or cattle—without difficulty. F: What could be the reasons why the traditional role of anacondas as a spiritual and mythological entity has changed? Do you think the fact that fewer anacondas have been seen in recent years contributes to their diminished importance as an mythological entity? BC: Not exactly. I believe the two are related, but not in a direct way. The mythology still exists, but among Aritapera dwellers, there’s a more practical, everyday concern—mainly the fear of losing their chickens. As a result, anacondas have come to be seen as stealthy thieves. These traits are mostly associated with smaller individuals (up to around 2–2.5 meters), while the larger ones—which may still carry the symbolic weight of the ‘Great Snake’—tend to retreat to more sheltered areas; because of the presence of houses, motorized boats, and general noise, they are now seen much less frequently. A giant anaconda is being measured. Credit: Pedro Calazans. F: Can you share some of the quotes you’ve collected in interviews that show the attitude of community members towards anacondas? How do chickens come into play? BC: When talking about anacondas, one thing always comes up: chickens. “Chicken is her [the anaconda’s] favorite dish. If one clucks, she comes,” said one dweller. This kind of remark helps explain why the conflict is often framed in economic terms. During the interviews and conversations with local dwellers, many emphasized the financial impact of losing their animals: “The biggest loss is that they keep taking chicks and chickens…” or “You raise the chicken—you can’t just let it be eaten for free, right?” For them, it’s a loss of investment, especially since corn, which is used as chicken feed, is expensive. As one person put it: “We spend time feeding and raising the birds, and then the snake comes and takes them.” One dweller shared that, in an attempt to prevent another loss, he killed the anaconda and removed the last chicken it had swallowed from its belly—”it was still fresh,” he said—and used it for his meal, cooking the chicken for lunch so it wouldn’t go to waste. One of the Amazonas communities where the researchers conducted their research. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. Some interviewees reported that they had to rebuild their chicken coops and pigsties because too many anacondas were getting in. Participants would point out where the anaconda had entered and explained that they came in through gaps or cracks but couldn’t get out afterwards because they ‘tufavam’ — a local term referring to the snake’s body swelling after ingesting prey. We saw chicken coops made with mesh, with nylon, some that worked and some that didn’t. Guided by the locals’ insights, we concluded that the best solution to compensate for the gaps between the wooden slats is to line the coop with a fine nylon mesh (to block smaller animals), and on the outside, a layer of wire mesh, which protects the inner mesh and prevents the entry of larger animals. F: Are there any common misconceptions about this area of research? How would you address them? BC: Yes, very much. Although ethnobiology is an old science, it’s still underexplored and often misunderstood. In some fields, there are ongoing debates about the robustness and scientific validity of the field and related areas. This is largely because the findings don’t always rely only on hard statistical data. However, like any other scientific field, it follows standardized methodologies, and no result is accepted without proper grounding. What happens is that ethnobiology leans more toward the human sciences, placing human beings and traditional knowledge as key variables within its framework. To address these misconceptions, I believe it’s important to emphasize that ethnobiology produces solid and relevant knowledge—especially in the context of conservation and sustainable development. It offers insights that purely biological approaches might overlook and helps build bridges between science and society. The study focused on the várzea regions of the Lower Amazon River. CREDIT: Beatriz Cosendey. F: What are some of the areas of research you’d like to see tackled in the years ahead? BC: I’d like to see more conservation projects that include local communities as active participants rather than as passive observers. Incorporating their voices, perspectives, and needs not only makes initiatives more effective, but also more just. There is also great potential in recognizing and valuing traditional knowledge. Beyond its cultural significance, certain practices—such as the use of natural compounds—could become practical assets for other vulnerable regions. Once properly documented and understood, many of these approaches offer adaptable forms of environmental management and could help inform broader conservation strategies elsewhere. F: How has open science benefited the reach and impact of your research? BC: Open science is crucial for making research more accessible. By eliminating access barriers, it facilitates a broader exchange of knowledge—important especially for interdisciplinary research like mine which draws on multiple knowledge systems and gains value when shared widely. For scientific work, it ensures that knowledge reaches a wider audience, including practitioners and policymakers. This openness fosters dialogue across different sectors, making research more inclusive and encouraging greater collaboration among diverse groups. The Q&A can also be read here.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    443
    2 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 0 önizleme
  • Hungry Bacteria Hunt Their Neighbors With Tiny, Poison-Tipped Harpoons

    Starving bacteriause a microscopic harpoon—called the Type VI secretion system—to stab and kill neighboring cells. The prey burst, turning spherical and leaking nutrients, which the killers then use to survive and grow.NewsletterSign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsBacteria are bad neighbors. And we’re not talking noisy, never-take-out-the-trash bad neighbors. We’re talking has-a-harpoon-gun-and-points-it-at-you bad neighbors. According to a new study in Science, some bacteria hunt nearby bacterial species when they’re hungry. Using a special weapon system called the Type VI Secretion System, these bacteria shoot, spill, and then absorb the nutrients from the microbes they harpoon. “The punchline is: When things get tough, you eat your neighbors,” said Glen D’Souza, a study author and an assistant professor at Arizona State University, according to a press release. “We’ve known bacteria kill each other, that’s textbook. But what we’re seeing is that it’s not just important that the bacteria have weapons to kill, but they are controlling when they use those weapons specifically for situations to eat others where they can’t grow themselves.” According to the study authors, the research doesn’t just have implications for bacterial neighborhoods; it also has implications for human health and medicine. By harnessing these bacterial weapons, it may be possible to build better targeted antibiotics, designed to overcome antibiotic resistance. Ruthless Bacteria Use HarpoonsResearchers have long known that some bacteria can be ruthless, using weapons like the T6SS to clear out their competition. A nasty tool, the T6SS is essentially a tiny harpoon gun with a poison-tipped needle. When a bacterium shoots the weapon into another bacterium from a separate species, the needle pierces the microbe without killing it. Then, it injects toxins into the microbe that cause its internal nutrients to spill out.Up until now, researchers thought that this weapon helped bacteria eliminate their competition for space and for food, but after watching bacteria use the T6SS to attack their neighbors when food was scarce, the study authors concluded that these tiny harpooners use the weapon not only to remove rivals, but also to consume their competitors’ leaked nutrients.“Watching these cells in action really drives home how resourceful bacteria can be,” said Astrid Stubbusch, another study author and a researcher who worked on the study while at ETH Zurich, according to the press release. “By slowly releasing nutrients from their neighbors, they maximize their nutrient harvesting when every molecule counts.” Absorbing Food From NeighborsTo show that the bacteria used this system to eat when there was no food around, the study authors compared their attacks in both nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor environments. When supplied with ample resources, the bacteria used their harpoons to kill their neighbors quickly, with the released nutrients leaking out and dissolving immediately. But when resources were few and far between, they used their harpoons to kill their neighbors slowly, with the nutrients seeping out and sticking around. “This difference in dissolution time could mean that the killer cells load their spears with different toxins,” D’Souza said in another press release. While one toxin could eliminate the competition for space and for food when nutrients are available, another could create a food source, allowing bacteria to “absorb as many nutrients as possible” when sustenance is in short supply.Because of all this, this weapon system is more than ruthless; it’s also smart, and important to some species’ survival. When genetically unedited T6SS bacteria were put in an environment without food, they survived on spilled nutrients. But when genetically edited T6SS bacteria were placed in a similar environment, they died, because their ability to find food in their neighbors had been “turned off.”Harnessing Bacterial HarpoonsAccording to the study authors, the T6SS system is widely used by bacteria, both in and outside the lab. “It’s present in many different environments,” D’Souza said in one of the press releases. “It’s operational and happening in nature, from the oceans to the human gut.” The study authors add that their research could change the way we think about bacteria and could help in our fight against antibiotic resistance. In fact, the T6SS could one day serve as a foundation for targeted drug delivery systems, which could mitigate the development of broader bacterial resistance to antibiotics. But before that can happen, however, researchers have to learn more about bacterial harpoons, and about when and how bacteria use them, both to beat and eat their neighbors.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Sam Walters is a journalist covering archaeology, paleontology, ecology, and evolution for Discover, along with an assortment of other topics. Before joining the Discover team as an assistant editor in 2022, Sam studied journalism at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.1 free article leftWant More? Get unlimited access for as low as /monthSubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In1 free articleSubscribeWant more?Keep reading for as low as !SubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In
    #hungry #bacteria #hunt #their #neighbors
    Hungry Bacteria Hunt Their Neighbors With Tiny, Poison-Tipped Harpoons
    Starving bacteriause a microscopic harpoon—called the Type VI secretion system—to stab and kill neighboring cells. The prey burst, turning spherical and leaking nutrients, which the killers then use to survive and grow.NewsletterSign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsBacteria are bad neighbors. And we’re not talking noisy, never-take-out-the-trash bad neighbors. We’re talking has-a-harpoon-gun-and-points-it-at-you bad neighbors. According to a new study in Science, some bacteria hunt nearby bacterial species when they’re hungry. Using a special weapon system called the Type VI Secretion System, these bacteria shoot, spill, and then absorb the nutrients from the microbes they harpoon. “The punchline is: When things get tough, you eat your neighbors,” said Glen D’Souza, a study author and an assistant professor at Arizona State University, according to a press release. “We’ve known bacteria kill each other, that’s textbook. But what we’re seeing is that it’s not just important that the bacteria have weapons to kill, but they are controlling when they use those weapons specifically for situations to eat others where they can’t grow themselves.” According to the study authors, the research doesn’t just have implications for bacterial neighborhoods; it also has implications for human health and medicine. By harnessing these bacterial weapons, it may be possible to build better targeted antibiotics, designed to overcome antibiotic resistance. Ruthless Bacteria Use HarpoonsResearchers have long known that some bacteria can be ruthless, using weapons like the T6SS to clear out their competition. A nasty tool, the T6SS is essentially a tiny harpoon gun with a poison-tipped needle. When a bacterium shoots the weapon into another bacterium from a separate species, the needle pierces the microbe without killing it. Then, it injects toxins into the microbe that cause its internal nutrients to spill out.Up until now, researchers thought that this weapon helped bacteria eliminate their competition for space and for food, but after watching bacteria use the T6SS to attack their neighbors when food was scarce, the study authors concluded that these tiny harpooners use the weapon not only to remove rivals, but also to consume their competitors’ leaked nutrients.“Watching these cells in action really drives home how resourceful bacteria can be,” said Astrid Stubbusch, another study author and a researcher who worked on the study while at ETH Zurich, according to the press release. “By slowly releasing nutrients from their neighbors, they maximize their nutrient harvesting when every molecule counts.” Absorbing Food From NeighborsTo show that the bacteria used this system to eat when there was no food around, the study authors compared their attacks in both nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor environments. When supplied with ample resources, the bacteria used their harpoons to kill their neighbors quickly, with the released nutrients leaking out and dissolving immediately. But when resources were few and far between, they used their harpoons to kill their neighbors slowly, with the nutrients seeping out and sticking around. “This difference in dissolution time could mean that the killer cells load their spears with different toxins,” D’Souza said in another press release. While one toxin could eliminate the competition for space and for food when nutrients are available, another could create a food source, allowing bacteria to “absorb as many nutrients as possible” when sustenance is in short supply.Because of all this, this weapon system is more than ruthless; it’s also smart, and important to some species’ survival. When genetically unedited T6SS bacteria were put in an environment without food, they survived on spilled nutrients. But when genetically edited T6SS bacteria were placed in a similar environment, they died, because their ability to find food in their neighbors had been “turned off.”Harnessing Bacterial HarpoonsAccording to the study authors, the T6SS system is widely used by bacteria, both in and outside the lab. “It’s present in many different environments,” D’Souza said in one of the press releases. “It’s operational and happening in nature, from the oceans to the human gut.” The study authors add that their research could change the way we think about bacteria and could help in our fight against antibiotic resistance. In fact, the T6SS could one day serve as a foundation for targeted drug delivery systems, which could mitigate the development of broader bacterial resistance to antibiotics. But before that can happen, however, researchers have to learn more about bacterial harpoons, and about when and how bacteria use them, both to beat and eat their neighbors.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Sam Walters is a journalist covering archaeology, paleontology, ecology, and evolution for Discover, along with an assortment of other topics. Before joining the Discover team as an assistant editor in 2022, Sam studied journalism at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.1 free article leftWant More? Get unlimited access for as low as /monthSubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In1 free articleSubscribeWant more?Keep reading for as low as !SubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In #hungry #bacteria #hunt #their #neighbors
    WWW.DISCOVERMAGAZINE.COM
    Hungry Bacteria Hunt Their Neighbors With Tiny, Poison-Tipped Harpoons
    Starving bacteria (cyan) use a microscopic harpoon—called the Type VI secretion system—to stab and kill neighboring cells (magenta). The prey burst, turning spherical and leaking nutrients, which the killers then use to survive and grow. (Image Credit: Glen D'Souza/ASU/Screen shot from video)NewsletterSign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsBacteria are bad neighbors. And we’re not talking noisy, never-take-out-the-trash bad neighbors. We’re talking has-a-harpoon-gun-and-points-it-at-you bad neighbors. According to a new study in Science, some bacteria hunt nearby bacterial species when they’re hungry. Using a special weapon system called the Type VI Secretion System (T6SS), these bacteria shoot, spill, and then absorb the nutrients from the microbes they harpoon. “The punchline is: When things get tough, you eat your neighbors,” said Glen D’Souza, a study author and an assistant professor at Arizona State University, according to a press release. “We’ve known bacteria kill each other, that’s textbook. But what we’re seeing is that it’s not just important that the bacteria have weapons to kill, but they are controlling when they use those weapons specifically for situations to eat others where they can’t grow themselves.” According to the study authors, the research doesn’t just have implications for bacterial neighborhoods; it also has implications for human health and medicine. By harnessing these bacterial weapons, it may be possible to build better targeted antibiotics, designed to overcome antibiotic resistance. Ruthless Bacteria Use HarpoonsResearchers have long known that some bacteria can be ruthless, using weapons like the T6SS to clear out their competition. A nasty tool, the T6SS is essentially a tiny harpoon gun with a poison-tipped needle. When a bacterium shoots the weapon into another bacterium from a separate species, the needle pierces the microbe without killing it. Then, it injects toxins into the microbe that cause its internal nutrients to spill out.Up until now, researchers thought that this weapon helped bacteria eliminate their competition for space and for food, but after watching bacteria use the T6SS to attack their neighbors when food was scarce, the study authors concluded that these tiny harpooners use the weapon not only to remove rivals, but also to consume their competitors’ leaked nutrients.“Watching these cells in action really drives home how resourceful bacteria can be,” said Astrid Stubbusch, another study author and a researcher who worked on the study while at ETH Zurich, according to the press release. “By slowly releasing nutrients from their neighbors, they maximize their nutrient harvesting when every molecule counts.” Absorbing Food From NeighborsTo show that the bacteria used this system to eat when there was no food around, the study authors compared their attacks in both nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor environments. When supplied with ample resources, the bacteria used their harpoons to kill their neighbors quickly, with the released nutrients leaking out and dissolving immediately. But when resources were few and far between, they used their harpoons to kill their neighbors slowly, with the nutrients seeping out and sticking around. “This difference in dissolution time could mean that the killer cells load their spears with different toxins,” D’Souza said in another press release. While one toxin could eliminate the competition for space and for food when nutrients are available, another could create a food source, allowing bacteria to “absorb as many nutrients as possible” when sustenance is in short supply.Because of all this, this weapon system is more than ruthless; it’s also smart, and important to some species’ survival. When genetically unedited T6SS bacteria were put in an environment without food, they survived on spilled nutrients. But when genetically edited T6SS bacteria were placed in a similar environment, they died, because their ability to find food in their neighbors had been “turned off.”Harnessing Bacterial HarpoonsAccording to the study authors, the T6SS system is widely used by bacteria, both in and outside the lab. “It’s present in many different environments,” D’Souza said in one of the press releases. “It’s operational and happening in nature, from the oceans to the human gut.” The study authors add that their research could change the way we think about bacteria and could help in our fight against antibiotic resistance. In fact, the T6SS could one day serve as a foundation for targeted drug delivery systems, which could mitigate the development of broader bacterial resistance to antibiotics. But before that can happen, however, researchers have to learn more about bacterial harpoons, and about when and how bacteria use them, both to beat and eat their neighbors.Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:Sam Walters is a journalist covering archaeology, paleontology, ecology, and evolution for Discover, along with an assortment of other topics. Before joining the Discover team as an assistant editor in 2022, Sam studied journalism at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.1 free article leftWant More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/monthSubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In1 free articleSubscribeWant more?Keep reading for as low as $1.99!SubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    375
    2 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 0 önizleme
  • Four science-based rules that will make your conversations flow

    One of the four pillars of good conversation is levity. You needn’t be a comedian, you can but have some funTetra Images, LLC/Alamy
    Conversation lies at the heart of our relationships – yet many of us find it surprisingly hard to talk to others. We may feel anxious at the thought of making small talk with strangers and struggle to connect with the people who are closest to us. If that sounds familiar, Alison Wood Brooks hopes to help. She is a professor at Harvard Business School, where she teaches an oversubscribed course called “TALK: How to talk gooder in business and life”, and the author of a new book, Talk: The science of conversation and the art of being ourselves. Both offer four key principles for more meaningful exchanges. Conversations are inherently unpredictable, says Wood Brooks, but they follow certain rules – and knowing their architecture makes us more comfortable with what is outside of our control. New Scientist asked her about the best ways to apply this research to our own chats.
    David Robson: Talking about talking feels quite meta. Do you ever find yourself critiquing your own performance?
    Alison Wood Brooks: There are so many levels of “meta-ness”. I have often felt like I’m floating over the room, watching conversations unfold, even as I’m involved in them myself. I teach a course at Harvard, andall get to experience this feeling as well. There can be an uncomfortable period of hypervigilance, but I hope that dissipates over time as they develop better habits. There is a famous quote from Charlie Parker, who was a jazz saxophonist. He said something like, “Practise, practise, practise, and then when you get on stage, let it all go and just wail.” I think that’s my approach to conversation. Even when you’re hyper-aware of conversation dynamics, you have to remember the true delight of being with another human mind, and never lose the magic of being together. Think ahead, but once you’re talking, let it all go and just wail.

    Reading your book, I learned that a good way to enliven a conversation is to ask someone why they are passionate about what they do. So, where does your passion for conversation come from?
    I have two answers to this question. One is professional. Early in my professorship at Harvard, I had been studying emotions by exploring how people talk about their feelings and the balance between what we feel inside and how we express that to others. And I realised I just had this deep, profound interest in figuring out how people talk to each other about everything, not just their feelings. We now have scientific tools that allow us to capture conversations and analyse them at large scale. Natural language processing, machine learning, the advent of AI – all this allows us to take huge swathes of transcript data and process it much more efficiently.

    Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox.

    Sign up to newsletter

    The personal answer is that I’m an identical twin, and I spent my whole life, from the moment I opened my newborn eyes, existing next to a person who’s an exact copy of myself. It was like observing myself at very close range, interacting with the world, interacting with other people. I could see when she said and did things well, and I could try to do that myself. And I saw when her jokes failed, or she stumbled over her words – I tried to avoid those mistakes. It was a very fortunate form of feedback that not a lot of people get. And then, as a twin, you’ve got this person sharing a bedroom, sharing all your clothes, going to all the same parties and playing on the same sports teams, so we were just constantly in conversation with each other. You reached this level of shared reality that is so incredible, and I’ve spent the rest of my life trying to help other people get there in their relationships, too.
    “TALK” cleverly captures your framework for better conversations: topics, asking, levity and kindness. Let’s start at the beginning. How should we decide what to talk about?
    My first piece of advice is to prepare. Some people do this naturally. They already think about the things that they should talk about with somebody before they see them. They should lean into this habit. Some of my students, however, think it’s crazy. They think preparation will make the conversation seem rigid and forced and overly scripted. But just because you’ve thought ahead about what you might talk about doesn’t mean you have to talk about those things once the conversation is underway. It does mean, however, that you always have an idea waiting for you when you’re not sure what to talk about next. Having just one topic in your back pocket can help you in those anxiety-ridden moments. It makes things more fluent, which is important for establishing a connection. Choosing a topic is not only important at the start of a conversation. We’re constantly making decisions about whether we should stay on one subject, drift to something else or totally shift gears and go somewhere wildly different.
    Sometimes the topic of conversation is obvious. Even then, knowing when to switch to a new one can be trickyMartin Parr/Magnum Photos
    What’s your advice when making these decisions?
    There are three very clear signs that suggest that it’s time to switch topics. The first is longer mutual pauses. The second is more uncomfortable laughter, which we use to fill the space that we would usually fill excitedly with good content. And the third sign is redundancy. Once you start repeating things that have already been said on the topic, it’s a sign that you should move to something else.
    After an average conversation, most people feel like they’ve covered the right number of topics. But if you ask people after conversations that didn’t go well, they’ll more often say that they didn’t talk about enough things, rather than that they talked about too many things. This suggests that a common mistake is lingering too long on a topic after you’ve squeezed all the juice out of it.
    The second element of TALK is asking questions. I think a lot of us have heard the advice to ask more questions, yet many people don’t apply it. Why do you think that is?
    Many years of research have shown that the human mind is remarkably egocentric. Often, we are so focused on our own perspective that we forget to even ask someone else to share what’s in their mind. Another reason is fear. You’re interested in the other person, and you know you should ask them questions, but you’re afraid of being too intrusive, or that you will reveal your own incompetence, because you feel you should know the answer already.

    What kinds of questions should we be asking – and avoiding?
    In the book, I talk about the power of follow-up questions that build on anything that your partner has just said. It shows that you heard them, that you care and that you want to know more. Even one follow-up question can springboard us away from shallow talk into something deeper and more meaningful.
    There are, however, some bad patterns of question asking, such as “boomerasking”. Michael Yeomansand I have a recent paper about this, and oh my gosh, it’s been such fun to study. It’s a play on the word boomerang: it comes back to the person who threw it. If I ask you what you had for breakfast, and you tell me you had Special K and banana, and then I say, “Well, let me tell you about my breakfast, because, boy, was it delicious” – that’s boomerasking. Sometimes it’s a thinly veiled way of bragging or complaining, but sometimes I think people are genuinely interested to hear from their partner, but then the partner’s answer reminds them so much of their own life that they can’t help but start sharing their perspective. In our research, we have found that this makes your partner feel like you weren’t interested in their perspective, so it seems very insincere. Sharing your own perspective is important. It’s okay at some point to bring the conversation back to yourself. But don’t do it so soon that it makes your partner feel like you didn’t hear their answer or care about it.
    Research by Alison Wood Brooks includes a recent study on “boomerasking”, a pitfall you should avoid to make conversations flowJanelle Bruno
    What are the benefits of levity?
    When we think of conversations that haven’t gone well, we often think of moments of hostility, anger or disagreement, but a quiet killer of conversation is boredom. Levity is the antidote. These small moments of sparkle or fizz can pull us back in and make us feel engaged with each other again.
    Our research has shown that we give status and respect to people who make us feel good, so much so that in a group of people, a person who can land even one appropriate joke is more likely to be voted as the leader. And the joke doesn’t even need to be very funny! It’s the fact that they were confident enough to try it and competent enough to read the room.
    Do you have any practical steps that people can apply to generate levity, even if they’re not a natural comedian?
    Levity is not just about being funny. In fact, aiming to be a comedian is not the right goal. When we watch stand-up on Netflix, comedians have rehearsed those jokes and honed them and practised them for a long time, and they’re delivering them in a monologue to an audience. It’s a completely different task from a live conversation. In real dialogue, what everybody is looking for is to feel engaged, and that doesn’t require particularly funny jokes or elaborate stories. When you see opportunities to make it fun or lighten the mood, that’s what you need to grab. It can come through a change to a new, fresh topic, or calling back to things that you talked about earlier in the conversation or earlier in your relationship. These callbacks – which sometimes do refer to something funny – are such a nice way of showing that you’ve listened and remembered. A levity move could also involve giving sincere compliments to other people. When you think nice things, when you admire someone, make sure you say it out loud.

    This brings us to the last element of TALK: kindness. Why do we so often fail to be as kind as we would like?
    Wobbles in kindness often come back to our egocentrism. Research shows that we underestimate how much other people’s perspectives differ from our own, and we forget that we have the tools to ask other people directly in conversation for their perspective. Being a kinder conversationalist is about trying to focus on your partner’s perspective and then figuring what they need and helping them to get it.
    Finally, what is your number one tip for readers to have a better conversation the next time they speak to someone?
    Every conversation is surprisingly tricky and complex. When things don’t go perfectly, give yourself and others more grace. There will be trips and stumbles and then a little grace can go very, very far.
    Topics:
    #four #sciencebased #rules #that #will
    Four science-based rules that will make your conversations flow
    One of the four pillars of good conversation is levity. You needn’t be a comedian, you can but have some funTetra Images, LLC/Alamy Conversation lies at the heart of our relationships – yet many of us find it surprisingly hard to talk to others. We may feel anxious at the thought of making small talk with strangers and struggle to connect with the people who are closest to us. If that sounds familiar, Alison Wood Brooks hopes to help. She is a professor at Harvard Business School, where she teaches an oversubscribed course called “TALK: How to talk gooder in business and life”, and the author of a new book, Talk: The science of conversation and the art of being ourselves. Both offer four key principles for more meaningful exchanges. Conversations are inherently unpredictable, says Wood Brooks, but they follow certain rules – and knowing their architecture makes us more comfortable with what is outside of our control. New Scientist asked her about the best ways to apply this research to our own chats. David Robson: Talking about talking feels quite meta. Do you ever find yourself critiquing your own performance? Alison Wood Brooks: There are so many levels of “meta-ness”. I have often felt like I’m floating over the room, watching conversations unfold, even as I’m involved in them myself. I teach a course at Harvard, andall get to experience this feeling as well. There can be an uncomfortable period of hypervigilance, but I hope that dissipates over time as they develop better habits. There is a famous quote from Charlie Parker, who was a jazz saxophonist. He said something like, “Practise, practise, practise, and then when you get on stage, let it all go and just wail.” I think that’s my approach to conversation. Even when you’re hyper-aware of conversation dynamics, you have to remember the true delight of being with another human mind, and never lose the magic of being together. Think ahead, but once you’re talking, let it all go and just wail. Reading your book, I learned that a good way to enliven a conversation is to ask someone why they are passionate about what they do. So, where does your passion for conversation come from? I have two answers to this question. One is professional. Early in my professorship at Harvard, I had been studying emotions by exploring how people talk about their feelings and the balance between what we feel inside and how we express that to others. And I realised I just had this deep, profound interest in figuring out how people talk to each other about everything, not just their feelings. We now have scientific tools that allow us to capture conversations and analyse them at large scale. Natural language processing, machine learning, the advent of AI – all this allows us to take huge swathes of transcript data and process it much more efficiently. Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox. Sign up to newsletter The personal answer is that I’m an identical twin, and I spent my whole life, from the moment I opened my newborn eyes, existing next to a person who’s an exact copy of myself. It was like observing myself at very close range, interacting with the world, interacting with other people. I could see when she said and did things well, and I could try to do that myself. And I saw when her jokes failed, or she stumbled over her words – I tried to avoid those mistakes. It was a very fortunate form of feedback that not a lot of people get. And then, as a twin, you’ve got this person sharing a bedroom, sharing all your clothes, going to all the same parties and playing on the same sports teams, so we were just constantly in conversation with each other. You reached this level of shared reality that is so incredible, and I’ve spent the rest of my life trying to help other people get there in their relationships, too. “TALK” cleverly captures your framework for better conversations: topics, asking, levity and kindness. Let’s start at the beginning. How should we decide what to talk about? My first piece of advice is to prepare. Some people do this naturally. They already think about the things that they should talk about with somebody before they see them. They should lean into this habit. Some of my students, however, think it’s crazy. They think preparation will make the conversation seem rigid and forced and overly scripted. But just because you’ve thought ahead about what you might talk about doesn’t mean you have to talk about those things once the conversation is underway. It does mean, however, that you always have an idea waiting for you when you’re not sure what to talk about next. Having just one topic in your back pocket can help you in those anxiety-ridden moments. It makes things more fluent, which is important for establishing a connection. Choosing a topic is not only important at the start of a conversation. We’re constantly making decisions about whether we should stay on one subject, drift to something else or totally shift gears and go somewhere wildly different. Sometimes the topic of conversation is obvious. Even then, knowing when to switch to a new one can be trickyMartin Parr/Magnum Photos What’s your advice when making these decisions? There are three very clear signs that suggest that it’s time to switch topics. The first is longer mutual pauses. The second is more uncomfortable laughter, which we use to fill the space that we would usually fill excitedly with good content. And the third sign is redundancy. Once you start repeating things that have already been said on the topic, it’s a sign that you should move to something else. After an average conversation, most people feel like they’ve covered the right number of topics. But if you ask people after conversations that didn’t go well, they’ll more often say that they didn’t talk about enough things, rather than that they talked about too many things. This suggests that a common mistake is lingering too long on a topic after you’ve squeezed all the juice out of it. The second element of TALK is asking questions. I think a lot of us have heard the advice to ask more questions, yet many people don’t apply it. Why do you think that is? Many years of research have shown that the human mind is remarkably egocentric. Often, we are so focused on our own perspective that we forget to even ask someone else to share what’s in their mind. Another reason is fear. You’re interested in the other person, and you know you should ask them questions, but you’re afraid of being too intrusive, or that you will reveal your own incompetence, because you feel you should know the answer already. What kinds of questions should we be asking – and avoiding? In the book, I talk about the power of follow-up questions that build on anything that your partner has just said. It shows that you heard them, that you care and that you want to know more. Even one follow-up question can springboard us away from shallow talk into something deeper and more meaningful. There are, however, some bad patterns of question asking, such as “boomerasking”. Michael Yeomansand I have a recent paper about this, and oh my gosh, it’s been such fun to study. It’s a play on the word boomerang: it comes back to the person who threw it. If I ask you what you had for breakfast, and you tell me you had Special K and banana, and then I say, “Well, let me tell you about my breakfast, because, boy, was it delicious” – that’s boomerasking. Sometimes it’s a thinly veiled way of bragging or complaining, but sometimes I think people are genuinely interested to hear from their partner, but then the partner’s answer reminds them so much of their own life that they can’t help but start sharing their perspective. In our research, we have found that this makes your partner feel like you weren’t interested in their perspective, so it seems very insincere. Sharing your own perspective is important. It’s okay at some point to bring the conversation back to yourself. But don’t do it so soon that it makes your partner feel like you didn’t hear their answer or care about it. Research by Alison Wood Brooks includes a recent study on “boomerasking”, a pitfall you should avoid to make conversations flowJanelle Bruno What are the benefits of levity? When we think of conversations that haven’t gone well, we often think of moments of hostility, anger or disagreement, but a quiet killer of conversation is boredom. Levity is the antidote. These small moments of sparkle or fizz can pull us back in and make us feel engaged with each other again. Our research has shown that we give status and respect to people who make us feel good, so much so that in a group of people, a person who can land even one appropriate joke is more likely to be voted as the leader. And the joke doesn’t even need to be very funny! It’s the fact that they were confident enough to try it and competent enough to read the room. Do you have any practical steps that people can apply to generate levity, even if they’re not a natural comedian? Levity is not just about being funny. In fact, aiming to be a comedian is not the right goal. When we watch stand-up on Netflix, comedians have rehearsed those jokes and honed them and practised them for a long time, and they’re delivering them in a monologue to an audience. It’s a completely different task from a live conversation. In real dialogue, what everybody is looking for is to feel engaged, and that doesn’t require particularly funny jokes or elaborate stories. When you see opportunities to make it fun or lighten the mood, that’s what you need to grab. It can come through a change to a new, fresh topic, or calling back to things that you talked about earlier in the conversation or earlier in your relationship. These callbacks – which sometimes do refer to something funny – are such a nice way of showing that you’ve listened and remembered. A levity move could also involve giving sincere compliments to other people. When you think nice things, when you admire someone, make sure you say it out loud. This brings us to the last element of TALK: kindness. Why do we so often fail to be as kind as we would like? Wobbles in kindness often come back to our egocentrism. Research shows that we underestimate how much other people’s perspectives differ from our own, and we forget that we have the tools to ask other people directly in conversation for their perspective. Being a kinder conversationalist is about trying to focus on your partner’s perspective and then figuring what they need and helping them to get it. Finally, what is your number one tip for readers to have a better conversation the next time they speak to someone? Every conversation is surprisingly tricky and complex. When things don’t go perfectly, give yourself and others more grace. There will be trips and stumbles and then a little grace can go very, very far. Topics: #four #sciencebased #rules #that #will
    WWW.NEWSCIENTIST.COM
    Four science-based rules that will make your conversations flow
    One of the four pillars of good conversation is levity. You needn’t be a comedian, you can but have some funTetra Images, LLC/Alamy Conversation lies at the heart of our relationships – yet many of us find it surprisingly hard to talk to others. We may feel anxious at the thought of making small talk with strangers and struggle to connect with the people who are closest to us. If that sounds familiar, Alison Wood Brooks hopes to help. She is a professor at Harvard Business School, where she teaches an oversubscribed course called “TALK: How to talk gooder in business and life”, and the author of a new book, Talk: The science of conversation and the art of being ourselves. Both offer four key principles for more meaningful exchanges. Conversations are inherently unpredictable, says Wood Brooks, but they follow certain rules – and knowing their architecture makes us more comfortable with what is outside of our control. New Scientist asked her about the best ways to apply this research to our own chats. David Robson: Talking about talking feels quite meta. Do you ever find yourself critiquing your own performance? Alison Wood Brooks: There are so many levels of “meta-ness”. I have often felt like I’m floating over the room, watching conversations unfold, even as I’m involved in them myself. I teach a course at Harvard, and [my students] all get to experience this feeling as well. There can be an uncomfortable period of hypervigilance, but I hope that dissipates over time as they develop better habits. There is a famous quote from Charlie Parker, who was a jazz saxophonist. He said something like, “Practise, practise, practise, and then when you get on stage, let it all go and just wail.” I think that’s my approach to conversation. Even when you’re hyper-aware of conversation dynamics, you have to remember the true delight of being with another human mind, and never lose the magic of being together. Think ahead, but once you’re talking, let it all go and just wail. Reading your book, I learned that a good way to enliven a conversation is to ask someone why they are passionate about what they do. So, where does your passion for conversation come from? I have two answers to this question. One is professional. Early in my professorship at Harvard, I had been studying emotions by exploring how people talk about their feelings and the balance between what we feel inside and how we express that to others. And I realised I just had this deep, profound interest in figuring out how people talk to each other about everything, not just their feelings. We now have scientific tools that allow us to capture conversations and analyse them at large scale. Natural language processing, machine learning, the advent of AI – all this allows us to take huge swathes of transcript data and process it much more efficiently. Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox. Sign up to newsletter The personal answer is that I’m an identical twin, and I spent my whole life, from the moment I opened my newborn eyes, existing next to a person who’s an exact copy of myself. It was like observing myself at very close range, interacting with the world, interacting with other people. I could see when she said and did things well, and I could try to do that myself. And I saw when her jokes failed, or she stumbled over her words – I tried to avoid those mistakes. It was a very fortunate form of feedback that not a lot of people get. And then, as a twin, you’ve got this person sharing a bedroom, sharing all your clothes, going to all the same parties and playing on the same sports teams, so we were just constantly in conversation with each other. You reached this level of shared reality that is so incredible, and I’ve spent the rest of my life trying to help other people get there in their relationships, too. “TALK” cleverly captures your framework for better conversations: topics, asking, levity and kindness. Let’s start at the beginning. How should we decide what to talk about? My first piece of advice is to prepare. Some people do this naturally. They already think about the things that they should talk about with somebody before they see them. They should lean into this habit. Some of my students, however, think it’s crazy. They think preparation will make the conversation seem rigid and forced and overly scripted. But just because you’ve thought ahead about what you might talk about doesn’t mean you have to talk about those things once the conversation is underway. It does mean, however, that you always have an idea waiting for you when you’re not sure what to talk about next. Having just one topic in your back pocket can help you in those anxiety-ridden moments. It makes things more fluent, which is important for establishing a connection. Choosing a topic is not only important at the start of a conversation. We’re constantly making decisions about whether we should stay on one subject, drift to something else or totally shift gears and go somewhere wildly different. Sometimes the topic of conversation is obvious. Even then, knowing when to switch to a new one can be trickyMartin Parr/Magnum Photos What’s your advice when making these decisions? There are three very clear signs that suggest that it’s time to switch topics. The first is longer mutual pauses. The second is more uncomfortable laughter, which we use to fill the space that we would usually fill excitedly with good content. And the third sign is redundancy. Once you start repeating things that have already been said on the topic, it’s a sign that you should move to something else. After an average conversation, most people feel like they’ve covered the right number of topics. But if you ask people after conversations that didn’t go well, they’ll more often say that they didn’t talk about enough things, rather than that they talked about too many things. This suggests that a common mistake is lingering too long on a topic after you’ve squeezed all the juice out of it. The second element of TALK is asking questions. I think a lot of us have heard the advice to ask more questions, yet many people don’t apply it. Why do you think that is? Many years of research have shown that the human mind is remarkably egocentric. Often, we are so focused on our own perspective that we forget to even ask someone else to share what’s in their mind. Another reason is fear. You’re interested in the other person, and you know you should ask them questions, but you’re afraid of being too intrusive, or that you will reveal your own incompetence, because you feel you should know the answer already. What kinds of questions should we be asking – and avoiding? In the book, I talk about the power of follow-up questions that build on anything that your partner has just said. It shows that you heard them, that you care and that you want to know more. Even one follow-up question can springboard us away from shallow talk into something deeper and more meaningful. There are, however, some bad patterns of question asking, such as “boomerasking”. Michael Yeomans [at Imperial College London] and I have a recent paper about this, and oh my gosh, it’s been such fun to study. It’s a play on the word boomerang: it comes back to the person who threw it. If I ask you what you had for breakfast, and you tell me you had Special K and banana, and then I say, “Well, let me tell you about my breakfast, because, boy, was it delicious” – that’s boomerasking. Sometimes it’s a thinly veiled way of bragging or complaining, but sometimes I think people are genuinely interested to hear from their partner, but then the partner’s answer reminds them so much of their own life that they can’t help but start sharing their perspective. In our research, we have found that this makes your partner feel like you weren’t interested in their perspective, so it seems very insincere. Sharing your own perspective is important. It’s okay at some point to bring the conversation back to yourself. But don’t do it so soon that it makes your partner feel like you didn’t hear their answer or care about it. Research by Alison Wood Brooks includes a recent study on “boomerasking”, a pitfall you should avoid to make conversations flowJanelle Bruno What are the benefits of levity? When we think of conversations that haven’t gone well, we often think of moments of hostility, anger or disagreement, but a quiet killer of conversation is boredom. Levity is the antidote. These small moments of sparkle or fizz can pull us back in and make us feel engaged with each other again. Our research has shown that we give status and respect to people who make us feel good, so much so that in a group of people, a person who can land even one appropriate joke is more likely to be voted as the leader. And the joke doesn’t even need to be very funny! It’s the fact that they were confident enough to try it and competent enough to read the room. Do you have any practical steps that people can apply to generate levity, even if they’re not a natural comedian? Levity is not just about being funny. In fact, aiming to be a comedian is not the right goal. When we watch stand-up on Netflix, comedians have rehearsed those jokes and honed them and practised them for a long time, and they’re delivering them in a monologue to an audience. It’s a completely different task from a live conversation. In real dialogue, what everybody is looking for is to feel engaged, and that doesn’t require particularly funny jokes or elaborate stories. When you see opportunities to make it fun or lighten the mood, that’s what you need to grab. It can come through a change to a new, fresh topic, or calling back to things that you talked about earlier in the conversation or earlier in your relationship. These callbacks – which sometimes do refer to something funny – are such a nice way of showing that you’ve listened and remembered. A levity move could also involve giving sincere compliments to other people. When you think nice things, when you admire someone, make sure you say it out loud. This brings us to the last element of TALK: kindness. Why do we so often fail to be as kind as we would like? Wobbles in kindness often come back to our egocentrism. Research shows that we underestimate how much other people’s perspectives differ from our own, and we forget that we have the tools to ask other people directly in conversation for their perspective. Being a kinder conversationalist is about trying to focus on your partner’s perspective and then figuring what they need and helping them to get it. Finally, what is your number one tip for readers to have a better conversation the next time they speak to someone? Every conversation is surprisingly tricky and complex. When things don’t go perfectly, give yourself and others more grace. There will be trips and stumbles and then a little grace can go very, very far. Topics:
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    522
    2 Yorumlar 0 hisse senetleri 0 önizleme
Arama Sonuçları
CGShares https://cgshares.com