A memo circulated by a Google engineer decrying the tech giants diversity efforts as misguided ricocheted around the Internet over the weekend. The manifesto, which accuses the company of pushing its ideological biases on its employees, drew scorn almost everyplace its landed, and triggered a response from Googles vice president of diversity.

The memo is illuminating, in part because it reveals how a segment of the tech industry still feels about the value and importance of diversity. It also demonstrates how biological determinism, the idea that human behavior is innate and rooted in evolution, remains a potent organizing philosophy.

The author, who remains anonymous, argues that the under-representation of women in Silicon Valley can be attributed to biological differences between men and women; that men are more competitive than women; and this is a truth universal across human cultures.

Except its not.

In a fascinating and ambitious 2009 study (pdf), a team of economists from the universities of Chicago and Maryland set out to determine if competition was a function of nature or nurture, using a simple field experiment in two dramatically different cultures. One experiment took place among the Khasi people of Meghalaya, a region of northeastern India, where property and status is inherited through women, and men are expected to work on behalf of their wives and her family. The other was conducted in the Arusha region of Tanzania among the Maasai people, a strict patriarchal society, where women have few rights.

In both countries, about 80 men and women were asked to toss a tennis ball into basket about 10 ft away 10 times, and told they were matched with another, anonymous participant, also playing the same game. They were given a choice of a simple payment for the taskabout 40 US centsor they could earn three times as much if they beat they the other player. Among the Maasai, half the men chose to compete, while only a quarter of the women chose to. Among the Khasi, not only were the results reversed, but Khasi women were even more competitive than the Maasai men: 54% of the women opted to compete, as did 39% of the Khasi men.

Setting aside all the anecdotal evidence that women can be as aggressive as menor more soin a range of domains from sports to politics to business, the study seems to offer hard proof that competition isnt based in biology, but culture. In a society where women control their communitys wealth, theyre more competitive then men.

Authors Uri Gneezy, Kenneth Leonard, and John List are quick to point out the limitations of study that looks at just two societies, and they note there are lots of factors that could lead to the Khasis matrilineal culture, including genetics that favor competition in women. But they do conclude it is not universally true that the average female in every society avoids competition more often than the average male in that society because we have discovered at least one setting in which this is not true.

Explaining away differences as biological is appealingly simple. Its much easier to shrug off disparities in power and status as the fault of genes, than to confront the much more complicated reasons of customs, institutions, laws, and regulations that created them.

Read this next: 12 things employers can do to improve gender equality at their workplaces

Continue reading here:
This is the study that definitely proves men aren't born more competitive than women - Quartz

A van in Arlington, Va., being used by Virginia Tech as part of a study on driverless technology. (Twitter Photo via @AdamTuss)

As a trusted journalist with years of experience in the profession, I never thought about just saying, Im with the news, dude, as a way to get a subject to talk. But my tactics might change after watching reporter Adam Tuss in action.

Tuss, with NBCs News4 out of Washington, D.C., was on the trail of what appeared to be a driverless vehicle in Arlington, Va., on Monday. Autonomous vehicle technology on public roadways is still a pretty big deal, so Tuss was certainly chasing a worthy story.

Videos by Tuss on Twitter did indeed appear to show a grey 2017 Ford Transit Connect heading down rainy streets in the Virginia suburb with no one behind the wheel. Tuss and a colleague followed the van for 20 minutes, according to a story on NBC Washington.

But when Tuss approached the stopped vehicle, he discovered that a human was doing the driving. And that human was disguised like one of the vans seats, operating the steering wheel through the bottom of the costume.

Brother, who are you? What are you doing? Im with the news, dude, Tuss said. Dude, can you pull over and we can talk for a second?

The drivers seat didnt reply, but Tuss tracked down the answers he was looking for when the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute replied to inquiries and said Monday that the van and driver are part of a study being conducted around driverless cars.

The drivers seating area is configured to make the driver less visible within the vehicle, while still allowing him or her the ability to safely monitor and respond to surroundings, the institute said in a statement to News4.

Virginia Tech provides more information online about what it hopes to achieve with the study, including studying human behavior in the presence of new technology in the real world.

Seems like this TV reporter just provided some valuable data.

Read the original post:
'I'm with the news, dude' watch this TV reporter try to figure out what's up with a 'driverless' car - GeekWire

On July 24, the president addressed the Boy Scouts of America during their quadrennial Jamboree in West Virginia. Would that he had offered these personal reflections to the assembled Scouts and for legions more across the country.

I admire the Boy Scouts of America, he might have begun. I applaud your long history of service to our society and nation and I believe all of America could benefit now if each of us aspired to live out your 12 Scout Laws.

A Scout is Trustworthy. I can see the value in that. Saying what you mean and meaning what you say go a long way in getting others to believe they can rely on your words. When you say one thing, act another, and then deny that you ever said the thing everybody knows you said, it makes people leery of relying on you. That creates problems for you and others.

A Scout is Loyal. I value loyalty. Some people say its a two-way street and you must give loyalty to get loyalty. Maybe so, but thats hard work. Still, anything worth having is worth working for, including earning respect.

A Scout is Helpful. We should all look for opportunities to help others in need. The world is a difficult place and not everyone begins life with advantages we may enjoy. Rather than kicking them aside as failures, it is better, I think, to help them lift themselves up.

A Scout is Friendly. We all need friends, people who like to be around us because we have developed a mutual respect, people who come to our aid when we need them. To have a friend, be a friend. You cannot just command people to like you, no matter how much money and power you have.

A Scout is Courteous. As a young lad, our first president, George Washington, copied for his penmanship lessons and his development of character a series of guidelines titled Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation. Perhaps we should all read those from time to time.

A Scout is Kind. Psychologists will tell you human behaviors arise from only three emotions: fear, anger, and sadness. Joy and kindness, of course, are our natural states when we remove those other three. When you are not acting out of kindness, stop and ask yourself: Of what am I afraid? At what am I angry? Why am I sad? People will like you more when you are kinder.

A Scout is Obedient. Doing the right thing is always important; its paramount. Being obedient to the rule of law and to the United States Constitution are what keep us free of dictators and authoritarian rulers. And, yes, that could happen here. Be vigilant.

A Scout is Cheerful. People like to be around others who are hopeful and optimistic. Complaining is easy. It is the favorite refuge of the uninformed. It requires no imagination and is soon quite tiresome to others.

A Scout is Thrifty. In this world, you have two ways to be rich: have a lot of money or dont have many needs. Choosing how to manage your wants so they dont become the needs that control your life is all part of maturing into adulthood.

A Scout is Brave. Standing up for justice is not easy. Youll need courage. Standing up to bullies and liars are the times in your life you will recall with the greatest sense of accomplishment and personal pride.

A Scout is Clean. Falling prey to temptation is part of being human, but you are called to rise above those behaviors which will embarrass you and your family and bring shame on your household. Character is who you are in the dark, when no one is looking, when no one can see you.

A Scout is Reverent. We all have a relationship with some concept of the origins of mankind. But know this: there is a God and you are not it. Humility is what makes us human.

No action is more important for any president than to encourage the future of this great nation, the president might have concluded. You Scouts and all those who will come after you are part of the fabric of our future as the United States of America. I may not live out the 12 Scout Laws, he might have acknowledged, but if you love America, you will, every day. And, America thanks you, he could have said to great applause.

Randell Jones is anEagle Scout, earned in 1965. He is the author of several history books, including "From Time to Time in North Carolina" and "Thumped by History." He lives in Winston-Salem.

See more here:
Randell Jones: Scouting for character - Winston-Salem Journal

What if someone could figure out when, where and why traffic accidents occur and stop them from happening? Someone has.

Since the dawn of the automobile age, traffic accidents have been widely accepted as a tragicbut inevitableside effect of modern life. Thanks to mobile phones, the problem is getting worse, not better. Traffic fatalities are creeping up again after decades of decline. More than 40,000 Americans were killed in car accidents in 2016, a 14 percent rise since 2014, according to the National Safety Council. Thats the biggest two-year surge in five decades.

Despite the severe toll, there has been a curious lack of urgency from the public and policymakers to do something about it. Officials attempting to address the problemtraffic engineers, police officers, policymakers, public health specialistsare working with information gathered after the fatalities and injuries have already occurred, often without reliable data, resources, or much political support.

A global movement called Vision Zero takes a radically different approach. Its premise is that traffic deaths and severe injuries are all preventable and sets the goal of eliminating both in a set time frame with clear, measurable strategies. Launched in Sweden two decades ago and widely adopted in many European cities, the Vision Zero approach has finally taken off in American cities.

Ten early adopter U.S. cities have joined the new Vision Zero Focus Cities program, launched by the Vision Zero Network. The ten cities are Austin, Boston. Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Los Angles, New York, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C.

For a number of years, vehicle fleet managers, insurance companies and others have used a combination of On Board Diagnostic devices and GPS technology devicesmounted on each vehicle to pinpoint the location of their vehicles in near real time. The ODB enabled locator can also access vehicle diagnostic interface data, track speed and location, as well as detect hard braking, cornering, acceleration and capture pre and post-impact data.

What OCDs are not good at is analyzing driver behavior which, as it happens, is the most important factor of all in predicting and preventing crashes before they happen. Some 93% of collisions on the road are due to human error. One in four crashes is the result of phone use while driving.

In 2013, Jonathan Matus, who helped turn Googles Android into the worlds dominant mobile software and later led the launch of Facebooks mobile platform, teamed up with another Google engineer, Pankaj Risbood to found Zendrive, a tech company that uses sensors in smartphones to capture, analyze and then coach a driver on what they can do to be safer while behind the wheel.

Phones enabled with the Zendrives technology can relay data not only about when drivers are looking at their phones, but also how fast theyre driving at any given moment, or if they make hard turns at intersections. It detects collisions, aggressive driving, distracted driving, and more, including whether youve recently stopped at a pub.

In its short existence, Zendrive has collected and analyzed 15 billion miles of anonymized driving data. Progressive, a leader in insurance telematics, took nearly two decades to reach the same number of miles analyzed.

Largest Distracted Driver Survey

In April, Zendrive released the results of a three-month analysis of three-million anonymous U.S. drivers, making up 570-million trips and covering 5.6 billion miles. The key findings were both astounding and alarming:

In an interview with Forbes, CEO Jonathan Matus said: We were surprised to find that this risky behavior is so common. Almost 9 out of 10 car trips have some form of distracting phone use. This is truly an epidemic. It is more widespread than most people realize, and it parallels an overall trend: the number of crashes and fatalities on the road is growing at double-digit rate for the past few years. This is something we cannot ignore.

Vision Zero, Zendrive and New York City

Zendrive is working closely with New York City in its Vision Zero goal which aims to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries in New York City by 2024. In partnership with New York Universitys Tandon School of Engineering, Zendrive is using its 15-billion miles of data for predictive analytics to determine where collisions are likely to occur before they happen. (PDF)

NYU analyzed and mapped 33,450 risky driving events collected by Zendrive between July and December 2015 and 127,423 collisions reported by the NYPD between July 2012 and March 2017. During those four-plus years, over 1,200 people were killed in traffic on New York City streets.

By analyzing and mapping the data, NYU researchers found mappable correlations between driver behavior data and NYPD crash data. No real surprise here but they determined that the areas where people drive recklessly are the same areas where there are collisions. This means that it is possiblewith the right mix of interventionsto stop reckless driving before it causes collisions, injuries and deaths.

They mapped the two datasets and compared the locations and density of the events in each category. Among the useful correlations:

You cant ignore the irony that a company founded by a guy who has done as much as anyone to make mobile phones ubiquitous is now using them to save lives, but Zendrive is one of those companies that arrived in the right place with the right product at exactly the right moment.

Although OBD data collected directly from the vehicles computer is marginally more accurate in measuring the vehicles performance, it is fairly oblivious to reckless human behavior by drivers and, in the end, that is the cause of most accidents and what Zendrive measures best.

Driven in large part by young bicyclists and runners who want to claim their share of the road from dangerous automobiles, public safety initiatives like Vision Zero are becoming more visible and more popular. As with campaigns to reduce drunk driving and initiatives to increase recycling, changing cultural attitudes and ensuring political and individual accountability can make a dramatic difference.

Zendrive provides real-time big data that allows city planners to focus on mitigating the most dangerous behaviors before they result in fatalities and injuries.

And, of course, theres the companys technology bloodlines. If Zendrive were a race horse, Id put down a couple of bucks.

An earlier version of this article appeared on the technology expert blog Diginomica.

Image credit - via Zendrive

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read more:
This Smartphone App Can (Literally) Save Your Life - HuffPost

For a dissenting view from one of our editorial board members, see below.

Our neighbors to the northwest are trying something that we can watch and learn from and then take for our own use.

Washington states new law covering driving under the influence of electronics took effect July 23. Drivers face a $136 fine for a first offense $234 for additional offenses within five years if they are seen holding or using a handheld device or watching a video while driving.

The law permits drivers the minimal use of a finger to activate an app for a device in a cradle or built into the car what one Washingtonian we know described as the one-swipe rule.

Will Washingtons new law work? Is it enough? Is it too much? Were about to find out. And thats good for Idaho, which took a good step in 2012 to ban texting while driving. But technology and human behavior have evolved, and our gadgets have proliferated. Idaho law needs to keep pace.

We dont think Washington has it all figured out, but we like the experiment unfolding there. Doing nothing as the plague of distracted driving swells is not a good option.

According to The Seattle Times, 156 of that states 537 roadway deaths in 2016 were blamed on distractions of all kinds. In Idaho in 2014, more than one in five fatalities involved a distracted driver, although the Idaho data arent broken down by distraction. Cellphone use and abuse is notoriously hard to track or to get people to be honest about. But we do know this: After seeing serious crashes and fatalities decrease per miles traveled in Idaho from 2010 to 2014, both are now ticking up.

So, Idaho legislators, lets do this when you convene in 2018: Hold a hearing. Invite Washingtons state patrol and other experts to come tell us how its going. Ask Idahos best state police and Department of Transportation brains to weigh in with their expertise and recommendations. Lets get the best Idaho data and look at Idaho tweaks. Then ask citizens.

Is the Washington approach best? Should Idaho instead make electronics an aggravating factor your penalty multiplies if you are involved in an accident or other offense while driving under the influence of electronics? Is one swipe enough? Too much?

Should we keep Idahos existing exemption for texting at a stoplight? We think its a reasonable provision and one that Washingtons new law doesnt permit.

Each of us can quibble and suggest how wed like to see the law shaped. So lets do that. And then lets put the toughest, smartest bill we can into law.

Its well established that our right to absolute freedom ends at the steering wheel. And no driver is free to be careless with the lives of other people on the road.

Yet we drivers dont recognize how our own habits put others at risk. If you have any doubt, sit at any parking lot exit and watch drivers zip past with phones glued to ears or fingers tapping away. Add the phone to the already busy, distracted driving world in which we eat, drink, brush hair, apply makeup or change clothes, and were multiplying our chances for bad outcomes.

One of these days, technology will be so good and so smooth that many of these issues will be moot. Your car will call home, order dinner, turn on Netflix and schedule your massage. Fumbling with a smart phone will be a quaint memory, like setting the stylus on the phonograph or getting up to change the TV channel.

But thats not today. We need to make setting the phone aside as common and as accepted as fastening our seat belts or buckling the kids into the car seats. To do that, lets crib from Washington state.

Talk about a slippery slope: You cant legislate away distracted driving

I closely follow the happenings in my home state, but the absurdity of Washingtons far-reaching legislative approach to the distracted driving issue is dumbfounding to me.

Since reading up on this issue, Ive taken special note of what distracts me while driving, and two of my main distractions are not addressed: dancing to awesome tunes and balking at strange behavior in the park. My point is that humans are given to distraction, and legislating down to the finger swipe is overreaching and restrictive to individual freedoms without accomplishing the underlying goal of curtailing distracted driving.

In terms of the slippery slope argument, Washington is on a 36-degree incline and in the process of applying a second coat of WD-40.

It is more effective and very possible to influence behavior without excessive legislation. Just look at the decline of cigarette use over the past 50 years. This was accomplished through a combination of incentives and strategic penalties in various areas of popular culture, not through outlawing tobacco.

Is distracted driving a problem? Yes. Does the solution rest in more legislation? In my opinion, emphatically no.

More:
Hey, Idaho! Let's steal Washington's driving-under-the-influence-of-electronics law - Idaho Statesman

Last week, a retired military commander took over as the White House chief of staff, stepping into a team environment that has been widely described as chaotic. Will Gen. John Kelly make a difference? What weve learned about leadership in my field of firefighting reveals why we must hope so.

On July 6, 1994, 14 wildland firefighters were entrapped by fire and killed in Colorado. The incident rocked the fire service, and the following year the U.S. Forest Service convened the Human Factors Workshop in Missoula, Mont. The aim was summed up by a newspaper headline: After 80 Years of Studying Fire, the Forest Service is Studying Firefighters. It wasnt about pumps, hose or fire behavior, but an evaluation of human behavior. Why do people act (or fail to act) the way they do during stressful, high-tempo operations?

The findings of the workshop spurred the creation of a suite of intense leadership courses for the wildland fire agencies, and a renewed emphasis on risk-management and communication skills. Theres an ongoing effort to institutionalize the practice of effective techniques.

For the past decade, Ive been a leadership instructor/facilitator for both rookies and emergency-service veterans. We draw on experience and wisdom from the military, the business community, the political sphere and social-sciences disciplines.

The courses have been well-received and transformative. At the end of one two-day session that involved heavy use of simulations and tactical decisionmaking games, one student approached me with a telling comment: Well, this is just about life, isnt it?

Exactly. Though we focus on wildland fire and emergency operations, the principles apply across the board.

We talk about power and the different forms in which it manifests. For example, there is position power you hold a job and a title that automatically confer authority. In the fire world, that would be an incident commander or a division supervisor; in the corporate domain, chief executive officer or chairman of the board. Perhaps the highest level of position power in the world is president of the United States.

I frequently find myself analyzing the leadership skills of those with position power. So when Donald Trump became president, I focused on him. The following assessment has nothing to do with political views yours, mine or Trumps. His opinions on immigration, climate change, taxes, health care, etc., are irrelevant to this discussion.

A few years ago, I jotted down the basic tenets of what the fire service considers effective and trustworthy leadership the traits that get the work done without placing people in unacceptably hazardous situations. Judge for yourself which of these is exhibited by President Trump. In no particular order, a leader must:

Recognize that a leader is a servant who holds the welfare of followers as first priority.

Delegate as much as you reasonably can; trust, but verify. Remember you can delegate authority but not responsibility. You share the credit and the blame.

Praise in public; criticize in private.

Admit and own your mistakes; apologize, correct the error and move on.

Seek the input of subordinates and superiors and follow it whenever you can. When their ideas and your ideas are equally legitimate, go with theirs and give them credit.

Follow administrative rules yourself, but make allowances for your people when its justified; do the right thing, even if it bends a rule.

Avoid arrogance in word, deed and demeanor.

Do not mourn failure more is learned from a debacle than from a triumph.

Celebrate the success of your team, but keep your contribution understated. A leader never finally succeeds, but only progresses. You are not done learning and honing your skills until you are retired or dead.

Be honest.

Control your anger. Its natural to be angry, but express it in measured tone and action.

Practice leaders intent task, purpose, end state. Give your team the task (heres what needs to be done); the purpose (heres why it needs to be done) and the end state (heres what success looks like). Then get out of their way. Do not micromanage.

Talk maintain a flow of accurate information up and down the chain of command.

Know yourself. Understand your strengths and capitalize on them; recognize your limitations and find means to mitigate them, usually via the aid of others. Be aware of your personal stress reactions and make them known to your team.

Employ recognition-primed decisionmaking (RPD). Under time pressure, you will make your decisions intuitively, grounded in experience of similar situations.

Cultivate mindfulness. Attention and focus are essential to maintaining effective situation awareness, and therefore to the practice of all of the above.

Made your judgment? As I review that summary, it is my opinion that Trump is lacking in almost every category. He is arrogant, self-serving, dishonest and reckless, and he regularly claims undue credit while shedding any blame. Hes a bully and a narcissist.

I would not trust Donald Trump as a fireground leader. I do not trust him as president. Yet he was fairly elected last November and is, by definition, my president and yours. To claim otherwise is fatuous and unhelpful. Ironically, Trump is one of the few who thought the election was rigged those pesky 3 million voters who cost him the popular vote majority. He claimed without evidence that they were illegal voters, another telling clue to his character.

But though he is my president, that doesnt mean I must follow him.

During one of our leadership courses, we ask students: Why should anyone follow you? The point is that position power alone is not enough to ensure leadership. The best way to lead is to create an environment where people want to follow, as opposed to being compelled to. Leadership is exerting influence, and the best way to influence is by establishing trust. For me, and many millions of others, Trump has utterly failed in that.

There are those who believe (or hope) he will grow into the job. I expressed that hope in these pages last November, but it has evaporated. I doubt he will rise to the challenge.

As the great boxing champion Muhammad Ali noted: The fight is won or lost far away from the witnesses in the gym, and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights.

Trumps character was formed, and fixed, long ago. He certainly didnt wear a mask or a muzzle during the election campaign what we saw was what we got. Why would he change an approach or a persona that got him elected to the presidency? He is convinced of his prowess and infallibility. Trump is now commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world, the occupant of the highest bully pulpit, and is surrounded by so far as I can tell a Cabinet of advisers who are more like him than not. Some are his relatives. To students of history, that sounds an alarm.

This is the type of executive branch the framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind when they devised the checks and balances. When Trump admitted that being president was harder than he thought it would be, constitutional resistance probably played a role. If we are fortunate, the worst damage Trump does will be to the notion that celebrity, notoriety and financial ruthlessness qualify you for high office. But I suspect it will be messier and more painful than that.

One of the finest leaders to wield the awesome position power of the president of the United States was Dwight D. Eisenhower. He exhibited almost all of the traits listed above a signal and mature achievement. He said, You do not lead by hitting people over the head. Thats assault, not leadership.

Perhaps Gen. Kelly can get that across to his boss?

I take some comfort in Trumps low public-approval rating. As another skilled leader, Abraham Lincoln, noted in his first inaugural address: While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of weakness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short span of four years.

I hope our virtue and vigilance prevail. And I hope Lincoln was right.

Peter M. Leschak, of Side Lake, Minn., is a 36-year fire service veteran, both wildland and municipal, and author of Ghosts of the Fireground and other books. The opinions expressed here are solely his own.

Read the original post:
My president? Yes. My leader? No. - Minneapolis Star Tribune

GREENSBURG Now if you are unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve . . . but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord. Joshua 24:15

Over the past few years I have noticed a trend with human behavior that I find unsettling. I will say that I dont expect everyone to share the same values that I was raised with or that I subscribe to.

Just the other day I am sitting in a parking lot waiting on my wife when I hear a commotion about four parking aisles over. It appeared to be a mom with a child in her arms under two years of age and a little girl about six years old. I heard this mom yelling loudly: Get in the #%$ &%$! car. It was obvious this woman did not have time to buckle her little one in a car seat as she drove off as soon as she entered the vehicle.

I have observed other behaviors like this one in recent times and I find it disturbing. It leads one to think that respect and appropriate behavior has not been taught in the homes of many of those who are now parents.

Dont get me wrong, I know, first hand, how difficult children can be at times. They have a tendency to push a parents buttons. Granted, its tough raising kids. Always has been, always will be. They dont come with a personalized manual but, we do have the Bible as a guide. Todays scripture passage from Joshua is a good example of making a determination of setting the course for a family.

It seems apparent there are those who decide to not serve the Lord. Who do you choose to allow into your life? With Christ we find a relationship that will steer us on a course of life that helps us to stay away from the evil way.

Thats not to suggest everything will be perfect and smooth but, when we make a decision to follow Our Lord it sure gives us a resource to find strength in troubling times. Lets face it readers, there are times when something comes along that you have to just, offer it up.

Life isnt easy. My heart goes out to people like this mom I told you about. It was clear that she had not learned some parenting skills that could turn a bad situation into one that is more livable.

If there are any pastors who read this column, how well are you doing with providing some resource for parents? If you are a parent, are you searching for ways to better handle those hot times with your children?

For those of you who are older ladies, heres what the book of Titus says about what you can provide to society.

Titus 2:3 says: the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things

It seems clear that those of us who are older and have life experience certainly have something to offer to the younger people. I know, it seems that we beat our heads against the wall but, know that presenting Christ through your living will be seen and eventually understood.

Remember hearing this? Your life is the only Bible some people will ever read.

More:
Who do you serve? - Greensburg Daily News

The traditional American breakfast is a high-carb affair, with its heaping dishes of pancakes, waffles, toast, cereal. It may affect not just our waistlines, but also who we are.

In a recent study at the University of Lbeck in Germany, scientists asked participants about what they ate in the morning, then had them play the ultimatum game a common experiment that measures how much people tolerate unfairness. In essence, they were trying to test whether human behavior is subject to a well-known clich: Are we what we eat?

Advertisement

We wanted to know whether our decision-making or thoughts might depend on what weve eaten, said So Young Park, a professor of social psychology and neuroscience at the University of Lbeck. We eat three times a day. And you can imagine that, if we change our behavior depending on our food, that would be quite striking information.

The ultimatum game puts study participants in an uncomfortable scenario. Players A and B are told that there is $10, but Player A must decide how the money is split between them. Scientists asked their study participants to act as Player B and watched how they reacted to lopsidedly unfair offers, such as being offered $1 out of $10. Study participants were told that, if they decided to reject an offer, neither person would take home any money at all.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

In theory, the respondent should accept any offer greater than zero, no matter how small, because its better than nothing, said Tobias Kalenscher, a professor of comparative psychology at the University of Dsseldorf. But respondents often would rather have nothing than live with an unfair deal.

The schools dining staff aims to become a national model for affordable, high-volume sourcing of locally grown food.

Though even a $2 offer could mean a nice doughnut for the next morning, scientists found that participants with high-carb breakfasts rejected unfair offers 40 percent more often than those with high-protein breakfasts.

We could see a very tremendous difference in these people, Park said. In a second experiment, breakfast was fed directly to study participants before they played the ultimatum game. Scientists found similar results, as well as differences in participants blood samples.

Advertisement

High-carb people had lower tyrosine levels. And the lower the tyrosine levels, the higher the rejection rate, Kalenscher explained. Tyrosine is an amino acid that acts as a precursor for dopamine, a neurotransmitter that plays a significant role in our brains reward system. But this connection doesnt mean that we should clear out our cupboards and start anew with high-protein, low-carb diets.

You can say that people with high rejection rates are just sensitive to unfair treatment, Kalenscher said. Its absolutely not a bad thing.

The point is that food dictates your choices, Park said. Depending on what you have eaten, your choice is being dramatically modulated that is what were showing. You should really try to have a balanced diet.

View original post here:
How breakfast rewires your brain - The Boston Globe

Many who seek to maintain America as a civilized and moral culture have been deeply troubled by increasing human behavior that doesnt reflect this character.

A recent event demands the response, Enough!

On July 9, Jamel Dunn, age 32, of Cocoa, Florida, drowned in a retention pond. His body was recovered July 14, two days after his fiance reported him missing. A week later, a family friend discovered on social media a video taken by five teenagers, recording the drowning, plus their reactions.

Not only did the teenagers ignore Dunns screams for help; they took great glee in his losing battle, laughing and jeering at his struggle, yelling things like, Nobody is going to help your a--!- to the point when his head finally goes under water, and they shriek, Oh he just died!

The teenagers went unpunished because authorities could find no laws they broke. But as civilized and moral human beings, we know something fundamental was very violated.

Our species of humans survived and thrived while others like Neanderthals did not, because we alone depended upon each other from the beginning. This universal truth is expressed in our Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

These teenagers were raised in American families and educated in American schools. Whatever we may think we taught them, we allowed them to reach adolescence as uncivilized and immoral individuals, which is much worse than being illiterate ones.

If they have no respect for human life, arent they prime candidates for violent crime?

I find them repulsive. But arent they children we failed? Why werent they taught human civility, morality and character?

American education is a crass enterprise, controlled by the interests of business and universities. It has little room or motivation for teaching and inspiring civility, morality and character.

Our schools strongly emphasize academic achievement and test scores. Some try to humanize themselves with social and emotional learning, even character programs. But kids know these are just add-ons that are not connected to the central college/jobs focus.

Families and parentsin the worst shape Ive seen in my 66-year teaching careerbuy into the schools academic focus out of fear their child will lose out in the college competition. Thus parents unwittingly abdicate their moral authority to the school.

Schools and parents are complicit in ignoring the moral development of children. Of course we have many parents, families and teachers who do a fine job in developing children with character, but that is not the norm today.

America was a powerful expression of humanity in civilization, founded on the belief that each individual has a unique potential that is to be valued. American educations first priority should be challenging and supporting every American child. In addition, the family must be an integral part of this process, since in character development, parents are the primary teachers and the home the primary classroom.

This rigorous process will produce self-confident, motivated and moral students with a larger purpose. Their scholarship and maturity will be welcomed by colleges and their drive and personal qualities by employers as well.

Im not describing utopia, just good teaching.

Horace Mann, the father of our public school system, said if he had a year to teach spelling, hed spend the first nine months on motivation. But today weve got a robotic educational system that essentially treats children like a herd of cattle, bombarding them with knowledge until they graduate. It insults their unique potential and Americas basic purpose.

There is a better way. I founded a school 51 years ago to test the educational focus on unique potential and character development; we helped the concept spread to public schools. Today we see thousands of graduates and their parents lead meaningful and fulfilling lives of honor.

The key to our success: Teaching children and their parents to discover their unique potential and character, and to value that learning process. This is what is missing from educationand our culture today.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Visit link:
Our American Character is Under Siege - HuffPost

A while back I wrote a column entitled, Is War Our Nature? (5.20.16). In it, I discussed a then-recent archeological discovery revealing that the earliest warfare among humans was believed to have taken place around ten thousand years ago. The rhetorical question that I asked in that column was: Are we humans predisposed to war and violence since our history, as a species, is replete with it? In other words, is war part of our nature?

That very question leads to the time-tested issue of whether we humans are born with a nature, or set of instincts. The issue is termed, nature versus nurture. When we are born, are we genetically preprogrammed to behave in certain ways, such as to be violent, or do we learn our behavior from other people, such as our parents? One of the prevailing theories on the nurture side of the issue is called the blank slate. According to blank slate reasoning, a developing human brain has no predetermined information, or instincts. The child is, thus, born with a blank slate that will be filled with information through the learning process. Of course, as our technology improves and we learn more about the prenatal development process, we are beginning to understand that some learning may take place prior to birth.

The most convincing evidence supporting the blank slate theory, at least with respect to violence, is that not everyone is violent. If humans were preprogrammed to be violent, we would all be violent. Since we are not all violent, some of us must learn violence and some of us do not. Problem solved.

If only questions involving human behavior were that simple. Getting back to that ten-thousand-year-old battle, evidence from the site suggested that one of the warring parties had traveled quite a distance in order to engage in that battle. This was no spur-of-the-moment anger reaction. My guess is, also, that it was not an isolated event. Because we have not found evidence of prior warfare does not mean that such evidence does not exist. It simply means that we have not found it.

What we know for certain is that people were conducting organized, group warfare at least ten thousand years ago. We do not know why they were fighting, nor do we know how or why they learned to fight. There is much that can be surmised but very little that can be established with any degree of certainty. There are lessons to be learned from those unfortunate nomadic hunter-gatherers who fought that day, however. What we, in the 21st century, CE, can learn from those people and those events ten thousand years ago will have to wait for next weeks column. In the meanwhile, be well, be kind, and may God bless you.

Read more:
The Veterans' Chaplain: Nature or Nature - Theadanews