Monkeys Have a Human-like Thirst for Knowledge?

Monkeys are notoriously curious, and new research has quantified just how eager they are to gain new information, even if there are not immediate benefits. The findings offer insights into how a certain part of the brain shared by monkeys and humans plays a role in decision making, and perhaps even in some disorders and addictions in humans.

The study, by researchers at the University of Rochester and Columbia University, shows that rhesus macaques have such robust curiosity that they are willing to give up a surprisingly large portion of a potential prize in order to quickly find out if they selected the winning option at a game of chance.

link.

Spin Matters for Influencing Apes Just Like Humans

Humans aren't the only species to be influenced by spin. Our closest primate relatives are susceptible, too.

For example, people are known to rate a burger as more tasty when it is described as "75 percent lean" than when it is described as "25 percent fat," even though that's the same thing. And they're more willing to recommend a medical procedure when they are told it has a 50 percent success rate than when they are told it has a 50 percent chance of failure -- again, exactly the same thing.

A Duke University study has found that positive and negative framing make a big difference for chimpanzees and bonobos too.

In experiments conducted at Tchimpounga Chimpanzee Sanctuary in the Republic of Congo and Lola ya Bonobo Sanctuary in the Democratic Republic of Congo, researchers presented 23 chimpanzees and 17 bonobos with a choice between two snacks -- a handful of nuts and some fruit.

In one series of trials, the researchers framed the fruit option positively -- by offering one piece of fruit, with a 50 percent chance of a surprise bonus piece.

In another series of trials, the researchers framed the fruit option negatively. This time they offered two pieces of fruit rather than one, but if the apes chose the fruit, half the time they were shortchanged and received only one piece instead.

Chimps and bonobos were more likely to choose the fruit over the nuts when they were offered a smaller amount of fruit but sometimes got more, versus when they were initially offered more but sometimes got less -- despite receiving equal average payoffs in both scenarios.

The preference for the option framed as a prize rather than a penalty was especially strong in males, the researchers found.

link.

Apes and Humans Have the Same Sort of Empathy

Whether or not humans are the only empathic beings is still under debate. In a new study, researchers directly compared the 'yawn contagion' effect between humans and bonobos (our closest evolutionary cousins). By doing so they were able to directly compare the empathic abilities of ourselves with another species, and found that a close relationship between individuals is more important to their empathic response than the fact that individuals might be from the same species.

The ability to experience others' emotions is hard to quantify in any species, and, as a result, it is difficult to measure empathy in an objective way. The transmission of a feeling from one individual to another, something known as 'emotional contagion,' is the most basic form of empathy. Feelings are disclosed by facial expressions (for example sorrow, pain, happiness or tiredness), and these feelings can travel from an "emitting face" to a "receiving face." Upon receipt, the mirroring of facial expressions evokes in the receiver an emotion similar to the emotion experienced by the sender.

link.

The Robopolapypse may get Parental Controls

Older adults' fears that companion robots will negatively affect young people may create design challenges for developers hoping to build robots for older users, according to Penn State researchers.

Companion robots provide emotional support for users and interact with them as they, for example, play a game, or watch a movie.

Older adults reported in a study that while they were not likely to become physically and emotionally dependent on robots, they worried that young people might become too dependent on them, said T. Franklin Waddell, a doctoral candidate in mass communications. Those surveyed also indicated that although they were not worried about being negatively affected by robots, the adults would still resist using the devices.

"We've seen this type of effect, which is usually referred to as a third-person effect, with different types of media, such as video games and television, but this is the first time we have seen the effect in robotics," said Waddell. "According to a third person effect, a person says they are not as negatively affected by the media as other people."

The researchers, who presented their findings today (April 30) at the Association for Computing Machinery's Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, said this effect could eventually lead to changes in behavior. For instance, people who believe video games harm young people may tend to avoid the games themselves. Likewise, older adults who believe that companion robots could harm young people may tend to avoid robots.

To compensate for the effect, robot designers may need to consider adding controls that will help adults monitor the use of robots by children, said Waddell, who worked with S. Shyam Sundar, Distinguished Professor of Communications and co-director of the Media Effects Research Laboratory, and Eun Hwa Jung, a doctoral candidate in mass communications.

"Robot designers and developers look at older adults as a central user base for companion robots," said Waddell. "This effect is something they should consider when designing the interface for the robots to make sure, for example, that the robot includes some type of parental controls."

Robots with parental controls may convince adults that they can own and use robots and still protect children from their fears that the devices might lead to laziness and dependency.

link.

What Happens When a Guaranteed Income is Provided for Poor Children?

Growing up poor has long been associated with reduced educational attainment and lower lifetime earnings. Some evidence also suggests a higher risk of depression, substance abuse and other diseases in adulthood. Even for those who manage to overcome humble beginnings, early-life poverty may leave a lasting mark, accelerating aging and increasing the risk of degenerative disease in adulthood.

Today, more than one in five American children live in poverty. How, if at all, to intervene is almost invariably a politically fraught question. Scientists interested in the link between poverty and mental health, however, often face a more fundamental problem: a relative dearth of experiments that test and compare potential interventions.

So when, in 1996, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina’s Great Smoky Mountains opened a casino, Jane Costello, an epidemiologist at Duke University Medical School, saw an opportunity. The tribe elected to distribute a proportion of the profits equally among its 8,000 members. Professor Costello wondered whether the extra money would change psychiatric outcomes among poor Cherokee families.

link.

Does Money Make You Mean? In the SF Bay Area, at least, YES!

Americans are Weird...

...or why college students from the West are not representative of the Humanity at large.  Not even psychologically.

Read the essay.  Read the paper.

This is actually pretty important...at least for us

A bit of a preface...

My family, as I have stated here before, has a very long tradition of being soldiers. My great grandfather, grandfather, father and brother all served. We served as a "family battalion" in the Civil War (Tennesseans fighting for the north). We were even exiled from Scotland for being Covenanters back in 1683 when we rose up against the then Dual Scottish/English crown (and like almost all glorious celtic rebellions rose heroically, fought like lions and were crushed thoroughly).

I've pondered that heritage more than a few times: why do we make such good soldiers? Why do we gravitate to the profession whether or not irregardless of our person wealth.

My wife and I are very different people. We often discuss it. One of the thing that came out is that I described that I truly enjoy being around other people...but I don't need to interact with others for me to be fine, even happy. My father was a true loner, but I don't see myself that way.

Then, a few days ago, a friend pointed this out:

IDK if I ought to be very, very worried or not. I'm conflicted whether or not to take a look under the hood as another friend put it. However, the only real benefit from doing so would be to see what I can do to raise my son better. (The fringe benefit is that I get my curiosity satisfied) That alone may be worth it.

IDK when regular postings will continue. I'd like to, but...Too Damned Busy.