Researchers Reveal Climbing a Tree Can Improve Cognitive Skills
From press release:
“Climbing a tree and balancing on a beam can dramatically improve cognitive skills, according to a study recently conducted by researchers in the Department of Psychology at the University of North Florida.
The study (…) show that proprioceptively dynamic activities, like climbing a tree, done over a short period of time have dramatic working memory benefits. Working Memory, the active processing of information, is linked to performance in a wide variety of contexts from grades to sports.
The results (…) suggest working memory improvements can be made in just a couple of hours of these physical exercises. (…)
Proprioception, the awareness of body positioning and orientation, is associated with working memory. (…)
In the study, such activities included climbing trees, walking and crawling on a beam (…) , and researchers found that their working memory capacity had increased by 50 percent, a dramatic improvement.
The researchers also tested two control groups (…) in a lecture (…) [and] a yoga class (…) , neither control group experienced working memory benefits.
Proprioceptively dynamic training may place a greater demand on working memory than either control condition because as environment and terrain changes, the individual recruits working memory to update information to adapt appropriately. Though the yoga control group engaged in proprioceptive activities that required awareness of body position, it was relatively static as they performed the yoga postures in a small space, which didn’t allow for locomotion or navigation.(…) ”
For more information about the study, visit http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26029969.
“Altruistic Horizons: Our tribal natures, the ‘fear effect’ and the end of ideologies” By David Brin
“In fact, while the models of Freud, Marx, and Machiavelli (also Madison, Keynes, Hayek, Gandhi etc.) attracted followers, I think a stronger case can be made for tribalism as a driver of history.
Shouldn’t any theory of our nature apply across the long span when that nature formed? Indeed, Freud, Marx and Rand shared cluelessness about Darwinian evolution, animal behavior, pre-agricultural anthropology, or ethology.
(…) Over and over, we see how devotion to a group, clan, or nation overwhelms individual self-interest. Indeed, for most of the last million years, any man or woman who lost the faith and confidence of his or her tribe was in great danger. Often effectively dead.
Ask any kid between the ages of ten and nineteen—how urgently youneeded approval of a small group of friends, coincidentally about the same size as a prototypical Cro-Magnon tribal band. And if that group turned on you, remember the pain?
Sure, parents tell their kids—“Don’t worry, you’ll make new friends.” At one level, in the rational prefrontal lobes, we know this to be true. And yet, the gut still wrenches, as if life were on the line… which it would have been, back in olden days, if the tribe ejected you from its circle of comradeship.
Oh, but humans can be very flexible defining what is “my tribe.” More often than not, the major determining factor is fear. (…)
1) There is a “Worry Horizon”… what threats concern you and your neighbors. Here we see that worry is quite a different thing than Fear! (…) Fear controls what it is that we are worrying about. And how far we’ll look for it.
2) There is also a “Time Horizon” having to do with how far into the future you devote your attention (…) The better, more productive and secure civilization (…) empowers you to look farther, to more distant, dangerous horizons.
3) Another might be called the “Otherness Horizon” – where one looks not for danger but for opportunities, adventures, new allies, new mating partners. (…)
This could also be called the “Horizon of Inclusion” since it is partly about deciding how many people you want to deal with as worthy fellow citizens and negotiating partners, and where you draw the line, calling others foes. …” read full article
Brain Picking’s on Andre Gide’s Journals
Posted on Maria Popova’s Brain Pickings:
“That nebulous notion is what the great French writer André Gide (November 22, 1869–February 19, 1951), who received the Nobel Prize for his “fearless love of truth and keen psychological insight,” explores with precisely such keen psychological insight throughout The Journals of André Gide (public library) — the most cherished of young Susan Sontag’s favorite books, and the same indispensable volume that gave us Gide on the vital balance of freedom and restraint and what it really means to be yourself.
Gide was one of history’s many celebrators of the creative benefits of keeping a diary, but what makes his journals particularly compelling is his dedicated discourse with the nature of the mind itself, constantly contemplating the inner workings of our highest human faculties — originality, the imagination, and the machinery of the creative process.” read full, original post
Sexist men are underperformers. Again. Again, scientifically proven.
Researchers Michael M. Kasumovic and Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff published “Insights into Sexism: Male Status and Performance Moderates Female-Directed Hostile and Amicable Behaviour“.
” Although social constructionist theory argues that sexism is a response towards women entering a male dominated arena, this perspective doesn’t explain why only a subset of males behave in this way. (…)
We hypothesised that female-initiated disruption of a male hierarchy incites hostile behaviour from poor performing males who stand to lose the most status. To test this hypothesis, we used an online first-person shooter video game that removes signals of dominance but provides information on gender, individual performance, and skill.
We show that lower-skilled players were more hostile towards a female-voiced teammate, especially when performing poorly. In contrast, lower-skilled players behaved submissively towards a male-voiced player in the identical scenario. This difference in gender-directed behaviour became more extreme with poorer focal-player performance.
We suggest that low-status males increase female-directed hostility to minimize the loss of status as a consequence of hierarchical reconfiguration resulting from the entrance of a woman into the competitive arena.
Higher-skilled players, in contrast, were more positive towards a female relative to a male teammate. As higher-skilled players have less to fear from hierarchical reorganization, we argue that these males behave more positively in an attempt to support and garner a female player’s attention.
Our results provide the clearest picture of inter-sexual competition to date, highlighting the importance of considering an evolutionary perspective when exploring the factors that affect male hostility towards women.” check the full paper