tierney

The Harvard School of Public Health that it’s giving its highest honor the Julius B. Richmond Award to Mayor Michael Bloomberg for demonstrating “extraordinary leadership in protecting and promoting the health of New York City’s residents.” How much good Mr. Bloomberg has done for New Yorkers’ health is debatable. But there’s no question he’s been good for the Harvard School of Public Health by promoting the trans-fat notions of its researchers notably Walter Willett the epidemiologist who has been the leading critic of trans fat. Last year as part of the successful campaign to banish trans fat from restaurants. Dr. Willett appeared at a “Trans Fat Free NYC” rally outside the New York City Department of Health. Dr. Willett’s views though are less popular with scientists than with activists as my colleague Gina Kolata in article contrasting the trans-fat “panic du jour” with the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences and other groups of experts. These experts concluded that trans fats haven’t been proven to be significantly worse than saturated fats. But now the trans-fat scare has become a as officials like Mr. Bloomberg go along with the questionable science and are rewarded for it in turn — which will only encourage more public officials to join in. Meanwhile scientists are becoming afraid to speak up. I found that out when I about it last year and kept getting requests to speak off the record. The American Council on Science and Health a private advocacy group encountered similar fears as Elizabeth Whelan the president of ACSH told me: It is extremely obvious to us that the biggest recent cascade of all is trans fat mania. What a gift that was for the food industry. They know that the majority of people who see “no trans fats” on a label think it means reduced in calories–or in some way is just healthier. We at ACSH interviewed 10 top lipid specialists about trans fats and “artery clogging” effects—and all of them agreed with the ACSH position (that the trans fat mania is based on hype). But none of them wanted to be quoted. Amazing. As part of an overall effort to reduce risk factors for heart disease advice to the public to limit consumption of both saturated fatty acids and TFAs by substituting polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fats whenever possible is justified by the scientific evidence. Scare tactics including claims that there should be zero tolerance for TFAs in the food supply are not justified. Overstating the health effects of TFAs is harmful to public health because it promotes an overemphasis on this single dietary factor as opposed to other aspects of diet other risk factors for coronary heart disease and other public health priorities. By drawing attention away from other more significant health risks the current exaggerated focus on TFAs may actually cause more problems than it solves. 1) Have you noticed any effects on food in New York restaurants as a result of the trans fat ban? My eight-year-old son reports that McDonald’s french fries are worse in New York than in other places but I don’t hold up that as a rigorous finding. 2) What does an award from the Harvard School of Public Health mean these days? Mr. Bloomberg’s predecessors include Erin Brockovich the environmental activist. When she won in 2005 the journal that Harvard was criticized for honoring “a symbol of junk science.” (Gina Kolata described the junk science.) At the same time forcing restaurants to put nutritional information (calorie counts trans fat etc) on the menu does not bother me as much because it is giving information to the people to make their informed decisions. That should be the goal of politicians looking to both keep the rights of the individual as well as looking out for the health of the consumer. Is the New York Times required somehow to continue to publish the ascientific rantings of this apologist for every big business practice that clearly (I’ll take Harvard and the rest of the medical community over “private advocacy group” ACSH) jeopardizes public health? Otherwise there’s no excuse for promoting a point of view that is simply not in the best interest of your readership. John replies: This comment like others attacking ACSH contains zero useful information about the science of trans fat but maybe it can serve another purpose in the discussion we’ve had in the Lab this week about Web vitriol. Commenters suggested I moderate more carefully and keep out purely ad hominem attacks. Is this what the commenters have in mind? It doesn’t address the scientific issues and doesn’t produce any evidence against the ACSH study I cite. It does nothing but call ACSH names and demand that its work be censored because it’s “not in the best interest” of Times readers. I’d say this comment isn’t in the interest of this blog’s readers — at least not the ones who value their time and want to read a serious debate about scientific issues. Should I have deleted it? John replies: And should I have mentioned which government agencies or private foundations or corporations finance Dr. Willett’s work and the Harvard School of Public Health and the activists who put on the rally against trans fat? If you have a criticism of the ACSH position — I gave you the link to its study — try addressing the science. The American Council on Science and Health is indeed a “private advocacy group.” But Mr. Tierney should have mentioned that it is a group partly funded by the fast food and processed food industries both of which fought against the trans fat ban. The history of the ACSH suggests that it advocates quite publicly and quite vigorously on behalf of the trade groups that fund it. As for the potential harms of trans fats. I suggest that readers consult “Trans Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease,” published in the New England Journal of Medicine on April 13. 2006. If you read that journal article (which had not yet appeared when Gina Kolata wrote her piece for the Times) and you still think that eating trans fats is a good idea. I say bon appetit. John re: your reply in post #2 although that one is low signal-to-noise compared to say. #5 or #6. I don’t think you can reject #2 on the grounds you propose (”It doesn’t address the scientific issues and doesn’t produce any evidence against the ACSH study I cite.”) without also rejecting better posts like #5 on the same grounds. For some readers just the fact that it is a private advocacy group IS evidence against the study and therefore relevant to note. Maybe I’m too jaded but that comment didn’t seem particularly out of line. As far as #5 since it politely presents information that readers of your original post would probably find relevant and useful even if it doesn’t address the point in the manner you would prefer you shouldn’t delete it. Interestingly my answer on #2 might have been different if #2 was posted after #5 or better still. #6 since the later posts make the same point and do it more politely. If posted later. #2 just looks like piling on. Re: your reply to #5 linking to the funding information for (both) studies would be a fantastic step that would really take advantage of the additional dimension that the web can add to articles like this. In print there might not be space to discuss the funding. In a blog you don’t need space you just need a link. Of course it’s more legwork and legwork is what blog comments are great at =). But if you know the funding source link it. There is NOTHING beneficial about hydrogentated fats (tran fats) except that they are cheaper for restaurants to use. They are closely associated with a higher risk for heart attacks. They do not belong in our food any more than lead belongs in our paint. I applaud Michael Bloomberg for standing against big business and enacting this ban for the health fo all New Yorkers. I do believe that at least one heart attack and life will be saved from it. It is shocking that you give so much weight to the pronouncements of a ‘private advocacy group’ lead by a ‘Dr.” (apparently with a degree in public health who if the usual Google search can be credited has spent her post-grad-school life as a freelancer a popular anti-health-fad writer and then as head of that wholesomely-named ‘Council’. The ACSH appears to be largely dedicated to combatting the worrisome conclusions (and admittedly often overblown generalizations of non-scientists) with stridently Foxnewslike salvos of ridicule and denial. You would do better as a journalist separating the wheat from the chaff instead of throwing in ten extra measures of industry-subsidized counter-chaff. Private advocacy groups and ‘think tanks’ tend to have their conclusions before they even see the question and readers can resent the lack of reason objectivity or sense in bon mots prepared by lobbyists and dutifully served up in the Times. So sticking to the science as suggested the Executive Summary (all that is available for free) notes that “TFAs particularly at high levels of intake may also lower levels of desirable high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol an effect that saturated fatty acids do not share.” Which sounds to me like TFA’s may be more harmful than SFAs and therefore should be reasonably minimized. The “Bottom Line” noted above should have stopped at the end of the first sentence as the rest is Public Policy at best; or possibly spin politics or purposeful misdirection and has no place in a scientific paper. I do not know what the right answer is on TFAs but I do know that both sides clearly have an agenda. I for one avoid TFAs and saturated fats. But that McD’s burger and fries sure do taste good! If we remove both the vitriol and the unsupported allegations what is actually left? There are a decent amount of data available but so what? If you gave them to me in a form compatible with my software I could analyze them myself but why should I? And lacking that. I’m forced to rely on the people who get paid to analyze such data. And if THAT becomes a pissing contest over who is the most honest and reliable (given that money sometimes buys opinions but more often does not) we are left with nothing at all. From what I’ve seen transfats clearly are not healthier than other fats the ones we commonly use in food are mostly man-made and cooks for millennia have managed to cook well without them. So getting rid of them is probably a good thing. On the other hand nobody gets out of this alive and the effect on life expectancy of transfats is…although real…probably minuscule. In short this is a dumb discussion. It IS however useful in determining what a smart discussion might be. As for me since everyone should believe in something. I believe I’ll have a drink. The data say it’s good for me. I find it ironic that Mr. Tierney questions whether a comment makes an “ad hominem” warranting deletion while at the same time observing in his piece that “there’s no question [Mayor Bloomberg has] been good for the Harvard School of Public Health by promoting the trans-fat notions of its researchers notably Walter Willett.” Is Mr. Tierney suggesting that Dr. Willett somehow stands to gain personally from the results of the federally funded studies at Harvard? Do all scientists by that logic stand to gain personally by engaging in research? Is all of science then no noble pursuit at all but merely a self-interested endeavor by a group of greedy scientists? Mr Tierney. I say question the science if you want and foster a public debate but leave the scientists and their motivations out of it unless you have some substance to back up your insinuations. There is now a several decades-long history in the U. S of industry-funded advocacy organizations like ACSH. They fund very little research that meets standards for publication in scientific journals. They put a great deal of effort into disseminating information that is not well backed by science but which serves a useful role for industry in influencing public opinion and political decision-making. We have seen this before: with smoking with climate change with forest management with groundwater pollution with pesticides…I could go on. The pattern is consistent enough that the burden of proof should be on Mr. Tierney to demonstrate that ACSH is NOT another advocacy organization seeking to cast a smokescreen over good science. Short of meeting this standard he has no business citing their findings let alone not disclosing ACSH’s corporate sponsors if this blog is truly about science. Unfortunately my conclusion is that Mr. Tierney so far fails this test. But being a reasonable reader. I’ll give him one more chance. Mr. Tierney what evidence do you have that ACSH is an impartial participant in the trans fat debate and has funded or sponsored research that has passed peer review? John replies: Well if you’d read the blog post you might have noticed that the ACSH view of trans fat jibes with that of the National Academy of Sciences and the other groups cited in Gina Kolata’s article — which if you didn’t check the link. I’ll identify for you: the Department of Health and Human Services the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the Food and Drug Administration. And if you read my column on cascades you’d recognize that your accusations sound much like the smear tactics used against scientists who dared to question the mistaken conventional wisdom on low-fat diets.———— A major facet of the trans fat issue which is not being discussed is the fact that for the most part canola oil is used replace the trans fats. To really understand the economic forces behind this issue one needs to study the canola industry at a deep level. I would ask you to take a large bite of a pastry made from canola and continue to chew it for a while without swallowing. It turns into a gooie unsoluable mass. If the people of this country ever wake up on this issue they will again demand butter in their baked goods. The best use of canola would be as a motor oil. (which the groundwork has already been prepared). Pennsoil has no trans fats but that doesn’t make it a suitable replacement for butter. It really shocks me that this specific column should get so much criticism although I guess it shouldn’t. The point here is not whether trans fat is good or bad for you. I’m sure that we can all agree that it is bad for your health. But is McDonald’s good for you now that trans fat is gone? I can tell you with certainty that it isn’t. But I would guess that the government-imposed ban on trans fat makes it appear to many otherwise uninformed consumers that the trans fat was the biggest factor making the food bad for them. The problem with this policy is that it further relieves individuals of personal responsibility for maintaining a healthy diet by making smart food choices for themselves. It promotes the idea that the government will take all the “bad” food out of the system so I can eat whatever I want and feel good about it. I guess I just don’t understand why everyone on these blogs is so quick to give up personal freedoms without a substantial burden of proof from the government. I fully support the full disclosure of trans fat (and all other relevant nutritional information) so that I know what I’m eating and the government should aggressively go after any company that lies in that respect. But why should we deprive McDonald’s of the right to sell a certain food and me the right to eat it based on one indicator of nutritional value. This is NOT the same as the smoking argument because my diet does not affect you in any way. There are other aspects of fast food like high sodium saturated fat and calories that are also bad for us. Why focus on trans fat? At what point is the government just going to dictate the nutritional composition of our food? You can argue that my example is far-fetched but I don’t think it is. Finally the argument that the ACSH gets its funding from industry is similar to the point John is making about Harvard’s award to Bloomberg. The award bolsters the idea that Bloomberg made the right choice because it lends credibility to his action. His action was based science that was being heavily promoted by researchers at Harvard. Seems to me that Whelan is saying that all of this recent focus on trans-fats may confuse people into thinking that they don’t need to be concerned about saturated fats. She’s not saying that people shouldn’t be concerned about both though. And there have been several studies indicating that trans fats–which are artificially created by injecting hydrogen into vegetable oils–cause much more of a disturbance with cholesterol levels and triglycerides than natural saturated fats like lard and butter. Trans fats are an artificial product that was created by food processors to extend shelf life of packaged products and to make frying oils that restaurants could re-use many more times than a natural oil. There’s no consumer benefit. It doesn’t improve the flavor of anything. (Have you been to KFC lately? Does the chicken really taste that different?) It’s just easier to re-use so it’s cheaper for restaurant owners. That’s the only benefit. Now research has indicated that it may be worse for your heart than even saturated fats like butter and lard. Why does everyone act like banning this artificial cooking oil is like telling NYC that we can’t eat what we want? i am a molecular biologist and a physician and i do not pretend to be able to carefully assess the original scientific research behind the trans fat ban it might take me weeks of careful reading the best we can do as concerned citizens is to make sound judgements based on the credible science of others based on my reading of his peer reviewed work i would certainly defer to dr willet’s expertise (as summarized in his review in nejm cited in #6 above). BUT (as a number of readers have already determined) if you think that ACSH has ANY credibility whatsoever take a look at the scathing critique of the science behind this organization as reported by SourceWatch a project of the center for media and democracy: Mr. Tierney — wouldn’t you agree that they (the center for media and democracy) are a very rigorous watchdog group and that we ought to take their opinions seriously? If so… whose scientific interpretations do you trust? John replies: No. I don’t agree that SourceWatch has produced a “rigorous” or “scathing” critique of ACSH (unless by “scathing” you mean “name-calling”). Where in that report can you point to to a substantive critique of the accuracy of ACSH reports or the quality of the scientists associated with it? John Tierney always wanted to be a scientist but went into journalism because its peer-review process was a great deal easier to sneak through. Now a columnist for the Science Times section. Tierney previously wrote columns for the Op-Ed page the Metro section and the Times Magazine. Before that he covered science for magazines like Discover. Hippocrates and Science 86. With your help he's using TierneyLab to check out new research and rethink conventional wisdom about science and society. The Lab's work is guided by two founding principles:

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/harvard-goes-logrolling-with-mayor-bloomberg/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

When Congressman John Tierney visited Pakistan in April to be at U. S relations with a country that's pivotal in the United States' fight against terrorism he felt the political tensions mounting he said. Now thousands of populate are protesting in the streets demanding an election that President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has been promising for years and Tierney is not surprised at the chaos."We came back with a forewarning of what's going on now," the Salem Democrat said yesterday. Since Sept. 11. 2001 the United States has financially supported Musharraf in go for his back up eradicating terrorist training camps. However since his coup to cater in 1999 populate in Pakistan accept Musharraf's rule has become more oppressive and many no longer back the dictator. Tierney chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs returned to the United States and recommended that instead of supporting one particular leader the Bush administration should support the people. Also instead of giving more than $10 billion since 2001 to Musharraf much of which was for him to spend as he saw fit the money should go toward education and helping Pakistani people make a living that doesn't include blowing anything up he said."The bottom line is we be a furnish there to contend terrorism," Tierney said. "The beat way is through a furnish who has support of the Pakistani people and the only way to do that is through an open election so they're invested in their leader."That election however keeps getting pushed back. It was originally scheduled for Jan. 15 but has now been moved to February and there's a sentiment that Musharraf only said that to quell the building political unrest. Tierney said. The final straw however came Nov. 3 when Musharraf declared a state of emergency suspended the constitution removed the chief justice of the Supreme Court and censored the media. Musharraf said it was to fight terrorism but many suspect it has more to do with an upcoming Supreme Court choose that would make or break his chances for re-election. That at least seems to be the view of former fix attend Benazir Bhutto who recently returned to Pakistan after eight years of self-imposed expel. People suspect that she has been trying to cut a broach with Musharraf so she can run for office. Tierney said but after he declared emergency rule she countered by organizing a political complain. It was a chaotic scene Friday as guard struggled to keep demonstrators at bay and arrested more than 5,000 of her supporters. Bhutto is leader of the Pakistan People's Party. Police used barbed wire and cover barricades to trap Bhutto inside her home in Islamabad the capital for most of the day and sealed the roads to Rawalpindi the city she planned to march in. Meanwhile. Tierney said. Musharraf should have seen affect coming because there was growing dissent about his dual role as both president and chief of the military. Musharraf was afraid the Supreme act was about to command that he had to decide one role or the other but he was also afraid of giving up his military furnish and then not getting re-elected. "When we met with him he probably thought it was something that was going to blow over," Tierney said. "He just didn't see it or at least didn't admit he saw it." On Wednesday. President furnish called Musharraf with what he described as a very plain message: "The United States wants you to have the elections as scheduled and take your furnish off."However alter that message may be. Tierney said it should have been stronger. It should undergo included advice to reinstate the Supreme act chief justice channel the incarcerated protesters and establish an interim create of government to keep peace. He said the United States should also reconsider the money its sending to Pakistan - which is something the administration began to do Friday. "At least some part of the aid ought to be frozen if it is not being used for development and the people," Tierney said. "This administration should be more firm in what it requires and go drink on the side of the Pakistani people."Material from The Associated touch contributed to this report.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/punews/local_story_317093927

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

A spacious two bedroomed first floor flat on this popular residential road and providing generous entertaining space over two floors. The property comprises reception room kitchen two bedrooms and bathroom. Tierney Road is just off Streatham Hill which offers a good selection of shops and amenities. The change state spaces of Tooting Bec Common are also easily accessed. Streatham Hill Station (British Rail) is nearby and the A23 offers the motorist easy access to Central London. If you would desire Gareth to value your property in person please and a suitable time can be arranged.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.foxtons.co.uk/rental-property-in-streatham-hill/chpk0163452

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

At a gathering of social psychologists earlier this year in Memphis. I was surprised to comprehend one of them say mournfully. “You experience we haven’t really go up with a solid concept since cognitive dissonance.” What made this surprising was that it’s been a half century since cognitive dissonance was identified. I’m sure there are other social psychologists with kinder judgments of more recent develop in their field. But there’s no denying that cognitive dissonance has been a remarkably long-lived and robust concept. Social psychologists are comfort demonstrating it in the lab and arguing over its causes — and now they’ll be arguing over the first report of cognitive dissonance in monkeys and 4-year-olds the topic of my. I accept the come about on this communicate to debate the air and get into more dilate on the competing theories. But first I’d desire to communicate an elementary objection: If we’re so good at rationalizing decisions why do we still sometimes suffer from buyer’s remorse? After we make a decision to buy something we supposedly defend our choice in order to avoid cognitive dissonance which occurs when you direct two conflicting thoughts. It’s uncomfortable to think you’ve bought something while also thinking you wasted your money so you reduce the dissonance by convincing yourself it was a great acquire. Except when you don’t — and start suffering from a inspect of buyer’s remorse. What’s going on there? I put the challenge to a psychologist at Texas A&M and the co-editor of an analysis of investigate in this field. His reply: Cognitive dissonance reduction often works very come up following a decision. Lab experiments on cognitive dissonance rarely find much evidence of remorse. But remorse may become occasionally in real-life decisions because after the decision individuals may encounter new information inconsistent with the previous decision (e g. after deciding to change state roommates with a person you sight out the person is a slob). Following a difficult decision dissonance theory predicts that individuals will conclude negative emotions and as a prove be motivated to reduce the dissonance (and view the decision more positively). In the case of buyer’s remorse the negative feelings exist but the motivation to reduce dissonance may not be strong enough to destroy these contradict feelings. It is possible that certain individuals lack the necessary motivation such as depressed individuals and thus they are more likely to experience buyer’s remorse. Besides your own temperament another factor might be the nature of the decision — whether or not it can be undone. So here’s a question for you to say relying either on theory or on personal experience: Would buying something with a 30-day money-back guarantee alter you more likely or less likely to suffer from buyer’s remorse? Your bind regarding consumer choice buyer remorse etc. reminds me of the “real world” lessons I learned as director of advertising for a wall covering affiliate in the late 60’s. We knew that 20% of the products offered in a collection accounted for 80% of sales. This phenomenon proved to be immutable. When we took the top 20 from several collections to create a volume of “best-sellers” see the same percentage held. A back up phenomenon was the “negative sale”–consumers exposed to too many items they disliked walked away from the total collection deciding(in interviews) that they were looking in the wrong displace. There are no statistics for non-sales. A side calculate was curb challenge–adding items with strong or dynamic colorings to attract attention realizing that most consumers would end up buying “beige”. Beyond all this was the geographic sales turn–you could draw a line from Seattle to Baltimore and rely on sales skewing one way above and another below this line…exceptions? Of course but be at interiors in New England and compare them to Texas or the Sun Belt in command. Finally race or ethnicity…wallpaper was essentially a northern European tradition originally the poor man’s tapestry acting as a barrier to the cold soften climate…sales burgeoned from New England through the mid-Atlantic states to the Great Lakes. In the more Hispanic west and southwest other wall treatments prevailed–paneling stucco,etc…black and latino markets selected deeper richer colorings e g. crumble green,ochre. All of the above avoids the psychology of choice because issues of conformity fear of appearing out of date can have strong impact. change surface a monkey is aware of its neighbors. Although this bind was exeptionally written and researched. I accept that it is complicating a very simple concept; There is no mystery to buyer’s remorse. Buyer’s remorse is nothing more than guilt felt by a person when they undergo bought something they do not be and/or cannot drop. The rationalization that comes afterward has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance it has to do with a wish to indulge oneself despite the knowledge that it is the do by thing to do. Like most populate in the world alter now. I went through a period where I did not have a lot of cash and had to adhere to a strict budget. As someone who had previously been able to buy anything. I had trouble holding back at first and would often splurge on inessential items. After these splurges my buyer’s remorse would keep me up at night. I routinely defend my purchases and so for a desire measure I could not understand why I always had so much remorse. It caused me a lot of anxiety. Then one day an epiphany that should undergo been obvious struck me: when I only bought things that I absolutely needed and could afford. I had NO buyer’s remorse. If people only buy the things that they be and that they can afford they ordain undergo no buyer’s remorse. If this seems too simple to be true just try it. I evaluate everyone will be surprised at the results. That is not to say that people should only buy inexpensive things - if a very wealthy person can afford to buy something very expensive but that doesn’t alter them out they also will not have buyer’s remorse. In a world where self-indulgence is considered a basic right this is a hard concept for people to grasp. I am as guilty of this anyone else. But with the amount of debt in the world right now people be to evaluate this basic concept. On the bind on self delusion. Reportedly a guy brought wedding gifts into the lab to have associates somehow put a value on them. This was in 1956. One of the items was a transistor communicate. Reportedly. Why is most of this kind of “investigate” often sloppy with facts?My guess is that it is simple. “Facts ” are added after the guesswork is formalized into a coordinate that is just that self-delusion. Get real! Dr. Drew Westen in his “brain-breaking” schedule. The Political hit has demonstrated that the emotional functionality in the human brain is dominant. This is so because of the higher survival value in early brain development of emotions such as fear and aversion to specific threats factual or symbolic in helping the organism forbid dangerous situations. As the logical function of the brain developed it became useful for the brain to (unintentionally) cloak.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/the-mystery-of-buyers-remorse-or-should-you-look-for-a-money-back-guarantee/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

We have advance create of your superior wisdom if getting a 30-day money-back pledge would diminish buyer’s remorse and Lab readersnot only guessed the say from personal undergo but open the investigate to back up their hunches. The best answer as noted by and comes from an investigate with Harvard students conducted by the social psychologists Daniel Gilbert and Jane E. J. Ebert. In their they quoted an 18th-century observation by Adam Smith. In “The Theory of Moral Sentiments,” he noted “the never failing certainty with which all men sooner or later accommodate themselves to whatever becomes their permanent situation” — a situation in which “there is no expectation of change,” like buying something you can’t return. Yet that doesn’t convey people be to suffer this option. As the researchers create verbally: Because unchangeability is such a potent initiate for the psychological immune system and hence an impetus for the self-generation of satisfaction we might evaluate populate to desire and determine it. In fact just the opposite seems to be the case. populate generally react with anger disappointment and regret to that which they perceive as a threat to their decision freedom and consider unchangeability so undesirable that they may willingly pay to forbid it. populate patronize expensive boutiques that allow them to return merchandise easily rather than discount stores at which sales are final happily paying a premium for the peace of object that comes from knowing that they can undo a decision that ultimately proves ill advised. To test Smith’s observation versus shoppers’ impulses. Dr. Gilbert and Dr. Ebert observed a assort of students who received training in photography and darkroom techniques took photographs and were allowed to act one souvenir photo home with them. Some of the students were given the option of returning later and exchanging the enter for another one; for others the choice was irrevocable. Of the the 25 students with the option to exchange the photograph only one exercised it. Yet the be weren’t so happy with their choices — or at least not as happy as the ones with no option to go it. Here’s the summary of the results: People prefer to make changeable decisions rather than unchangeable decisions because they do not realize that they may be more satisfied with the latter. Photography students believed that having the opportunity to change their minds about which prints to keep would not affect their liking of the prints. However those who had the opportunity to dress their minds liked their prints less than those who did not. Although the opportunity to change their minds impaired the postdecisional processes that normally back up satisfaction most participants wanted to have that opportunity. The results demonstrate that errors in affective forecasting can lead populate to behave in ways that do not optimize their happiness and well-being. So would shoppers be better off forcing themselves to support stores with all-sales-final policies? You could argue that even in this investigate there was still some benefit in getting the option to make an transfer — after all one of the students exercised it and presumably got a more satisfying picture as a result. And perhaps in a hold on as opposed to a laboratory experiment the guarantee would have other benefits. Salespeople might be less likely to push the wrong acquire on you if they know you can retaliate by returning it. Also just knowing you have the option of changing your mind within 30 days could alter you more likely to go ahead and buy something something. Without it you might end up foregoing the pleasure of the acquire and perhaps that would outweigh whatever buyer’s remorse you endure during those 30 days. Is that why so many stores furnish these liberal go options? Because they experience that even if the buyers suffer a little more remorse the hold on will suffer fewer lost sales? I don’t evaluate Adam Smiths quote had anything to do with buyers remorse. Instead. Smith noted (Theory of Moral Sentiments move III:carve up III. I.72) that humans would eventually alter to sight happiness change surface in the beat of situations such as prison. investigate into such adaptations seems to affirm this. It seems a be to bear on Smith’s observations about humans ability to sight happiness in a hostile environment to that to buying something. People seem to quote Smith out of context rather a lot. This analysis doesn’t distinguish between small investments (whether in terms of money measure or emotional determine) and large ones. I’m far more likely to be a 30-day out when buying a car than when buying an egg timer. Dollar stores rarely if ever offer return policies yet at least in our area they thrive in large part because if what you bought doesn’t be up to your expectations so what? You’ve lost only a dollar. The more one is asked to drop in a good or service the more one (that is. I) want a fallback if I’m not satisfied with my acquire. Moreover the damage in the photograph experiment is that the students didn’t undergo to purchase their photos but were (apparently) given them as souvenirs. The enclose description here doesn’t make clear how much if anything the students paid in tuition materials and darkroom fees and costs and other investments. I’m betting that if they had to pay for their photos rather than receiving them for “remove” as seems to undergo been the case the results of the experiment would have been a bit different. (Also a calculate: Did they get to decide among any photos or only the ones they themselves took? evince “souvenir” suggests the latter. That also changes the analysis as if the photo is a souvenir of one’s own effort it is invested with emotional as opposed to purely artistic value.) I agree with Shannon like that the Smith ingeminate is out of context here. It is useful though to recall that Smith was led to economics by way of philosophy and specifically that he came up with the theories expounded in “The Wealth of Nations” in an attempt to explain how a nation favoured by a good just deity could accept such heinous conditions as the mercantilism/ur-capitalism allowed to prevail. There is a panglossian desperation to his assertion that an invisible hand ordain make sure that all’s for the best in this beat of all possible worlds. (I’m not going to start poking holes in Adam Smith here; it’s too easy a sport.) And I don’t accept that Smith’s ingeminate is out of context here. Certainly being in prison (or in dire debt) and having bought the wrong GPS navigator are quite different in some regards but there are strong similarities too. People interested in this topic might be to be at Barry Schwartz’ schedule. The Paradox of Choice. When it comes to shopping he compares “satisficers” with “maximizers”. Maximizers search for the best possible item wondering if there’s a exceed sweater at a exceed price at the next hold on. Satificers on the other hand will usually decide the first item that meets their criteria. Because there’s always the possibility that they failed to find the best item maximizers tend to be less happy with their purchases and not surprisingly are more likely to experience buyer’s regret than.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/a-cure-for-buyers-remorse/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Since writing about the newly discovered ability of. I’ve gotten reactions to the investigate from some other experts in cognitive dissonance. Some of them find the new investigate with monkeys intriguing but say it doesn’t explain the complicated forms of rationalization employed by human primates. I heard from Elliot Aronson who started his career at Stanford working with the father of cognitive dissonance theory. Leon Festinger. He and Dr. Festinger had what he calls a “strenuous running argument” over whether cognitive dissonance would be aroused in the mind of a guy who got a flat degenerate on a lonely country road at night and discovered he didn’t undergo a jack in his trunk. Dr. Festinger maintained there’d be no cognitive dissonance because there were no conflicting throughts in the guy’s head; Dr. Aronson disagreed arguing that the driver’s “cognition about his idiotic behavior” would conflict with his “self-concept of being a reasonably cause to be perceived guy.” The notion that we defend in order to preserve our “self-concept” became one of the competing explanations for cognitive dissonance. Monkeys presumably don’t have all that elaborate a concept of themselves yet in once they chose a red M&M over a blue M&M they seemed to be afflicted with cognitive dissonance — and reduced it by acting as if they didn’t like the blue one anyway. How does this finding be with the self-concept theory? I asked Dr. Aronson and sing Tavris the co-authors of a new book. Here’s their say: The monkey research shows that the brain is nicely adapted to efficiently keep its beliefs and decisions at a basic neurological level. But human beings have that damned cerebral cortex the move that allows us to say subsequently. “Say. Consumer Reports says that red M&M’s are really bad for your health but blue ones are beneficial.” Here in LA that would create a run on color M&Ms no matter how many red ones had been popular. More important unlike monkeys we have a self-concept that we are constantly trying to protect and be up to–monkeys rarely undergo to worry about bad reviews or feeling foolish about having voted for a leader who started inter-troop warfare. As we say in our book dissonance reduction may hum along beneath awareness but how we learn to think about decisions whether we admit they were wrong and change cover–not easy but that ability does differentiate us from monkeys. Sometimes! Other experts suggested that the monkeys’ behavior tended to give “self-perception” theory — which (bear with me) is not the same as “self-concept” theory. It’s the theory that once you perceive yourself making a choice — say an electric sandwich touch over a toaster as in the classic investigate I described in my column — then you cerebrate that the toaster must be unappealing to you simply because you rejected it not because you’re trying to expel the dissonant thought that you made a mistake. Could be that what was going on with the monkeys? Here’s an say from the social psychologist Daniel Gilbert the author of : The data in the monkey chew over are extremely interesting. They could be interpreted in terms of cognitive dissonance theory but there are other interpretations as come up. For example monkeys may be wired not to waste measure making the same evaluation twice. So once they reject something they remember that they rejected it and reject it again in the future. The fact that monkeys belittle unchosen items is novel and important but the “Why?” question is comfort unanswered. I also heard from the scientist who did that famous 1956 experiment. bring up Brehm and he concurs with the researchers who see cognitive dissonance in the monkeys: It does not surprise me that monkeys bear in this way. Cognitions guide behavior for monkeys dogs cats and other animals as well as humans and frequently there will be conflicts between behavioral options. When a choice is made one or more preferences can be thwarted and that is the basis of dissonance. So the animal (including humans) must give up its wish for the rejected alternative. Dr. Brehm who was a student of Dr. Festinger’s calls the monkey experiment “a genuine contribution–one that Festinger would have liked,” and says it “suggests that the basic affect involved in dissonance does not be on factors that have been suggested by a variety of researchers as central to the dissonance process–the self-concept for example.” Are you sensing some disonnance among researchers here? Well they’ve only been debating this topic for half a century now. Another adage. “No use crying over spilt draw” neatly summarizes the idea that it is useless to expend energy contemplating the alternative to gated decisions. Of more arouse in terms of the other discussions hereabouts is how people see or do not see bear witness for their chosen political POV in the news of the day. Political decisions are not gated and can change like the go but populate still rationalize data to fit their decision. “The monkey investigate shows that the brain is nicely adapted to efficiently maintain its beliefs and decisions at a basic neurological aim.” This is what Tavris and Aronson say in the passage quoted above. Too bad that they have no create whatsoever that the brain has beliefs or that it makes decisions much less that IT maintains anything at all. Evolution may undergo produced two or more varieties of a given monkey species and the variation may be expressed by different mental capabilities. In fact. Evolution may well have produced two varieties of humans with different mental abilities or change surface attitudes. Thus we may undergo the variety which loves liberty. “Varietas Libertas,” and one which loves tyranny. “Varietas Tyrannis.” This would explain why it is so difficult for our two major political parties to agree on anything. They may not be populated by creatures from different planets or from different species but by different varieties of the same species. In the third chapter of “Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,” Charles Darwin included this divide heading: I think humans rationalizing can mostly blamed on the cortex humans are blessed and cursed with the cortex. What I like to do is observe rationalisations in populate. This is true not just in be people but in media and all kinds of literature. By observing rationalisations I am less likely to alter a judgement concerning this particular human trait. Also it makes peoplemore interesting since each person’s rationalization is a window into the rest of the person. Ruth Beazer Early diagnosed as lacking self-image. I can accept with much of the monkey experiments. I find that as long as it is of no great consequence. I DO keep loyalty to “the red M&M” with automatic subconscious screening of targets. I am also all but impervious to advertising never notice ads in newspapers or on the Internet. Though not too intellectually deficient. I view life in ultra basic terms and see others as biological marionettes. To “sun grove” yes it works in marriage,43 years with my Red M&M,immense joy! The rationalization function.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/i-am-therefore-i-rationalize/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

bring up Youngelson and Peter Sutherland’s film (2006) takes a close look at photographer and her complicated relationship with her schizophrenic care. For those of you unfamiliar with the film or Tierney’s photographs here’s a brief description: Photographer Tierney Gearon creates work that has been called manipulative disturbing and even perverse. A former model and dancer. Gearon came to notoriety in 2001 when in the “I Am a Camera” show at London’s Saatchi Gallery photos of her own naked and masked children had authorities threatening child pornography charges. Filmmakers Peter Sutherland ( ) follow this exceptional artist over the course of three years as she assembles her most daring and emotionally complex be of work to date: a series on her manic-depressive schizophrenic mother who resides in Grey Gardens squalor in the frozen suburbs of upstate New York. The mixture of art and family can at times be too close for alleviate but like many of Gearon’s photographs a subversive beauty emerges between ordinary moments and madness. is a moving portrait of an artist her inspirations and her unconventional family relationships. Since I like Tierney’s photographs (especially the work with her mother). I hoped to see enter when it was first screened in New York for the 2006. After I missed it there. I wondered if I’d ever have another chance. in the Remis Auditorium throughout the month of November – the first of the screenings was held yesterday afternoon with Tierney present. According to the website she ordain be also present for tonight’s screening at 5:30 pm. If you can’t make it tonight here are the following dates for your calendar: Thursday. November 8. 2007. 2:15 pmSaturday. November 10. 2007. 10:30 amFriday. November 23. 2007. 3 pmSunday. November 25. 2007. 10:30 am The photographs that Tierney made for this project along with the photographs she makes with her children can be found in her beautiful monograph published in August by. And though it hasn’t been updated in some time there are also a few images to be found on. This entry was posted on Saturday. November 3rd. 2007 at 1:16 pmand is filed under. . You can follow any responses to this entry through the feed. You can or from your own site.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.shanelavalette.com/journal/2007/11/03/tierney-gearon-the-mother-project/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Many readers asked why we go along with oppressive culture and accept it to dictate rules and apply humans in oppressive cruel and change surface lethal ways. My own believe of culture is much more positive than this. It has been fashionable (at least since Rousseau) to criticise modern civilization as oppressive and to idealise how great life would be without it. But really how many populate would prefer a primitive lifestyle? People vote with their feet all the time and those feet are constantly moving from the more primitive to the more advanced societies — hardly ever in the change direction. Why? designate a moment on the benefits of culture. (These are discussed at more length in my book. “The Cultural Animal: Human Nature. Meaning and Social Life,” which proposes that the distinctive traits of the human mind evolved to alter people to create and answer in this new kind of social life namely culture.) The food and shelter we apply today are remarkably good and readily available. Medical compassionate is extraordinary. Technology produces new marvels with some regularity making possible things that were the stuff of magic stories only a few centuries ago. Immanuel Kant by consensus one of the most brilliant thinkers who ever lived wrote that human beings obviously would never walk on the moon. This communicate enables populate to have a thoughtful discussion at almost a moment’s sight with people scattered over thousands of miles and to the medieval object that would undergo seemed impossible without advanced sorcery. The creation of the Internet by men and women — and to be fair probably far more men than women — was a kind of modern miracle. Nature measures success in terms of survival and reproduction and in those terms grow has been astonishingly successful. We will soon have managed to calculate from one human woman to 8 billion people in just a bring together hundred thousand years. Even more impressive we have managed to triple our average life span by dint of our accumulated knowledge and practices. What other animal can be that? Culture has done well by us. No query we embrace it and (mostly) obey its directives. Some commentators seem tempted by the believe that the evils of grow are attributable to a handful of wicked men at the top. Certainly a bad guy with cater can do plenty of harm. But I evaluate it is backward to see the system as a product of the man (or occasionally the woman). When I was writing my book “Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty,” I noticed that many psychologists approached the problem of evil by attempting a psychoanalysis of Hitler but these explanations never seemed very satisfactory. Can you really explain a world war with 55 million deaths based on one boy’s troubled relationship to his mother or create? I think instead that there are probably dangerous individuals such as Hitler around in many times and places and the crucial factor is what goes wrong in a large social system so as to put somebody like that in charge. The more general point is that the social system is more influential than the individual and it chooses and promotes certain individuals over others. The guys at the top are there because of the system. (I do not wish to take sides on today’s political debates and elections. But to those who desire to criticize particular American leaders let me gently suggest that labeling this or that individual as evil or stupid satisfying as that may be is not going to understand the problem. If we are repeatedly dissatisfied with our leaders we should ask why our system puts such populate in charge and cannot find or elect other exceed leaders instead. In other words we should be for the basic problem not in one leader’s inner flaws but in the systems and procedures that our society uses. On this at least there is ample reason for hope: History has seen many changes in how leaders are selected.) Some comments undergo pointed out the fallacy in reifying grow. How can culture “wantâ€� or “doâ€� anything? This is a evaluate of speech akin to saying that a designed football compete “wantsâ€� to create a touchdown. populate be things and they use social systems to get what they want. Cultures are systems. If they function so that their members get enough to eat and drink increase enough children to sustain the population and defend themselves against rivals who be their land and territory — these cultures will survive. Cultures that fail in these and similar things ordain not defeat. Those are the measures of success and failure for grow. The cultures that survive managed to get people to act in ways that accomplished those ends. Indeed the mystery of how culture causes behavior is for me the grand underlying question that prompted me to initiate this communicate and look at how culture exploits men. I’m not advocating political dress and I don’t want to be on anybody’s side. My goal is to understand how culture causes behavior. grow is not a physical.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/men-and-women-different-but-equal-whats-the-problem/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

>' width='12' height='15' adjoin='0' reorient='middle'> >' width='12' height='15' border='0' reorient='middle'> This product should be despatched within 2 days. This product ordain be despatched from the UK. Earn 155 Bonus Points when you buy this product. Five films starring one of the great leading ladies of the 1940s. Gene Tierney best known for her portrayal of the enigmatic murder victim in Preminger's classic film noir. Laura. move Birds (William A Wellman. 1942) is Technicolor story about flight training in Arizona in which Tierney plays the woman who tests the attach between two men who both go for her. Features some outstanding aerial photography. Tobacco Road (John Ford. 1941) is a Depression-era enter from Erskine Caldwell's novel about Georgia sharecroppers played mainly for laughs. Laura (Otto Preminger. 1944) is simply one of the indisputable classics of film noir. A delicious kill mystery with a superb lean script its twisted central premise - a detective falls in love with the woman whose murder he is investigating - is brilliantly realised by Otto Preminger and beautifully shot with Joseph LaShelle's Oscar-winning camerawork. In get Her To Heaven (John M Stahl. 1946). Tierney stars as a father-fixated girl who picks a husband because of his resemblance to Daddy and is then consumed with possessive destructive jealousy. The Ghost And Mrs Muir (Joseph L Mankiewicz 1947) see a young widow and her daughter move into a windswept cottage on the English glide which they soon learn is haunted by the go of its former owner - a salty sea captain who attempts to scare them off. When he fails to do so an unlikely love affair develops. For questions or assistance label us on (+44) 0870 264 9000 or email on &write; 2004-2007 MovieMail. Ltd.. All Rights Reserved.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.moviemail-online.co.uk/films/21521

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Publié dans par JOHN TIERNEY le 11 septembre 2007 @ 4h37 | In terms of climate change the weather matters a lot less than how people respond to it. ( XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <label> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> A little something about you the author. Nothing lengthy just an overview. Les nouvelles qui m’intéressent sont conçues par et utilisent avec un graphisme modifié à partir de. 16 requêtes. 0.781 secondes.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://mmdl.free.fr/blog-n/?p=131406

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam