Summary of “If Social Media Makes You Feel Bad, Quit Using It”

Of course, I’m exaggerating, and social media is not the source of all our problems.
Don’t expect to that your life will be awesome when you get rid of social media.
It’s the opposite of the scientific approach to quitting social media that Cal Newport took.
He makes some good points about why social media is bad for you.
What’s it going to be? Do you use social media or not? Does it make you happy? Does it improve your life or business?
People who have stakes in social media will never tell you to stop using it.
Many successful entrepreneurs I know have never used social media.
One thing is sure: You can do well in life with and without social media.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Shifting Experience of Self: A Bibliographic Essay”

Notions of a unitary self directed by an inner sense of purpose and a continuous life narrative have eroded, as have the relatively stable boundaries of the self based on distinctions between the inner and the outer, pubic and private, the individual and society.
Many different labels have been offered to capture the new experience of self.
Mutable self, protean self, postmodern self, relational self, reflexive self, minimal self, and mediated self are just a few that come to mind from a list that is long and getting longer.
Despite different interpretations, there is considerable overlap in assessments of how the experience of self and consciousness has changed.
While spurring dynamism in the economy, this new order of ceaseless change also fragments workers’ experience of time, erodes those qualities of character that are long-term in nature, like loyalty and commitment, and challenges the ability of people to build or anchor a substantive and sustained sense of self.
In her well-known ethnographic studies, such as Life on the Screen, sociologist Sherry Turkle has found that experience in computer-mediated worlds encourages an experience of the self as fluid and multiple rather than unitary and centered.
In her study of social criticism and self-help literature, In Conflict No Longer: Self and Society in Contemporary America, sociologist Irene Taviss Thomson shows that relationships have become “Constitutive of the self.” This does not mean that groups or communities as such have become primary.
The idea of a relational self, rather, is that in a highly fluid social environment, individuals develop a unique and flexible configuration of groups and relationships with which they identify and through which they fashion and anchor their sense of self.

The orginal article.

Summary of “A Simple Strategy to Spend Safely in Retirement”

One approach, which the researchers dubbed the “Spend Safely in Retirement Strategy,” works well for a broad swath of middle-income retirees, the study finds.
Generating retirement income has become a major issue for retirees, says Steve Vernon, research scholar at the Stanford Center on Longevity and co-author of the study.
For middle-income retirees-those with $100,000 to $1 million in savings-the Spend Safely strategy stands out, the study found.
The combination of delaying Social Security and using the RMD rules to draw down the nest egg ties together two highly efficient retirement-income strategies, says Jamie Hopkins, the former co-director of the New York Life Center for Retirement Income at the American College.
Social Security offers some protection against major retirement risks-such as inflation, outliving your savings and the death of a spouse-and part or all of it is excluded from taxation.
Although the Spend Safely strategy does not produce the highest level of initial retirement income, it generates inflation-adjusted income that grows moderately during retirement, whereas many other strategies that were studied didn’t keep up with inflation.
Because Social Security provides such a solid foundation, the strategy has a relatively low level of downside risk, with potential future spending reductions generally well under 3%, the study found.
For many middle-income retirees who delay Social Security until age 70, that guaranteed bond-like benefit accounts for roughly 75% to 85% of total retirement income.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Who Are 2019’s MacArthur ‘Genius’ Grant Winners? Here’s The Full List Of Fellows”

Who Are 2019’s MacArthur ‘Genius’ Grant Winners? Here’s The Full List Of Fellows As usual, the more than two dozen winners in 2019 span a range of fields, from fiction and cartoons to neuroscience and theoretical geophysics.
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation unveiled the winners of this year’s MacArthur fellowships – often better known as the “Genius” grants – recognizing the host of artists and scholars for their creativity and potential.
“From addressing the consequences of climate change to furthering our understanding of human behavior to fusing forms of artistic expression, this year’s 26 extraordinary MacArthur Fellows demonstrate the power of individual creativity to reframe old problems, spur reflection, create new knowledge, and better the world for everyone,” the foundation’s president, John Palfrey, said in a statement released Wednesday.
Along with inclusion on an illustrious list of past fellows – more than 1,000 in all, since the program’s first class in 1981 – each of this year’s grantees gets a $625,000 stipend, meted out in quarterly installments over five years with no strings attached.
“Employing pragmatist methods to examine the ways that various institutions, policies, and social practices serve to promote or hinder conditions of democratic equality.”
“Harnessing the power of art to raise awareness of social concerns through a practice that defies categorization.”
“Revealing links between social environmental factors-such as social status and social integration-and genomic variation and how these connections impact health, well-being, and longevity.”
“Bringing classical literature to new audiences in works that convey ancient texts’ relevance to our time and highlight the assumptions about social relations that underlie translation decisions.”

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Only Metric of Success That Really Matters Is the One We Ignore”

From 1985 to 2009, the average size of an American’s social network-defined by the number of confidants people feel they have-has declined by more than one-third.
We may have hundreds of friends on Instagram, but evidence is mounting that those connections are not the ones that provide us the social balm we need, which is human contact.
In 2010, Holt-Lunstad published research showing that people who had weaker social ties had a 50 percent increased likelihood of dying early than those with stronger ones.
John Cacioppo, who died last year, pioneered the field of social neuroscience and dedicated more than two decades to studying loneliness.
As Matthew Brashears, who conducts social network research at the University of South Carolina, says: “The problem isn’t ‘are you socially isolated,’ ie, you have no social contact. The question is, are you experiencing social poverty, inadequate social support?”.
Loneliness researcher Cacioppo found that many of the things we think will help-improving people’s social skills or increasing social engagement-don’t.
What does help lonely people is to educate them about how our brains can turn in on ourselves, causing us to retreat into self-preservation mode and be on high alert for social threats.
Warren Buffett, a friend of Gates, says that his measure of success comes down to one question: “Do the people you care about love you back?”.

The orginal article.

Summary of “When Work and Meaning Part Ways”

The American work ethic is built on a promise: Work hard, and you’ll earn more than just money.
There are only two problems with the work ethic today: Work doesn’t reliably deliver the social, moral, and spiritual goods it promises, and artificial intelligence is about to render the work ethic moot.
The very meaning of work is in jeopardy right now, and a big reason is that we expect too much meaning from work.
Many office workers repeatedly perform a narrow range of mental, physical, and emotional actions on the job, and when they’re done for the day, they may change out of a work suit, but they can’t change out of their work self.
So what should we do? Repair the whole rickety heap of our work ideology? Redesign work so that it delivers the dignity, character, and purpose it’s supposed to? Pass laws that limit employers’ control over workers’ bodies and public behavior? Push for transparency regarding the actions workers perform, and establish norms that they specialize less narrowly and have rotating duties? Set humane limits on service work and eliminate the pointless tasks most professionals do during the workday? It wouldn’t hurt to try.
In an important respect, the robot revolution at work would solve all the problems with work’s failure to deliver on the work ethic’s promise.
Our work subjects us to corporate tyranny-yet 80 percent of us say we’re “Hardworking” and not lazy.20 Our work warps us and burns us out-yet we report the highest employee engagement in the wealthy, industrialized world.
Will the idea that time is valuable make sense in a society without jobs, once people are no longer paid for their time? Will universal education make sense, once schools are no longer educating everyone for the work force? Will old age make sense as a well-earned rest after a lifetime of labor? How long will it take marital and child-rearing norms to respond to the reality that there is no such thing as a “Breadwinner”? The end of work calls everything into question.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Surprising and Sobering Science of How We Gain and Lose Influence”

So argues UC Berkeley psychologist Dacher Keltner in The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence – the culmination of twenty years of research exploring what power is, what confers it upon an individual, and how it shapes the structure of a collective, a community, and a culture.
Drawing on a wealth of social science studies and insights from successful teams ranging from companies like Pixar and Google to restorative justice programs in San Quentin State Prison, he demonstrates “The surprising and lasting influence of soft power as compared to hard power.”
We gain a capacity to make a difference in the world by enhancing the lives of others, but the very experience of having power and privilege leads us to behave, in our worst moments, like impulsive, out-of-control sociopaths.
How we handle the power paradox guides our personal and work lives and determines, ultimately, how happy we and the people we care about will be.
Much of what is most unsettling about human nature – stigma, greed, arrogance, racial and sexual violence, and the nonrandom distribution of depression and bad health to the poor – follows from how we handle the power paradox.
We gain power by acting in ways that improve the lives of other people in our social networks.
The “Power paradox” is paradoxical precisely because those who manage to wrest power forcibly by the Machiavellian model may have power, or perceived power, for a certain amount of time, but that amount is finite.
The most troubling aspect of the power paradox is that even if a person rises to power by counter-Machiavellian means – kindness, generosity, concern with the common good – power itself will eventually warp her priorities and render her less kind, less generous, less concerned with the common good, which will in turn erode her power as her reputation for these counter-qualities grows.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How to Break the Dangerous Cycle of Loneliness”

Perhaps one reason the piece made so many internet rounds is just how many people could relate: Last year Surgeon General Vivek Murthy warned that Americans are “Facing an epidemic of loneliness and social isolation.”
Though “I’m going to die alone” is the common grumble among single people, scientifically, it’s more like, “I’m going to die if I’m alone.” A lack of social connections can spark inflammation and changes in the immune system, so lonely people are far more likely to die prematurely.
People in marriages tend to feel less lonely than people not in marriages.
If you look at online dating, there you’re using it to meet other people, so not surprisingly, that tends to be associated with lower levels of loneliness.
Social interaction is sometimes called social engagement, basically the idea there is that loneliness can be cured by putting people together.
How would you do therapy to try to help people who think they’re lonely but are nonetheless wary of connecting with people?
What we teach is a whole set of skills: How do you read the face, the voice, the posture of people? And we showed them how incorrect those readings can be.
Lots of people want to be their friend, but how would you feel if all the people who want to be your friend, you had the alternative interpretation that they want material or social benefits that you could give them.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How to Break the Outrage Addiction”

Whatever our ideological positions, scrolling through social media or reading the news, we get a delicious tingle of emotion over the latest scandal, the outrage du jour.
You might say that’s OK because outrage about injustices-like sexual harassment and abuse-fuels positive changes and causes us to become less tolerant of dangerous behaviors, as the #MeToo movement has shown.
The psychology of outrage is of increasing interest to academics because it seems to be fueling society and creating “a severity shift.” The more outraged we become and the more we see others upset, the more we feel justified in being angry ourselves, according to University of Chicago legal scholars who studied jury deliberation processes.
Just a cursory glance at the tenor of cultural discussion online and in the media reveals an outsized level of anger, hyperbole, incivility, and tribalism, according to political scientist Jeffrey Berry and sociologist Sarah Sobieraj of Tufts University, authors of The Outrage Industry.
“America has developed a robust and successful Outrage Industry that makes money from calling political figures idiots, or even Nazis,” Berry and Sobieraj write.
Most notably-as observed by a Harvard paper examining academic literature on anger’s effect on judgment-“Once activated, anger can color people’s perceptions, form their decisions, and guide their behavior while they remain angry, regardless of whether the decisions at hand are related to the source of their anger.” Scientific studies show that anger makes people indiscriminately punitive, careless thinkers, and eager to take action.
On the contrary, keeping a cool distance from the daily events that fuel your social group’s outrage makes you more capable of contending with reality and making decisions that might improve the direction or rhetorical tenor of events in the grand scheme.
Outrage won’t serve you or society unless it’s fueled wisely.

The orginal article.

Summary of “NPR Choice page”

By choosing “I agree” below, you agree that NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.
This information is shared with social media services, sponsorship, analytics and other third-party service providers.

The orginal article.