Sports and politics: How strong is group identity? | Ezra Klein | Big Think

New videos DAILY: https://bigth.ink/youtube Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: https://bigth.ink/Edge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EZRA KLEIN Ezra Klein is the editor-at-large and cofounder of Vox, the award-winning explanatory news organization. Launched in 2014, Vox reaches more than fifty million people across its platforms each month. Klein is also the host of the podcast the Ezra Klein Show, cohost of the Weeds podcast, and an executive producer on Vox’s Netflix show, Explained. Previously, Klein was a columnist and editor at the Washington Post, a policy analyst at MSNBC, and a contributor to Bloomberg. He’s written for the New Yorker and the New York Review of Books, and appeared on many programs including Face the Nation, the Daily Show, and PBS NewsHour. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Transcript: I think it’s important that people’s theories of politics are built on a foundation of a theory about human nature or some rigorous empirics about human nature. And something that I think we do a bad job understanding is the way the psychology of identity and group affiliation function in politics. We tend to suggest that identity politics is something that only marginalized groups do and in fact it’s something we all do, all politics all the time is influenced by identity. In the 1930s and ‘40s a guy named Henri Tajfel, he was a Polish Jew, moved from Poland to France. He moved from Poland to France because in Poland he couldn’t go to university because he was Jewish, in France he enlists in World War II. He’s captured by the Germans, but he’s understood by the Germans as a French prisoner of war so he survives the war. When he’s released all of his family has been killed in the holocaust and he would have been killed as well if they had understood him to be a Polish Jew and not a French soldier. And he begins thinking and obsessing about these questions of identity what makes human beings sort each other into groups? Why when they sort each other into groups do they become so easily hostile to one another? And what does it take to sort into a group? What are the minimum levels of connection we need to have with each other to understand ourselves as part of a group and not individuals? So, he begins doing a set of experience that are now known as the minimum viable group paradigm. And it’s a bit of an ironic term for reasons that I will get to you in a second, but he gets 64 kids from all the same school and he brings them in and he says you know we need you to do an experiment, could you look at this screen and tell many how many dots are on it just real quick do an estimation. And then researcher are busily scoring the work and deciding if the kids overestimated or underestimated. Then the researchers say hey while we’ve got you here would you mind doing another experiment with us not related to the first one in any way? We’re just going to sort you into two groups people who overestimated the number of dots and the people who underestimated them, but a different experiment. Don’t worry about it. In truth this sorting is completely random, it had nothing to do with dots, nobody cared how many dots anybody estimated. But immediately in this new experiment, which has to do with money allocation, the kids begin allocating more money, which they’re not allocating to themselves it’s only to other people. They begin allocating more money to their co-dot over or under estimators. And this was a surprise because the way this experiment was supposed to work was Tajfel and his co-authors we’re going to sort people into groups but not enough that they would begin to act like a groups and they were going to begin adding conditions to see at what point group identity took hold. But even Tajfel, who had gone through such a searing traumatic horrifying experience with how easily and how powerfully group identity takes hold, he underestimated it, he felt this would be underneath the line almost like a control group, but it was already over the line. This experiment was replicated by him in other ways and in other ways that actually showed not only would people favor members of their group but they would actually discriminate against the outgroup, they would prefer that everybody gets less so long as the difference between what their group and the other group got was larger. And again, these groups are meaningless and random even atop their meaninglessness.

How To Start A Gratitude Journal (This Will Change Your Life!)

Having an attitude of gratitude is essential to a healthy, productive day. A gratitude journal is the way to improve your mindset and set yourself up to win every single day. Are you ready to change your life for the better and get off to a great start every day? Check out my FREE Morning Ritual Cheatsheet 👇 https://ift.tt/2S7KwuM JOIN MORNING RITUAL MASTERY TODAY 👇 https://ift.tt/2NTfLpW 🔎 RESOURCES MENTIONED 👇 67 Morning Ritual Habits for Your Body, Mind, and Spirit ► https://ift.tt/2YDRzxX 5 Minute Journal ► https://ift.tt/2v4BhDN 🤔 ABOUT THIS VIDEO 👇 What's up Life Masters! Today I want to share with you how to start a gratitude journal, which is one of my favorite rituals and one that I do almost every day. This will change your life for the better, I'm sure of it. A gratitude journal is a great resource if you're ready to attract more good in your life and focus on how blessed you are every single day. With a gratitude journal, you will find the good and feel the good in your life, which will also allow you to attract more good in your life. Are you ready for more good in your life? Watch this video to see what I do every day and what you can do to change your life! 🤓 VIEW THE BLOG POST 👇 https://ift.tt/2Di66aM 🔔 SUBSCRIBE TO PROJECT LIFE MASTERY ON YOUTUBE 👇 https://ift.tt/2TYg0Dx ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ 🗣️ TALK TO ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA 👇 Instagram ► https://ift.tt/2PPDJXK Facebook ► https://ift.tt/21u1H7j Twitter ► https://www.twitter.com/stefanjames23 ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ 💥FOLLOW PROJECT LIFE MASTERY ON SOCIAL MEDIA 👇 Instagram ► https://ift.tt/2DfYbKy Facebook ► https://ift.tt/2BGhawg Twitter ► https://ift.tt/2TYg0U3 Podcast ► https://ift.tt/2XYj5WH ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ 💻 MY PRODUCTS & COURSES 👇 https://ift.tt/2HGecvJ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ 🤔 ABOUT PROJECT LIFE MASTERY 😃 Stefan James from Project Life Mastery reveals his very best strategies to mastering and living life fully; everything from how to be motivated, his secrets to success, how to make money online, making passive income online, how to change your beliefs and mindset, being healthy and physically fit, being happy and productive, life management, cultivating relationships, spirituality, and much more! The Project Life Mastery YouTube channel contains Stefan's best strategies and principles that has now helped millions of people around the world. This YouTube channel is designed to help you make continual progress in each area of your life, so that you can have lasting growth and fulfillment. Website ► https://ift.tt/2Di66aM ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ 📚 RECOMMENDED RESOURCES 👇 https://ift.tt/2rjZqkY If you found this video valuable, give it a like. If you know someone who needs to see it, share it. Leave a comment below with your thoughts. Add it to a playlist if you want to watch it later. DISCLAIMER: The information contained on this YouTube Channel and the resources available for download/viewing through this YouTube Channel are for educational and informational purposes only.​ This description may contain affiliate links. If you purchase a product through one of them, I will receive a commission (at no additional cost to you). I only ever endorse products that I have personally used and benefitted from personally. Thank you for your support! #GRATITUDE #JOURNAL #HABITS #GRATEFUL #JOURNALING

Does drone warfare reduce harm? Maybe not. | Abigail Blanco | Big Think

New videos DAILY: https://bigth.ink/youtube Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: https://bigth.ink/Edge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There has been a huge increase in drone usage since the war on terror. Proponents of drone warfare claim it reduces civilian casualties and collateral damage, that it's cheaper than conventional warfare tactics, and that it's safer for U.S. military personnel. The data suggests those claims may be false, says scholar Abigail Blanco. Drones are, at best, about equivalent to conventional technologies, but in some cases may actually be worse. Blanco explains how skewed US government definitions don't give honest data on civilian casualties. Drone operators also suffer worse psychological repercussions following a drone strike because of factors such as the intimacy of prolonged surveillance and heat-sensing technology which lets the operator observe the heat leaving a dying body to confirm a kill. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ABIGAIL BLANCO Abigail R. Hall is an Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Tampa. She is the co-author of Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism (2018, Stanford University Press). She is also an Affiliated Scholar with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, an Affiliated Scholar with the Foundation for Economic Education and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIPT: People have often pointed to technology as a means to harm reduction. In particular, if we look at the expansion of unmanned aerial vehicles, colloquially known as drones, particularly in the war on terror. So we see a huge increase in the use of drones in foreign conflict. And typically we see that proponents of this type of technology make a variety of different claims as to the benefits of this technology. So things like: it reduces civilian casualties and collateral damage. It's cheaper in a monetary sense than conventional warfare tactics. But then also make claims like well, it's safer or preferable for U.S. military personnel. And while we don't have a robust amount of data on this topic what we do have suggests that on all of these margins, drones are at best about equivalent to conventional technologies, but in some cases may actually be worse. So UAVs have a higher failure rate than conventional aircraft, for example, as opposed to being surgically precise which is often the terminology that's used by leaders. This technology is only as good as the intelligence that drives it. And that intelligence is often very poor. And so the data surrounding things like civilian casualty rates are not robust. They're not reliable at all. The U.S. government, for instance, has made claims that only a handful of civilian casualties, for instance, have occurred as the result of drone strikes. However, you run into problems when you find out things like they define a militant as any military aged male within a strike zone. So that is roughly about like 15 to 65. So, of course, you're going to have casualty rates or civilian casualty rates that look relatively low if that's the case. What's most interesting, I think, is if people are really focused on the supposed benefits to U.S. military personnel, is the following data. Unmanned aerial vehicles actually take more personnel on the ground to operate than a conventional military aircraft. That is because they have to—or, at this point, they require a number of individuals within the range that they're operating. And so they also have to be guarded when they're not flying and so this places a variety of personnel within harm's way as opposed to conventional military aircraft which you can launch from an aircraft carrier. There's also some really interesting studies that are being conducted in psychology looking at the psychological effects of the use of UAVs on UAV pilots and actually finding a comparable or even higher rates of things like post-traumatic stress disorder and also a variety of other psychological problems because of the way that drone warfare is conducted as opposed to conventional warfare. If you are a UAV pilot, you are watching your target for a prolonged period of time. And so you observe that target, you can see when he's going to the grocery store or you observe him with his family. And then the strike is conducted. But then when the strike is conducted the drone doesn't leave. You're talking about technology that can take a clear photograph of a coffee cup or something really small—from 30,000 feet, it can take a clear picture like three feet off the ground. It's remarkable technology in that way. So they're watching these individuals for a prolonged period of time but then after the strike occurs they're interested in having additional information. And so they watch.

Is the ‘forever transaction’ business model ethical? | Robbie Kellman Baxter | Big Think

Is the ‘forever transaction’ business model ethical? New videos DAILY: https://bigth.ink/youtube Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: https://bigth.ink/Edge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- How can you build a subscription model that continues to satisfy your consumer while avoiding fatigue and potential ethical downfalls? --- According to business consultant and speaker Robbie Kellman Baxter, you must first determine whether your service really requires a subscription in the first place. And if it does, be careful not to overwhelm the customer, which can lead to subscription guilt. --- Trust is just as important. Hiding the cancel button from your customers might keep them around in the short term, but this ultimately eats into your brand equity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBBIE KELLMAN BAXTER Robbie Kellman Baxter is the author of The Membership Economy: Find Your Superusers, Master the Forever Transaction & Build Recurring Revenue (McGraw-Hill 2015), and The Forever Transaction: How to Build a Business So Compelling, Your Customers Will Never Want to Leave (McGraw-Hill 2020). Robbie’s expertise extends to include SaaS, media, consumer products and retail and community organizations. Her clients have included Microsoft, Fitbit and The Wall Street Journal. Purchase Robbie Kellman Baxter's latest book, The Membership Economy https://amzn.to/37LfX4Z ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIPT: ROBBIE KELLMAN BAXTER: People ask me all the time if forever transaction business models are ethical. And I think the reason they ask me is because they’re dealing with subscription fatigue right now. A lot of people are really frustrated with subscription business models for a few reasons. The first reason is what I call product market fit. In other words a lot of companies build subscription models that aren’t very good business models requiring you to subscribe in order to access something that you only need one time, for example. Or bundling in a lot of stuff that you don’t want and then requiring you to pay for it. So a lot of people feel like hey, I used to love this product and now I have to subscribe to it and I have to pay more and I’m not getting what I really need. That’s the first problem and that creates a lack of trust between the individual and companies. The second thing is what I call subscription overwhelm which leads to subscription guilt which is they say something like this. I love this business model. I love this subscription. It’s really great except I never use it. --- And so I feel like I’m wasting money and, you know, the magazines are piling up on my coffee table and it makes me feel bad when I walk by it. Or there’s this organization ClassPass which has a subscription to be able to go to any gym you want and take different kinds of fitness classes. And I’m not using my credits and then I’m wasting them. So then what ends up happening is the customer feels guilty and they cancel. So in some ways you’re like well, that’s not really the fault of the business because our business has great value and the customer told me it’s not my fault. But ultimately that customer cancelled so it is your fault and it is your responsibility to figure out how to fix that. The third reason for this whole kind of subscription fatigue is the easiest to fix but the most evil, I think the most unethical which is hiding the cancel button. --- A lot of subscription businesses make it really easy. It’s kind of like the Hotel California. You can check out anytime you like but you can never leave. They’ll make you only cancel on Tuesdays by phone, in person, with a physical letter. That does extend your subscription maybe for a month or two but it creates a lot of I guess the opposite of goodwill, a lot of mistrust, a lot of resentment and it ultimately eats into your brand equity. The way I feel is it’s ultimately unethical. Who wants to work at a place that builds revenue by charging people for things that they don’t want and wish they could cancel. So when it comes to ethics and building out a forever transaction there’s a pretty weighty obligation on the part of the business owner, the business leader to create a model that is trustworthy so that the consumer can take off their consumer hat, put on a member hat, stop looking for alternatives and stop worrying about whether they’re being treated fairly. And I have to say that not only is this ethical good behavior, it’s also good business. --- Because when you have a customer who feels like a member, who’s stopped looking for alternatives, who’s stopped comparing your offering with other people’s offerings and who has agreed to pay you on an automatic schedule, you have kind of achieved let’s say the Holy Grail of business models.

How To Stop Thinking Negative Thoughts - Qasim Ali Shah

In this video, Qasim Ali Shah talking about on the topic "Negative Thoughts". He is also sharing his experience, wisdom and knowledge that will be helpful for all of those who want to know about this topic. ===== ABOUT Qasim Ali Shah ===== Qasim Ali Shah is a well-renowned teacher, an inspirational speaker and leader, a success coach and a practical educationist of Pakistan. He is amongst the top entrepreneurs of the country, a best -selling author of 12 influential books, a famous radio host, chairman of Bestival book fair Lahore, a director of native schools system, Tour ambassador of Uzbekistan government, and intellectual on T. v, He is the founder of Qasim Ali Shah Foundation which is working on the moto that Pakistan will transform if thought transforms. In a very short span of time, his motivational videos got viral on WhatsApp and Facebook with 1 million subscribers on YouTube and 2.1 million followers on the Facebook page and many other mediums, Shah’s endeavor is around the globe. His lectures are relatable among masses due to his regional language, style, examples, above all his journey of strength and resilience. He has delivered 1000s of inspirational seminars and sessions on various topics of self-help. He has trained thousands (1000s) of the judiciary including civil and session judges, thousands (1000s ) of highest placed private sectors, governmental institutes and departments, armed forces, Social Groups and NGOs, Educational Institutes, International and national tours. His live audience whom he has trained is approximately nine million (900,000) He has written hundreds (100s) of articles for several newspapers. Hundreds of articles, blogs, and podcasts have been written on his works and achievements at national and international level. ===== FOLLOW ME ON THE SOCIALS ===== - Qasim Ali Shah: https://goo.gl/6BKcxu - Google+: https://goo.gl/uPyGvT - Twitter: https://goo.gl/78MVoA - Website : https://goo.gl/Tgjy6u ===== Team Member: Waqas Nasir ===== #NegativeThinking #Thoughts #QasimAliShah

Total Awakening Live In Real Time - Part 2

Continuation of my live awakening. Advice from God about reality, life, and waking up. Support Actualized.org on Patreon: https://ift.tt/2AJvfIg The Ultimate Life Purpose Course - Create Your Dream Career: https://ift.tt/29w9I9y Leo Reviews Top 200 Self Help Books https://ift.tt/29Z66uZ Leo's Blog: https://ift.tt/2mWWGH7 Actualized.org Forum https://ift.tt/2a7wTJl Disclaimer: Advice provided without warranty. This is NOT medical advice. By watching & applying this advice you agree to take 100% responsibility for all consequences.

Should social media platforms censor hate speech? | Nadine Strossen | Big Think

Should social media platforms censor hate speech? New videos DAILY: https://bigth.ink/youtube Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: https://bigth.ink/Edge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should social media companies censor hate speech on their platforms? Nadine Strossen, law professor and former president of the ACLU, says that while tech giants have no legal obligation to respect First Amendment rights, she urges them to allow as much free speech as is feasible. Those who advocate censorship on social media worry about the harm caused by hate or disinformation, but they never examine whether censorship is going to be effective in actually addressing the root issue, says Strossen.  Online or offline, censorship doesn't work to make the world better. "Every hate speech law around the world to this day is disproportionately enforced consistently against the very minority groups who are hoped to be protected," says Strossen. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NADINE STROSSEN: Nadine Strossen is the John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School. From 1991 through 2008, she served as President of the American Civil Liberties Union, the first woman to head the nation’s largest and oldest civil liberties organization. Her most recent book is HATE: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship. Purchase Nadine Strossen's latest book, Hate: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship: https://amzn.to/37LvPED ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIPT: "NADINE STROSSEN: Social media platforms present the same issues that we have been grappling with with respect to older media, but throughout human history every time a new medium of communication comes along many people, including many government officials, become very exercised about the new power and the allegedly new harms that are posed. So, we went through this when radio was invented, when the telephone was invented, when television was invented, when the World Wide Web came to people’s attention. And in fact, I have read that when the printing press was invented and when papyrus was invented there were similar irruptions of fear about this great new power to distribute information and the harm that could be done through information and disinformation. So, I think it’s really important for us to have historic humility and not see what we’re going through now as inherently different and more dangerous than the past. And I think that the same fundamental principles that have applied to other media should apply to social media as well. First of all, As private sector entities social media companies have absolutely no legal obligation to respect First Amendment rights, free speech rights for anybody else. So, just as I have no right to participate in your wonderful film and I have no right to have an op-ed in the New York Times, I have no right to have my post displayed on Facebook or Twitter and so forth. Moreover, those companies have their own First Amendment rights to make their own editorial decisions about what expression they are going to allow on their platform and what they’re not going to allow. I, as somebody who defend free speech rights for media companies, along with other companies, would oppose government restriction on the ability of these companies to decide what they will air and what they will not air. However, I will raise my voice to urge these companies to adhere, as closely as feasible, to the same basic standards that are reflected in the First Amendment. Because I think that for all of the potential damage that can be done by various kinds of online communications, including disinformation and so-called fake news and political ads and so forth, that far more harm is done when we empower these largely unaccountable private sector really powerful entities to pick and choose what expression is going to be aired and what will not be aired. And that danger is especially great when we are talking about political speech. The supreme court has consistently said throughout history of all expression that is important in our system of government by far the most important is speech about public affairs, speech about politics. We the people, to quote the opening words of our constitution, we wield sovereign power but how can we do that responsibly or effectively if we do not have access, full access to information about those who are running for office? Those who are seeking our votes? Those who are making public policy decisions? Most of the time when people advocate censorship, beyond the emergency situation in which First Amendment law allows speech to be censored, most of the time people talk about the harm that speech can cause, whether it... To read the full transcript, go to: https://ift.tt/37MCuOB