myserendipities

[myserendipities]

"For years, psychology has tied hope to goal-setting and motivation. But a team of researchers led by Megan Edwards and Laura King from the University of Missouri psychological sciences department of is challenging that idea, showing that hope stands apart as one of the strongest positive emotions that directly fosters a sense of meaning. “Our research shifts the perspective on hope from merely a cognitive process related to goal attainment to recognizing it as a vital emotional experience that enriches life’s meaning,” says Edwards, who earned a doctorate at Mizzou and is now a postdoctoral scholar at Duke University. “This insight opens new avenues for enhancing psychological well-being.” Using six studies with more than 2,300 participants from diverse backgrounds, the team analyzed a range of emotions, including amusement, contentment, excitement, and happiness. The findings consistently demonstrated that only hope consistently predicted a stronger sense of meaning. Experiencing meaning in life is a central aspect of psychological functioning, predicting a host of important outcomes, such as happiness, better quality relationships, better physical health, and higher income, King, a professor of psychological sciences, says. “Experiencing life as meaningful is crucial for just about every good thing you can imagine in a person’s life,” King says.

Since finding meaning in life enhances everything from self-care to relationships and daily routines, the researchers suggest simple ways to build hope each day.

One key approach is to pay attention to and appreciate positive moments—even small ones. While we often think about future milestones, simply noticing when things are going well can foster hope.

Another strategy is to seize opportunities even in chaotic times. When life feels uncertain, recognizing and seizing small opportunities can create a sense of forward momentum.

Additionally, it helps to appreciate growth and potential, both in yourself and others. Recognizing ongoing progress can inspire thoughts of a positive future.

Engaging in caring and nurturing activities is another way to cultivate hope. Just as tending to children or planting trees can symbolize future possibilities, investing time in activities that nurture growth can reinforce a hopeful mindset.

And when things feel bleak, it’s important to remember that nothing is permanent. Situations can change—and hope begins with the belief that they will."

source: https://www.futurity.org/hope-well-being-3285112/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hope-well-being-3285112

[myserendipities]

"Since ChatGPT appeared almost three years ago, the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on learning has been widely debated. Are they handy tools for personalised education, or gateways to academic dishonesty? Most importantly, there has been concern that using AI will lead to a widespread “dumbing down”, or decline in the ability to think critically. If students use AI tools too early, the argument goes, they may not develop basic skills for critical thinking and problem-solving. Is that really the case? According to a recent study by scientists from MIT, it appears so. Using ChatGPT to help write essays, the researchers say, can lead to “cognitive debt” and a “likely decrease in learning skills”. Current and future generations need to be able to think critically and creatively and solve problems. However, AI is changing what these things mean. Producing essays with pen and paper is no longer a demonstration of critical thinking ability, just as doing long division is no longer a demonstration of numeracy. Knowing when, where and how to use AI is the key to long-term success and skill development. Prioritising which tasks can be offloaded to an AI to reduce cognitive debt is just as important as understanding which tasks require genuine creativity and critical thinking." source: https://www.psypost.org/chatgpt-and-cognitive-debt-new-study-suggests-ai-might-be-hurting-your-brains-ability-to-think/

[myserendipities]

"According to a new study published in the Royal Society, as many as 73 percent of seemingly reliable answers from AI chatbots could actually be inaccurate. The collaborative research paper looked at nearly 5,000 large language model (LLM) summaries of scientific studies by ten widely used chatbots, including ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-4.5, DeepSeek, and LLaMA 3.3 70B. It found that, even when explicitly goaded into providing the right facts, AI answers lacked key details at a rate of five times that of human-written scientific summaries. "When summarizing scientific texts, LLMs may omit details that limit the scope of research conclusions, leading to generalizations of results broader than warranted by the original study," the researchers wrote." source: https://futurism.com/ai-chatbots-summarizing-research

[myserendipities]

"A recent study published in the journal Nature Climate Change has found that the richest 10 percent of the world population are responsible for an astonishing two-thirds of observable climate warming since 1990. Basically, that small minority of the wealthiest among us contribute nearly seven times as much to extreme climate change as the entire lower-earning 90 percent of the planet. If that's not enough to have you reaching for your pitchfork, the top 1 percent contribute 20 times as much to climate disasters as the bottom 99 percent. Since 2019, the research article notes, the "wealthiest 10 percent of the global population accounted for nearly half of global emissions" through "private consumption and investments, whereas the poorest 50 percent accounted for only one-tenth of global emissions." "If everyone had emitted like the bottom 50 percent of the global population, the world would have seen minimal additional warming since 1990," co-author Carl-Friedrich Schleussner said. "Addressing this imbalance is crucial for fair and effective climate action." While the numbers are staggering, they're far from shocking at this point. In the United States, the top 1 percent of households control 80 percent of company assets — the average person reading this has no way of ending the coal industry's devastating reign over Appalachia, for example. That's a decision to be made by shareholders and executives looming over us from the top of the pyramid. Rather, the article is just more confirmation of something we've known for years: the rich are the biggest threat to the climate by far. But while most studies on wealth and climate change hone in on consumption habits, this bit of research looks a little deeper under the hood at the system making this all possible." source: https://futurism.com/scientists-wealthy-global-warming

[myserendipities]

"After OpenAI CEO Sam Altman bemoaned the massive additional costs of people saying "please" and "thank you" to ChatGPT, one New York Times reporter is making the case that it's worth the price. In a new piece, NYT culture writer Sopan Deb acknowledged that the financial and environmental toll of those additional few words can be substantial — but for the sake of our humanity, it may well be worth it. With chatbots integrating steadily into our lives, our relationships with these technologies that pose such existential threats to our labor — and perhaps our lives — have never mattered more. When discussing the subject with Massachusetts Institute of Technology sociologist Sherry Turkle, the researcher said that for all the "parlor tricks" that lend them the appearance of consciousness, chatbots are "alive enough" to matter for those who use them regularly. "If an object is alive enough for us to start having intimate conversations, friendly conversations, treating it as a really important person in our lives, even though it’s not, it’s alive enough for us to show courtesy to," Turkle told Deb. Despite that caveat, the MIT sociologist and bestselling author noted that chatbots don't care whether you "make dinner or commit suicide" after you step away from them. Per that line of thinking, an AI would also not "care" about how nice or rude we are to it — but there's a chance, if AI ever gains consciousness, that the situation could change. To George's mind, being polite to chatbots offers them the chance to "act like a living being that shares our culture and that shares our values and that shares our mortality" — though admittedly, that framework has its drawbacks. "We’re connected. We are in a reciprocal relationship. That's why we use those pieces of language," the playwright told the NYT. "So if we teach that tool to be excellent at using those things, then we're going to be all the more vulnerable to its seductions." Whether acting as a shepherd for AI's burgeoning humanity or simply being kind for kindness' sake, the cost of "pleases" and "thank yous" seems way lower in context — and hey, companies like OpenAI are footing the bill anyway." source: https://futurism.com/ai-politeness-argument

[myserendipities]

"Small changes to your daily routine — like trying a new walking route or chatting with a neighbor — spark powerful shifts in your mood and memory. In fact, research shows that novelty and variety don’t just keep life interesting. They reshape your brain and boost emotional well-being. On days when participants did something out of the ordinary, they reported feeling happier and less bored. Time felt like it passed faster. On dull, repetitive days, boredom returned and time dragged. The difference came down to whether the experience broke their usual pattern. If you feel like the days are blending together — or your mood is sinking and your memory feels foggy — the root issue could be monotony. When life becomes too predictable, your brain stops paying attention. That dull routine doesn’t just affect how you feel, it also limits how well your brain stores and retrieves memories. Thankfully, the fix isn’t complicated. You don’t need a life overhaul or a long vacation. What your brain needs is freshness — just enough novelty each day to signal, “This matters. Remember this.” Choose one new experience each day, no matter how small — Add a little novelty to your day. You could take a new route for your daily walk, cook a dish you’ve never tried, rearrange a room or talk to someone you haven’t seen in a while. It doesn’t have to be thrilling — it just has to be different. Your brain thrives on contrast. Try something new for lunch. Sit in a different spot to read. Even tiny changes add up fast." source: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/04/18/novelty-for-mental-well-being.aspx

[myserendipities]

" The researchers found surprisingly high levels of microplastics in the brain tissue. The concentration of plastics in the brain was much greater than that found in the liver or kidney samples. It was also higher than levels previously reported in placentas and testes. The median amount of total plastics for 2024 brain samples was 4917 micrograms per gram, and for 2016 samples, it was 3345 micrograms per gram. For comparison, the 2024 liver and kidney samples were 433 and 404 micrograms per gram, respectively. Even more concerning was the finding that the amount of plastic in the brain was increasing over time. Brain tissue samples from 2024 had significantly higher levels of microplastics than samples from 2016, representing an approximate 50% increase in just eight years. The predominant type of plastic found in the brain was polyethylene, a common plastic used in packaging, bottles, and cups. He believes that food, especially meat, is the primary source of microplastics entering the body, as commercial meat production tends to accumulate plastic particles within the food chain. Animal studies have suggested that microplastics could affect brain health. Experiments on fish have shown that exposure to nanoplastics impairs swimming ability and hunting behavior. In mice, prolonged exposure to microplastics led to memory deficits, inflammation, and reduced levels of key proteins involved in brain function. While these studies indicate potential risks, more research is needed to determine whether similar effects occur in humans. The commentary also highlighted the increasing presence of microplastics in food and water. People who drink bottled water, for example, ingest significantly more microplastics than those who consume tap water. Heating food in plastic containers has been shown to release billions of plastic particles into food, raising concerns about dietary exposure. Other sources of microplastic ingestion include seafood, processed foods, and even tea bags, which can release millions of tiny plastic particles when steeped in hot water. “Bottled water alone can expose people to nearly as many microplastic particles annually as all ingested and inhaled sources combined,” said Brandon Luu, an Internal Medicine Resident at the University of Toronto. “Switching to tap water could reduce this exposure by almost 90%, making it one of the simplest ways to cut down on microplastic intake.” “Heating food in plastic containers—especially in the microwave—can release substantial amounts of microplastics and nanoplastics,” he explains. “Avoiding plastic food storage and using glass or stainless steel alternatives is a small but meaningful step in limiting exposure.” Efforts to reduce microplastic exposure may help limit their accumulation in the body, but it is unclear whether this would lead to a reduction in brain plastic levels over time. The commentary suggested that more studies should focus on potential methods of eliminating microplastics from the body. Some research has indicated that plastic-related chemicals like bisphenol A can be excreted through sweat, raising the possibility that exercise or sauna use could aid in microplastic removal. However, no direct evidence currently exists to confirm whether the human body can effectively clear accumulated microplastics." source: https://www.psypost.org/scientists-issue-dire-warning-microplastic-accumulation-in-human-brains-escalating/

[myserendipities]

"A new study published in the journal Societies suggests that frequent reliance on artificial intelligence tools may negatively affect critical thinking skills. People who used AI tools more frequently demonstrated weaker critical thinking abilities, largely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as cognitive offloading. This effect was particularly pronounced among younger individuals, while those with higher education levels tended to retain stronger critical thinking skills regardless of AI tool usage. “The key takeaway is that while AI tools can enhance productivity and information accessibility, their overuse may lead to unintended cognitive consequences,” Gerlich told PsyPost. “The findings reveal a strong negative correlation between frequent AI tool usage and critical thinking abilities, mediated by cognitive offloading. This suggests that reliance on AI tools could reduce opportunities for deep, reflective thinking. “For individuals, this means being mindful of how they interact with AI and ensuring they continue to engage in critical analysis and independent problem-solving. AI should complement cognitive engagement rather than replace it. This is particularly relevant for education, where AI-driven learning platforms must be integrated in ways that encourage active thinking rather than passive dependence.” Age and education level were also important factors. Younger participants (aged 17–25) showed higher AI tool usage and greater cognitive offloading, which coincided with lower critical thinking scores. In contrast, older participants (aged 46 and above) demonstrated stronger critical thinking skills and were less reliant on AI tools. “One surprising finding was the extent to which younger participants exhibited higher dependence on AI tools and, correspondingly, lower critical thinking scores,” Gerlich said. “This suggests that digital natives, who have grown up with AI-integrated technologies, might be more prone to cognitive offloading than older generations.” Education level played a protective role—those with higher education tended to maintain strong critical thinking skills, even if they used AI tools frequently. This suggests that formal education may provide individuals with strategies to critically assess AI-generated information rather than accepting it uncritically."

source: https://www.psypost.org/ai-tools-may-weaken-critical-thinking-skills-by-encouraging-cognitive-offloading-study-suggests/

[myserendipities]

"Chewing gum releases hundreds of tiny plastic pieces straight into people's mouths, researchers said on Tuesday, also warning of the pollution created by the rubber-based sweet.

Lisa Lowe, a Ph.D. student at UCLA, chewed seven pieces each of 10 brands of gum, before the researchers then ran a chemical analysis on her saliva.

"They found that a gram (0.04 ounces) of gum released an average of 100 microplastic fragments, though some shed more than 600. The average weight of a stick of gum is around 1.5 grams.

This pales in comparison to the many other ways that humans ingest microplastics, Mohanty emphasized.

For example, other researchers estimated last year that a liter (34 fluid ounces) of water in a plastic bottle contained an average of 240,000 microplastics."

source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-03-gum-microplastics-mouth.html

[myserendipities]

"As the artificial intelligence boom spirals to epic proportions, big tech companies are throwing heaps of cash into massive data centers throughout the world. Packed full of hardware to process AI queries, these data centers put out forest-melting levels of heat as they suck the life out of local energy grids and water tables to meet demand. They're incredibly noisy as well — pumping incessant mechanical sounds into quiet neighborhoods and driving away wildlife. And unfortunately, the public cost of AI doesn't end there. New research by academics at UC Riverside and Caltech is warning that AI data centers are also taking a massive toll on human health, in the form of diseases like cancer and asthma.

The study, which hasn't yet been peer-reviewed, looked at the production output of AI hardware over the past five years, found that air pollution resulting from AI development could cause as many as 1,300 premature cancer and asthma deaths per year by 2030.

That's on top of a cost approaching nearly $20 billion a year from the collective burden of health treatment, missing wages, and lower school attendance as a result of diseases caused by AI runoff. In 2023 alone, the total cost of AI-connected illness was $1.5 billion, the paper found, in an eye-watering 20 percent increase from 2022.

AI's air pollution impacts can be best summarized like the nuclear meltdown of Chernobyl — the deadly toxins spread far and wide with no respect for distance, affecting those in, around, and far away from the actual data center itself.

"The data centers pay local property taxes to the county where they operate," Ren said in a press blurb about the study. "But this health impact is not just limited to a small community. Actually, it travels across the whole country, so those other places are not compensated at all."

The authors of the study recommend tech companies adopt standard reporting procedures for air pollution and public health resulting from AI runoff — something the immensely profitable ventures are unlikely to do willingly.

A range of big tech companies investing heavily in AI, including Meta and Microsoft, pushed back against the research in statements to Ars. A Google spokesperson said that the paper "promotes an inaccurate emissions estimate generated under false pretenses, undermining the progress of clean energy resource growth and creating a false narrative of health harms."

In other words, this line of inquiry is getting under their skin. With the AI market set to inflate to $900 billion by 2026, communities are beginning to ask who's really paying the cost for big tech's lucrative gambit — and how much computer power we truly need to build a better world."

source: https://futurism.com/cancer-ai-data-centers

[myserendipities]

"a team of researchers conducted an experiment that forced participants to completely block all internet access on their smartphones for two whole weeks. Phone calls and old-school texting were still permitted, and if they wanted to, the subjects could still go online using a computer. What the team found, as detailed in a study published in the journal PNAS Nexus, was that even though the intervention was relatively short, it finished with significant improvements — and we really mean significant — to the participants' mental health, attention span, and subjective well-being. In numbers, nearly all the participants — 91 percent — improved on at least one of the three outcomes, while around three-quarters reported better mental health by the end. What's really striking, though, is that attention spans improved to a degree comparable to reversing ten years of age-related cognitive decline, the study found.  The findings even suggest that the intervention had a stronger effect on depression symptoms than antidepressants, and was roughly on par with cognitive behavioral therapy. The authors note, however, that the nature of the work is "quite different from those studied in clinical psychology contexts." What's driving all this? Ward suggests that the simplest explanation is that the experiment forced participants to spend more time doing fulfilling things in the real world. "That's doing hobbies, talking to people face-to-face, or going out in nature," Ward said. "They got more sleep, felt more socially connected, and felt more in control of their own decisions." That it only took two weeks off the grid to produce these remarkable effects is encouraging. Maybe most of have a chance of fighting the brain rot. On the flip side, it doesn't make for a very long trial, so in the future, undertaking lengthier experiments could bear out the intervention's long-term benefits."

source: https://futurism.com/neoscope/block-internet-phone-results

[myserendipities]

"Trusting artificial intelligence over the real thing seems, per a new study, to be atrophying folks' critical thinking skills. As flagged by the folks at 404 Media, new research from Carnegie Mellon and Microsoft — yes, the same company that invested nearly $14 billion into OpenAI and is essentially subsidizing the ChatGPT maker — suggests that the more people use AI, to less critical thinking they do. "Used improperly, technologies can and do result in the deterioration of cognitive faculties that ought to be preserved," the researchers wrote in the paper. "A key irony of automation is that by mechanising routine tasks and leaving exception-handling to the human user, you deprive the user of the routine opportunities to practice their judgement and strengthen their cognitive musculature, leaving them atrophied and unprepared when the exceptions do arise."

Trusting artificial intelligence over the real thing seems, per a new study, to be atrophying folks' critical thinking skills.

As flagged by the folks at 404 Media, new research from Carnegie Mellon and Microsoft — yes, the same company that invested nearly $14 billion into OpenAI and is essentially subsidizing the ChatGPT maker — suggests that the more people use AI, to less critical thinking they do.

"Used improperly, technologies can and do result in the deterioration of cognitive faculties that ought to be preserved," the researchers wrote in the paper. "A key irony of automation is that by mechanising routine tasks and leaving exception-handling to the human user, you deprive the user of the routine opportunities to practice their judgement and strengthen their cognitive musculature, leaving them atrophied and unprepared when the exceptions do arise."

source: https://futurism.com/study-ai-critical-thinking

[myserendipities]

"Generally, things really do seem better in the morning, with clear differences in self-reported mental health and well-being across the day, suggest the findings of a large study published in the open access journal BMJ Mental Health. People generally wake up feeling in the best frame of mind in the morning, but in the worst around midnight, the findings indicate, with day of the week and season of the year also playing their part.

Analysis of the data revealed a clear pattern in self-reported mental health and well-being across the day, with people generally waking up in the morning feeling best—lowest depressive/anxiety symptoms and loneliness and highest happiness, life satisfaction, and worthwhile ratings—and feeling worst around midnight.

The influence of day of the week was less clear-cut, with more variation in mental health and well-being during weekends than on weekdays.

Happiness, life satisfaction, and worthwhile ratings were all higher on Mondays and Fridays than on Sundays, and happiness was also higher on Tuesdays. But there was no evidence that loneliness differed across days of the week.

There was clear evidence of a seasonal influence on mood, however. Compared with winter, people tended to have lower levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms and loneliness, and higher levels of happiness, life satisfaction, and feeling that life was worthwhile in other seasons.

The similar time of day patterns in mental health and well-being, irrespective of the seasons, is surprising, as one of the main reasons for seasonal changes in frame of mind is the number of daylight hours, say the researchers.

"Other drivers of the seasonal variation in [mental health and well-being] could include weather (temperature, precipitation, humidity) as well as various sociocultural cycles, including cultural holidays, norms, and employment patterns," they suggest."

source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-02-generally-morning-large.html

[myserendipities]

"Consuming one gram of omega-3 per day may slow down the rate of biological aging in humans, according to an analysis of data from a clinical trial involving over 700 older adults over a three-year period. The findings are published in Nature Aging.

In an analysis of blood samples, Bischoff-Ferrari and colleagues found that omega-3 consumption moderately slowed biological aging across several of the epigenetic clocks by up to 4 months. This finding was not dependent on the sex, age or body mass index of the participant. Combining omega-3, vitamin D, and exercise was found to work even better, as shown by one of the tests.

Additionally, the authors also found that these three interventions together had the biggest impact on lowering cancer risk and preventing frailty over three years. Each intervention works through different but related mechanisms, and when combined, they reinforce each other, creating a stronger overall effect, the authors suggest."

source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-02-daily-omega-fatty-acids-human.html

[myserendipities]

" Researchers at Caltech have calculated how fast the human brain processes information — and the number turned out to be hilariously low. As detailed in a new study published in the journal Neuron, the team concluded that the speed of human thought is a measly ten bits per second. "This is an extremely low number," said team lead and Caltech biological sciences professor Markus Meier in a statement. While that may indeed sound agonizingly slow, the team also found that our bodies' sensory systems also process many orders of magnitude more bits per second of other information about our environment. "Every moment, we are extracting just 10 bits from the trillion that our senses are taking in and using those ten to perceive the world around us and make decisions," Meister explained. "This raises a paradox: What is the brain doing to filter all of this information?" Scientists have estimated that our brains have 85 billion neurons, a third of which are used for high-level thinking. But since our brain is limited to just one thought at a time, the researchers' findings leave plenty of major questions unanswered. For one, what exactly is happening with all of those other neurons? Why are our thoughts so constrained compared to our sensory system? "Human thinking can be seen as a form of navigation through a space of abstract concepts," the paper reads. "Our ancestors have chosen an ecological niche where the world is slow enough to make survival possible." "In fact, the 10 bits per second are needed only in worst-case situations, and most of the time our environment changes at a much more leisurely pace," the researchers wrote. The findings could have significant implications for our efforts to develop brain-computer interfaces, which may well also be restricted to this extreme speed limit." source: https://futurism.com/neoscope/human-brain-bits-per-second-thought

[myserendipities]

"Have you felt uplifted through a simple smile, help with a task or a positive interchange with someone—even a stranger? Kindness works both ways. A new study conducted by BYU researcher Julianne Holt-Lunstad published in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology finds that offering a single act of kindness each week reduced loneliness, social isolation and social anxiety, and promoted neighborhood relationships. The findings suggest that for individuals feeling isolated or lonely, reaching out to help others might be an unexpected solution. "By helping others, you're in essence helping yourself," added Holt-Lunstad, explaining how kindness breaks down barriers by offering the giver a sense of purpose and connection." source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-11-kindness-week-individuals-communities.html

[myserendipities]

"There is broad scientific consensus that intelligence is partly inherited and that genes play a significant role. But pinning this incredibly complex trait down to precise contributions from specific genes is a far more thorny scientific challenge – and claims of being able to produce meaningful IQ “gains” in the context of embryo screening are widely viewed as contentious. Despite the science being unsettled, it has emerged that at least one company, the US startup Heliospect, appears to be preparing to publicly launch a service that allows parents who have conceived several embryos through IVF to select those most likely to have “desirable” traits, such as height and IQ. The testing is done by taking samples of DNA and looking for patterns. In the case of an embryo, a few cells are extracted to provide DNA results, which a company like Heliospect would run through its prediction algorithm. Scientists can use the data to seek out statistical correlations between genes and a person’s educational attainment (sometimes used as an IQ proxy), risk of psychiatric disorders and a whole host of other traits. The genetic contributions can be summed up to give a so-called polygenic score. But these scores are based on probability, rather than being a guarantee. Environmental and random biological variation also play a role. An embryo with a mediocre score could turn out to be a genius, and vice versa. And, in the wider context of society, access to healthcare, education, and a supportive family environment can have as large an impact as inherited traits. The company appears to have suggested that couples who use their service might expect to have a child who is, on average, six IQ points smarter than the child they would have had through natural conception. This is significantly higher than the 2.5 IQ point expected gain estimated in a 2019 study, that considered this hypothetical scenario. The validity of Heliospect’s claim is impossible to establish, although independent experts have expressed scepticism. Beyond possible medical risks, IQ screening of embryos poses a host of broader ethical questions. Some fear the technology could lead to a Gattaca-style stratified society. The 1997 science fiction film presented a world with a genetically enhanced upper class and a naturally conceived lower class." source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/18/what-is-genomic-prediction-and-can-embryos-really-be-screened-for-iq