TOP 100 SCIENCE SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Earl's path along northeast is not well-worn By SETH BORENSTEIN 2010-09-02T21:48:16ZWASHINGTON (AP) -- Pushed by an ill-timed trough of low pressure, Hurricane Earl is heading uncomfortably close to an area relatively few hurricanes tend to go: the Northeast coastline.... hosted.ap.org |
Why do we give to charity? | Tessera, The Lay Scientist Do we relate more easily to individual people in need than to groups? (Guest post by Tessera)Jonah Lehrer suggests that we find it much easier to relate to individuals in need than to groups of people because of the "identifiable victim effect". He cites the Chilean miners as an example – a group of people who fail to interest most of us as much as a single famine victim.Lehrer also mentions a paper which "tested recent claims that analytical processing might undermine support for identified victims by suppressing emotional responses". It found that "Less-analytic processors donated more to a single identified victim than to requests describing statistical victims or a combination of both; more-analytic processors showed no differences."In other words, less analytical people are more likely to give to an individual or to a campaign using images of a single person.While this may be true for some people in some instances, charitable giving appears to be much more complex – and more interesting – than this. It's true that charities know the value of showing a cute animal or big-eyed starving child with flies crawling on it (because animals are individuals too in this instance).But charitable responses to major disasters like the tsunami or the current situation in Pakistan appear to contradict the identifiable victim response. For example, the British people have given considerable and unexpected amounts to relief in Pakistan . Does this make us more analytical than other nations? It could be said that people who give to large groups far away have a stronger emotional response or more empathy as it extends to more than one individual.The type of victim is relevant too. For example, a homeless person on the street is an individual, sometimes familiar and living in the potential giver's neighbourhood. But for many passers-by, when they are begged at there's a judgmental/analytical process which happens. Is the beggar just going to spend the money on alcohol? Does s/he deserve our hard-earned money? Is s/he a helpless victim who had no part in their own downfall?Women begging on the street with babies are often trying to create an emotional response but some people may not respond to this, even wondering if it is really that woman's child, perhaps recalling some media story about begging rings and scams. Any individual doesn't do it for us, it must be the right individual.The concept of the deserving poor comes into play and perhaps overrides the individuality of the beggar and prevents identification; it's an idea that's been around since the 16th century. This is where sad puppies and starving children score – they are clearly innocent victims. But at some level, there is always an analytical process going on before we connect emotionally and decide whether we are being played and whether to act on generous feelings.There's also media coverage. The Chilean miners are currently being ousted from the headlines by cricket scandals and footballers' private lives. What's more, the miners are alive and apparently in no immediate danger. There's no daily drama or death toll to tug our heart strings.Time is a factor, too. A long-drawn out situation that appears insoluble is less attractive than a sudden, unforeseen natural disaster with shock value or something that appears to need a quick(ish) fix where it's easier to feel a difference is being made.In addition, Lehrer says that we don't identify with statistics, but I think that numbers do have an effect sometimes. Perhaps part of the problem is that the miners are neither one small child trapped down a well nor are there millions of them in imminent danger. There are too many of them and not enough.It's true that millions of children around the world are daily at risk from preventable disease and hunger and yet people give money to the local donkey sanctuary because they saw a picture of a poorly donkey in the local paper, but this is as much about marketing as generosity and empathy. Research by psychologist Richard Wiseman found that the colour of a charity donation box and the wording on it affect how likely people are to give, for example. Using the word "disaster" is good marketing, too.There's possibly also a peer pressure effect. If everyone in your office is putting money into a collection tin, then resisting is going to be harder than if the tin is just in a shop or you get a mail shot at home. Telethons tap into something similar: look how much money everyone is giving, don't you want to be part of this virtuous group too? In such situations, what the collection is for becomes secondary, whether it's to sponsor a single child or for a major disaster.For some people, charity is a religious duty, neither an emotional/empathic nor an analytical response.There is a fair bit of research showing that women are more charitable than men, so gender is another factor (so are older people and northerners in the UK).One research paper looks at the gender difference in more detail. It calls the ability to identify or empathise with others "the inclusion of others in the self". It also looks at moral identity – the importance of being fair, kind, just, generous etc to self-identity. What it found was that men with stronger moral identity were more likely to give to individuals or to an in-group (local charities, for example) whereas women were more likely to give to an out-group (eg overseas charities) as their moral identity increased. In other words, these women are responding to large groups more than men. Does this mean men are less analytical?So it looks like charitable giving and relating to people in need isn't just about individuals versus groups but is much more complex – which is hardly surprising given that human instincts and motives for doing anything are complex. And just to confuse matters further, one of the biggest charities in the UK in terms of giving is the National Trust, which doesn't help humans at all.Tessera blogs at http://tessera2009.blogspot.com/Martin Robbinsguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Mystery Bird: Eurasian collared dove, Streptopelia decaocto | GrrlScientist What is this Old World species doing in southern California? My friends at BirdNote Radio answer this questionEurasian collared dove, Streptopelia decaocto, sometimes hyphenated as Eurasian collared-dove or known simply as the collared dove, photographed in San Dimas, Los Angeles county, southern California, USA. Image: Steve Duncan, 19 April 2009. [how about looking at this bird with binoculars?]Question: If you can identify this mystery bird, then I have a question for you: what is it doing in southern California?Response: This is a Eurasian collared dove, Streptopelia decaocto, hanging around in southern California. What is this Old World species doing there, so far from home? Embedded below is a 2 minute podcast of the popular radio programme BirdNote Radio, by some of my Seattle birding pals. In this episode, they talk about the Eurasian collared dove and answer this question:If you have bird images, video or mp3 files that you'd like to share with a large and appreciate audience, feel free to email them to me for consideration.GrrlScientistguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
How the whole is greater than the sum of its parts After mapping humans' intricate social networks, Nicholas Christakis and colleague James Fowler began investigating how this information could better our lives. Now, he reveals his hot-off-the-press findings: These networks can be used to detect epidemics earlier than ever, from the spread of innovative ideas to risky behaviors to diseaseAfter mapping humans' intricate social networks, Nicholas Christakis and colleague James Fowler began investigating how this information could better our lives. Now, he reveals his hot-off-the-press findings: These networks can be used to detect epidemics earlier than ever, from the spread of innovative ideas to risky behaviors to viruses (like H1N1). TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com. Watch a highlight reel of the Top 10 TEDTalks.GrrlScientistguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Findings: Murder! Intrigue! Astronomers? The story of the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe has box-office potential. feeds.nytimes.com |