We don't share political opinions with co-workers to avoid potential conflict, giving the impression of greater homogeneity and, paradoxically, more polarization

“It could turn ugly”: Selective disclosure of attitudes in political discussion networks. Sarah K.Cowan and Delia Baldassarri. Social Networks, Volume 52, January 2018, Pages 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.04.002

Highlights
•    We study under which conditions people reveal their political views to their discussion partners.
•    Americans are more likely to share their opinions with friends and family rather than co-workers.
•    We document the mechanism of selective disclosure.
•    Individuals, to avoid conflict, withhold their political views from those with whom they disagree.
•    What consequences selective disclosure has on social influence and political polarization?

Abstract: This article documents individuals selectively disclosing their political attitudes and discusses the consequences of these communication patterns for social influence and the democratic process. Using a large, diverse sample of U.S. resident adults, we ask under which conditions do people reveal their political preferences versus keeping them close to the vest. We find Americans are more likely to share their opinions with friends and family rather than co-workers and they are more likely to share their opinions on more salient topics. More importantly, they withhold their political attitudes specifically from those with whom they disagree in an attempt to avoid conflict. This produces the experience of highly homogeneous social contexts, in which only liberal or conservative views are voiced, while dissent remains silent, and oftentimes goes unacknowledged. This experience is not the result of homogeneous social contexts but the appearance of them. Paradoxically, the mechanism of selective disclosure, whose goal is to prevent conflict at the micro-level, might lead to the perception of greater division in the larger society.

Check also Brandt, Mark J, Jarret Crawford, and Daryl Van Tongeren. 2017. “Worldview Conflict in Daily Life”. PsyArXiv. September 29. http://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2017/09/worldview-conflict-in-daily-life.html

Criminal energetics: A theory of antisocial enhancement and criminal attenuation

Criminal energetics: A theory of antisocial enhancement and criminal attenuation. Michael G. Vaughn, Matt DeLisi. Aggression and Violent Behavior, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.11.002

Highlights
•    The role of energy in shaping antisocial and criminal careers is examined.
•    Energy is an enhancement and attenuator to an antisocial career.
•    A set of future research pathways for studying energetics and criminality is presented.

Abstract: Although energy is the currency of all life forms and energy is an underlying factor for physical and mental performance, its role in antisocial behavior has yet to be articulated. In this paper, we consider the role of energy in shaping antisocial and criminal careers and suggest that much like other forms of performance/productivity some criminal offenders are more energetic and therefore more virulent than others over the life-course. Specifically, we argue that energy is an enhancement and attenuator to an antisocial career and draw upon a diverse literature merging basic research on aging and energy production in human physiology and merge these findings with principles from the career criminal paradigm in criminology. Finally, we lay forth a set of research pathways, especially ways in which energy can be assessed, that can forge stronger links between the science of energetics and criminality.

Keywords: Age-crime curve; Aging; Antisocial behavior; Career criminals; Chronic offending; Energy; Energetics

Callousness and manipulativeness are central traits to a dark personality

A Network of Dark Personality Traits: What Lies at the Heart of Darkness? David K. Marcus, Jonathan Preszler, Virgil Zeigler-Hill. Journal of Research in Personality, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.003

Highlights
•    Network analysis provides a novel approach to studying dark personality traits.
•    Interpersonal manipulation is central to a network of dark personality traits.
•    Callousness is central to a network of dark personality traits.

Abstract: The question of whether there is a common element at the core of the various dark personality traits (e.g., psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, spitefulness, aggressiveness) has been the subject of debate. Callousness, manipulativeness, and disagreeableness have all been nominated as possibly serving as the core of these dark traits. Network analysis, which graphically and quantitatively describes the centrality of various related traits, provides a novel technique for examining this issue. We estimated an association network and an Adaptive Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator network for two large samples, one college student sample (N = 2,831) and one mixed college student and Mechanical Turk sample (N = 844). Interpersonal manipulation and callousness were the traits that were central to the networks.

Keywords: Network Analysis; Psychopathy; Narcissism; Machiavellianism; Spitefulness; Dark Triad

The “bad guy” profile is closer to the normal profile of real humans than that of the “good guys,” which are stereotyped

What are the cephalometric features of “good” and “bad” guys in cartoons? Alexandre Weiss, Cyril Villat, Alban Poitel and Sarah Gebeile-Chauty.  Orthod Fr, Volume 88, Issue 3, 263 - 274.
https://doi.org/10.1051/orthodfr/2017015

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to search for links between specific facial features and the psychology of the “good” and “bad” guys in cartoons. Material and method: We made 60 cephalometric tracings and compared the characters’ profiles using statistical tests.

Results: The “bad guy” profile is closer to the normal profile of real humans than that of the “good guys”. Profiles perceived as “good” in cartoons appear to be stereotyped. Thus, any profile not matching the “norm” can be interpreted as being unpleasant and consequently associated with the features of the “bad guys”. The standard “bad guy” profile has a longer more prominent nose, a jutting chin (a bigger soft-tissue angle) and a higher upper third of the face than the lower third (the opposite of the standard profile of the “good guys”).

Discussion: These standardized portraits reflect and influence the (subconscious) prejudices of both young and less young movie-goers (not to mention the cartoonists) regarding their fellow humans.

Key words: Cephalometry / Profile / Soft tissue / Cartoon / Morphopsychology

Violence Against Women Journal: The Meaning and Practice of Ejaculation on a Woman’s Face

Naked Aggression: The Meaning and Practice of Ejaculation on a Woman’s Face. Chyng Sun, Matthew B. Ezzell, Olivia Kendall. Violence Against Women, Vol 23, Issue 14, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216666723

Abstract: Based on in-depth interviews with 16 heterosexual men, this study focuses on participants’ meaning-making surrounding a common and controversial sexual act in pornography: ejaculation on a woman’s face (EOWF). We analyze the ways that male consumers decoded EOWF and the ways that EOWF, as a sexual script, was included in the men’s accounts of their sexual desires and practices. The majority of the men decoded EOWF through the preferred (encoded) meaning as an act of male dominance and sexual aggression and that they wanted to engage in it despite their general belief that women would not be interested in it.

Keywords: pornography, sexual behaviors, sexual script, male aggression, audience research,
sexual aggression

---
Given that U.S. society is White supremacist, patriarchal, and capitalist (hooks, 1994), it is not surprising that pornographers would encode these values in sexual expression and gender dynamics that may also be familiar and even attractive to male consumers. Put simply, pornography reflects the hegemonic value of male dominance and further perpetuates it. Just as rape is both illegal and normalized within patriarchal cultures (see, for example, Buchwald, Fletcher, & Roth, 2004), male dominance and sexual aggression in pornography may be found simultaneously distasteful and enticing. Some of the men in our study were open and direct about the appeal of EOWF as an expression of male dominance, but others couched the appeal of the act in its role in “pushing boundaries” or in its status as “taboo,” even if they could articulate the preferred meaning upon reflection. The strategy of euphemizing male sexual aggression as “taboo” may allow respondents to eroticize it without feeling misogynistic—but this strategy has its contradictions.

Indeed, multiple contradictions were revealed in the respondents’ discourses around pornography and sex. Typically, male participants initially failed to articulate why they liked to watch EOWF in pornography or what meaning they saw, if any, in the act. But when they were allowed some time to reflect, they stated that it is about male dominance and female degradation. Most men acknowledged that female porn stars come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and would only perform EOWF for money, but they also maintained that some performers genuinely liked it—and they maintained that they could tell—while saying that they often engaged in a “suspension of disbelief” to convince themselves of the performers’ enjoyment. Respondents also stated that they did not think women around them would like to be the targets of EOWF; nonetheless, they desired or had performed the act. This group of men seemed to struggle with cognitive dissonance (Aronson, 1992; Festinger, 1957; Stalder & Baron, 1998) concerning pornography’s function of providing sexual pleasure (in private, while masturbating) and the misogynistic messages that they were made aware of through self-reflection (in public, with an interviewer). The respondents’ lack of critical reflection, or their holding multiple, contradictory perspectives without resolving them, may be a form of moral identity work that allows them to maintain their stated attitude of “respecting women” while finding pleasure in male dominance. It is particularly at this juncture—recognizing the misogyny of EOWF but finding excuses to keep watching or performing it—that we recognize the power of pornography both in its encoded messages and in the context in which it is used.

[...]

Given that the subjects in the study were highly educated and had access to discourses of feminism and gender equality, the finding is particularly sobering.

Richard Feynman on Why Questions

[Transcript] Richard Feynman on Why Questions

61 Post author: Grognor 08 January 2012 07:01PM

 

I thought this video was a really good question dissolving by Richard Feynman. But it's in 240p! Nobody likes watching 240p videos. So I transcribed it. (Edit: That was in jest. The real reasons are because I thought I could get more exposure this way, and because a lot of people appreciate transcripts. Also, Paul Graham speculates that the written word is universally superior than the spoken word for the purpose of ideas.) I was going to post it as a rationality quote, but the transcript was sufficiently long that I think it warrants a discussion post instead.

Here you go:

Interviewer: If you get hold of two magnets, and you push them, you can feel this pushing between them. Turn them around the other way, and they slam together. Now, what is it, the feeling between those two magnets?
Feynman: What do you mean, "What's the feeling between the two magnets?"
Interviewer: There's something there, isn't there? The sensation is that there's something there when you push these two magnets together.
Feynman: Listen to my question. What is the meaning when you say that there's a feeling? Of course you feel it. Now what do you want to know?
Interviewer: What I want to know is what's going on between these two bits of metal?
Feynman: They repel each other.
Interviewer: What does that mean, or why are they doing that, or how are they doing that? I think that's a perfectly reasonable question.
Feynman: Of course, it's an excellent question. But the problem, you see, when you ask why something happens, how does a person answer why something happens? For example, Aunt Minnie is in the hospital. Why? Because she went out, slipped on the ice, and broke her hip. That satisfies people. It satisfies, but it wouldn't satisfy someone who came from another planet and who knew nothing about why when you break your hip do you go to the hospital. How do you get to the hospital when the hip is broken? Well, because her husband, seeing that her hip was broken, called the hospital up and sent somebody to get her. All that is understood by people. And when you explain a why, you have to be in some framework that you allow something to be true. Otherwise, you're perpetually asking why. Why did the husband call up the hospital? Because the husband is interested in his wife's welfare. Not always, some husbands aren't interested in their wives' welfare when they're drunk, and they're angry.
And you begin to get a very interesting understanding of the world and all its complications. If you try to follow anything up, you go deeper and deeper in various directions. For example, if you go, "Why did she slip on the ice?" Well, ice is slippery. Everybody knows that, no problem. But you ask why is ice slippery? That's kinda curious. Ice is extremely slippery. It's very interesting. You say, how does it work? You could either say, "I'm satisfied that you've answered me. Ice is slippery; that explains it," or you could go on and say, "Why is ice slippery?" and then you're involved with something, because there aren't many things as slippery as ice. It's very hard to get greasy stuff, but that's sort of wet and slimy. But a solid that's so slippery? Because it is, in the case of ice, when you stand on it (they say) momentarily the pressure melts the ice a little bit so you get a sort of instantaneous water surface on which you're slipping. Why on ice and not on other things? Because water expands when it freezes, so the pressure tries to undo the expansion and melts it. It's capable of melting, but other substances get cracked when they're freezing, and when you push them they're satisfied to be solid.
Why does water expand when it freezes and other substances don't? I'm not answering your question, but I'm telling you how difficult the why question is. You have to know what it is that you're permitted to understand and allow to be understood and known, and what it is you're not. You'll notice, in this example, that the more I ask why, the deeper a thing is, the more interesting it gets. We could even go further and say, "Why did she fall down when she slipped?" It has to do with gravity, involves all the planets and everything else. Nevermind! It goes on and on. And when you're asked, for example, why two magnets repel, there are many different levels. It depends on whether you're a student of physics, or an ordinary person who doesn't know anything. If you're somebody who doesn't know anything at all about it, all I can say is the magnetic force makes them repel, and that you're feeling that force.
You say, "That's very strange, because I don't feel kind of force like that in other circumstances." When you turn them the other way, they attract. There's a very analogous force, electrical force, which is the same kind of a question, that's also very weird. But you're not at all disturbed by the fact that when you put your hand on a chair, it pushes you back. But we found out by looking at it that that's the same force, as a matter of fact (an electrical force, not magnetic exactly, in that case). But it's the same electric repulsions that are involved in keeping your finger away from the chair because it's electrical forces in minor and microscopic details. There's other forces involved, connected to electrical forces. It turns out that the magnetic and electrical force with which I wish to explain this repulsion in the first place is what ultimately is the deeper thing that we have to start with to explain many other things that everybody would just accept. You know you can't put your hand through the chair; that's taken for granted. But that you can't put your hand through the chair, when looked at more closely, why, involves the same repulsive forces that appear in magnets. The situation you then have to explain is why, in magnets, it goes over a bigger distance than ordinarily. There it has to do with the fact that in iron all the electrons are spinning in the same direction, they all get lined up, and they magnify the effect of the force 'til it's large enough, at a distance, that you can feel it. But it's a force which is present all the time and very common and is a basic force of almost - I mean, I could go a little further back if I went more technical - but on an early level I've just got to tell you that's going to be one of the things you'll just have to take as an element of the world: the existence of magnetic repulsion, or electrical attraction, magnetic attraction.
I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you. For example, if we said the magnets attract like if rubber bands, I would be cheating you. Because they're not connected by rubber bands. I'd soon be in trouble. And secondly, if you were curious enough, you'd ask me why rubber bands tend to pull back together again, and I would end up explaining that in terms of electrical forces, which are the very things that I'm trying to use the rubber bands to explain. So I have cheated very badly, you see. So I am not going to be able to give you an answer to why magnets attract each other except to tell you that they do. And to tell you that that's one of the elements in the world - there are electrical forces, magnetic forces, gravitational forces, and others, and those are some of the parts. If you were a student, I could go further. I could tell you that the magnetic forces are related to the electrical forces very intimately, that the relationship between the gravity forces and electrical forces remains unknown, and so on. But I really can't do a good job, any job, of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else you're more familiar with, because I don't understand it in terms of anything else that you're more familiar with.

Liking what others “Like”: using Facebook to identify determinants of conformity

Liking what others “Like”: using Facebook to identify determinants of conformity. Johan Egebark and Mathias Ekström. Experimental Economics, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10683-017-9552-1

Abstract: In this paper we explore the micro-level determinants of conformity. Members of the social networking service Facebook express positive support to content on the website by clicking a Like button. We set up a natural field experiment to test whether users are more prone to support content if someone else has done so before. To find out to what extent conformity depends on group size and social ties we use three different treatment conditions: (1) one stranger has Liked the content, (2) three strangers have Liked the content, and (3) a friend has Liked the content. The results show that one Like from a single stranger had no impact. However, increasing the size of the influencing group doubled the probability that subjects expressed positive support. Friendship ties were also decisive. People were, on average, four times more likely to press the Like button if a friend, rather than a stranger, had done so before them. The existence of threshold effects in our experiment clearly shows that both group size and social proximity matters when opinions are shaped.

Sexual Appeal Is In The Nose -- Patterns of Eye Movements When Observers Judge Female Facial Attractiveness

Patterns of Eye Movements When Observers Judge Female Facial Attractiveness. Yan Zhang et al. Front. Psychol., https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01909

Abstract: The purpose of the present study is to explore the fixed model for the explicit judgments of attractiveness and infer which features are important to judge the facial attractiveness. Behavioral studies on the perceptual cues for female facial attractiveness implied three potentially important features: averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphy. However, these studies did not explained which regions of facial images influence the judgments of attractiveness. Therefore, the present research recorded the eye movements of 24 male participants and 19 female participants as they rated a series of 30 photographs of female facial attractiveness. Results demonstrated the following: (1) Fixation is longer and more frequent on the noses of female faces than on their eyes and mouths (no difference exists between the eyes and the mouth); (2) The average pupil diameter at the nose region is bigger than that at the eyes and mouth (no difference exists between the eyes and the mouth); (3) the number of fixations of male participants was significantly more than female participants. (4) Observers first fixate on the eyes and mouth (no difference exists between the eyes and the mouth) before fixating on the nose area. In general, participants attend predominantly to the nose to form attractiveness judgments. The results of this study add a new dimension to the existing literature on judgment of facial attractiveness. The major contribution of the present study is the finding that the area of the nose is vital in the judgment of facial attractiveness. This finding establish a contribution of partial processing on female facial attractiveness judgments during eye-tracking.

Same Genes, Different Brains: Neuroanatomical Differences Between Monozygotic Twins Discordant for Musical Training

Same Genes, Different Brains: Neuroanatomical Differences Between Monozygotic Twins Discordant for Musical Training. Örjan de Manzano Fredrik Ullén. Cerebral Cortex, https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx299

Abstract: Numerous cross-sectional and observational longitudinal studies show associations between expertise and regional brain anatomy. However, since these designs confound training with genetic predisposition, the causal role of training remains unclear. Here, we use a discordant monozygotic (identical) twin design to study expertise-dependent effects on neuroanatomy using musical training as model behavior, while essentially controlling for genetic factors and shared environment of upbringing. From a larger cohort of monozygotic twins, we were able to recruit 18 individuals (9 pairs) that were highly discordant for piano practice. We used structural and diffusion magnetic resonance imaging to analyze the auditory-motor network and within-pair differences in cortical thickness, cerebellar regional volumes and white-matter microstructure/fractional anisotropy. The analyses revealed that the musically active twins had greater cortical thickness in the auditory-motor network of the left hemisphere and more developed white matter microstructure in relevant tracts in both hemispheres and the corpus callosum. Furthermore, the volume of gray matter in the left cerebellar region of interest comprising lobules I–IV + V, was greater in the playing group. These findings provide the first clear support for that a significant portion of the differences in brain anatomy between experts and nonexperts depend on causal effects of training.

Keywords: expertise, MRI, music, neuroanatomy, twins

Zero Likes – Symbolic interactions and need satisfaction online

Zero Likes – Symbolic interactions and need satisfaction online. Sabine Reich, Frank M.Schneider, and Leonie Heling. Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 80, March 2018, Pages 97-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.043

Highlights
•    Likes are a form of symbolic interaction within social networking sites (SNS).
•    Zero Likes on SNS threaten fundamental needs and affect.
•    Likes from close friends (vs. acquaintances) best satisfy fundamental needs.

Abstract: The paper looks at the symbolic interactions on social networking sites, such as Likes on Facebook, and their role in users' sense of social in- or exclusion. In an online experiment, users of Facebook were asked to write a possible status update and then received note about the numbers of hypothetical Likes they received (zero, two, or thirty) and who (close friends or acquaintances) pressed the Like button. Multivariate analysis of variances showed that belongingness and self-esteem needs are threatened when people do not receive Likes. In contrast, more Likes seem to satisfy these needs better. The influence of who gives the Likes is minor compared to the sheer number of Likes.

Paying Down Credit Card Debt for Hotels Not Sofas

Quispe-Torreblanca, Edika and Stewart, Neil and Gathergood, John and Loewenstein, George, The Red, the Black, and the Plastic: Paying Down Credit Card Debt for Hotels Not Sofas (September 15, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3037416

Abstract: Using transaction data from a sample of 1.8 million credit card accounts, we provide the first field test of a major prediction of Prelec and Loewenstein’s (1998) theory of mental accounting. The prediction is that consumers will pay off expenditure on transient forms of consumption more quickly than expenditure on durables. According to the theory, this is because the pain of paying can be offset by the future anticipated pleasure of consumption only when money is spent on consumption that endures over time. Consistent with the prediction, we found that repayment of debt incurred for non-durable goods is an absolute 9% more likely than repayment of debt incurred for durable goods. The size of this effect is comparable to an increment in 15 percentage points in the credit card APR.

Keywords: mental accounting, credit cards, debt repayment
JEL Classification: D14, D91

Common sense in the New York Times: Many of our most demonized foods are actually fine for us. Like salt.

You Don’t Need to ‘Eat Clean’. By Aaron E. Carroll. The New York Times, November 5, 2017, Page SR10, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/opinion/sunday/relax-you-dont-need-to-eat-clean.html

We talk about food in the negative: What we shouldn’t eat, what we’ll regret later, what’s evil, dangerously tempting, unhealthy.

The effects are more insidious than any overindulgent amount of “bad food” can ever be. By fretting about food, we turn occasions for comfort and joy into sources of fear and anxiety. And when we avoid certain foods, we usually compensate by consuming too much of others.

All of this happens under the guise of science. But a closer look at the research behind our food fears shows that many of our most demonized foods are actually fine for us. Taken to extremes, of course, dietary choices can be harmful — but that logic cuts both ways.

Consider salt. It’s true that, if people with high blood pressure consume a lot of salt, it can lead to cardiovascular events like heart attacks. It’s also true that salt is overused in processed foods. But the average American consumes just over three grams of sodium per day, which is actually in the sweet spot for health.

Eating too little salt may be just as dangerous as eating too much. This is especially true for the majority of people who don’t have high blood pressure. Regardless, experts continue to push for lower recommendations.

Many of the doctors and nutritionists who recommend avoiding certain foods fail to properly explain the magnitude of their risks. In some studies, processed red meat in large amounts is associated with an increased relative risk of developing cancer. The absolute risk, however, is often quite small. If I ate an extra serving of bacon a day, every day, my lifetime risk of colon cancer would go up less than one-half of 1 percent. Even then, it’s debatable.

Nevertheless, we’ve become more and more susceptible to arguments that we must avoid certain foods completely. When one panic-du-jour wanes, we find another focus for our fears. We demonized fats. Then cholesterol. Then meat.

For some people in recent years, gluten has become the enemy, even though wheat accounts for about 20 percent of the calories consumed worldwide, more than pretty much any other food. Fewer than 1 percent of people in the United States have a wheat allergy, and fewer than 1 percent have celiac disease, an autoimmune disorder that requires sufferers to abstain from gluten. Gluten sensitivity (the catchall disorder that leads many Americans to abstain from gluten) is not well defined, and most people who self-diagnose don’t meet the criteria.

Nonetheless, at least one in five Americans regularly chooses gluten-free foods, according to a 2015 poll. Sales of products with gluten-free labels rose to $23 billion worldwide in 2014, up from $11.5 billion worldwide in 2010.

Gluten-free diets can lead to deficiencies in nutrients such as vitamin B, folate and iron. Compared with regular bagels, gluten-free ones can have a quarter more calories, two and a half times the fat, half the fiber and twice the sugar. They also cost more.

The hullabaloo over gluten echoes the panic over MSG that began roughly half a century ago, and which has yet to fully subside. MSG, or monosodium glutamate, is nothing more than a single sodium atom added to glutamic acid — an amino acid that is a key part of the mechanism by which our cells create energy. Without it, all oxygen-dependent life as we know it would die.

A 1968 letter in The New England Journal of Medicine started the frenzy; the writer reported feeling numbness, weakness and palpitations after eating at a Chinese restaurant. A few limited studies followed, along with a spate of news articles. Before long, nutrition experts and consumer advocates such as Ralph Nader were calling for MSG to be banned. The Food and Drug Administration never had to step in; food companies saw the writing on the wall, and dropped MSG voluntarily.

Many people still wrongly believe that MSG is poison. We certainly don’t need MSG in our diet, but we also don’t need to waste effort avoiding it. Our aversion to it shows how susceptible we are to misinterpreting scientific research and how slow we are to update our thinking when better research becomes available. There’s no evidence that people suffer disproportionately from the afflictions — now ranging from headaches to asthma — that MSG-averse cultures commonly associate with this ingredient. In studies all over the world, the case against MSG just doesn’t hold up.

Too often, we fail to think critically about scientific evidence. Genetically modified organisms are perhaps the best example of this.

G.M.O.s are, in theory, one of our best bets for feeding the planet’s growing population. When a 2015 Pew poll asked Americans whether they thought it was generally safe or unsafe to eat modified foods, almost 60 percent said it was unsafe. The same poll asked scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science the same question. Only 11 percent of them thought G.M.O.s were unsafe.

Most Americans, at least according to this poll, don’t seem to care what scientists think. In fact, Americans disagree with scientists on this issue more than just about any other, including a host of contentious topics such as vaccines, evolution and even global warming.

If people want to avoid foods, even if there’s no reason to, is that really a problem?

The answer is: yes. Because it makes food scary. And being afraid of food with no real reason is unscientific — part of the dangerous trend of anti-intellectualism that we confront in many places today.

Food should be a cause for pleasure, not panic. For most people, it’s entirely possible to eat more healthfully without living in terror or struggling to avoid certain foods altogether. If there’s one thing you should cut from your diet, it’s fear.

Aaron E. Carroll (@aaronecarroll) is a professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, and a regular contributor to The Upshot. He is the author of “The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully,” from which this essay was adapted.

The differential impact of knowledge depth and knowledge breadth on creativity over individual careers

The differential impact of knowledge depth and knowledge breadth on creativity over individual careers. Pier Vittorio Mannucci and Kevyn Yong. Academy of Management Journal, http://amj.aom.org/content/early/2017/10/23/amj.2016.0529

Abstract: While usually argued to be fostering creativity, the effect of knowledge depth and breadth on creativity is actually mixed. We take a dynamic approach to the knowledge-creativity relationship and argue that the effect of knowledge depth and knowledge breadth is likely to be contingent on career age. We propose that individuals' knowledge structures become increasingly rigid as career age grows and that because of this, knowledge depth and breadth have different effects on creativity at different points of the career. More specifically, we hypothesize that knowledge depth is more beneficial for creativity in earlier stages of one's career, when creators need to increase the complexity of knowledge structures, while knowledge breadth is more beneficial in later stages, when flexibility is most needed. We test and find support for our hypotheses in a longitudinal study set in the context of the Hollywood animation industry, a setting characterized by the presence of a variety of creators involved in knowledge-intensive activities. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.