An extremely interesting article about our brains' natural negativity...

Our Brain's Negative Bias
Psychology Today

Why do insults once hurled at us stick inside our skull, sometimes for decades? Why do some people have to work extra hard to ward off depression?
The answer is, for the same reason political smear campaigns outpull positive ones. Nastiness just makes a bigger impact on our brains.

And that is due to the brain's "negativity bias": Your brain is simply built with a greater sensitivity to unpleasant news. The bias is so automatic that it can be detected at the earliest stage of the brain's information processing.

Take, for example, the studies done by John Cacioppo, Ph.D., then at Ohio State University, now at the University of Chicago. He showed people pictures known to arouse positive feelings (say, a Ferrari, or a pizza), those certain to stir up negative feelings (a mutilated face or dead cat) and those known to produce neutral feelings (a plate, a hair dryer). Meanwhile, he recorded electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex that reflects the magnitude of information processing taking place.

The brain, Cacioppo demonstrated, reacts more strongly to stimuli it deems negative. There is a greater surge in electrical activity. Thus, our attitudes are more heavily influenced by downbeat news than good news.

Our capacity to weigh negative input so heavily most likely evolved for a good reason—to keep us out of harm's way. From the dawn of human history, our very survival depended on our skill at dodging danger. The brain developed systems that would make it unavoidable for us not to notice danger and thus, hopefully, respond to it.

All well and good. Having the built-in brain apparatus supersensitive to negativity means that the same bad-news bias also is at work in every sphere of our lives at all times.

So it should come as no surprise to learn that it plays an especially powerful role in our most intimate relationships. Numerous researchers have found that there is an ideal balance between negativity and positivity in the atmosphere between partners. There seems to be some kind of thermostat operating in healthy marriages that almost automatically regulates the balance between positive and negative.

What really separates contented couples from those in deep marital misery is a healthy balance between their positive and negative feelings and actions toward each other. Even couples who are volatile and argue a lot stick together by balancing their frequent arguments with a lot of demonstrations of love and passion. And they seem to know exactly when positive actions are needed.

Here's the tricky part. Because of the disproportionate weight of the negative, balance does not mean a 50-50 equilibrium. Researchers have carefully charted the amount of time couples spend fighting vs. interacting positively. And they have found that a very specific ratio exists between the amount of positivity and negativity required to make married life satisfying to both partners.

That magic ratio is five to one. As long as there was five times as much positive feeling and interaction between husband and wife as there was negative, researchers found, the marriage was likely to be stable over time. In contrast, those couples who were heading for divorce were doing far too little on the positive side to compensate for the growing negativity between them.

Other researchers have found the same results in other spheres of our life. It is the frequency of small positive acts that matters most, in a ratio of about five to one.

Occasional big positive experiences—say, a birthday bash—are nice. But they don't make the necessary impact on our brain to override the tilt to negativity. It takes frequent small positive experiences to tip the scales toward happiness.

Maybe Obama Won't Disappoint?

Though it doesn't directly effect me personally, I got super stoked when saw this in the news today simply because it shows where Obama's at sociologically. He sees the shamefulness in CEO greediness, and is in tune with economic health of ALL citizens. His strong words are very welcome, and I hope many execs reflect on Obama's stance


.

Hello... Hello... Is Anybody Home???!???

Uninhabitable ocean by the time I'm 70??

We worry about so many things, yet our own planet is dying and nobody cares.

Personal Change

How long does it take?

Longer than we want, that's for sure. On my journey of learning to live with OCD while ridding myself of depression, this has become very apparent. And the thus the comfort of studies like these. I must take heart... and continue...


.

Suprise! The Olympics are screwin us over!

How Did Things Go So Wrong?

While that's a good piece by The Globe and Mail, it minimally refers to the fact that many other Olympic hosts have suffered a similar malaise; even our games back in '76 required thirty years to pay off. Sadly, we should not be surprised. The risk factor of things not flowing smoothly due to unforeseen and/or extraneous circumstances should be a "risk factor" in and of itself when we considered taking on this world event.

Alas it was not, and for this I hope the Liberals pay. And they should... the reason we see NDP NFG stickers and licence plates around town is not cause the they're bad at governing or have poor philosophy or social concern, it's cause of their fiscal history. Their management of tax dollars.

And so, here we are, getting ready to put our voices forward in the form of a referendum on party politics (BC-STV) and an election of who is most competent to guide us through these coming years. Ultimately, if we want any chance of change in the future (other than what Obama can't give) we must shape our political system in a way that allows our views and choices to make it to Parliament. Yes, we NEED the STV system, else we will be doomed to repeat our failures yet again and again. And dare I say, had the STV system been in place for the last election we may have never accepted the Olympics due to the fact that the BC populace's concerns would have been in the forefront as a result of having truly representative parliamentarians in Victoria.

And just to support that "if", check out this current CBC poll:

Olympic doubts

BDS, BDS, BDS, DBS, no wait, BDS

Naomi Klein: Boycott, divestment, sanctions key to ending Israeli occupation

Klein makes a good points for each of the three keys, and I hope nations will take heed. The evening news continually fails to remind us that Israel is an occupier and an illegal one at that, ie the Geneva convention


.

Israel, oh Israel.

I found this to be an informative article which touches on some of the profound reasons this conflict has gotten grossly out of hand.

These first two quotes yield understanding of how our western media choose to err on Israel's side...

"Immediately after the incident became known throughout the world, the army "revealed" that Hamas fighters had been firing mortars from near the school entrance. As proof they released an aerial photo which indeed showed the school and the mortar. But within a short time the official army liar had to admit that the photo was more than a year old. In brief: a falsification."


"So it went with the other atrocities. Every baby metamorphosed, in the act of dying, into a Hamas terrorist. Every bombed mosque instantly became a Hamas base, every apartment building an arms cache, every school a terror command post, every civilian government building a "symbol of Hamas rule". Thus the Israeli army retained its purity as the "most moral army in the world"."

...and the article makes quick mention of other profound points which western media often neglects:

"Turning life into living hell does not cause the population to rise up against Hamas, but on the contrary, it unites behind Hamas and reinforces its determination not to surrender."

"The Israeli journalists, to their shame, agreed to be satisfied with the reports and photos provided by the Army Spokesman, as if they were authentic news, while they themselves remained miles away from the events. Foreign journalists were not allowed in either, until they protested and were taken for quick tours in selected and supervised groups. But in a modern war, such a sterile manufactured view cannot completely exclude all others - the cameras are inside the strip, in the middle of the hell, and cannot be controlled. Aljazeera broadcasts the pictures around the clock and reaches every home."

Lastly, light is shed on why this current bout of warring will not solve anything. It's unfortunate Israel supporters do not understand/realize this, else they could use a more diplomatic approach; with so many doctors and Arab relief coming to the aid the sick and dying Palestinians I can only imagine the good they could do as part of a peace bargain if Israel were to use any type of thoughtful resolution as a means to employ these professionals and reach out the hand of truce rather than the hand of Satan.

"The failure to grasp the nature of Hamas has caused a failure to grasp the predictable results. Not only is Israel unable to win the war, Hamas cannot lose it.
Even if the Israeli army were to succeed in killing every Hamas fighter to the last man, even then Hamas would win. The Hamas fighters would be seen as the paragons of the Arab nation, the heroes of the Palestinian people, models for emulation by every youngster in the Arab world. The West Bank would fall into the hands of Hamas like a ripe fruit, Fatah would drown in a sea of contempt, the Arab regimes would be threatened with collapse.
If the war ends with Hamas still standing, bloodied but unvanquished, in face of the mighty Israeli military machine, it will look like a fantastic victory, a victory of mind over matter.
What will be seared into the consciousness of the world will be the image of Israel as a blood-stained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints. This will have severe consequences for our long-term future, our standing in the world, our chance of achieving peace and quiet."