What millennials really want in the workplace – CBS News

Different surveys have widely varying opinions on the millennial generation -- those between the ages of 18 and 30 who are entering or already in the workforce. Some imply this is a group of slackers living in their parents' basements. Others show them as ambitious, hardworking and struggling to pay off college debt with several part-time jobs.

How do they see themselves? A new report from the blog Squared Awayshows a lot of "youthful optimism" among this generation. But is it justified? "The changing job market is making it increasingly difficult for young adults to get their careers off to the right start," said Kim Blanton, writer and editor for Squared Away at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

That's because the employment landscape is changing. Millennials are often accused of changing jobs just to earn more money. But that may not be their choice, said Blanton, citing a recent Federal Reserve surveyshowing that young adults prefer jobs that are "permanent and steady," not ones like driving for Uber or freelancing, which aren't secure and could change from month to month even when they make more money.

Surprisingly and contrary to popular belief that millennials jump jobs for money, they actually "prefer steady employment to higher pay," according to the Fed survey.

Play Video

According to a survey conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, young people between the ages of 19 and 24 are more likely to admit the...

Sometimes higher pay isn't even an option. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),the fastest-growing jobs are often part-time, low-paying and seasonal, and lack health benefits, retirement savings accounts and paid-time off.

The BLS report found that the top 10 careers expected to generate 5 million jobs by 2024 include personal care and home health aides; food preparation, cooks and servers; nursing assistants; and retail sales, which net annual earnings below $30,000 -- or just over a living wage for a family of four in most areas.

Slightly above that level were customer service representatives and construction workers, with salaries between $30,000 and $40,000 per year. Registered nurses and operations managers were found to earn more than $60,000 annually.

According to the Fed, a college degree -- with its staggering debt averaging $37,000 in 2016 -- doesn't guarantee a career. Only 45 percent of millennials reported obtaining employment in their field.

So is it time to reorient job training in this new world of employment? "A bright spot is the so-called STEM jobs, in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields," said Blanton. "Two-thirds of young adults who studied in these areas are getting jobs in these fields, which experienced the highest earnings in the BLS's fastest growing occupations." In contrast, the success rate was less for graduates in the life sciences, business, health and behavioral science fields.

Play Video

But president cites industry study that doesn't count clean energy jobs or the cost of climate change

Another viable choice: Don't attend college. Young adults with noncollege certificates and technical degrees had an easier time getting jobs in their fields than those with associates' and only slightly more trouble than those with bachelors' degrees.

Perhaps millennials are more hopeful now because they were so-down-in the-mouth during the Great Recession and the years shortly afterwards. In 2013, less than half were optimistic about future employment opportunities, and only 64 percent said they were able to cover their monthly expenses.

By 2015 those numbers had risen to 61 percent who were hopeful and 73 percent who were able to crack the monthly nut. But, of course, that still left more than a quarter who were sheltering with their parents, or nearly broke.

What about 2017? The May jobs report showed a 16-year low unemployment rate of 4.3 percent but also a slow-growing economy, said Director Michael Hicks of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. So perhaps it's time for yet another millennial survey.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.

Continued here:
What millennials really want in the workplace - CBS News

A Periodic Table of Behavior for Psychology – Psychology Today (blog)


Psychology Today (blog)
A Periodic Table of Behavior for Psychology
Psychology Today (blog)
Modern science took off during the Enlightenment and changed the world. Science was differed from philosophy in that it did not presuppose how nature must be, as the early philosophers tended to do, but instead scientists got up out of their armchairs ...

Read the rest here:
A Periodic Table of Behavior for Psychology - Psychology Today (blog)

LOOSE ENDS: Eldar Shafir on the effects scarcity – centraljersey.com

Memorial Day weekend followed by Princeton University reunions and graduation is a time when most Princeton residents rarely think about scarcity. Generally, the conversation under tents and in backyards is filled with groans about too much food, too much drink, too many people, too many cars, and too much stuff loaded into those cars.

On the weekend of June 10, however, several Princetonians are going to be thinking a lot about scarcity, thanks to Princeton University Professor Eldar Shafir. Dr. Shafir who is speaking at a Housing Initiatives of Princeton Garden Party benefit June 10 is internationally renowned, along with his co-author Dr. Sendhil Mullainathan from Harvard University, for the 2013 book "Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much."

As a behavioral scientist whose main area of interest is behavioral economics and decision-making, Shafir will talk about the thesis of his book the scarcity vicious cycle and relate it to the mission of HIP. Individuals with a scarcity of funds fail to make smart decisions concerning their finances for a variety of cognitive reasons, including the lack of supportive resources, thus their lives spiral downward. It turns out that the work done by HIP could be a case study for Shafirs academic work.

Since 2004, the Housing Initiatives of Princeton has been helping to break that downward spiral for dozens of people by offering a holistic menu of services to those in dire financial circumstances. It is dedicated to transitioning low-income working families and individuals who are homeless or facing imminent homelessness to permanent housing and sustained self-sufficiency.

The charitable non-profit does far more than place a temporary roof over ones head. The organization becomes a supportive resource for clients by providing individualized case management services to enhance life skills needed to attain self-sufficiency and permanent housing and ultimately to succeed independently.

Most in Princeton have a comfortable life," Shafir said. "We can afford to hire accountants, investment brokers, mortgage brokers, psychologists, attorneys to help make smart decisions about our well being. But there are those who are struggling with a scarcity of funds and do not have the support systems. The problems associated with poverty consume mental energy and capacity. Those struggling financially often make decisions that perpetuate and exacerbate poverty."

The concept of scarcity and smart decision-making applies to more than financial decisions, and thus everyone can relate to the premise of the book, regardless of his or her economic situation, noted HIP Interim Board Chair Carol Golden. The authors research and conclusions describe how scarcity creates a similar psychology for everyone struggling to manage with less than they need. Busy people fail to manage their time efficiently for the same reasons the poor and those maxed out on credit cards fail to manage their money. The dynamics of scarcity reveal why dieters find it hard to resist temptation, why students and busy executives mismanage their time.

The book is so significant, in my opinion, because it gives individuals who have no financial problems a real understanding as to why it is extremely difficult for people with great financial challenges to change their lives unless they have access to outside help, said Golden, a Princeton resident and attorney who volunteers her services as the full-time chair of the organization, officially known as Housing Initiatives of Princeton Charitable Trust.

Shafir further elaborated on his thesis in a research paper, Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function, published in the August 2013 issue of Science (written with Anandi Mani and Jiaying Zhao).

According to the papers summary, the poor often behave in less capable ways, which can further perpetuate poverty.

We hypothesize that poverty directly impedes cognitive function and present two studies that test this hypothesis," the authors wrote. "First, we experimentally induced thoughts about finances and found that this reduces cognitive performance among poor but not in well-off participants. Second, we examined the cognitive function of farmers over the planting cycle. We found that the same farmer shows diminished cognitive performance before harvest, when poor, as compared with after harvest, when rich.

"This cannot be explained by differences in time available, nutrition, or work effort. Nor can it be explained with stress: Although farmers do show more stress before harvest, that does not account for diminished cognitive performance. Instead, it appears that poverty itself reduces cognitive capacity. We suggest that this is because poverty-related concerns consume mental resources, leaving less for other tasks. These data provide a previously unexamined perspective and help explain a spectrum of behaviors among the poor.

As Princeton University Professor of Behavioral Science and Public Policy, Shafir, who has been working at the university for the past 25 years, also serves as the director (its inaugural director) of Princetons Kahneman-Treisman Center for Behavioral Science and Public Policy, and co-founder and scientific director at ideas42, a social science research and development lab.

A $10 million anonymous gift created theCenter for Behavioral Science and Public Policy at Princeton, enabling the university to strengthen its leading role in this emerging field and improve the development of effective policymaking. The donor, a Princeton University parent, was a longtime admirer of the work of Dr. Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel laureate, and a Princeton University professor of psychology and public affairs emeritus, and Dr. Anne Treisman, a Princeton University professor of psychology emerita.

The center is building on the research that earned Kahneman the Nobel Prize in economic sciences in 2002. The award-winning work integrated insights from psychological research into economics, particularly concerning decision making under uncertainty.

In the traditional view, policies are designed for people who make rational decisions based on thorough consideration of the options and on well-informed cost-benefit analyses," the university stated in a release announcing the gift in 2015. "In the approach pioneered at Princeton, policies are developed with a focus on what really drives people in decision making the idiosyncratic and sometimes surprising ways in which they view their choices, perceive the social, economic and political world around them, and decide whether or not, and how, to act. Why do some people spend too much and save too little, choose unhealthy diets that might shorten their lives?"

Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber said:

This generous gift will allow us to deepen and expand our efforts in an extremely promising area of teaching and research. . . . Princetons faculty members are applying behavioral science techniques to topics that include law, economics, health care, household finance and dispute resolution, Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber said. "We expect that the research conducted at the center will directly influence local, national and global public policy, identifying new approaches to address social problems and improve lives.

And HIP clients and supporters offer an abundance, not scarcity, of thanks for the academic work and research that will help HIP serve the community in the most effective manner possible.

The Housing Initiatives of Princeton will host its annual Garden Party, June 10, beginning at 4 p.m. at a private residence in Princeton. Admission costs $95 and features Shafir's talk, cocktails and light fare. To register, go towww.housinginitiativesofprinceton.org.

Go here to read the rest:
LOOSE ENDS: Eldar Shafir on the effects scarcity - centraljersey.com

People trust science. So why don't they believe it? – WXIA-TV

Alia E. Dastagir , USA TODAY , TEGNA 12:48 PM. EDT June 02, 2017

Members of the Union for Concerned Scientists pose for photographs with Muppet character Beaker in front of The White House before heading to the National Mall for the March for Science rally in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Jessica Kourkounis, Getty Images)

Editor's note: This story was originally published in April. It has been updated to include the latest on the Paris climate agreement.

Thousands of scientists and their allies filled the streets of the nations capital onEarth Day for theMarch for Science, advocating for the importance of scientific truth in an era weve ominously been told doesnt value the truth any longer. Just a week later, the People's Climate March in Washington, D.C., demanded policymakers not only respect science, but that they also act on it.

And now, drawing global dismay and condemnation,President Trump has announced that the U.S. willno longer participate in the landmark Paris climate agreement.

Advocates say science is under attack. President Trumps Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt doesnt accept evidence that shows humans are causing climate change.Education Secretary Betsy DeVos'2001 commentson wanting to advance Gods kingdom through education have educatorsworried she could undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.Trumps budget blueprint slashes funding for the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.

Esteemed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, in an impassioned video on hisFacebook page, said he fears people have lost the ability to judge what's true and what's not.

"That is a recipe for the complete dismantling of our informed democracy," he says.

The scientific community is alarmed by the Trump administration, and by whatthey see as the diminishing role of objectivescience in American life. But theGeneral Social Survey, one of the oldest and most comprehensive recurring surveys of American attitudes, shows that although trust in public institutions has declined over the last half century, science is the one institution that has not suffered any erosion of public confidence. Americans who say they have a great deal of confidence in science has hovered around 40% since 1973.

Many scientists say there is no war on their profession at all.

According to the 2016 GSS data released this month, people trust scientists more than Congress (6%) and the executive branch (12%). They trust them more than the press (8%). They have more trust in scientists than in the people who run major companies (18%), more than in banks and financial institutions (14%), the Supreme Court (26%) or organized religion (20%).

So why all the headlines about the "war on science"?

Though science still holds an esteemed place in America, there isa gapbetween what scientists and some citizens think a rift that is not entirely new on issues such as climate change, nuclear power, genetically modified foods, human evolution and childhood vaccines.

Americans dont reject science as a whole. People love the weather forecast. They love their smartphones. When people reject science, its because theyre asked to believe something that conflicts with a deeply held view, whether political (myparty does not endorse that), religious (my god didnot say that) or personal (that's not how I was raised).

Manyconservatives reject the science of man-madeclimate change, just as manyliberals reject the science that shows nuclear energy can safely combat it. The views we express signal which politicalgroup we belong to. The gap between what science shows and what people believe, sociologists say, is about our identity.

The issue of climate change isnt about what you know, said Dan Kahan, a professor of psychology and law at Yale and a member of the universitysCultural CognitionProject. Its about who you are.

Polarization has exacerbated our differences, andwe know some of whats to blame:Therise of social media. A more partisan press. A dearth of universally-accepted experts. And greater access to information, which Christopher Graves, president and founder of the Ogilvy Center forBehavioralScience, said does not tug us toward the center, but rather makes us more polarized.

A human being cannot grasp something as a fact if it in any way undermines their identity, Graves said. And that is animmutable human foible. These things have always been there, but not at scale."

The GSS data show confidence in institutions overall has been in decline since the 1970s, though political scientists are quick to caution that this is animperfect benchmark.

Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist atDartmouth College, said trust in the mid-20th century was unnaturally high and polarization was unnaturally low,bolstered by unusual growth in middle class income and a reduction of inequality, which is when the "20th century version of the American dream and the trust in government to produce it was fully mythologized."

There was an usually high level of trust that came out of World War II, before the turn towards a more cynical view ofthe institutions of society especially politics and media after Vietnam and Watergate,"Nyhan said.

So how much more polarization can we expect?

Social scientists aren't sure, but they agreeTrump complicates things.

"He really is an us-versus-them figure," Kahan said. "People arent thinking about the arguments. Theyre thinkingaboutwhat side they're on."

Think about the way you search for information. If youre a new mom who believes vaccines cause autism (and a number of women in your mommy group do, too) are you searching for research that shows whether they actually do, or are you Googling vaccines cause autism to find stories to affirm your belief? (Studies show there isno link between vaccines and autism.)

The mother above is probably motivated by fear. Suchmotivated reasoning,says political scientistCharles Taberof Stony Brook University, shows that we are all fundamentally biased.

You have a basic psychological tendency to perpetuate your own beliefs, he said to really discount anything that runs against your own prior views.

It gets even more complicated.Once weve convinced ourselves of something, research suggests factsdont appeal to us.A studyco-led by Nyhanfound that trying to correct a persons misperception can have a backfire effect. When you encounter facts that dont support your idea, your belief in that idea actually grows stronger.

So what if we did a better job teaching people how science works? Doesn't help, Kahan said. Research shows peoplewith the most science intelligence are also the most partisan.

Its not knowledge but curiosity, Kahan says, that makes us more likely to accept scientific truths. Arecent studythat Kahan led found people with more scientific curiosity were more likely to be open-minded about information that challenged their existing political views.

And arguing helps, too. ScientistsHugo Mercier and Dan Sperber contend in their new book,The Enigma of Reason,that reason isn't somethingthat evolved sohumans could solve problems on their own. It developed so we could work together.

Instead of forcing someone to agree that climate change is caused by humans, Graves said, you can stop once you agree that, for example, flooding in Florida is a problem, and that you have to fix it (the bipart
isanSoutheast Florida Regional Climate Change Compactcan teach us about that).

Marcia McNutt, an American geophysicist and president of the National Academy of Sciences, said she isnt worried about a crisis of science, though she hopes more people would understand science is about the unbiased search for truth" and that benefits everyone.

Being a scientist only means that when I have an intuition about something, I test that intuition, and see if Im right, she said. A very, very smart mentor told me once, I don't trust anyone who hasn't at least changed their mind once in their career.

Science, it appears, may havemore lessons for usthan we think.

2017 USATODAY.COM

View original post here:
People trust science. So why don't they believe it? - WXIA-TV

Behavioral science hacks for your next speaking opportunity – SmartBrief (registration) (blog)


SmartBrief (registration) (blog)
Behavioral science hacks for your next speaking opportunity
SmartBrief (registration) (blog)
I was giving a presentation on behavioral science and customer experience at the end of a long conference. Sure, I could've hit my listeners over the head with an academic discourse on predicted utility versus value-seeking, but showing it drove the ...

Link:
Behavioral science hacks for your next speaking opportunity - SmartBrief (registration) (blog)

People trust science. So why don't they believe it? – KING5.com

Alia E. Dastagir , USA TODAY , TEGNA 9:48 AM. PDT June 02, 2017

Members of the Union for Concerned Scientists pose for photographs with Muppet character Beaker in front of The White House before heading to the National Mall for the March for Science rally in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Jessica Kourkounis, Getty Images)

Editor's note: This story was originally published in April. It has been updated to include the latest on the Paris climate agreement.

Thousands of scientists and their allies filled the streets of the nations capital onEarth Day for theMarch for Science, advocating for the importance of scientific truth in an era weve ominously been told doesnt value the truth any longer. Just a week later, the People's Climate March in Washington, D.C., demanded policymakers not only respect science, but that they also act on it.

And now, drawing global dismay and condemnation,President Trump has announced that the U.S. willno longer participate in the landmark Paris climate agreement.

Advocates say science is under attack. President Trumps Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt doesnt accept evidence that shows humans are causing climate change.Education Secretary Betsy DeVos'2001 commentson wanting to advance Gods kingdom through education have educatorsworried she could undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.Trumps budget blueprint slashes funding for the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.

Esteemed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, in an impassioned video on hisFacebook page, said he fears people have lost the ability to judge what's true and what's not.

"That is a recipe for the complete dismantling of our informed democracy," he says.

The scientific community is alarmed by the Trump administration, and by whatthey see as the diminishing role of objectivescience in American life. But theGeneral Social Survey, one of the oldest and most comprehensive recurring surveys of American attitudes, shows that although trust in public institutions has declined over the last half century, science is the one institution that has not suffered any erosion of public confidence. Americans who say they have a great deal of confidence in science has hovered around 40% since 1973.

Many scientists say there is no war on their profession at all.

According to the 2016 GSS data released this month, people trust scientists more than Congress (6%) and the executive branch (12%). They trust them more than the press (8%). They have more trust in scientists than in the people who run major companies (18%), more than in banks and financial institutions (14%), the Supreme Court (26%) or organized religion (20%).

So why all the headlines about the "war on science"?

Though science still holds an esteemed place in America, there isa gapbetween what scientists and some citizens think a rift that is not entirely new on issues such as climate change, nuclear power, genetically modified foods, human evolution and childhood vaccines.

Americans dont reject science as a whole. People love the weather forecast. They love their smartphones. When people reject science, its because theyre asked to believe something that conflicts with a deeply held view, whether political (myparty does not endorse that), religious (my god didnot say that) or personal (that's not how I was raised).

Manyconservatives reject the science of man-madeclimate change, just as manyliberals reject the science that shows nuclear energy can safely combat it. The views we express signal which politicalgroup we belong to. The gap between what science shows and what people believe, sociologists say, is about our identity.

The issue of climate change isnt about what you know, said Dan Kahan, a professor of psychology and law at Yale and a member of the universitysCultural CognitionProject. Its about who you are.

Polarization has exacerbated our differences, andwe know some of whats to blame:Therise of social media. A more partisan press. A dearth of universally-accepted experts. And greater access to information, which Christopher Graves, president and founder of the Ogilvy Center forBehavioralScience, said does not tug us toward the center, but rather makes us more polarized.

A human being cannot grasp something as a fact if it in any way undermines their identity, Graves said. And that is animmutable human foible. These things have always been there, but not at scale."

The GSS data show confidence in institutions overall has been in decline since the 1970s, though political scientists are quick to caution that this is animperfect benchmark.

Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist atDartmouth College, said trust in the mid-20th century was unnaturally high and polarization was unnaturally low,bolstered by unusual growth in middle class income and a reduction of inequality, which is when the "20th century version of the American dream and the trust in government to produce it was fully mythologized."

There was an usually high level of trust that came out of World War II, before the turn towards a more cynical view ofthe institutions of society especially politics and media after Vietnam and Watergate,"Nyhan said.

So how much more polarization can we expect?

Social scientists aren't sure, but they agreeTrump complicates things.

"He really is an us-versus-them figure," Kahan said. "People arent thinking about the arguments. Theyre thinkingaboutwhat side they're on."

Think about the way you search for information. If youre a new mom who believes vaccines cause autism (and a number of women in your mommy group do, too) are you searching for research that shows whether they actually do, or are you Googling vaccines cause autism to find stories to affirm your belief? (Studies show there isno link between vaccines and autism.)

The mother above is probably motivated by fear. Suchmotivated reasoning,says political scientistCharles Taberof Stony Brook University, shows that we are all fundamentally biased.

You have a basic psychological tendency to perpetuate your own beliefs, he said to really discount anything that runs against your own prior views.

It gets even more complicated.Once weve convinced ourselves of something, research suggests factsdont appeal to us.A studyco-led by Nyhanfound that trying to correct a persons misperception can have a backfire effect. When you encounter facts that dont support your idea, your belief in that idea actually grows stronger.

So what if we did a better job teaching people how science works? Doesn't help, Kahan said. Research shows peoplewith the most science intelligence are also the most partisan.

Its not knowledge but curiosity, Kahan says, that makes us more likely to accept scientific truths. Arecent studythat Kahan led found people with more scientific curiosity were more likely to be open-minded about information that challenged their existing political views.

And arguing helps, too. ScientistsHugo Mercier and Dan Sperber contend in their new book,The Enigma of Reason,that reason isn't somethingthat evolved sohumans could solve problems on their own. It developed so we could work together.

Instead of forcing someone to agree that climate change is caused by humans, Graves said, you can stop once you agree that, for example, flooding in Florida is a problem, and that you have to fix it (the biparti
sanSoutheast Florida Regional Climate Change Compactcan teach us about that).

Marcia McNutt, an American geophysicist and president of the National Academy of Sciences, said she isnt worried about a crisis of science, though she hopes more people would understand science is about the unbiased search for truth" and that benefits everyone.

Being a scientist only means that when I have an intuition about something, I test that intuition, and see if Im right, she said. A very, very smart mentor told me once, I don't trust anyone who hasn't at least changed their mind once in their career.

Science, it appears, may havemore lessons for usthan we think.

2017 USATODAY.COM

More:
People trust science. So why don't they believe it? - KING5.com

SHOP TALK: Eldar Shafir on the effects scarcity – centraljersey.com

Memorial Day weekend followed by Princeton University reunions and graduation is a time when most Princeton residents rarely think about scarcity. Generally, the conversation under tents and in backyards is filled with groans about too much food, too much drink, too many people, too many cars, and too much stuff loaded into those cars.

On the weekend of June 10, however, several Princetonians are going to be thinking a lot about scarcity, thanks to Princeton University Professor Eldar Shafir. Dr. Shafir who is speaking at a Housing Initiatives of Princeton Garden Party benefit June 10 is internationally renowned, along with his co-author Dr. Sendhil Mullainathan from Harvard University, for the 2013 book "Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much."

As a behavioral scientist whose main area of interest is behavioral economics and decision-making, Shafir will talk about the thesis of his book the scarcity vicious cycle and relate it to the mission of HIP. Individuals with a scarcity of funds fail to make smart decisions concerning their finances for a variety of cognitive reasons, including the lack of supportive resources, thus their lives spiral downward. It turns out that the work done by HIP could be a case study for Shafirs academic work.

Since 2004, the Housing Initiatives of Princeton has been helping to break that downward spiral for dozens of people by offering a holistic menu of services to those in dire financial circumstances. It is dedicated to transitioning low-income working families and individuals who are homeless or facing imminent homelessness to permanent housing and sustained self-sufficiency.

The charitable non-profit does far more than place a temporary roof over ones head. The organization becomes a supportive resource for clients by providing individualized case management services to enhance life skills needed to attain self-sufficiency and permanent housing and ultimately to succeed independently.

Most in Princeton have a comfortable life," Shafir said. "We can afford to hire accountants, investment brokers, mortgage brokers, psychologists, attorneys to help make smart decisions about our well being. But there are those who are struggling with a scarcity of funds and do not have the support systems. The problems associated with poverty consume mental energy and capacity. Those struggling financially often make decisions that perpetuate and exacerbate poverty."

The concept of scarcity and smart decision-making applies to more than financial decisions, and thus everyone can relate to the premise of the book, regardless of his or her economic situation, noted HIP Interim Board Chair Carol Golden. The authors research and conclusions describe how scarcity creates a similar psychology for everyone struggling to manage with less than they need. Busy people fail to manage their time efficiently for the same reasons the poor and those maxed out on credit cards fail to manage their money. The dynamics of scarcity reveal why dieters find it hard to resist temptation, why students and busy executives mismanage their time.

The book is so significant, in my opinion, because it gives individuals who have no financial problems a real understanding as to why it is extremely difficult for people with great financial challenges to change their lives unless they have access to outside help, said Golden, a Princeton resident and attorney who volunteers her services as the full-time chair of the organization, officially known as Housing Initiatives of Princeton Charitable Trust.

Shafir further elaborated on his thesis in a research paper, Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function, published in the August 2013 issue of Science (written with Anandi Mani and Jiaying Zhao).

According to the papers summary, the poor often behave in less capable ways, which can further perpetuate poverty.

We hypothesize that poverty directly impedes cognitive function and present two studies that test this hypothesis," the authors wrote. "First, we experimentally induced thoughts about finances and found that this reduces cognitive performance among poor but not in well-off participants. Second, we examined the cognitive function of farmers over the planting cycle. We found that the same farmer shows diminished cognitive performance before harvest, when poor, as compared with after harvest, when rich.

"This cannot be explained by differences in time available, nutrition, or work effort. Nor can it be explained with stress: Although farmers do show more stress before harvest, that does not account for diminished cognitive performance. Instead, it appears that poverty itself reduces cognitive capacity. We suggest that this is because poverty-related concerns consume mental resources, leaving less for other tasks. These data provide a previously unexamined perspective and help explain a spectrum of behaviors among the poor.

As Princeton University Professor of Behavioral Science and Public Policy, Shafir, who has been working at the university for the past 25 years, also serves as the director (its inaugural director) of Princetons Kahneman-Treisman Center for Behavioral Science and Public Policy, and co-founder and scientific director at ideas42, a social science research and development lab.

A $10 million anonymous gift created theCenter for Behavioral Science and Public Policy at Princeton, enabling the university to strengthen its leading role in this emerging field and improve the development of effective policymaking. The donor, a Princeton University parent, was a longtime admirer of the work of Dr. Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel laureate, and a Princeton University professor of psychology and public affairs emeritus, and Dr. Anne Treisman, a Princeton University professor of psychology emerita.

The center is building on the research that earned Kahneman the Nobel Prize in economic sciences in 2002. The award-winning work integrated insights from psychological research into economics, particularly concerning decision making under uncertainty.

In the traditional view, policies are designed for people who make rational decisions based on thorough consideration of the options and on well-informed cost-benefit analyses," the university stated in a release announcing the gift in 2015. "In the approach pioneered at Princeton, policies are developed with a focus on what really drives people in decision making the idiosyncratic and sometimes surprising ways in which they view their choices, perceive the social, economic and political world around them, and decide whether or not, and how, to act. Why do some people spend too much and save too little, choose unhealthy diets that might shorten their lives?"

Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber said:

This generous gift will allow us to deepen and expand our efforts in an extremely promising area of teaching and research. . . . Princetons faculty members are applying behavioral science techniques to topics that include law, economics, health care, household finance and dispute resolution, Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber said. "We expect that the research conducted at the center will directly influence local, national and global public policy, identifying new approaches to address social problems and improve lives.

And HIP clients and supporters offer an abundance, not scarcity, of thanks for the academic work and research that will help HIP serve the community in the most effective manner possible.

The Housing Initiatives of Princeton will host its annual Garden Party, June 10, beginning at 4 p.m. at a private residence in Princeton. Admission costs $95 and features Shafir's talk, cocktails and light fare. To register, go towww.housinginitiativesofprinceton.org.

Read this article:
SHOP TALK: Eldar Shafir on the effects scarcity - centraljersey.com

Why Mainstream Media Need to Be Careful About Criticizing Conservatives – Patheos (blog)

Image of newspapers (Wikipedia Commons)

Written by Dr. Gleb Tsipursky, Intentional Insights Co-Founder and President.

________________________________________________________________

Many mainstream media outlets criticized conservatives with a broad brush over the Montana Congressional special election winner Republican Greg Gianforte assaulting a reporter, Ben Jacobs. Yet, according to behavioral science research conducted by myself and others, such criticism may end up hurting the safety of journalists, instead of advancing freedom of the press and pursuit of the truth.

First, the facts of the incident itself. According to the evidence available, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck, slammed him to the ground, and punched him. The episode was witnessed and corroborated by multiple independent witnesses, including Fox News and BuzzFeed reporters. The local sheriff who earlier gave a financial contribution to Gianfortes campaign charged Gianforte with misdemeanor assault.

How did conservatives respond? The assault took place on the evening of May 24, and Fox News which had a reporter on scene quickly wrote up a fair and balanced account. The Fox News account specifically stated that at no point did any of us who witnessed this assault see Jacobs show any form of physical aggression toward Gianforte, which Fox News certainly did not have to do. In fact, the Fox News story contradicted the official statement offered by Gianfortes campaign, which accused Jacobs of starting the fight by grabbing Gianfortes wrist, a statement now widely seen as a lie. A conservative venue, TheBlaze, ran a piece critical of Gianfortes statement, and The New York Post ran a similar piece.

Many conservative politicians also responded in a worthy manner. Within 24 hours of the assault, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan stated that Theres never a call for physical altercations I think he should apologize. This length of time is quite reasonable, as Ryan needed to find out the relevant facts. Steve Daines, a Montana Senator and major supporter for Gianforte, also called on Gianforte to apologize, adding I do not condone violence in any way. Under such pressure, Gianforte rescinded his earlier deceptive official statement and instead apologized, saying I should not have treated that reporter that way, and Im sorry Ben Jacobs.

Meme saying People are most comfortable dealing with reality in terms of black or white, but reality tends to come in shades of gray (Made for Intentional Insights by Wayne Straight)

Certainly, some conservatives did not respond well. The conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh practiced victim-blaming, implying that Gianfortes actions were not a big deal because the journalist was being insolent and disrespectful. The Daily Caller, a prominent conservative website, ran a story about some Montana voters supporting Gianfortes actions. A former Republican congressman defended Gianforte.

Such problematic responses that appeared to condone or ignore violence against reporters do not represent the majority of conservative responses. Nonetheless, The New York Times ran a story entitled A reporter was body slammed, but some conservatives want the news media to apologize. Chris Cuomo of CNN had harsh words for the Republican Party on the morning after the incident, asking You know what I hear? Silence. Where is the GOP? The Philadelphia Inquirer carried a piece entitled In Trumps America, that reporter body slam didnt come out of nowhere.

Other mainstream venues downplayed condemnation by conservatives of Gianfortes behavior and emphasized those standing by him. The Washington Post, in its editorial responding to the incident, quoted Ryans words supporting the right of people from Montanan to elect their representative, while failing to mention that he demanded an apology. In turn, The Atlantic quoted a joke made by Republican Representative Mark Sanford, while conveniently forgetting that Sanfords response also condemned the culture of hostility toward the media that contributed to Gianfortes behavior.

Meme saying Look for the actual truth, not for what just supports your beliefs (Made for Intentional Insights by Lexie Holliday)

Unfortunately, the content on these mainstream media venues fails to provide an accurate depiction of reality, which harms journalist safety. Most of the content does acknowledge in the depths of each piece that many conservatives condemned Gianfortes behavior. Yet behavioral science research on news consumption shows that 59 percent of Americans are casual readers who only read the headlines. Thus, many casual independent or conservative readers would fail to perceive the widespread condemnation by conservative leaders of Gianfortes assault.

This outcome harms the safety of journalists. Research shows that our minds interpret new information in accordance with our past beliefsa thinking error known as the confirmation bias. The confirmation bias is one of several thinking errorsknown in behavioral science scholarship as cognitive biasesthat lead to motivated reasoning, where people pre-select a certain conclusion and reach that conclusion regardless of the facts. Fortunately, we can fight the confirmation bias in such situations by evaluating the opinions of prominent influencers who have political motivations to support one side, but fail to do so or even support the other side. Such strategies have effectively changed peoples perspectives even in our current polarized environment. Unfortunately, many mainstream venues failed their readership by not conveying the data needed for them to draw accurate conclusions and thus advance press freedom.

Meme saying Lizard brain thinking is killing democracy, please think rationally (Made for Intentional Insights by Ed Coolidge)

Another problem comes from one of the strongest findings in behavioral science, which shows that human beings respond very strongly to positive reinforcement. Through the style of their coverage painting all conservatives with a broad brush, these mainstream venues fail to provide positive reinforcement to conservatives who behaved in a prosocial manner. Research suggests that optimal performance comes from a combination of internal and external motivations. External incentives according to research, are especially crucial for promoting prosocial behavior such as protecting freedom of the press.

A further issue is the equating of Trumps behavior with Gianfortes actions. Conservative venues such as Breitbart immediately took the opportunity to condemn such comparisons, and call out what the article depicted as media hypocrisy for failing to do the same when liberals used violence. As others have accurately pointed out, while Trumps actions help create a climate of hostility to the media, it is much more difficult to connect Gianfortes actions to Trumps words. Drawing such connections undermines the already-low media credibility. A much better model for reporting on this connection came from a conservative venue, The American Conservative. It ran a piece that accurately describes how the hostility to mainstream media among Republicans predated Trump, while acknowledging that Trump ramped up this hostility, and criticizing Gianforte for lacking anger management skills. Such reporting, by providing an accurate depiction that attributes only
a small part of the blame to Trumps actions, helps protect journalists.

Next time, these mainstream venues need to provide accurate reporting to avoid undercutting their credibility, to praise prosocial behavior to create incentives and positive reinforcement, and to have all readers take away accurate impressions from their headlines. You can make a difference by writing letters to the editor and making social media posts asking journalists to commit to accurate reporting and to take the Pro-Truth Pledge for the sake of protecting the safety and freedom of the press. What you can do right now is take the pledge yourself to show your own commitment to the truth.

Meme saying Why do we seek the truth? Because its the right thing to do (Made for Intentional Insights by Wayne Straight)

P.S. Want less lies in politics? Take the Pro-Truth Pledge, encourage your friends to do so, and call on your elected representatives to take it!

_______________________________________________________________

Connect with Dr. Gleb Tsipursky on Twitter, on Facebook, and on LinkedIn, and follow his RSS feed and newsletter.

See the original post here:
Why Mainstream Media Need to Be Careful About Criticizing Conservatives - Patheos (blog)

People trust science. So why don't they believe it? – WGRZ-TV

Alia E. Dastagir , USA TODAY , TEGNA 12:48 PM. EDT June 02, 2017

Members of the Union for Concerned Scientists pose for photographs with Muppet character Beaker in front of The White House before heading to the National Mall for the March for Science rally in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Jessica Kourkounis, Getty Images)

Editor's note: This story was originally published in April. It has been updated to include the latest on the Paris climate agreement.

Thousands of scientists and their allies filled the streets of the nations capital onEarth Day for theMarch for Science, advocating for the importance of scientific truth in an era weve ominously been told doesnt value the truth any longer. Just a week later, the People's Climate March in Washington, D.C., demanded policymakers not only respect science, but that they also act on it.

And now, drawing global dismay and condemnation,President Trump has announced that the U.S. willno longer participate in the landmark Paris climate agreement.

Advocates say science is under attack. President Trumps Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt doesnt accept evidence that shows humans are causing climate change.Education Secretary Betsy DeVos'2001 commentson wanting to advance Gods kingdom through education have educatorsworried she could undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.Trumps budget blueprint slashes funding for the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.

Esteemed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, in an impassioned video on hisFacebook page, said he fears people have lost the ability to judge what's true and what's not.

"That is a recipe for the complete dismantling of our informed democracy," he says.

The scientific community is alarmed by the Trump administration, and by whatthey see as the diminishing role of objectivescience in American life. But theGeneral Social Survey, one of the oldest and most comprehensive recurring surveys of American attitudes, shows that although trust in public institutions has declined over the last half century, science is the one institution that has not suffered any erosion of public confidence. Americans who say they have a great deal of confidence in science has hovered around 40% since 1973.

Many scientists say there is no war on their profession at all.

According to the 2016 GSS data released this month, people trust scientists more than Congress (6%) and the executive branch (12%). They trust them more than the press (8%). They have more trust in scientists than in the people who run major companies (18%), more than in banks and financial institutions (14%), the Supreme Court (26%) or organized religion (20%).

So why all the headlines about the "war on science"?

Though science still holds an esteemed place in America, there isa gapbetween what scientists and some citizens think a rift that is not entirely new on issues such as climate change, nuclear power, genetically modified foods, human evolution and childhood vaccines.

Americans dont reject science as a whole. People love the weather forecast. They love their smartphones. When people reject science, its because theyre asked to believe something that conflicts with a deeply held view, whether political (myparty does not endorse that), religious (my god didnot say that) or personal (that's not how I was raised).

Manyconservatives reject the science of man-madeclimate change, just as manyliberals reject the science that shows nuclear energy can safely combat it. The views we express signal which politicalgroup we belong to. The gap between what science shows and what people believe, sociologists say, is about our identity.

The issue of climate change isnt about what you know, said Dan Kahan, a professor of psychology and law at Yale and a member of the universitysCultural CognitionProject. Its about who you are.

Polarization has exacerbated our differences, andwe know some of whats to blame:Therise of social media. A more partisan press. A dearth of universally-accepted experts. And greater access to information, which Christopher Graves, president and founder of the Ogilvy Center forBehavioralScience, said does not tug us toward the center, but rather makes us more polarized.

A human being cannot grasp something as a fact if it in any way undermines their identity, Graves said. And that is animmutable human foible. These things have always been there, but not at scale."

The GSS data show confidence in institutions overall has been in decline since the 1970s, though political scientists are quick to caution that this is animperfect benchmark.

Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist atDartmouth College, said trust in the mid-20th century was unnaturally high and polarization was unnaturally low,bolstered by unusual growth in middle class income and a reduction of inequality, which is when the "20th century version of the American dream and the trust in government to produce it was fully mythologized."

There was an usually high level of trust that came out of World War II, before the turn towards a more cynical view ofthe institutions of society especially politics and media after Vietnam and Watergate,"Nyhan said.

So how much more polarization can we expect?

Social scientists aren't sure, but they agreeTrump complicates things.

"He really is an us-versus-them figure," Kahan said. "People arent thinking about the arguments. Theyre thinkingaboutwhat side they're on."

Think about the way you search for information. If youre a new mom who believes vaccines cause autism (and a number of women in your mommy group do, too) are you searching for research that shows whether they actually do, or are you Googling vaccines cause autism to find stories to affirm your belief? (Studies show there isno link between vaccines and autism.)

The mother above is probably motivated by fear. Suchmotivated reasoning,says political scientistCharles Taberof Stony Brook University, shows that we are all fundamentally biased.

You have a basic psychological tendency to perpetuate your own beliefs, he said to really discount anything that runs against your own prior views.

It gets even more complicated.Once weve convinced ourselves of something, research suggests factsdont appeal to us.A studyco-led by Nyhanfound that trying to correct a persons misperception can have a backfire effect. When you encounter facts that dont support your idea, your belief in that idea actually grows stronger.

So what if we did a better job teaching people how science works? Doesn't help, Kahan said. Research shows peoplewith the most science intelligence are also the most partisan.

Its not knowledge but curiosity, Kahan says, that makes us more likely to accept scientific truths. Arecent studythat Kahan led found people with more scientific curiosity were more likely to be open-minded about information that challenged their existing political views.

And arguing helps, too. ScientistsHugo Mercier and Dan Sperber contend in their new book,The Enigma of Reason,that reason isn't somethingthat evolved sohumans could solve problems on their own. It developed so we could work together.

Instead of forcing someone to agree that climate change is caused by humans, Graves said, you can stop once you agree that, for example, flooding in Florida is a problem, and that you have to fix it (the bipart
isanSoutheast Florida Regional Climate Change Compactcan teach us about that).

Marcia McNutt, an American geophysicist and president of the National Academy of Sciences, said she isnt worried about a crisis of science, though she hopes more people would understand science is about the unbiased search for truth" and that benefits everyone.

Being a scientist only means that when I have an intuition about something, I test that intuition, and see if Im right, she said. A very, very smart mentor told me once, I don't trust anyone who hasn't at least changed their mind once in their career.

Science, it appears, may havemore lessons for usthan we think.

2017 USATODAY.COM

Read the original post:
People trust science. So why don't they believe it? - WGRZ-TV

Why Mainstream Media Need to Be Careful About Criticizing Conservatives – HuffPost

Written by Dr. Gleb Tsipursky, Intentional Insights Co-Founder and President.

________________________________________________________________

Many mainstream media outlets criticized conservatives with a broad brush over the Montana Congressional special election winner Republican Greg Gianforte assaulting a reporter, Ben Jacobs. Yet, according to behavioral science research conducted by myself and others, such criticism may end up hurting the safety of journalists, instead of advancing freedom of the press and pursuit of the truth.

First, the facts of the incident itself. According to the evidence available, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck, slammed him to the ground, and punched him. The episode was witnessed and corroborated by multiple independent witnesses, including Fox News and BuzzFeed reporters. The local sheriff - who earlier gave a financial contribution to Gianfortes campaign - charged Gianforte with misdemeanor assault.

How did conservatives respond? The assault took place on the evening of May 24, and Fox News - which had a reporter on scene - quickly wrote up a fair and balanced account. The Fox News account specifically stated that at no point did any of us who witnessed this assault see Jacobs show any form of physical aggression toward Gianforte, which Fox News certainly did not have to do. In fact, the Fox News story contradicted the official statement offered by Gianfortes campaign, which accused Jacobs of starting the fight by grabbing Gianfortes wrist, a statement now widely seen as a lie. A conservative venue, TheBlaze, ran a piece critical of Gianfortes statement, and The New York Post ran a similar piece.

Many conservative politicians also responded in a worthy manner. Within 24 hours of the assault, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan stated that There's never a call for physical altercations... I think he should apologize." This length of time is quite reasonable, as Ryan needed to find out the relevant facts. Steve Daines, a Montana Senator and major supporter for Gianforte, also called on Gianforte to apologize, adding "I do not condone violence in any way. Under such pressure, Gianforte rescinded his earlier deceptive official statement and instead apologized, saying I should not have treated that reporter that way, and Im sorry Ben Jacobs.

Certainly, some conservatives did not respond well. The conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh practiced victim-blaming, implying that Gianfortes actions were not a big deal because the journalist was being insolent and disrespectful. The Daily Caller, a prominent conservative website, ran a story about some Montana voters supporting Gianfortes actions. A former Republican congressman defended Gianforte.

Such problematic responses that appeared to condone or ignore violence against reporters do not represent the majority of conservative responses. Nonetheless, The New York Times ran a story entitled A reporter was body slammed, but some conservatives want the news media to apologize. Chris Cuomo of CNN had harsh words for the Republican Party on the morning after the incident, asking You know what I hear? Silence. Where is the GOP? The Philadelphia Inquirer carried a piece entitled In Trump's America, that reporter body slam didn't come out of nowhere.

Other mainstream venues downplayed condemnation by conservatives of Gianfortes behavior and emphasized those standing by him. The Washington Post, in its editorial responding to the incident, quoted Ryans words supporting the right of people from Montanan to elect their representative, while failing to mention that he demanded an apology. In turn, The Atlantic quoted a joke made by Republican Representative Mark Sanford, while conveniently forgetting that Sanfords response also condemned the culture of hostility toward the media that contributed to Gianfortes behavior .

Unfortunately, the content on these mainstream media venues fails to provide an accurate depiction of reality, which harms journalist safety. Most of the content does acknowledge - in the depths of each piece - that many conservatives condemned Gianfortes behavior. Yet behavioral science research on news consumption shows that 59 percent of Americans are casual readers who only read the headlines. Thus, many casual independent or conservative readers would fail to perceive the widespread condemnation by conservative leaders of Gianfortes assault.

This outcome harms the safety of journalists. Research shows that our minds interpret new information in accordance with our past beliefsa thinking error known as the confirmation bias. The confirmation bias is one of several thinking errorsknown in behavioral science scholarship as cognitive biasesthat lead to motivated reasoning, where people pre-select a certain conclusion and reach that conclusion regardless of the facts. Fortunately, we can fight the confirmation bias in such situations by evaluating the opinions of prominent influencers who have political motivations to support one side, but fail to do so or even support the other side. Such strategies have effectively changed peoples perspectives even in our current polarized environment. Unfortunately, many mainstream venues failed their readership by not conveying the data needed for them to draw accurate conclusions and thus advance press freedom.

Another problem comes from one of the strongest findings in behavioral science, which shows that human beings respond very strongly to positive reinforcement. Through the style of their coverage painting all conservatives with a broad brush, these mainstream venues fail to provide positive reinforcement to conservatives who behaved in a prosocial manner. Research suggests that optimal performance comes from a combination of internal and external motivations. External incentives according to research, are especially crucial for promoting prosocial behavior such as protecting freedom of the press.

A further issue is the equating of Trumps behavior with Gianfortes actions. Conservative venues such as Breitbart immediately took the opportunity to condemn such comparisons, and call out what the article depicted as media hypocrisy for failing to do the same when liberals used violence. As others have accurately pointed out, while Trumps actions help create a climate of hostility to the media, it is much more difficult to connect Gianfortes actions to Trumps words. Drawing such connections undermines the already-low media credibility. A much better model for reporting on this connection came from a conservative venue, The American Conservative. It ran a piece that accurately describes how the hostility to mainstream media among Republicans predated Trump, while acknowledging that Trump ramped up this hostility, and criticizing Gianforte for lacking anger management skills. Such reporting, by providing an accurate depiction that attributes only a small part of the blame to Trumps actions, helps protect journalists.

Next time, these mainstream venues need to provide accurate reporting to avoid undercutting their credibility, to praise prosocial behavior to create incentives and positive reinforcement, and to have all readers take away accurate impressions from their headlines. You can make a difference by writing letters to the editor and making social media posts asking journalists to commit to accurate
reporting and to take the Pro-Truth Pledge for the sake of protecting the safety and freedom of the press. What you can do right now is take the pledge yourself to show your own commitment to the truth.

P.S. Want less lies in politics? Take the Pro-Truth Pledge, encourage your friends to do so, and call on your elected representatives to take it!

_______________________________________________________________

Connect with Dr. Gleb Tsipursky on Twitter, on Facebook, and on LinkedIn, and follow his RSS feed and newsletter.

Start your workday the right way with the news that matters most.

Link:
Why Mainstream Media Need to Be Careful About Criticizing Conservatives - HuffPost

UB program for underrepresented minority students in biomedical PhD programs wins coveted renewal – UB News Center

BUFFALO, N.Y. The University at Buffalos ongoing efforts to recruit underrepresented students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) to its PhD programs has received a major boost from the National Institutes of Health, which renewed a $2.3 million, 5-year grant to help fully fund scholarships.

The grant will pay for the first two years of graduate school in the biomedical and behavioral sciences for four students a year. Over the past five years, the program is credited with bringing 20 underrepresented students to UB. And more importantly, it is part of a pipeline of catalysts that is helping the university attract underrepresented students to prepare the next generation of scientists and professors.

These students are highly recruited by other universities, said Margarita Dubocovich, PhD, SUNY Distinguished Professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology in the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences and senior associate dean for diversity and inclusion.

The grant is part of the Initiative for Maximizing Student Development (IMSD), a student development program for research-intensive institutions funded by NIHs National Institute of General Medical Sciences. The prestigious grant was awarded to only 21 PhD training programs.

Numerous departments involved

Students admitted into UB's IMSD can enroll in any of the following UB programs or departments: biological sciences; biomedical engineering; chemistry; psychology; pharmacology and toxicology; pharmaceutical sciences; the PhD program in biomedical sciences; and the graduate division at Roswell Park Cancer Institute.

Dubocovich said the grant combined with UBs Institute for the Strategic Enhancement of Educational Diversity (iSEED) and its Collaborative Learning and Integrated Mentoring in the Biosciences (CLIMB) program has helped UB recruit 37 underrepresented students in STEM and related fields to its graduate programs over the past five years. And the deans of seven schools at UB have pledged to fund one underrepresented student a year.

These PhD graduate students are a cohort that helped win the grant renewal, she said. Helping diversify the ranks of the graduate programs has ramifications across the university.

When you recruit faculty, and they know we are actively recruiting underrepresented students, they are more apt to come here, Dubocovich said. They want to have a more diverse class.

National recruitment

Renewal of the grant was a significant win for the efforts of Dubocovich and her co-leader in the recruitment efforts, Rajendram V. Rajnarayanan, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacology and toxicology.

We must be doing something right, said Rajnarayanan, who likens the IMSD grant to a biological catalyst that helps keep students moving toward successful graduation and leadership roles in their scientific communities.

Dubocovich and Rajnarayanan attend conferences and speak to college groups to help recruit students to the university. In addition, they have established programs to bring promising undergraduate students to campus in the summer for a research training program.

We go and visit schools and speak passionately about research, so the students see it and want to be involved, said Rajnarayanan. Thats how it works.

We recruit nationally, Dubocovich said. We bring them here so they can learn about UB and see whether they want to come here for graduate school.

Owing to the IMSD program, the number of admissions offers made to students from diverse backgrounds has more than doubled, she said. The total number of underrepresented PhD students with thesis mentors in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology increased from 18 percent (2 out of 11) in 2011 to 58 percent (11 out of 19) in fall 2016.

Similarly, first year student enrollment in the PhD program in biomedical sciences has increased from 8 percent in 2008-2011 to 24 percent in 2012-2015. Together, these datahighlight the broader impact of the IMSD program in student enrollment at UB.

First two years are key

Rajnarayanan said the university has built a pipeline for the students, starting with the summer program and continuing through graduate school, that includes mentoring and research opportunities. Under the IMSD grant, PhD students have individual mentoring during the first two years of the program, and gather as a group regularly.

Statistically, if a student makes it through the first two years, they stay for the entire program, he said.

All students seeking an IMSD grant must first be accepted into a PhD program, and then the individual school that nominated them for the grant. Each year, up to 18 students are nominated and out of those, four students are accepted.

Continued here:
UB program for underrepresented minority students in biomedical PhD programs wins coveted renewal - UB News Center

Turn college debt into an investment – Green Bay Press Gazette

Steve Van Remortel, For USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin Published 2:02 p.m. CT June 1, 2017 | Updated 4 hours ago

Steve Van Remortel(Photo: Courtesy of Steve Van Remortel)

There is a lot of conversation and debate about college students who have an enormous amount of debt when they are finished with school.

A lot of those conversations are centered on the rising costs of a two- or four-year college education and the higher interest rates being charged on the future leaders of our country.These are legitimate concerns that need to be resolved.But I would suggest there is a larger problem with student debt, and it comes with a viable solution.

In a recent research study by Deloittes Center for the Edge, they determined that only 12.7 percentof the workforce is passionate about their work. Think about that for a minute.If more than 87 percent of the workforce is not passionate about what they do for a living, you could infer that most students are entering the workforce lacking passion about their career choice as well.In simple terms, students are taking on debt without a career plan they are passionate about.

The solution and process to develop a passionate career plan has four simple steps. The first step is to take a behavioral science assessment to understand your natural behavioral style.The next step is to define the top three passions in your life. The third step is to define career options that wrap your natural behavioral style around a passion in your life. The final step is to choose one of the career options that provide you the greatest opportunity for success.

This process can be completed at any age, but the best case scenario is early in high school. While high school students learn other important sciences like biology and chemistry, very few students understand behavioral science or their natural behavioral style, which is developed by the time you are 7 years old.

SM Advisors/Stop The Vanilla has partnered with the Howard-Suamico School District to change this through the Academic and Career Planning Initiative.The pilot program provides a behavioral style assessment and career counseling to juniors and seniors in high school to help them wrap their natural style around a passion in their life.It allows students to talk about who they are, and what they like to do.You can see the passion and enthusiasm pick up in every student in the class as they start getting clarity on their future.Several students came up to me after our class to talk about their specific careers like a pediatric nurse or a teacher.

It helps students set a course for their lives before they even set foot in a college or technical school.Prior to high school graduation every single student should have a career plan that wraps their natural style around a passion in their life. When you are passionate about what you do and you deliver it naturally, you excel at it and get rewarded for it.

We are planning to expand this program because it will lead to more passionate careers that will turn college debt into an investment.For example, I recently interviewed a young man who graduated with $88,000 in student loans and he paid it off in three years. The simple reason: he is passionate about and loves what he does for a living, excels at it and is getting rewarded for it.College debt turns into an investment when it leads to a passionate career.Its about living a passion, not just having a job.

Steve Van Remortel is a professional speaker, strategist, adviser and author of Stop Selling Vanilla Ice Cream. Contact him at steve@stopsellingvanillaicecream.com or go to http://www.smadvisors.com or http://www.stopsellingvanillaicecream.com. His column runs monthly.

Read or Share this story: http://gbpg.net/2sj6bm0

The rest is here:
Turn college debt into an investment - Green Bay Press Gazette

Are Behavioral Science, Customer Centricity And Customer Experience Compatible? – Forbes


Forbes
Are Behavioral Science, Customer Centricity And Customer Experience Compatible?
Forbes
However, at the same time, many of those companies will also be leveraging a large number of the powerful insights that are coming out of behavioral science, behavioral economics and behavioral design and will be using them to help design and deliver a ...

and more »

Read more:
Are Behavioral Science, Customer Centricity And Customer Experience Compatible? - Forbes

To Counter Opioid Crisis, NIH Pushes Researchers to Invent More Drugs – The Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)

At a time when opioid abuse is killing tens of thousands of Americans a year, government-funded university scientists are now being asked to pursue a solution many of them find deeply misguided: Invent even more drugs.

More than a dozen invited drug companies are eager to help, the NIHs director, Francis S. Collins, said of his agencys new opioid strategy. "They have all responded with a great deal of enthusiasm," he said.

But academic experts in opioid abuse are aghast, saying the NIH plan appears to greatly overemphasize the prospect of meaningful help from the drug companies which the scientists blame for creating the crisis in the first place to the near exclusion of nonpharmacological treatments, including lifestyle changes and economic development.

"This is a complex bio-psycho-social disease," said one opioid expert, Anna Lembke, an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University, "and these interventions really are only looking at the biology piece."

This is a complex bio-psycho-social disease, and these interventions really are only looking at the biology piece.

For such researchers, the issue reflects a fundamental question about the role of the NIH: Should it direct research dollars mostly toward traditional "bench science" or take a more expansive and interdisciplinary approach to major matters of public health?

To some degree, the NIH accepts that wider definition. The NIH division that produced the new opioid strategy, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has sponsored research into areas that include improving educational initiatives in schools and assessing programs to monitor prescription drugs.

But the NIH plan, published on Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine and written by Dr. Collins and Nora D. Volkow, director of the drug-abuse institute, spoke almost exclusively of ideas for developing new drugs and devices to improve upon and replace opioids, to vaccinate against the effect of opioids, and to improve post-overdose treatment.

The strategy is an outgrowth of an annual meeting, held in April, between pharmaceutical-industry leaders and officials at the NIH and other government health agencies. More details of the plan will be developed during three additional meetings over the next six weeks, all closed to the public, between industry scientists and NIH officials, Dr. Collins said.

The stars are aligning now between the science and the industry, seeing this as a potential market opportunity.

Dr. Collins and Dr. Volkow, in a briefing with reporters, also said the epidemic of opioid addiction now affecting at least 2.5 million Americans grew in large part because the dangers were not understood as recently as 20 years ago.

"The medical profession was very much kind of buying into the idea that this could be a way in which one could manage not just short-term but long-term pain," Dr. Collins said. "The realization of the addictive potential was much more limited then than it is now."

We've known for millennia that opioids are addictive and that they cause overdose when taken in too high a dose.

New drugs could be useful, said Richard B. Gunderman, a professor of radiology at Indiana University who holds appointments in several other fields, including medical education and philosophy. But rather than pursue new types of opioids as the holy grail, Dr. Gunderman said, scientists should look at psychological, spiritual, and even cultural factors that lead to opioid abuse, especially among people suffering from low incomes and a lack of fulfilling careers.

Such factors are critical, he said, "and we neglect them at our peril."

Dr. Volkow did mention some nonpharmacological goals, including improving training for emergency-room physicians and doctors in sexual-health clinics who treat opioid-abuse patients.

And the U.S. secretary of health and human services, Thomas E. Price, told a drug-abuse summit in April that improving access to treatment and recovery services was one of his top five priorities in fighting opioid abuse.

At the same time, a House-approved plan for meeting the Trump administrations request to overhaul federal health-care coverage would reduce patients eligibility for Suboxone, the leading long-term treatment for opioid addiction. Losing access to Suboxone "would definitely make the epidemic worse," Dr. Kolodny said.

The NIH plan is so worrisome, Dr. Lembke said, because the drug industry can already provide resources to develop new drugs. Federal money, by contrast, should be directed toward approaches that industry will not cover, such as studying the value of clean-needle-exchange programs, safe-injection facilities, decriminalization policies, and personal behaviors, including exercise, yoga, and tai chi, she said.

"Not a single one of their listed interventions addresses the psychosocial contextual problems that are so central to this" crisis, Dr. Lembke said of the NIH plan.

Paul Basken covers university research and its intersection with government policy. He can be found on Twitter @pbasken, or reached by email at paul.basken@chronicle.com.

See original here:
To Counter Opioid Crisis, NIH Pushes Researchers to Invent More Drugs - The Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)

Scientists Want a Vaccine to Protect Readers From Fake News – Sputnik International

Politics

01:35 01.06.2017(updated 10:42 01.06.2017) Get short URL

As those seeking topromulgate a biased point ofview label so much information "fake news," behavioral scientists are now studying whether the human mind can be induced torecognize and refute it.

In a recent study, 100 participants were provided witha scientific report, butwere also informed that intentional misinformation would be included. Participants inthe behavioral study, followingthe warning, were able toidentify the false facts 100 percent ofthe time, asnoted byRawstory.com.

The study participants were informed that "fake experts" are typically used byindustries seeking torefute scientific consensus, and the end results indicated that politics and values were not indicative ofthe study group's ability toidentify falsehoods.

"Nobody likes tobe misled, no matter their politics," said a researcher involved withthe project, an indicator, they added, that it is possible forpeople toavoid being led astray bylies.

Observing that humans instinctively reject facts that contradict their personal belief systems, Yale University professor Dan Kahan's identification ofwhat he calls identity-protective cognition, results ina person identifying withinformation aslong asit supports their own beliefs.

Now scientists are seeking a way toinoculate againstthe practice, toallow fora person torecognize a provable scientific truth astruth and alter their point ofview.

But what is truth?

Sputnik/ Vladimir Astapkovich

Previous studies byCambridge psychology professor Sander van der Linden have shown that simple acceptance ofthe existence ofanother point ofview can assist inallowing those withdefensively held beliefs toentertain the possibility ofchanging their viewpoint.

Scientists, including van der Linden, agree that acceptance ofanother's viewpoint can smooth overcombative defensive reactions, including amongthose who resist factual information merely because it challenges their belief system.

"Consensus messages don't ask people tochange their beliefs they ask them tochange their opinion aboutwhat other people believe, so they're not a direct threat totheir identity," van der Linden detailed.

Suggesting that, byaccepting that another point ofview can co-exist withyours, it is possible tobring climate change deniers aroundto the provable negative environmental truth, the scientists said, "We've found that they're one way toget people more aligned onthe side ofclimate science."

"You can't talk around [climate change denial]; otherwise it persists," van der Linden said, according toVox.

In offering a scientific truth, he observed, it is helpful tocome right outand say it.

"What's important is tolead withthe facts the facts are the headline then introduce the myth, and then explain why it's wrong."

"There is a consensus ofevidence that human activity is causing all ofrecent global warming. Not some ofit. Not even most ofit. All ofit," he explained.

Noting that it is "all-too-easy tomislead people intothinking that experts disagree onhuman-caused global warming," van der Linden suggested that, "If you want towork outwhether you're getting taken inwith the fake-expert strategy, take a closer look atthe experts' who are being cited."

Cognitive scientist and author ofthe Skeptical Science blog John Cook, an adjunct lecturer atAustralia's University ofQueensland speaking abouthow conflicting views can coexist withina person's belief system offered that people "want toknow how these two things can exist together. So you have toresolve it, and that turns intoa compelling story."

Original post:
Scientists Want a Vaccine to Protect Readers From Fake News - Sputnik International

Eco-Pass fee increase fight ramps up – La Voz Weekly

Students at De Anza College are ramping up the fight to oppose the proposed increase of the Eco-pass fee from $9 to $40. The VTA board will vote on the issue at their June 1 board meeting.

Over this past week, organizers leading the opposition from De Anza have met with many VTA board members including Chappie Jones and Cindy Chavez.

They have also received endorsements from De Anza College, the Associated Students of San Jose State and Foothill College, Assemblymembers Evan Low and Ash Kalra, Congressman Ro Khanna, and the Amalgamated Bus Union.

Chi Tran, 21, environmental economics and public policy major; Neil McClintick, 20, political science major; Raphael Villagracia, 19, political science major, and Eddie Cisneros, 23, public health major, met board member Jones, who was not very receptive to students concerns, at the West Valley Branch Library for a second meeting.

We brought him our statistics and proposals for a solution, Tran said. He was very impressed with us and we might convince him a bit more than the first time.

Tran; McClintick; Cisneros; Desiree Humphers, 20, liberal arts and behavioral science major; and Patrick Ahrens, advisor to California Assemblymember Evan Low, met with board member Chavez at the Santa Clara County building. Tran said they had a very successful meeting and she was very impressed with Chavez.

She knows her stuff and she will take us very seriously, Tran said. Her goal is to keep public transportation floating, so she is seeking for a sustainable plan.

A few organizations on campus including the ES Committee, TRANSITion and the De Anza Political Revolution are very active on campus in preparation for the upcoming meeting.

TRANSITion is planning to host workshops to create posters, and the De Anza Political Revolution is planning to host workshops to prepare students to give testimonies during the meeting.

April Nicholson, 19, political science major, and member of the DASB Environmental Sustainability Committee and De Anza Political Revolution Club, has been circulating a petition and attending VTA board meetings. She presented the issue and gathered at least 2,180 signatures from 15 classrooms over three days.

Organizers are contacting as many council members as they can as well as receiving support from elected officials, and are trying to get more students involved in the issue.

We really hope students give more attention to this issue, said Tran. Many of us who are organizing this work are leaving the school. It wont affect us, but affect folks that are staying: the future students.

Follow this link:
Eco-Pass fee increase fight ramps up - La Voz Weekly

Behavioral neuroscience – Wikipedia

Behavioral neuroscience, also known as biological psychology,[1]biopsychology, or psychobiology[2] is the application of the principles of biology to the study of physiological, genetic, and developmental mechanisms of behavior in humans and other animals. [3]

Behavioral neuroscience as a scientific discipline emerged from a variety of scientific and philosophical traditions in the 18th and 19th centuries. In philosophy, people like Ren Descartes proposed physical models to explain animal and human behavior. Descartes, for example, suggested that the pineal gland, a midline unpaired structure in the brain of many organisms, was the point of contact between mind and body. Descartes also elaborated on a theory in which the pneumatics of bodily fluids could explain reflexes and other motor behavior. This theory was inspired by moving statues in a garden in Paris.[4]

Other philosophers also helped give birth to psychology. One of the earliest textbooks in the new field, The Principles of Psychology by William James, argues that the scientific study of psychology should be grounded in an understanding of biology:

Bodily experiences, therefore, and more particularly brain-experiences, must take a place amongst those conditions of the mental life of which Psychology need take account. The spiritualist and the associationist must both be 'cerebralists,' to the extent at least of admitting that certain peculiarities in the way of working of their own favorite principles are explicable only by the fact that the brain laws are a codeterminant of their result.

Our first conclusion, then, is that a certain amount of brain-physiology must be presupposed or included in Psychology.[5]

The emergence of both psychology and behavioral neuroscience as legitimate sciences can be traced from the emergence of physiology from anatomy, particularly neuroanatomy. Physiologists conducted experiments on living organisms, a practice that was distrusted by the dominant anatomists of the 18th and 19th centuries.[6] The influential work of Claude Bernard, Charles Bell, and William Harvey helped to convince the scientific community that reliable data could be obtained from living subjects.

Even before the 18th and 19th century, behavioral neuroscience was beginning to take form as far back as 1700 B.C.[7] The question that seems to continually arise is what is the connection between the mind and body. The debate is formally referred to as the mind-body problem. There are two major schools of thought that attempt to resolve the mindbody problem; monism and dualism.[4]Plato and Aristotle are two of several philosophers who participated in this debate. Plato believed that the brain was where all mental thought and processes happened.[7] In contrast, Aristotle believed that the brain served the purpose of cooling down the emotions derived from the heart.[4] The mind-body problem was a stepping stone toward attempting to understand the connection between the mind and body.

Another debate arose about was localization of function or functional specialization versus equipotentiality which played a significant role in the development in behavioral neuroscience. As a result of localization of function research, many famous people found within psychology have come to various different conclusions. Wilder Penfield was able to develop a map of the cerebral cortex through studying epileptic patients along with Rassmussen.[4] Research on localization of function has led behavioral neuroscientist to a better understanding of which parts of the brain control behavior. This is best exemplified through the case study of Phineas Gage.

The term "psychobiology" has been used in a variety of contexts, emphasizing the importance of biology, which is the discipline that studies organic, neural and cellular modifications in behavior, plasticity in neuroscience, and biological diseases in all aspects, in addition, biology focuses and analyzes behavior and all the subjects it is concerned about, from a scientific point of view. In this context, psychology helps as a complementary, but important discipline in the neurobiological sciences. The role of psychology in this questions is that of a social tool that backs up the main or strongest biological science. The term "psychobiology" was first used in its modern sense by Knight Dunlap in his book An Outline of Psychobiology (1914).[8] Dunlap also was the founder and editor-in-chief of the journal Psychobiology. In the announcement of that journal, Dunlap writes that the journal will publish research "...bearing on the interconnection of mental and physiological functions", which describes the field of behavioral neuroscience even in its modern sense.[8]

In many cases, humans may serve as experimental subjects in behavioral neuroscience experiments; however, a great deal of the experimental literature in behavioral neuroscience comes from the study of non-human species, most frequently rats, mice, and monkeys. As a result, a critical assumption in behavioral neuroscience is that organisms share biological and behavioral similarities, enough to permit extrapolations across species. This allies behavioral neuroscience closely with comparative psychology, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, and neurobiology. Behavioral neuroscience also has paradigmatic and methodological similarities to neuropsychology, which relies heavily on the study of the behavior of humans with nervous system dysfunction (i.e., a non-experimentally based biological manipulation).

Synonyms for behavioral neuroscience include biopsychology, biological psychology, and psychobiology.[9]Physiological psychology is a subfield of behavioral neuroscience, with an appropriately narrower definition

The distinguishing characteristic of a behavioral neuroscience experiment is that either the independent variable of the experiment is biological, or some dependent variable is biological. In other words, the nervous system of the organism under study is permanently or temporarily altered, or some aspect of the nervous system is measured (usually to be related to a behavioral variable).

Different manipulations have advantages and limitations. Neural tissue destroyed as a primary consequence of a surgery, electric shock or neurotoxin can confound the results so that the physical trauma masks changes in the fundamental neurophysiological processes of interest. For example, when using an electrolytic probe to create a purposeful lesion in a distinct region of the rat brain, surrounding tissue can be affected: so, a change in behavior exhibited by the experimental group post-surgery is to some degree a result of damage to surrounding neural tissue, rather than by a lesion of a distinct brain region. [23][24] Most genetic manipulation techniques are also considered permanent.[24] Temporary lesions can be achieved with advanced in genetic manipulations, for example, certain genes can now be switched on and off with diet.[24] Pharmacological manipulations also allow blocking of certain neurotransmitters temporarily as the function returns to its previous state after the drug has been metabolized.[24]

In general, behavioral neuroscientists study similar themes and issues as academic psychologists, though limited by the need to use nonhuman animals. As a result, the bulk of literature in behavioral neuroscience deals with mental processes and behaviors that are shared across different animal models such as:

However, with increasing technical sophistication and with the development of more precise noninvas
ive methods that can be applied to human subjects, behavioral neuroscientists are beginning to contribute to other classical topic areas of psychology, philosophy, and linguistics, such as:

Behavioral neuroscience has also had a strong history of contributing to the understanding of medical disorders, including those that fall under the purview of clinical psychology and biological psychopathology (also known as abnormal psychology). Although animal models do not exist for all mental illnesses, the field has contributed important therapeutic data on a variety of conditions, including:

Nobel Laureates

The following Nobel Prize winners could reasonably be considered behavioral neuroscientists or neurobiologists. (This list omits winners who were almost exclusively neuroanatomists or neurophysiologists; i.e., those that did not measure behavioral or neurobiological variables.)

Kavli Prize in Neuroscience

Read the rest here:
Behavioral neuroscience - Wikipedia

Wright State spinoff closes on $680K in funding – Dayton Business Journal

Wright State spinoff closes on $680K in funding
Dayton Business Journal
The company has closed on a $680,000 Seed B convertible note, which brings the total amount of seed funding it has raised to $845,000. This comes on top of the $2 million in grants it landed as part of the Kno.e.sis center at Wright State, thanks to ...

Read more here:
Wright State spinoff closes on $680K in funding - Dayton Business Journal

How To Navigate Your Child's Adolescence46:37 – WBUR

wbur

With guest hostJane Clayson. This program originally broadcast on September 19, 2016.

Anew parents guide to navigating adolescence. Its still a minefield out there.

Eye rolls. Blow-ups. Slammed doors. The silent treatment. Parenting adolescents can be challenging. Discouraging. Exhausting. Especially when you cant get them to answer a simple question like, How was your day? Or even look up from their cell phones. Whats a parent to do? What should a parent never do? Does it sometimes feel like payback for what you put your own parents through? This hourOn Point, expert advice for parents of teens. Jane Clayson

Sara Villanueva, professor of psychology in the School of Behavioral and Social Sciences at St. Edward's University in Austin. (@SaraVillanueva_)

Rob Evans, psychologist and executive director of the Human Relations Service Inc. in Wellesley, Massachusetts.

New York Times: When Teenagers Bristle At 'How Was School?' "In reality, few days are entirely fine, and none are entirely empty. So how do we improve on this perennial flop of an exchange?As adults we can often forget how stressful middle and high school can be. While some students are energized by school, most find their days taxing, even under the best conditions."

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Harnessing adolescent values to motivate healthier eating -- "Behavioral science has rarely offered effective strategies for changing adolescent health behavior. One limitation of previous approaches may be an overemphasis on long-term health outcomes as the focal source of motivation. The present research uses a rigorous randomized trial to evaluate an approach that aligns healthy behavior with values about which adolescents already care: feeling like a socially conscious, autonomous person worthy of approval from ones peers."

Your Teen: Top 10 Things To Expect In Middle School "Talk toparents whove been through middle school and youll often hear them lament that they had no idea what was coming. Parents are frequently eager for some middle school tips to help them survive, too."

This program aired on May 29, 2017.

Go here to read the rest:
How To Navigate Your Child's Adolescence46:37 - WBUR

FRC Class of 2017 – Plumas County Newspapers

This years outstanding alumnus speaker is Mark Dodge. A 2005 FRC graduate, Dodge had already served four years in the Army before beginning his studies at the community college. As part of his military experience, he served at the Pentagon on 9/11 where he was assigned to search and recovery duties. At FRC he played football before going on to Texas A&M where he became the captain of his football team. He is now project executive for Zachry Industrial, Inc., in Texas. Jessyca Klotz wowed the audience with the national anthem. Klotz graduated with an associates degree in licensed vocational nursing. Many who graduated with a LVN go on to become registered nurses. Perhaps 3-year-old Jude Housel is waiting his turn to wear a cap and gown. Hes shown with his mother Haley Nichole Housel, who received her associates in history. Seated next to her is Bethany Ellen Hammons who received degrees in liberal arts: social and behavioral sciences and sociology. A member of Phi Theta Kappa, Hammons also served as the student representative to the FRC board of trustees. Summer Vercruyssen and Jordan Whitchurch were this years choice for making the student address to fellow graduates and the audience. While Vercruyssen is from Durham and received an associates degree in business administration; Whitchurch came all the way from Australia to receive his associates degree in studio arts. Vercruyssen played volleyball and Whitchurch played soccer. Summer R. Williams, left, and Jessica C. Martinez await the processional and this years guest speakers. Both Williams and Martinez received degrees in general studies: social and behavioral sciences. Madison Argia Berry shakes hands with Trustee Guy McNett, while Trustee John Sheehan waits to give her a diploma. FRC President Kevin Trutna, far right, awaits the next graduate. Berry received an associates in university studies-agriculture. Of course Berry couldnt do graduation without her faithful friend. Alice Mary Thurber is delighted to shake hands with Trustee Dr. Dana Ware as shes about to receive her diploma from Trustee James Meyers. Thurber, an active member of Phi Theta Kappa, credited her involvement in that program for building her drive and determination to succeed. Thurber received an associates in early childhood education and a certificate: early childhood education. Anthony Lewis James Smith gives FRC President Kevin Trutna a big hug at his turn to receive his diploma. Smith received an associates degree in general studies: social and behavioral sciences. Seated and giving Smith a round of applause are, from left, Chief Instructional Officer Derek Lerch, Chief Student Services Officer Carlie McCarthy, faculty member and speaker Michael Bagley, Director of Athletic Operations Merle Trueblood and 2017 Outstanding Alumnus Award recipient and commencement address speaker Mark Dodge. Another local, Kealey Elizabeth Froggatt, shakes hands with Trustee Guy McNett before receiving her diploma from trustee and board President John Sheehan. Froggatt received her associates in general studies: social and behavioral sciences. She is also a member of Phi Theta Kappa. Kai Nicolaas Tjalsma was one of the locals to receive a degree at FRC. He graduated with a degree in political science and was one of the youngest to graduate in this years class.

See original here:
FRC Class of 2017 - Plumas County Newspapers