John Barrdear

Dreams are more negative than real life

Published
by
John Barrdear
on 20 August 2008
in Umm .. Other stuff
. 0 Comments

Dreams are more negative than real life: Implications for the function of dreaming

Authors: Katja Valli; Thea Strandholm; Lauri Sillanmaumlki; Antti Revonsuo
Published in: journal Cognition & Emotion, Volume 22, Issue 5 August 2008 , pages 833 - 861
Abstract
Dream content studies have revealed that dream experiences are negatively biased; negative dream contents are more frequent than corresponding positive dream contents. It is unclear, however, whether the bias is real or due to biased sampling, i.e., selective memory for intense negative emotions. The threat simulation theory (TST) claims that the negativity bias is real and reflects the evolved biological function of dreaming. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis of the TST that threatening events are overrepresented in dreams, i.e., more frequent and more severe in dreams than in real life. To control for biased sampling, we used as a baseline the corresponding negative events in real life rather than the corresponding positive events in dreams. We collected dream reports (N=419) and daily event logs (N=490) from 39 university students during a two-week period, and interviewed them about real threat experiences retrievable from autobiographical memory (N=714). Threat experiences proved to be much more frequent and severe in dreams than in real life, and Current Dream Threats more closely resembled Past than Current Real Threats. We conclude that the TST’s predictions hold, and that the negativity bias is real.

A post from my iPhone

Published
by
John Barrdear
on 10 August 2008
in Meta
. 0 Comments

This is a post from the Wordpress app on my iPhone. The interface is simple enough, but seems to lack any admin functionality.

Returning

Published
by
John Barrdear
on 10 August 2008
in Meta and Personal
. 0 Comments

Was on holiday. Back now.

Information and Learning in Markets

Published
by
John Barrdear
on 20 June 2008
in Academia, Economics, Epistemology and Finance
. 0 Comments

I’ve got my hands on a copy of Xavier Vives‘ new book, “Information and Learning in Markets.”  It’s a graduate-level textbook on mechanisms for information aggregation and I have to admit - my inner nerd is pretty excited at the prospect of not understanding most of it.

ORLY?

Published
by
John Barrdear
on 11 June 2008
in Academia, Politics and USA
. 0 Comments

Dear Michael Medved (who wrote the article and who graduated from Yale) and Professor Greg Mankiw (who linked to the article and teaches at Harvard),

I’m willing to accept that Michael’s argument represents some of the reason why Harvard and Yale graduates represent such a large fraction of presidential candidates if you are willing to accept that it is almost certainly a minor reason.

Ignoring your implied put-down of all of the other top-ranked universities in the United States, not to mention the still-excellent-but-not-Ivy-League institutions, the first thing that leaps to mind is the idea of (shock!) a third event that causally influences both Yale/Harvard attendance and entry into politics.

Perhaps the wealth of a child’s family is a good predictor of both whether that child will get into Harvard/Yale and also of whether they get into the “worth considering” pool of presidential candidates?

Perhaps there are some politics-specific network effects, with attendance at your esteemed universities being simply an opportunity to meet the parents of co-students?

Perhaps students who attend Harvard/Yale are self-selecting, with students interested in a career in politics being overly represented in your universities’ applicant pools?

Perhaps the geography matters, with universities located in the North East of the United States being over-represented in federal politics even after allowing for the above?

For the benefit of readers, here is the relevant section of the article:

What’s the explanation for this extraordinary situation - with Yale/Harvard degree-holders making up less than two-tenths of 1% of the national population, but winning more than 83% of recent presidential nominations?…

Today, the most prestigious degrees don’t so much guarantee success in adulthood as they confirm success in childhood and adolescence. That piece of parchment from New Haven or Cambridge doesn’t guarantee you’ve received a spectacular education, but it does indicate that you’ve competed with single-minded effectiveness in the first 20 years of life.

And the winners of that daunting battle - the driven, ferociously focused kids willing to expend the energy and make the sacrifices to conquer our most exclusive universities - are among those most likely to enjoy similar success in the even more fiercely fought free-for-all of presidential politics.

Needing a visa to visit America

Published
by
John Barrdear
on 3 June 2008
in Australia, Justice/Law and USA
. 0 Comments

Australia, like most of Western Europe and a few other countries, is on America’s “visa waiver” programme, which lets people travel to the USA for up to 90 days at a time without first applying for a visa, although the US can still deny entry to anybody that doesn’t answer the immigration official’s questions to their satisfaction.

By comparison, Australia requires that all visitors from everywhere except New Zealand have a visa. It’s a staggeringly simple and not overly expensive process that can happen online, but it’s a visa-requirement nonetheless.

It looks like the US is moving to an Australian-style system. They’re still calling it a “visa waiver,” but the requirement that I register before entering the US and that they reserve the right to deny my registration seems a lot like a visa to me. From the article:

Passengers travelling to the United States from countries whose citizens do not need visas must register online with the US government at least 72 hours before departure [from January 2009]

…

Although the new rule requires 72 hours advance registration, it will be valid for multiple entries over a two-year period. The rule will only apply to citizens of the 27 visa waiver programme countries

…

A Homeland Security official said the new measure would require the same information that passengers now have to include on the I-94 immigration form they must fill out before entering the US. He said Australia has been using a similar system for several years.

Presumably this means that the US will be more likely to start adding the newer members of the EU to the “visa waiver” programme.

Where is Obama’s big speech on sexism?

Published
by
John Barrdear
on 3 June 2008
in Politics and USA
. 5 Comments

I can’t write much at the moment - exams - but it just occurred to me to ask:  Where is Obama’s big speech on sexism?

Why didn’t he give a month ago?  In particular, why didn’t he give it before the DNC made their decision on Florida and Michigan?  Giving it after Hillary bows out will look like what it will be - a naked political attempt to convince her most ardent supporters to turn up on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November.  If he’d given it two months ago, it would have had at least a chance of being seen as an honest, even gracious attempt to reach out to the Hillary-voters and convince them that he believes in fighting all forms of bigotry.

Enquiring minds want to know …

Published
by
John Barrdear
on 12 May 2008
in Health Care
. 0 Comments

Are obese people more likely to break their bones when they fall over because of their extra weight?

I can imagine that their bones are stronger than healthy-weighted people, but are they sufficiently stronger to make up for the extra pressure in a fall (as opposed to just walking around)?

Dilbert gold

Published
by
John Barrdear
on 9 May 2008
in Humour
. 1 Comment

Scott Adams has given up some gold for anybody dealing with dodgy datasets (and they’re all dodgy):

8 May 2008:

7 May 2008:

Why won’t the government of Burma (Myanmar) let aid in?

Published
by
John Barrdear
on 7 May 2008
in Politics and Umm .. Other stuff
. 5 Comments

My sister (in law) wondered why the government, if you can call it that, of Burma (Myanmar) isn’t letting foreign aid into the country after Cyclone Nargis (that’s a hurricane to any North Americans in the audience) ripped through the country earlier this month. My quick-and-dirty response:

  • They’re arseholes. These are generally not nice people and caring about their citizens is, well, not all that important to them.
  • Like North Korea, Zimbabwe and other pariah states, they have an overdeveloped sense of paranoia, believing that any representative of any foreign power will necessarily be seeking to topple them.
  • They’re crazy. And I do mean loopy. The current site of the capital was chosen by astrologers. The people in charge believe in magic.
  • Even if they weren’t crazy arseholes with overdeveloped senses of paranoia, they’re a developing country and it’s The West that’s offering to help. That’s the same West that a couple of months ago was calling them bad names for beating a few (thousand) monks. They don’t like us and even if they need our help, that we offer it appears arrogant to them.

Update:
And of course …

  • Even if they weren’t crazy, paranoid arseholes who resent the West, there’s always an underlying shame in asking for help.  It’s almost always seen by somebody, either the giver, the receiver or a looker-on, as symbolic of weakness.
  • What Adam said.