Examples of Inequalities

[Admin]

Cat lovers are smarter than dog owners, study claims
A study by Carroll University, Wisconsin found that cat owners scored more highly on an intelligence test than dog owners and are more sensitive too. Dog lovers tend to be more energetic, outgoing and rule-abiding.

30 May 2014

Pet owners have long fought like cats and dogs about whether felines or canines make the best furry companions.

But now a new study claims that cat owners are smarter than dog owners – regardless of their pet's intelligence.

The research revealed that the owners of the two animals tend to have different personalities - with cat lovers being more sensitive and open-minded than dog lovers who are largely energetic.

A study by Carroll University, Wisconsin found that cat owners scored more highly on an intelligence test than dog owners.

Dog lovers tend to be more energetic and outgoing than cat owners and follow rules more obediently, Live Science reported.

Speaking at the annual Association for Psychological Science meeting in Chicago, psychology professor Denise Guastello said that cat owners are more introverted, sensitive and open-minded than dog people. They also tend to be better at breaking rules.

She thinks that the reason for these differences if the types of environment that cat and dog owners are drawn to.

‘It makes sense that a dog person is going to be more lively, because they're going to want to be out there, outside, talking to people, bringing their dog.

‘Whereas, if you're more introverted and sensitive, maybe you're more at home reading a book and your cat doesn't need to go outside for a walk.’

A total of 600 students took a survey to reveal their personality traits and were asked whether they are cat or dog lovers.

Around 60 per cent of people identified themselves as 'dog people' – around six times as many as the number of students who said they love cats. Around a third of those questioned claimed they liked or disliked both animals equally.

Professor Guastello thinks that people might select a pet based on their own personality so that energetic people are attracted to energetic pets, like dogs.

While the study might seem like a bit of fun, the findings could be used to improve the effectiveness of pet therapy in order to make better matches between pets and people.

DOGS ARE MORE POPULAR THAN CATS ON KICKSTARTER
Statistics gathered by crowdfunding site Kickstarter, have revealed that people are more attracted to businesses and products relating to dogs, than cats.

As of April this year, the total amount of projects launched relating to dogs was 735, compared to 459 to do with cats.

Dog products attracted $3,579,495 of funding, while cats pulled in $2,212,423.

However, cat projects so far have a higher success rate than dog-related projects at 44 per cent and 39 per cent respectively and cat projects attract a higher number of average backers per project over-all.

The website's blog said: 'Team dog backers would seem to be spread more thinly across a larger number of projects, getting more ideas funded, while team cat backers are clustered around a smaller number of projects, with higher pledge counts and success rates.'

[Admin]

Ripped-off Britain: UK families pay £500 MORE than French for identical ticket and hotel packages to Disneyland Paris
Groups booking stays through the UK site are paying higher prices. Prices based on stay for two adults and two children for four nights. British children have shorter summer breaks so peak time is competitive.

30 May 2014

British families travelling to Disneyland Paris are paying up to £500 more than French visitors for identical holiday packages.

Customers trying to book a stay for two adults and two children on the UK site are being charged more than if they had go onto the French site, even though the details are exactly the same.

The huge price gap is based on a four-night stay break at the end of June, but packages throughout the summer are still between £300 and £400 more expensive.

For a stay at the five-star Disneyland Hotel, customers trying to book on the UK site are being charged £3,331.

However French customers are being offered £2,829, £502 less, for exactly the same deal, which includes meals, park entry and accommodating.

Then, if you try to book later in the summer holidays to get a better price, the problem is still the same.

A package for a stay between August 14 and 19 is £3,644 on the UK site, whereas it is £3,098 on the French site.

In the mid-range Newport Bay Hotel, the difference is as much as £326, while British customers are being charged £400 more at the Hotel Santa Fe.

The price gap even affected the resort's cheapest accommodation, Hotel Cheyenne, where a deal at the end of June is £354 more expensive for British customers.

French children have longer school holidays than in Britain, making bookings in August very competitive.

This means that Disneyland have the opportunity to hike the prices during certain periods.

One British mother noticed the difference in prices and found a way to get around it.

Chloe Burgin rang the UK office and was told she could not get the French deal.

But when she phoned the Paris-based office and asked to talk to someone who spoke English, she was given a better offer.

She told the Daily Telegraph: 'They couldn’t be more helpful,' she said. 'Not only were we able to book the package, they gave us a better hotel for the same price.'

Around 2.1million of the 14.9million annual visitors to the park are British.

[Admin]

Death more likely after a weekend operation: Weekly dip in recovery rates worldwide proves need for a ‘seven-day NHS
Global study involving 55m patients reveals deaths significantly more likely following Saturday surgery

Sunday 01 June 2014

Sick? In need of an operation? Then keep your fingers crossed that your consultant doesn’t schedule your procedure for a weekend afternoon – especially one in February. Patients are up to 17 per cent more likely to die if they are admitted at the weekend, an unprecedented global study has revealed.

As the NHS prepares to enter an era of seven-day working, data from 72 different research projects covering more than 55 million patients found that the “weekend effect” is international. Researchers from Tohoku University, Japan, who analysed worldwide hospital death rates, said the most likely explanation for the results was poorer quality care at weekends.

Their findings, to be presented today at a meeting of leading European anaesthesia specialists in Stockholm, are supported by another study which discovered similar concerns about mortality levels at Berlin’s hospitals. Researchers at the Charité medical school found death rates can be affected by not only the day of the week, but the time of year and even whether surgery is carried out in the morning or the afternoon. The findings, based on an analysis of nearly 220,000 patients treated at two of the university’s hospitals between 2006 and 2011, show that mortality was higher in the afternoons, at weekends, and peaked in February.
 
Dr Felix Kork of Charité said the precise causes are unknown. “It is speculation, but in the afternoon it may be that the surgeries are more likely to be urgent than in the morning, although we tried to control for that factor. It may also be that the human immune system reacts differently at different times of the day, but there is not a lot of data supporting that theory. February is usually a time when many people are ill due to viral infections – that may have an influence on the outcomes.”

He also suggested that seasonal hormonal rhythms, for instance of the “sleep hormone” melatonin, might be affecting the performance of staff and surgical responses of patients in February, but said this theory was “speculative”.

NHS England has already acknowledged that hospital care suffers at the weekends, and plans are in train to ensure more senior doctors are available to prevent problems and complications escalating into life-threatening situations. Plans for a “seven-day NHS” are also in place in Scotland and Wales.

Last year, a study in the British Medical Journal provided evidence to support long-standing fears that surgery in the NHS was more dangerous at the weekend. The study, led by Dr Paul Aylin of the Dr Foster Unit, the Imperial College research team which has pioneered the publication of hospitals’ surgical outcomes data, revealed that patients who had an operation on Friday or Saturday were 44 per cent or 82 per cent more likely to die within 30 days than those who had surgery on a Monday.

It also showed the risks of surgery became progressively higher from Monday to Saturday, although only 4.5 per cent of elective procedures are carried out at weekends, and the average mortality risk for such procedures is low – 0.67 per cent. Evidence has also shown patients admitted to NHS hospitals at the weekend, not necessarily for surgery, also have a higher mortality risk.

Commenting on the new studies, Dr Aylin said they added up to “powerful” evidence of a global problem in healthcare. “The German study is interesting in raising afternoon surgery as an issue, but as the authors acknowledge, it may be that ‘the patients treated in the afternoon and on the weekends were more severely ill’,” he said.

“The Japanese study is powerful in that it combines the results of 72 studies from around the world …. Both studies acknowledge the differences could reflect poorer care or simply that patients admitted at these times were more severely ill. More research is needed to find out exactly what contributes to higher mortality at weekends. Is it lack of clinical staff, nursing staff, diagnostic services, other hospital resources?”

NHS England has decided that the numbers and degree of seniority of staff at weekends is to blame. Reforms announced by NHS England’s medical director, Sir Bruce Keogh, at the end of last year could see more consultants, and many other NHS staff, made available at weekends. However, the plans could cost between £1bn and £2bn, and many in the health service have raised concerns that this may be unaffordable, given the huge financial pressure already faced by NHS trusts.

[Admin]

Unstoppable child criminals: Top 150 young offenders have been arrested an astonishing 6,500 times between them for crimes including rape, burglary and assault

Ten most prolific offenders have been snared 1,000 times between them
One youngster in Gloucestershire has been arrested 288 times
Some began their criminal careers at the age of just 10
Twenty offenders in West Yorkshire have been arrested 1,372 times in total
Campaigners said public needs to be protected against young thugs

1 June 2014

REIGN OF YOUNG OFFENDERS: WHERE ARE THE MOST PROLIFIC CHILD CRIMINALS?

GLOUCESTERSHIRE – Has the most prolific offender with 288 offences from the age of 14, including 180 counts of criminal damage and 15 counts of burglary. The second had 105, 60 for burglary.
STAFFORDSHIRE – Has the second highest offender with 120 arrests.
WEST YORKSHIRE – One suspect generated 95 offences with their criminal career starting at 12-years old. Twenty youngsters have been arrested 1,372 times between them.
SURREY – Most prolific young offender has just 22 offences to their name.
DURHAM – One youngster was first arrested at the age of 10 and went on to be apprehended another 33 times and is now 17 years old.
KENT – Twenty young offenders were arrested 839 times for crimes such as malicious kidnapping and indecent exposure.

A hard core of 150 child criminals have been arrested an astonishing 6,500 times between them, for crimes including rape, burglary and assault.

The top ten offenders were arrested 1,000 times in total as a result of suspected vandalism, arson and malicious kidnapping.

The most prolific child criminal was an individual in Gloucestershire, who has been apprehended 288 times in a criminal career that began at the age of 14.

The second is in Staffordshire where one youngster has been arrested 120 times since the age of 12.

In West Yorkshire, the 20 most prolific offenders have been snared 1,372 crimes between them.

Some began their crime spree at the age of just 10, but were allowed to continue offending into adulthood.

[Admin]

Responses to critics of my call for interplanetary welfare: sharing moons

June 3, 2014

Previously, I published this article in which I revealed a New Source of Inequality: the fact that some planets have more moons than others. I labelled this as patently unfair, and called for government action to rectify the situation.

As a result, I received a spate of highly critical e mail reactions, strenuously rejecting to my discovery, and my public policy recommendations made on the basis of it.

Ordinarily, I would not share these responses and my reactions to them, but I am making an exception in this case. Why? Because they are so powerful and important in our thick libertarian attempt to promote social justice in the solar system (only pikers confine their efforts in this regard to mother Earth). So, here is a sampling of the best reactions to my initial interplanetary foray, and also my reactions to them.


Letter I

Dr. Block,

I am writing to inform you that I am shocked — shocked! — to hear a man of your stature describe some planets as “major” and others as “dwarf.” That such an educated man could display such a planetist attitude in public in the twenty-first century makes me embarrassed to be a thick libertarian (or “thickie,” for short). And am I to think it’s just a coincidence that the planet you so happen to live on qualifies as “major?” Check your planet privilege, Dr. Block!

In the future, I urge you to describe all planets using more egalitarian language. Instead of the coarse “dwarf,” Pluto could be more sensitively described as “size disadvantaged through no fault of its own.” Or better still: “smallness-positive.”

With your help, Dr. Block, we thickies can free all the oppressed, disadvantaged planets from the shackles of truth and reality, using the rhetorical techniques taught to us by the great pioneer of thick libertarianism, the sainted Karl Marx.

Or you can persist in your prejudiced language and be forever denounced by the New York Times. The choice is yours.


Letter II

Prof. Block,
I took the liberty of calculating the gini coefficient of the moon counts of the planets, based on the data in your most recent column on LRC. As you anticipated, it’s very high, some .685 if I’ve done my math correctly. Amusingly, this is very close to the Gini coefficient of the world’s most income-unequal country, South Africa, as well as very close to the global income Gini coefficient. So, as you point out, it’s a pressing problem.
Or, as the Occupy folks might put it, 15% of the planets have 70% of the moons. Why, when we put it that way, isn’t that, essentially, Pareto’s 80/20 rule? My goodness, there do seem to be some deep parallels here.
I know you’ll want to publish these results, but I don’t require coauthor status, just an acknowledgement. Might I suggest the Journal of Economic Inequality?
Stay thick,

Ari Allyn-Feuer.


Letter III

Walter,

The day started off so well. The unjust number of moons per planet wasn’t even on the justice now radar. After reading your article regarding the unequal distribution of moons it is obvious that something needs to be done.

Can we send the military? You could be our own intergalactic war correspondent on Fox News. 

Thanks for so much great sarcasm!!

Don Siemers
Dubuque, IA


Letter IV.

Doc Block,

While your approach to a fair and equitable redistribution of moons is laudable, you have completely overlooked the issue of SIZE of moons. Some small planets, such as our own, possess moons of enormous size while some large planets have tiny moons. Those planets with unfairly large moons should have them broken up and shared with others less fortunate.

Mike

[Admin]

Private pupils 55 times as likely to go to Oxbridge

22nd December 2010

Children at independent schools are 55 times more likely to go to Oxford or Cambridge than the poorest state school students, a report has found.

The gap extends to Britain’s other top-­ranking universities, where private pupils are 22 times more likely to get in than those entitled to free school meals – the Government’s ­measure of poverty.

The research on social mobility by education charity The Sutton Trust suggests that success at getting into elite universities is largely based on wealth.

Only one in 100 students admitted to Oxbridge between 2005 and 2007 had been entitled to free school meals. At the 25 most academically selective universities, free schools meals pupils made up just 2 per cent of the student intake.

The report found that the ‘stark’ income gap begins early, with students at independent schools three-and-a-half times more likely than free school meals pupils to get five GCSEs at grades A to C, including English and maths.

It said: ‘This newly available data provides an insight into the extent of the widening education gap between the latest cohorts of the poorest and most privileged students both at school and university.’

Sir Peter Lampl, chairman and founder of the Sutton Trust, said the situation would get worse as a result of Government cuts and allowing universities almost to treble tuition fees.’

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, which represents lecturers, said the Coalition was sending ‘a clear message that university is only for those able to afford it’ and that ‘social mobility remains a pipe dream for far too many people’.

Schools Minister Nick Gibb said closing the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils was a ‘key priority’ for the Coalition.

[Admin]

What, Me Care? Young Are Less Empathetic
A recent study finds a decline in empathy among young people in the U.S.

Dec 23, 2010

HUMANS ARE UNLIKELY to win the animal kingdom’s prize for fastest, strongest or largest, but we are world champions at understanding one another. This interpersonal prowess is fueled, at least in part, by empathy: our tendency to care about and share other people’s emotional experiences. Empathy is a cornerstone of human behavior and has long been considered innate. A forthcoming study, however, challenges this assumption by demonstrating that empathy levels have been declining over the past 30 years.

The research, led by Sara H. Konrath of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and published online in August in Personality and Social Psychology Review, found that college students’ self-reported empathy has declined since 1980, with an especially steep drop in the past 10 years. To make matters worse, during this same period students’ self-reported narcissism has reached new heights, according to research by Jean M. Twenge, a psychologist at San Diego State University.

An individual’s empathy can be assessed in many ways, but one of the most popular is simply asking people what they think of themselves. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index, a well-known questionnaire, taps empathy by asking whether responders agree to statements such as “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me” and “I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision.” People vary a great deal in how empathic they consider themselves. Moreover, research confirms that the people who say they are empathic actually demonstrate empathy in discernible ways, ranging from mimicking others’ postures to helping people in need (for example, offering to take notes for a sick fellow student).

Since the creation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index in 1979, tens of thousands of students have filled out this questionnaire while participating in studies examining everything from neural responses to others’ pain to levels of social conservatism. Konrath and her colleagues took advantage of this wealth of data by collating self-reported empathy scores of nearly 14,000 students. She then used a technique known as cross-temporal meta-analysis to measure whether scores have changed over the years. The results were startling: almost 75 percent of students today rate themselves as less empathic than the average student 30 years ago.

What’s to Blame?

This information seems to conflict with studies suggesting that empathy is a trait people are born with. For example, in a 2007 study Yale University developmental psychologists found that six-month-old infants demonstrate an affinity for empathic behavior, preferring simple dolls they have seen helping others over visually similar bullies. And investigators at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig have shown that even when given no incentive, toddlers help experimenters and share rewards with others. Empathic behavior is not confined to humans or even to primates. In a recent study mice reacted more strongly to painful stimuli when they saw another mouse suffering, suggesting that they “share” the pain of their cage mates.

But the new finding that empathy is on the decline indicates that even when a trait is hardwired, social context can exert a profound effect, changing even our most basic emotional responses. Precisely what is sapping young people of their natural impulse to feel for others remains mysterious, however, because scientists cannot design a study to evaluate changes that occurred in the past. As Twenge puts it, “you can’t randomly assign people to a generation.”

There are theories, however. Konrath cites the increase in social isolation, which has coincided with the drop in empathy. In the past 30 years Americans have become more likely to live alone and less likely to join groups—ranging from PTAs to political parties to casual sports teams. Several studies hint that this type of isolation can take a toll on people’s attitudes toward others. Steve Duck of the University of Iowa has found that socially isolated, as compared with integrated, individuals evaluate others less generously after interacting with them, and Kenneth J. Rotenberg of Keele University in England has shown that lonely people are more likely to take advantage of others’ trust to cheat them in laboratory games.

The types of information we consume have also shifted in recent decades; specifically, Americans have abandoned reading in droves. The number of adults who read literature for pleasure sank below 50 percent for the first time ever in the past 10 years, with the decrease occurring most sharply among college-age adults. And reading may be linked to empathy. In a study published earlier this year psychologist Raymond A. Mar of York University in Toronto and others demonstrated that the number of stories preschoolers read predicts their ability to understand the emotions of others. Mar has also shown that adults who read less fiction report themselves to be less empathic.

Whereas the sources of empathic decline are impossible to pinpoint, the work of Konrath and Twenge demonstrates that the American personality is shifting in an ominous direction. Still, we are not doomed to become a society of self-obsessed loners. Konrath points out that if life choices can drive empathy down, then making different choices could nurture it. “The fact that empathy is declining means that there’s more fluidity to it than previously thought,” she says. “It means that empathy can change. It can go up.”

[Admin]

I HELPED DIVISION I ATHLETES CHEAT IN COLLEGE

Jun 11 2014

People were outraged when basketball player Rashad McCants admitted on an episode of ESPN's "Outside the Lines" that student athletes pay tutors to write their term papers. What the former University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill basketball player revealed wasn't a big surprise to me. But the sports world freaked out and commentators, columnists, and fans bickered over ethics, the lack of oversight in the NCAA, and the opportunistic nerds who get the athletes A's.

For years, I willingly did homework for a number of student athletes. To this day, I don't consider any of it unethical. It all started back in 2007, when I was finishing up my degree in radical economics at the University of Utah, which is also a Division I school. To help cover food and booze, I worked a variety of odd jobs including tutoring undergrads.

Tutoring worked like this: I'd tell the campus tutoring center which classes I could tutor, and when a student came in and asked for help in one of those subjects, the center would pair us together. The students would pay $10 for a "slip" from the tutoring center. They'd give me that slip at the end of each session and I'd turn it back into the tutoring center and wait for my measly check. I made a whopping $6.25 per hour, which was just enough for a pint and a bagel. The school pocketed the leftover $3.75 an hour—I guess they had to make theirs too, on top of my massive tuition and the beaucoup bucks coming in from sporting events.

After awhile, I started getting more and more requests from football players who needed help with their economics courses. They liked that I swore a lot and didn't give a fuck. Eventually, I became the go-to tutor for jocks. At first, I tried to help them work through their boring macroeconomics multiple choice homework, but it became more and more apparent that they didn't care about learning any of it. The kids always seemed tired and disinterested in economics in general. I couldn't blame them for the latter—introductory economics is almost as boring as a seminary class. But I painstakingly did my best to explain how widgets fluctuate along abstract supply and demand curves.

Then one day, an offensive lineman cut straight to the chase. His tutoring slips were covered by his athletic scholarship, so the slips didn't have any monetary value to him. Because of this, he was more than willing to give me three hours worth of tutoring slips if I'd just do his homework. After all, it would take 15 minutes for me to do it myself, versus the two hours it would take me to explain the shit to him. I didn't even hesitate before saying "Yes." I mean, so what? He didn't have to worry about taking tests—his grade was completely based off of multiple choice homework. And helping him cheat the system didn't seem any more unethical than forcing some kid to learn about how great capitalism is.

I did the homework for guys like him all semester long, making sure to randomize a few incorrect answers here and there. In the end, all the kids I worked with got A's. I made more money than I would have otherwise while helping them stay in good academic standing with the school, effectively keeping them on the field. If the university knew about it, they would have probably reacted negatively in public. But I have no doubt that those athletes making it to a bowl game were far more important to the school's administration than making sure they understood marginal rates of transformation.

I bet you're wondering if the coaches know about the cheating. How could they not? But as long as nobody got caught, it wasn't a problem. It's far more important to coaches that their players attend practice than some trivial art appreciation class. And let's face it, coaches are paid based on their team's performance on the field, not in the classroom. Although it's nice to boast that your quarterback is a 4.0 student, if your team is zero for 12, his good grades don't mean shit. The highest paid public employee in most states are either football or basketball coaches. They're not stupid people. They know what form of success the universities are looking for. So the argument that the athletes I helped cheat were taking advantage of public tax dollars is a moot point when you consider how much these coaches are paid.

The NCAA's response to McCants' comments were predictably vilifying to him and cheating athletes like him in order to protect their business built on the broken bodies of young people. The NCAA isn't concerned with the future of student athletes—they want profits. The only reason reality and illusion overlap is because they make their money off the athletes. Do you think a one-and-done prospect really cares about introductory sociology, or that his school really cares if he cares? As long as the university is making money, everything is peachy keen.

Beyond the guise that they actually give a damn, there is another way they are misleading the public on this "scandal." UNC publicly said the fraud was limited to the Afro-American Studies program, which is a dog whistle that implies that only black kids were the ones doing the cheating. It was almost like UNC was saying, "Sure Rashad McCants cheated, but it's because he's black and didn't know any better. You know how those people are. They'll take advantage of every freebie, the same way they cheat welfare programs. White athletes, on the other hand, inherently care more about their education. Just ask Johnny Manziel." That line of thinking is fucking bullshit. In my day, I helped a ton of dumbass white athletes cheat their way to good grades.

To be sure, academic fraud is alive and well throughout the system. Just go online and search "write my paper" and you'll find countless companies who will pen a term paper for the right price. Students help each other cheat, professors get caught plagiarizing each other's papers, and scholars get paid handsomely to conduct specious studies to debunk real shit like climate change. Let's not even bother bringing up student loans—a system that has cheated this generation's middle class youth out of a future. Our education system is just one giant hustle—and if you ain't hustling, you're getting hustled. The only reason athletes are being singled out is so that universities and the NCAA can claim the moral high ground as they continue to exploit young people.

As every tutor knows, there's a fine line between helping someone do their homework and actually doing it for them. These days, I tend to force my students to work through their coursework, mainly because it takes longer and I can charge upwards of $50 dollars an hour. Not to mention, I'm a rather sadistic individual... But I don't see a problem with student athletes cheating. As far as I can tell, that's the American way.

[Admin]

Hurricanes with female names more deadly than male-named storms

June 02 2014

In the coming Atlantic hurricane season, watch out for hurricanes with benign-sounding names like Dolly, Fay or Hanna. According to a new article from a team of researchers at the University of Illinois, hurricanes with feminine names are likely to cause significantly more deaths than hurricanes with masculine names, apparently because storms with feminine names are perceived as less threatening.

An analysis of more than six decades of death rates from U.S. hurricanes shows that severe hurricanes with a more feminine name result in a greater death toll, simply because a storm with a feminine name is seen as less foreboding than one with a more masculine name. As a result, people in the path of these severe storms may take fewer protective measures, leaving them more vulnerable to harm.

The finding indicates an unfortunate and unintended consequence of the gendered naming of hurricanes, which has important implications for policymakers, meteorologists, the news media and the public regarding hurricane communication and preparedness, the researchers say.

"The problem is that a hurricane's name has nothing to do with its severity," said Kiju Jung, a doctoral student in marketing in the U. of I.'s College of Business and the lead author on the study.

"Names are assigned arbitrarily, based on a predetermined list of alternating male and female names," he said. "If people in the path of a severe storm are judging the risk based on the storm's name, then this is potentially very dangerous."

The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, examined actual hurricane fatalities for all storms that made landfall in the U.S. from 1950-2012, excluding Hurricane Katrina (2005) and Hurricane Audrey (1957) because they were much deadlier than the typical storm.

The authors found that for highly damaging storms, the more feminine the storm's name, the more people it killed. The team's analysis suggests that changing a severe hurricane's name from the masculine "Charley" to the feminine "Eloise" could nearly triple its death toll.

"In judging the intensity of a storm, people appear to be applying their beliefs about how men and women behave," said Sharon Shavitt, a professor of marketing at Illinois and a co-author of the report. "This makes a female-named hurricane, especially one with a very feminine name such as Belle or Cindy, seem gentler and less violent."

In a follow-up set of experiments, Jung and his colleagues examined how the gender of names directly affected people's judgments about storms. They found that people who were asked to imagine being in the path of "Hurricane Alexandra" (or "Christina" or "Victoria") rated the storm as less risky and intense compared to those asked to imagine being in the path of "Hurricane Alexander" (or "Christopher" or "Victor").

"This is a tremendously important finding. Proof positive that our culturally grounded associations steer our steps," said Hazel Rose Markus, a professor in behavioral sciences at Stanford University, who was not involved in the research.

Hurricanes in the U.S. formerly were given only female names, a practice that meteorologists of a different era considered appropriate given the unpredictable nature of the storms. According to the paper, an alternating male-female naming system was adopted in the late 1970s because of increased societal awareness of sexism.

(The names of this year's storms, alternating between male and female names, will start with Arthur, Bertha, Cristobal and Dolly.)

Even though the "gender" of hurricanes is pre-assigned and arbitrary, the question remains: Do people judge hurricane risks in the context of gender-based expectations?

"People imagining a 'female' hurricane were not as willing to seek shelter," Shavitt said. "The stereotypes that underlie these judgments are subtle and not necessarily hostile toward women – they may involve viewing women as warmer and less aggressive than men."

"Such gender biases are pervasive and implicit," said Madhu Viswanathan, a professor of marketing at Illinois and a co-author of the study. "We found that people were affected by the gender of hurricane names regardless of whether they explicitly endorsed the idea that women and men have different traits. This appears to be a widespread phenomenon."

Hurricanes kill more than 200 people in the U.S. each year, and severe hurricanes are capable of producing casualties in the thousands, according to the paper. Even with climate change increasing the frequency and severity of storms, hurricane preparedness remains a challenge for officials.

Although the negative effect of gender stereotypes is well-known in hiring decisions and other evaluations of women and men, this research is the first to demonstrate that gender stereotypes can have deadly consequences.

Joseph Hilbe, of Arizona State University, also was a co-author of the paper.

[Admin]

Unemployed American workers are MORE likely to become depressed than their European counterparts

Workers in the U.S. are more likely to develop depression after losing their jobs than those in Europe.
A new study has revealed job loss is associated with depressive symptoms both sides of the Atlantic.
But the effects are much stronger in America.

The Harvard study discusses how the 'Great Recession' of 2008 caused significant job losses in both Europe and the U.S., with particularly strong consequences for older workers.
Among people aged 50 to 64, unemployment rates rose from 3.1 per cent to 7.3 per cent in the U.S., and from 5.4 per cent to 6.15 per cent in the EU.

The results showed overall job loss was associated with a 4.8 per cent increase in depression scores in the U.S., and a 3.4 per cent increase in Europe.
However, when job loss due to plant closure was looked at separately, depressive symptom scores increased by 28.2 per cent in the U.S. as compared to 7.5 per cent in Europe.

[Admin]

Women with depression are TWICE as likely to have a heart attack or die young

Young and middle-aged women who are depressed are twice as likely to have a heart attack or die prematurely, warn researchers.
They believe depression puts women at special risk of suffering heart problems, and doctors should be aware of the link.
U.S. researchers say underlying depression could explain poor survival rates among women aged 55 and younger compared with men.
Dr Amit Shah, study author and assistant professor of Epidemiology at Emory University in Atlanta, said: ‘Women in this age group are also more likely to have depression, so this may be one of the “hidden” risk factors that can help explain why women die at a disproportionately higher rate than men after a heart attack.’
The research team assessed depression symptoms in 3,237 people with known or suspected heart disease scheduled for coronary angiography, an X-ray that diagnoses disease in the arteries that supply blood to the heart.
One-third of the participants were women with an average age of 62, says a report in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
During the following three years, researchers found that women aged 55 and younger were twice as likely to suffer a heart attack, die or require artery-opening procedures if they were moderately or severely depressed.
Each one-point increase in symptoms of depression among younger women was linked with a seven per cent increase in the presence of heart disease.
But in men and older women, symptoms of depression did not predict heart disease.
Women 55 and younger were 2.17 times as likely to suffer a heart attack, die of heart disease or require an artery-opening procedure if they had moderate or severe depression, compared with those who were not depressed.
Younger women were also 2.45 times as likely to die from any cause during the follow-up period if they had moderate or severe depression.

UK figures show heart and circulatory disease claims the lives of one in three women – three times more than breast cancer – as well as one in three men.
About one in five women develops depression at some point in life and women are nearly twice as likely as men to have depression. It can occur at any age, but it is most common in women between the ages of 40 and 59.
In the UK, nearly two thirds of patients seeking treatment for depression are women.
Dr Shah said: ‘Depression itself is a reason to take action, but knowing that it is associated with an increased risk of heart disease and death should motivate people to seek help.
‘Providers need to ask more questions. They need to be aware that young women are especially vulnerable to depression, and that depression may increase the risk to their heart.’