Home Blog Page 5

Reaction grows after Trump signs executive order targeting mail‑in voting | 13newsnow.com

0

President Trump signed the order on March 31, directing federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Social Security …  Read original article: Read More

She Risked Her Voice to Become a Mother

0

Lise Davidsen is one of the greatest opera singers of our time — a soprano with a voice so rare, critics reach back a century for comparison. This spring, she has been starring in a sold-out new production of Wagner’s “Tristan und Isolde” at the Metropolitan Opera. But she’s also at a crossroads: Her first performance as “Isolde” on the Met stage came just nine months after giving birth to twins.
Today on The Sunday Daily, Natalie Kitroeff talks with the Times writer Zachary Woolfe about his recent conversation with Davidsen, and the unexpected emotional weight she felt while returning to the stage as a new mother. They discuss how a production centered on birth, death and renewal gave Davidsen a way to work through this seismic shift in her life, all while tackling the role of a lifetime.
On Today’s Episode:
Zachary Woolfe is a writer and editor for The New York Times.
Background Reading:
With Twin Babies, the Opera Star Lise Davidsen Wonders What Comes Next
The Met Opera’s Desperate Hunt for Money
Photo credit: Amir Hamja for The New York Times
Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.  Read original article: Read More

Again! Again! Why Repetition Belongs in Storytime

When I first started leading storytime, I felt a lot of pressure to never read the same book twice or reuse a flannel board. Each week needed to be new, fresh, and completely different. But over time, I noticed something: the children didn’t want something new every week. They wanted repetition and familiarity. I saw the faces light up when I pulled out an old favorite flannel—the squirrel hiding an acorn under a leaf. They cheered when they saw I Love My White Shoes by Eric Litwin. Kids didn’t groan at repetition—they leaned into it. They participated more, anticipated what would happen next, and confidently joined in. While repetition may not feel exciting to adults, storytime isn’t for us—it’s for the kids. And children benefit from repetition in powerful ways. Repetitive language builds vocabulary, while familiar characters and predictable structures increase engagement and excitement around reading. When children know what’s…
The post Again! Again! Why Repetition Belongs in Storytime appeared first on ALSC Blog.  Read original article: Read More

Happiness expert: Emotionally secure people share these 7 traits – CNBC

Psychology and Relationships

I study happiness for a living: The most emotionally secure people share these 7 ‘quietly powerful’ traits

thumbnailBy Jessica Weiss, Contributor, Published Fri, Apr 3 202611:00 AM EDT

Shot of two businesswomen having a discussion in modern office. Confident business people working together in the office. Creative  business persons discussing new project and sharing ideas while walking in the office.
Violetastoimenova | E+ | Getty Images

I’ve studied happiness for 15 years and interviewed thousands of people about what helps them thrive. The happiest people I speak to are also the most emotionally secure. 

Research shows that people with high emotional security have greater resilience, emotional well-being and relationship satisfaction over the course of their lives — all of which are factors that contribute to overall happiness.

Emotional security shows up in how you navigate uncertainty, respond when things don’t go your way and handle difficult situations. 

These are seven quietly powerful traits that the most emotionally secure people share.

1. They are okay with being misunderstood

Emotionally secure people don’t overexplain themselves.

For example, you might make a strategic decision that your colleagues misread. An emotionally secure person doesn’t rush to defend themselves or send a follow-up email walking through their reasoning in minute detail. 

They trust that their track record speaks for itself, and that not every moment requires a rebuttal.

2. They aren’t afraid to change their minds 

People will often double down on their opinions, even when they are met with new information, because they are trying to protect their egos. This is called “belief perserverance.”

Research shows that people who tie their identities to being “right” are far more likely to resist evidence that challenges their views.

But when your identity is not fused with your opinions, changing your mind doesn’t feel like you are losing yourself. Emotionally secure people understand that change means growth.

3. They have a high tolerance for uncertainty

Emotionally secure people are comfortable saying “I don’t know yet.” Uncertainty makes them curious, rather than anxious. 

This might look like being okay with not knowing what comes next while navigating a fraught career transition. Or having the confidence to develop a new product, even if you don’t know how it will be received by your customers.

Studies show that people who have a higher tolerance for ambiguity are also more resilient, make better decisions under pressure and excel at solving problems in volatile environments.

4. They aren’t easily offended 

Insecure people are constantly on alert, searching for perceived slights in every interaction. They might assume that anyone who doesn’t do the same has low standards or is naive.

Emotionally secure people generously give others the benefit of the doubt. They trust that if they are wronged, they can handle it with grace.

5. They don’t need to have the last word

Think about the last meeting where someone got the final word and it wasn’t you. Did it bother you? For emotionally secure people, the answer is no.

They never feel the need to dominate a room and conversations are not contests to them. Someone can disagree with them and they can move on without needing to “win.”

Read more: Happiness expert: Emotionally secure people share these 7 traits – CNBC

Continue/Read Original Article: Happiness expert: Emotionally secure people share these 7 traits

“Cognitive surrender” leads AI users to abandon logical thinking, research finds – Ars Technica

I (cognitively) surrender

“Cognitive surrender” leads AI users to abandon logical thinking, research finds

By Kyle Orland – Apr 3, 2026 2:06 PM | 152

Artist’s conception of an average AI user’s image of an LLM’s ultra-rational thought process. Credit: Getty Images

When it comes to large language model-powered tools, there are generally two broad categories of users. On one side are those who treat AI as a powerful but sometimes faulty service that needs careful human oversight and review to detect reasoning or factual flaws in responses. On the other side are those who routinely outsource their critical thinking to what they see as an all-knowing machine.

Recent research goes a long way to forming a new psychological framework for that second group, which regularly engages in “cognitive surrender” to AI’s seemingly authoritative answers. That research also provides some experimental examination of when and why people are willing to outsource their critical thinking to AI, and how factors like time pressure and external incentives can affect that decision.

Just ask the answer machine

In “Thinking—Fast, Slow, and Artificial: How AI is Reshaping Human Reasoning and the Rise of Cognitive Surrender,” researchers from the University of Pennsylvania sought to build on existing scholarship that outlines two broad categories of decision-making: one shaped by “fast, intuitive, and affective processing” (System 1); and one shaped by “slow, deliberative, and analytical reasoning” (System 2). The onset of AI systems, the researchers argue, has created a new, third category of “artificial cognition” in which decisions are driven by “external, automated, data-driven reasoning originating from algorithmic systems rather than the human mind.”

In the past, people have often used tools from calculators to GPS systems for a kind of task-specific “cognitive offloading,” strategically delegating some jobs to reliable automated algorithms while using their own internal reasoning to oversee and evaluate the results. But the researchers argue that AI systems have given rise to a categorically different form of “cognitive surrender” in which users provide “minimal internal engagement” and accept an AI’s reasoning wholesale without oversight or verification. This “uncritical abdication of reasoning itself” is particularly common when an LLM’s output is “delivered fluently, confidently, or with minimal friction,” they point out.

To measure the prevalence and effect of this kind of cognitive surrender to AI, the researchers performed a number of studies based on Cognitive Reflection Tests. These tests are designed to elicit incorrect answers from participants that default to “intuitive” (System 1) thought processes, but to be relatively simple to answer for those who use more “deliberative” (System 2) thought processes.

Test subjects who consulted AI were overwhelmingly willing to accept its answers without scrutiny, whether correct or not. Credit: Shaw and Nave

For their experiments, the researchers provided participants with optional access to an LLM chatbot that had been modified to randomly provide inaccurate answers to the CRT questions about half the time (and accurate answers the other half). The researchers hypothesized that users who frequently consulted the chatbot would let those incorrect answers “override intuitive and deliberative processes,” hurting their overall performance and highlighting the dangers of cognitive surrender.

In one study, an experimental group with access to this modified AI consulted it for help with about 50 percent of the presented CRT problems. When the AI was accurate, those AI users accepted its reasoning about 93 percent of the time. When the AI was randomly “faulty,” though, those users still accepted the AI reasoning a lower (but still high) 80 percent of the time, showing that the mere presence of the AI frequently “displaced internal reasoning,” according to the researchers.

Unsurprisingly, the AI-using experimental group did much better than the “brain-only” control group when the AI provided accurate answers, and much worse than the control when the AI was inaccurate. Significantly, though, the group that used AI scored 11.7 percent higher on a measure of their own confidence in their answers, even though the LLM provided wrong answers half the time.

In another study, adding incentives (in the form of small payments) and immediate feedback for correct answers increased the likelihood that participants successfully overruled the faulty AI by 19 percentage points relative to the baseline, showing that salient consequences can encourage AI users to spend extra time verifying responses. But adding time pressures in the form of a 30-second timer decreased that tendency to correct the faulty AI by 12 percentage points, suggesting to the researchers that “when decision time is scarce, the internal monitor detecting conflict and recruiting deliberation is less likely to trigger.”“Lowering the threshold for scrutiny”

Continue/Read Original Article: “Cognitive surrender” leads AI users to abandon logical thinking, research finds – Ars Technica