text:
Executive Summary
In two lab experiments, nearly 800 people completed tasks designed to measure their cognitive capacity. Before completing these tasks, the researchers asked participants to either: place their phones in front of them (face-down on their desks); keep them in their pockets or bags; or leave them in another room. The results were striking: the closer the phone to the participant, the worse she fared on the task. The mere presence of our smartphones is like the sound of our names or a crying baby – something that automatically exerts a gravitational pull on our attention. Resisting that pull takes a cognitive toll.
"Put your phone away" has become a commonplace phrase that is just as often dismissed. Despite wanting to be in the moment, we often do everything within our power to the contrary. We take out our phones to take pictures in the middle of festive family meals, and send text messages or update our social media profiles in the middle of a date or while watching a movie. At the same time, we are often interrupted passively by notifications of emails or phone calls. Clearly, interacting with our smartphones affects our experiences. But can our smartphones affect us even when we aren't interacting with them—when they are simply nearby?
In recent research, we investigated whether merely having one's own smartphone nearby could influence cognitive abilities. In two lab experiments, nearly 800 people completed tasks designed to measure their cognitive capacity. In one task, participants simultaneously completed math problems and memorized random letters. This tests how well they can keep track of task-relevant information while engaging in a complex cognitive task. In the second task, participants saw a set of images that formed an incomplete pattern, and chose the image that best completed the pattern. This task measures "fluid intelligence," or people's ability to reason and solve novel problems. Performance on both of these tasks is affected by individuals' available mental resources.
Our intervention was simple: before completing these tasks, we asked participants to either place their phones in front of them (face-down on their desks), keep them in their pockets or bags, or leave them in another room. Importantly, all phones had sound alerts and vibration turned off, so the participants couldn't be interrupted by notifications.
The results were striking: individuals who completed these tasks while their phones were in another room performed the best, followed by those who left their phones in their pockets. In last place were those whose phones were on their desks. We saw similar results when participants' phones were turned off: people performed worst when their phones were nearby, and best when they were away in a separate room. Thus, merely having their smartphones out on the desk led to a small but statistically significant impairment of individuals' cognitive capacity—on par with effects of lacking sleep.
This cognitive capacity is critical for helping us learn, reason, and develop creative ideas. In this way, even a small effect on cognitive capacity can have a big impact, considering the billions of smartphone owners who have their devices present at countless moments of their lives. This means that in these moments, the mere presence of our smartphones can adversely affect our ability to think and problem-solve — even when we aren't using them. Even when we aren't looking at them. Even when they are face-down. And even when they are powered off altogether.
Why are smart phones so distracting, even when they're not buzzing or chirping at us? The costs of smartphones are inextricably linked to their benefits. The immense value smartphones provide, as personal hubs connecting us to each other and to virtually all of the world's collective knowledge, necessarily positions them as important and relevant to myriad aspects of our everyday lives. Research in cognitive psychology shows that humans learn to automatically pay attention to things that are habitually relevant to them, even when they are focused on a different task. For example, even if we are actively engaged in a conversation, we will turn our heads when someone says our name across the room. Similarly, parents automatically attend to the sight or sound of a baby's cry.
Our research suggests that, in a way, the mere presence of our smartphones is like the sound of our names – they are constantly calling to us, exerting a gravitational pull on our attention. If you have ever felt a "phantom buzz" you inherently know this. Attempts to block or resist this pull takes a toll by impairing our cognitive abilities. In a poignant twist, then, this means that when we are successful at resisting the urge to attend to our smartphones, we may actually be undermining our own cognitive performance.
Are you affected? Most likely. Consider the most recent meeting or lecture you attended: did anyone have their smartphone out on the table? Think about the last time you went to the movies, or went out with friends, read a book, or played a game: was your smartphone close by? In all of these cases, merely having your smartphone present may have impaired your cognitive functioning.
Our data also show that the negative impact of smartphone presence is most pronounced for individuals who rank high on a measure capturing the strength of their connection to their phones—that is, those who strongly agree with statements such as "I would have trouble getting through a normal day without my cell phone" and "It would be painful for me to give up my cell phone for a day." In a world where people continue to increasingly rely on their phones, it is only logical to expect this effect to become stronger and more universal.
We are clearly not the first to take note of the potential costs of smartphones. Think about the number of fatalities associated with driving while talking on the phone or texting, or of texting while walking. Even hearing your phone ring while you're busy doing something else can boost your anxiety. Knowing we have missed a text message or call leads our minds to wander, which can impair performance on tasks that require sustained attention and undermine our enjoyment. Beyond these cognitive and health-related consequences, smartphones may impair our social functioning: having your smartphone out can distract you during social experiences and make them less enjoyable.
With all these costs in mind, however, we must consider the immense value that smartphones provide. In the course of a day, you may use your smartphone to get in touch with friends, family, and coworkers; order products online; check the weather; trade stocks; read HBR; navigate your way to a new address, and more. Evidently, smartphones increase our efficiency, allowing us to save time and money, connect with others, become more productive, and remain entertained.
So how do we resolve this tension between the costs and benefits of our smartphones?
Smartphones have distinct uses. There are situations in which our smartphones provide a key value, such as when they help us get in touch with someone we're trying to meet, or when we use them to search for information that can help us make better decisions. Those are great moments to have our phones nearby. But, rather than smartphones taking over our lives, we should take back the reigns: when our smartphones aren't directly necessarily, and when being fully cognitively available is important, setting aside a period of time to put them away—in another room—can be quite valuable.
With these findings in mind, students, employees, and CEOs alike may wish to maximize their productivity by defining windows of time during which they plan to be separated from their phones, allowing them to accomplish tasks requiring deeper thought. Moreover, asking employees not to use their phones during meetings may not be enough. Our work suggests that having meetings without phones present can be more effective, boosting focus, function, and the ability to come up with creative solutions. More broadly, we can all become more engaged and cognitively adept in our everyday lives simply by putting our smartphones (far) away.


text:
Impression Books Online
Ever After : Lost Love Series, Book 2 of 2 (Paperback) Karen Kingsbury
Ever After : Lost Love Series, Book 2 of 2 (Paperback) Karen Kingsbury
Lost Love Series, Book 2 of 2
Two couples torn apart―one by war between countries, one by war within.
In this moving sequel to Even Now, Emily Anderson, now twenty, is attending college on a soccer scholarship when she meets the man who changes everything for her: Army reservist Justin Baker. Their tender relationship, founded on a mutual faith in God and nurtured by their trust and love for each other, proves to be a shining inspiration to everyone they know, especially Emily's reunited birth parents, Lauren Gibbs and Shane Galanter.
Lauren and Shane still struggle to move past their opposing beliefs about war, politics, and faith. Shane believes it's possible but Lauren doesn't. So she says a painful good-bye to her long-ago love and returns to her job as a war correspondent in Afghanistan.
Both hearts are shattered, and Lauren and Shane believe that this time their relationship has truly ended forever. Then tragedy sends shock waves through all their lives. Can Lauren and Shane set aside their opposing views so that love―God's love―might win, no matter how great the odds?
June 2023

subset: commoncrawl


text:
DETROIT — As Steve Utash lies in a Detroit hospital bed, with his brain swollen and a gash in his head, he appears to remember the brutal beating that a neighborhood mob inflicted days earlier.
"He wakes up and his arms start struggling and he says, 'Help me! Help me!" said Terry Emerick, a family friend.
Utash remains in critical condition — two days after accidentally hitting a 10-year-old boy with his company pickup on Detroit's east side and being pummeled by at least a half-dozen people after stopping to check on the child.
The mob left the 54-year-old tree trimmer from suburban Detroit on the pavement outside a gas station.
Two teens have been arrested in connection to the beating, according to WXYZ-TV 7; Surveillance video of the accident has also been recovered.
A grainy, surveillance video from the gas station camera shows the boy, David Harris, with a group of friends as he steps from a curb into the truck's path Wednesday afternoon.
"Hit and runs are very common epidemic in this city. This particular gentleman did stop and try to render aid, and did try to help the child, and then the unfortunate events occurred," said Detroit Police Department Sgt. Michael Woody. Sgt. Woody told WXYZ-TV 7 that the driver did the right thing by stopping to help.
Watch interview with nurse who helped Utash after his beating:
Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan said Friday that Utash did "the right thing by stopping to check on the boy" and that anyone who can identify his attackers should step forward.
"This senseless vigilante style attack is not the essence of who we are as Detroiters and will not be tolerated," Duggan said in a joint statement with City Council President Brenda Jones.
The boy is recovering in a hospital from injuries that are not considered life-threatening.
His uncle, Desmond Key, said Thursday that the family does not know any of the attackers. He said family members rushed to the scene after one of the boy's friends ran home and told them about the accident. Key said he saw six to seven guys punching and kicking the pickup driver as he tried to fight back.
Emerick, whose son is married to one of Utash's daughters, said Friday that Utash's paycheck was taken during the beating and equipment was stolen from the truck. Woody said police cannot confirm that Utash was robbed.
Utash lives northwest of Detroit in Clinton Township and occasionally has tree-trimming jobs in Detroit.
Those who know Utash are upset over the beating and concerned about his recovery.
"It's just pathetic that an accident would happen and everyone would gang up on him like that," Emerick said. "It's really ridiculous. The whole neighborhood jumps on him and beats the hell out of him. What prompts people to do heinous crimes like that?"
So far, more than $83,000 has been raised to help Utash with his medical expenses, the Detroit News reports.
If you know anyone in connection to the beating, please call Detroit Police at 313-596-1616 or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-SPEAK-UP.
Detroit Teens Beat Man Who Stopped To Help Child He Hit During Car Accident was originally published on newsone.com
Beautiful Celebrities Who Have Been Cheated On
Did You Know Ohio Had Sundown Towns?
RIP: Famous Black People Who Died in 2023
Famous Black People Who Have Died in 2022
Jeezy Files For Divorce From Jeannie Mai, X Chimes In With Thoughts
Listen To Magic On Your Amazon Echo


text:
Out in the Open
Why America needs to declassify its foreign policy.
For the past 11 years, and especially the during the last five, a significant portion of U.S. foreign policy and warfighting has been conducted through covert action -- the secret efforts led by intelligence agencies to protect America's national security abroad. While these efforts have clearly been successful in many cases, they have grown much larger than the unique, limited means they were designed to be. Today, covert operations appear to have expanded to include what have traditionally been overt military and diplomatic functions, blurring the lines of authority and leaving the public and most of Congress in the dark.
For the past 11 years, and especially the during the last five, a significant portion of U.S. foreign policy and warfighting has been conducted through covert action — the secret efforts led by intelligence agencies to protect America's national security abroad. While these efforts have clearly been successful in many cases, they have grown much larger than the unique, limited means they were designed to be. Today, covert operations appear to have expanded to include what have traditionally been overt military and diplomatic functions, blurring the lines of authority and leaving the public and most of Congress in the dark.
To ensure the continued availability of covert action — a highly valuable and effective tool under the right circumstances — we must make certain that no president misuses, overuses, or employs this tactic simply out of convenience or the desire to avoid oversight and debate. As a result, it is important to ask just how much of U.S. foreign policy is conducted secretly. The answer, unfortunately, appears to be too much.
As President Barack Obama seeks to engage Congress on the future of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the congressional authorization that grants the president authority to use force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, the time has come for our reliance on covert action to come out into the open and be subject to real policy debate and oversight.
In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies took the fight to the enemy, working to protect America's vital interests and inform our decision makers, while at the same time preparing the battlespace in Afghanistan for our men and women in uniform. That effort, and those that followed, demonstrated the value of quick, decisive, and precise action by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Since the creation of the modern intelligence community in 1946, various declassified operations attest to the vital role that covert action can play in advancing American interests. Its very existence ensures that overt military action — with its significant footprint of American boots on the ground — is not the only option when diplomacy fails. Covert action can also provide America's partners — who for domestic or international political reasons cannot accept overt assistance from the United States — with a measure of plausible deniability.
But the trend toward ever-increasing use of covert action also has damaging effects. In particular, it can undermine — or at least run counter — to larger, publicly stated foreign policy goals. Earlier this year, for example, Afghan President Hamid Karzai claimed to have been receiving cash in secret from the CIA for more than a decade. Press accounts alleged that the amounts involved may have reached into the tens of millions of dollars, but questions about the accountability of the U.S. tax-payer-funded cash transfers have been stonewalled. If the claims are accurate, they raise significant foreign policy issues, not least because a pillar of U.S. assistance in Afghanistan has been to reinforce the rule of law and combat corruption.
The president, who has so far refused to provide any explanation for these payments in public or in private, must work with Congress to make sure overt U.S. aid and covert intelligence activities do not run at cross purposes.
Covert action must also not be a substitute for major military operations. While the Pentagon conducts a publicly acknowledged drone campaign targeting terrorists in Yemen, published reports suggest that the intelligence community runs a parallel program of significant scope and scale. While the success of many of these operations is not in dispute, it is also clear that our broad counterterrorism efforts — visible and obvious as they are — should not be handled primarily through covert action designed for unique circumstances where the role of the United States must truly be hidden.
The Obama administration has announced that responsibility for most drone activities will be shifted to the Department of Defense, but more must be done to bring America's offensive activities out into the open. In particular, the president and Congress must work together to ensure, over the long run, that large-scale offensive operations are conducted overtly, preserving covert action for the more precise, high value efforts it is designed to address.
The problem isn't limited to alleged cash transfers or ostensibly covert counterterrorism operations. In May, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved, with broad, bipartisan support, a bill to provide targeted arms and training to vetted, moderate elements of the Syrian opposition. This type of public debate stands in stark contrast to the Obama administration's approach — conducting its deliberations behind the veil of executive privilege, emerging only to announce the result on television, and then retreating back into the shadows to carry out its policies through covert methods. This approach not only lacks decisiveness, but it effectively prevents any real debate about U.S. policy in Syria. It also flies in the face of the statutory requirement that "the role of the United States Government … not be apparent or acknowledged publicly" in covert actions.
This is not to suggest that the United States should avoid covert means to go after terrorists or to protect U.S. national interests. But it is to suggest that there must be safeguards in place to ensure that U.S. policies are well coordinated, moving in the same direction, and that covert action is not used simply to avoid public discussion and oversight.
Indeed, it a disservice to members of the intelligence community to ask them to take on foreign policy and warfighting responsibilities except in truly unique circumstances when national security is at stake. Covert action is a valuable tool, but misuse and overuse undermines it.
What is really missing from this equation is responsible leadership in Congress to hold the administration accountable on questions of foreign policy. Right now, we have a unique opportunity to fix this problem, at least with respect to our counterterrorism operations. Since the passage of the AUMF in 2001, Congress has largely sat silent as hundreds of thousands of Americans have served in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. This feckless dereliction of duty must end. Congress must take up and debate a new AUMF that is appropriate for the threats and challenges we face today. Only by owning up to our responsibilities can Congress bring foreign policy out into the open, where the American people can hold it accountable.
More from Foreign Policy
The Scrambled Spectrum of U.S. Foreign-Policy Thinking
Presidents, officials, and candidates tend to fall into six camps that don't follow party lines.
What Does Victory Look Like in Ukraine?
Ukrainians differ on what would keep their nation safe from Russia.
The Biden Administration Is Dangerously Downplaying the Global Terrorism Threat
Today, there are more terror groups in existence, in more countries around the world, and with more territory under their control than ever before.
Blue Hawk Down
Sen. Bob Menendez's indictment will shape the future of Congress's foreign policy.