Why Intelligent People Use More Drugs

Intelligent people don’t always do the right thing

The human consumption of psychoactive drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, is of even more recent historical origin than the human consumption of alcohol or tobacco, so the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent people use more drugs more frequently than less intelligent individuals.

The use of opium dates back to about 5,000 years ago, and the earliest reference to the pharmacological use of cannabis is in a book written in 2737 BC by the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung. Opium and cannabis are the only “natural” (agricultural) psychoactive drugs. Other psychoactive drugs are “chemical” (pharmacological); they require modern chemistry to manufacture, and are therefore of much more recent origin. Morphine was isolated from opium in 1806, cocaine was first manufactured in 1860, and heroin was discovered in 1874.

Given their extremely recent origin and thus evolutionary novelty, the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely to consume all types of psychoactive drugs than less intelligent individuals. Once again, as with alcohol consumption, the fact that the consumption of psychoactive drugs has largely negative health consequences and few (if any) benefits of any kind is immaterial to the Hypothesis. It does not predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely to engage in healthy and beneficial behavior, only that they are more likely to engage in evolutionarily novel behavior. As I point out in an earlier post, more intelligent people are often more likely to do stupid things.

Consistent with the prediction of the Hypothesis, the analysis of the National Child Development Study shows that more intelligent children in the United Kingdom are more likely to grow up to consume psychoactive drugs than less intelligent children. Net of sex, religion, religiosity, marital status, number of children, education, earnings, depression, satisfaction with life, social class at birth, mother’s education, and father’s education, British children who are more intelligent before the age of 16 are more likely to consume psychoactive drugs at age 42 than less intelligent children.

The following graph shows the association between childhood general intelligence and the latent factor for the consumption of psychoactive drugs, constructed from indicators for the consumption of 13 different types of psychoactive drugs (cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamines, LSD, amyl nitrate, magic mushrooms, cocaine, temazepan, semeron, ketamine, crack, heroin, and methadone). As you can see, there is a clear monotonic association between childhood general intelligence and adult consumption of psychoactive drugs. “Very bright” individuals (with IQs above 125) are roughly three-tenths of a standard deviation more likely to consume psychoactive drugs than “very dull” individuals (with IQs below 75).

The following graph shows a similar association between childhood intelligence and the latent factor for the consumption of psychoactive drugs among Americans. The data come from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The childhood intelligence is measured in junior high and high school, and the adult drug consumption is measured seven years later, and constructed from indicators for the consumption of 5 different types of psychoactive drugs (marijuana, cocaine, LSD, crystal meth, and heroin). The association is not monotonic, but nevertheless, “normal” (90 < IQ < 110), “bright” (110 < IQ < 125), and “very bright” individuals consume more psychoactive substances than “very dull” or “dull” (75 < IQ < 90) individuals. Once the social and demographic variables are controlled, however, the positive association between childhood intelligence and adult drug consumption is not statistically significant in the American Add Health sample.

People – scientists and civilians alike – often associate intelligence with positive life outcomes. The fact that more intelligent individuals are more likely to consume alcohol, tobacco, and psychoactive drugs tampers this universally positive view of intelligence and intelligent individuals. Intelligent people don’t always do the right thing, only the evolutionarily novel thing.

The Personality Trait That Makes It Harder to Focus at Work

Woody Allen has never sent an email. He does not own a computer. (He admits to owning an iPhone, but only for making calls and listening to jazz while traveling.) After over 50 years in the film business, Allen’s daily routine hasn’t changed one iota: He still sketches out his script ideas in freehand on a yellow legal pad. And once the story starts to come together, he types it up on a 1957 edition Olympia SM-3 manual typewriter.

A recent study confirmed what Allen seems to know intuitively: In the modern workplace, neurotics can’t focus. Tracking the online activity of 40 information workers, an experiment conducted by researchers at UC Irvine, the MIT Media Lab, and Microsoft sought to understand how individual factors like personality and stress impacted a person’s ability to focus their attention.

The study honed in on two specific personality aspects, neuroticism and impulsivity. The academic definition of neuroticism, by the way, hews closely to the popular one, with some key distinctions. Neurotics do tend to be anxious, Woody Allen–like people; those who score high in this trait tend to be especially sensitive, and are likely to spend more time ruminating over their emotions than their non-neurotic counterparts. In the words of these researchers, neurotics are “prone to stress, report more daily problems, and tend to reanalyze prior events over and over in their minds.” The definition of impulsivity, as defined in this study, is simpler: It means, of course, that you lack self-restraint.

For two weeks, researchers tracked participants’ habits for all applications and online activity on their computers, logging both when they switched between applications (say, from email to Word), and when they switched activities within an application (such as opening up a new browser tab or switching between Word documents). It turned out that there was a strong correlation between neuroticism and a weakened ability to focus for sustained periods of time. The higher someone’s neuroticism, the lower their ability to focus for an extended period of time on a given task on their computer. This is because, or so the researchers theorized, focus comes with an opportunity cost: We all have limited attentional resources. And neurotics tend to spend a lot of time and attention focusing on the past — replaying conversations, worrying about that email they sent, wondering if they should have gotten the steak instead of the lobster.

It turns out that investing all of that mental energy in obsessing about everything but what is happening right in front of you can drain your attentional resources. With less energy and attention to spare, neurotics can have trouble filtering out all of the distractions that make it difficult to focus in the workplace. Perhaps less surprisingly, focus duration was also low for those people in the study who rated themselves as impulsive.

Past studies have also indicated that stress depletes our attentional resources. In keeping with this, the researchers found that how stressed out a person perceived themselves to be correlated strongly with a decreased ability to focus. This could be because being focused at work is itselfassociated with stress.

Of course, all the work we do at the office isn’t necessarily “focused.” Lots of the time we’re just on autopilot. In a separate study of 32 information workers, the same group of scientists (minus one) examined the rhythms of employees’ attention and online activity in the workplace. They looked at how frequently participants were in one of three states at work: focused, defined as highly engaged and highly challenged; rote, highly engaged but not challenged; and bored, not engaged or challenged. In a bit of good news, they found that participants reported being in the “focused” state most often. When people were focused, they most frequently reported being happy, but — in an unexpected twist — they also frequently reported being stressed.

Meanwhile, the participants also reported feeling happy while doing rote work, during which they very rarely reported feeling stressed. In other words, the participants experienced the greatest positive effect when doing rote work, rather than when doing focused work. The study authors theorized that this is because “when people are consumed by an activity, it can be either gratifying or stressful, depending on the context.”

Surprisingly, this finding questions the attainability of the much-touted “flow” state in the modern workplace. (Flow is a cornerstone concept of positive psychology, created by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi; it’s being fully immersed, energized, challenged, and absorbed by the task you’re doing.) As the researchers noted, “prior work in flow suggests that being in a state of flow causes people to be happy; however, our results did not find this to be the case.”

Could it be that the sheer cacophony of technology burbling on our computer screens makes flow of any kind impossible? Or is it that we’re all just juggling so many tasks that even when we finally get into the zone, we still feel stressed? These remain open questions as the studies cited here are fairly small. More comprehensive research will be required before we can truly claim to understand the unpredictable attention span of the modern worker. But as an admitted neurotic myself, I can certainly understand why rote work is the happy place of the overanalytical mind. If neurotics tend to feel stressed out in general, and being focused is a task that could add to that stress — even if it’s rewarding — then rote work is definitely the safer bet. Perhaps this might even explain the massive trend in adult coloring books: staying in between the lines as a form of self-soothing.

Origin : http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/10/neurotics-have-trouble-staying-focused-at-work.html?mid=facebook_scienceofus

A.I. Is Harder Than You Think

The field of artificial intelligence doesn’t lack for ambition. In January, Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, claimed in an interview that A.I. “is more profound than, I dunno, electricity or fire.”

Day-to-day developments, though, are more mundane. Last week, Mr. Pichai stood onstage in front of a cheering audience and proudly showed a video in which a new Google program, Google Duplex, made a phone call and scheduled a hair salon appointment. The program performed those tasks well enough that a human at the other end of the call didn’t suspect she was talking to a computer.

Assuming the demonstration is legitimate, that’s an impressive (if somewhat creepy) accomplishment. But Google Duplex is not the advance toward meaningful A.I. that many people seem to think.

If you read Google’s public statement about Google Duplex, you’ll discover that the initial scope of the project is surprisingly limited. It encompasses just three tasks: helping users “make restaurant reservations, schedule hair salon appointments, and get holiday hours.”

Schedule hair salon appointments? The dream of artificial intelligence was supposed to be grander than this — to help revolutionize medicine, say, or to produce trustworthy robot helpers for the home.

The reason Google Duplex is so narrow in scope isn’t that it represents a small but important first step toward such goals. The reason is that the field of A.I. doesn’t yet have a clue how to do any better.

As Google concedes, the trick to making Google Duplex work was to limit it to “closed domains,” or highly constrained types of data (like conversations about making hair salon appointments), “which are narrow enough to explore extensively.” Google Duplex can have a human-sounding conversation only “after being deeply trained in such domains.” Open-ended conversation on a wide range of topics is nowhere in sight.

The limitations of Google Duplex are not just a result of its being announced prematurely and with too much fanfare; they are also a vivid reminder that genuine A.I. is far beyond the field’s current capabilities, even at a company with perhaps the largest collection of A.I. researchers in the world, vast amounts of computing power and enormous quantities of data.

The crux of the problem is that the field of artificial intelligence has not come to grips with the infinite complexity of language. Just as you can make infinitely many arithmetic equations by combining a few mathematical symbols and following a small set of rules, you can make infinitely many sentences by combining a modest set of words and a modest set of rules. A genuine, human-level A.I. will need to be able to cope with all of those possible sentences, not just a small fragment of them.

The narrower the scope of a conversation, the easier it is to have. If your interlocutor is more or less following a script, it is not hard to build a computer program that, with the help of simple phrase-book-like templates, can recognize a few variations on a theme. (“What time does your establishment close?” “I would like a reservation for four people at 7 p.m.”) But mastering a Berlitz phrase book doesn’t make you a fluent speaker of a foreign language. Sooner or later the non sequiturs start flowing.

Even in a closed domain like restaurant reservations, unusual circumstances are bound to come up. (“Unfortunately, we are redecorating the restaurant that week.”) A good computer programmer can dodge many of these bullets by inducing an interlocutor to rephrase. (“I’m sorry, did you say you were closed that week?”) In short stylized conversations, that may suffice. But in open-ended conversations about complex issues, such hedges will eventually get irritating, if not outright baffling.

To be fair, Google Duplex doesn’t literally use phrase-book-like templates. It uses “machine learning” techniques to extract a range of possible phrases drawn from an enormous data set of recordings of human conversations. But the basic problem remains the same: No matter how much data you have and how many patterns you discern, your data will never match the creativity of human beings or the fluidity of the real world. The universe of possible sentences is too complex. There is no end to the variety of life — or to the ways in which we can talk about that variety.

So what should the field of artificial intelligence do instead? Once upon a time, before the fashionable rise of machine learning and “big data,” A.I. researchers tried to understand how complex knowledge could be encoded and processed in computers. This project, known as knowledge engineering, aimed not to create programs that would detect statistical patterns in huge data sets but to formalize, in a system of rules, the fundamental elements of human understanding, so that those rules could be applied in computer programs. Rather than merely imitating the results of our thinking, machines would actually share some of our core cognitive abilities.

That job proved difficult and was never finished. But “difficult and unfinished” doesn’t mean misguided. A.I. researchers need to return to that project sooner rather than later, ideally enlisting the help of cognitive psychologists who study the question of how human cognition manages to be endlessly flexible.

Today’s dominant approach to A.I. has not worked out. Yes, some remarkable applications have been built from it, including Google Translate and Google Duplex. But the limitations of these applications as a form of intelligence should be a wake-up call. If machine learning and big data can’t get us any further than a restaurant reservation, even in the hands of the world’s most capable A.I. company, it is time to reconsider that strategy.

Origin : https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/opinion/artificial-intelligence-challenges.html

Most Experts Agree: Walking is Good Exercise

We humans need to exercise in order to stay healthy. Exercise protects against disease and early death, and keeps us mobile and able to perform daily tasks.

Walking is an easy, free and enjoyable form of exercise. But is a nice stroll enough to confer the life-saving benefits we know come from exercise?

We posed this question to five specialists in the field.

Jackson Fyfe, lecturer in applied sport science, Deakin University

No: Walking is of course better than no exercise at all, but to maximise health benefits, a combination of aerobic-type (running, cycling, swimming) and strength-type exercise (lifting weights or bodyweight exercises) should be performed regularly. We know being unfit shortens life, and countering the losses of muscle strength/power and bone density as we age can improve our ability to perform daily tasks, while reducing the risk of falls and associated complications.
Walking alone is simply not sufficient for most people, although it may provide a platform to more specific, intense exercise. So moderate- to high-intensity aerobic and strength training should also be incorporated into regular exercise programs. Of course, this does not mean walking does not have benefits, but there are aspects of the health-promoting effects of exercise that walking alone cannot provide.

Carol Maher, National Heart Foundation senior research fellow in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep, University of South Australia

Yes: Physical activity is linked to important and wide-ranging health benefits, such as reduced risk of heart disease, excess weight and obesity, type 2 diabetes, depression and anxiety, osteoporosis and many cancers. Walking at a moderate pace (5 km/hour, or 3.1 mph) can largely achieve these benefits, especially if it's done in continuous bouts (say, 10 minutes or more at a time). Of course, the benefit is even greater if you can get some higher intensity exercise in such as brisk walking or walking up a hill, and throw into the mix some physical activity that challenges your strength and balance.

Julie Netto, lecturer, Curtin University

Yes: Walking brings many benefits. Walking is an activity that can easily be graded up or down to tailor to your personal goals. You can easily change pace or intensity, or the distance covered. Using Nordic poles (hiking sticks) can also modify the activity so it's more than just a lower limb exercise. Walking on different gradients and surfaces or carrying a load while walking can add variety and challenge to your workout. In terms of convenience, you can easily walk on a treadmill too. Walking has been shown to have many physical health benefits and holds promise in alleviating depression. There are also socially supportive aspects to walking, where you could get to know people in your neighbourhood or community, especially if you're a dog owner.

Kevin Netto, associate professor, School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University

Yes: If you can walk independently and maintain a speed of 4-6 km/h (2.5-3.7 mph) for half an hour per day, then walking is sufficient exercise. Walking needs to sustain your interest in the long term. Walking can protect against chronic diseases, and there is less risk of injury compared to other forms of exercise. It's also free (shoes and active wear aside), and your family, friends and pets can be included. In fact, these have been shown to be a great motivator to continue walking for exercise (the pet and friends, not the active wear).

Walking in challenging environments can be difficult, with pollution and climate being factors that detract from participation. A treadmill may suffice but who likes walking in one spot! Investigate walking groups that use shopping centres or other indoor areas in the early morning in situations where it's too hot or wet to walk outdoors. Most importantly, enjoy the experience ... exercise can be the best medicine you ever take.

Tim Olds, professor of Health Sciences, University of South Australia

Yes: You'll get there by walking, but running will get you there so much faster. The average Australian adult walks recreationally for about 30 minutes a day, and that makes up about 40% of all of their physical activity. We used to walk much more. In a study simulating life in the early Australian colony of Sydney, researchers recorded people walking 4-6 hours each day.

A moderate walk requires about three times your resting metabolic rate, running and sport require much more -- typically about seven times. Both walking and vigorous sport will reduce your risk of dying prematurely at any age. But you have to spend much more time walking: one minute of vigorous sport is worth 3.5 minutes of walking. To reduce your risk of dying by 20%, for example, you would need to walk for 56 minutes a day. You'd get the same benefit by running for 16 minutes.

Origin : https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/14/health/walking-exercise-partner/index.html

7 Of The Weirdest And Most Fascinating Royal Conspiracy Theories

The British monarchs have found themselves subjects of a number of wild conspiracy theories.

• Conspiracy theories have captured the minds of thousands of people throughout history.

• From John F. Kennedy being murdered by the US government to Buzz Aldrin staging a fake moon landing, some of the most influential historical figures have been the subjects of conspiracy theories.

• Royals are no exception – read on for seven of the wildest conspiracy theories about kings, queens, princes, and princesses.

From John F. Kennedy being murdered by the US government, to Buzz Aldrin staging a fake moon landing, some of the most influential historical figures have found themselves the subjects of conspiracy theories.

Royals are no exception. Although the theories largely have no real evidence to back them up, they’re compelling enough to capture the minds of people around the world.

Read on for seven of the most fascinating conspiracy theories about kings, queens, and princes:

1. Princess Diana’s death in a car accident was orchestrated by the British royal family

Perhaps the most widespread modern conspiracy theory about the British royal family concerns the death of Princess Diana in 1997. An adored member of the royal family, Lady Diana Spencer married Prince Charles in 1981 to become Princess Diana. Known as “The People’s Princess,” Diana was beloved by the subjects of the British crown.

Diana and Prince Charles divorced in 1996, and Diana’s life came to a devastating end on August 31, 1997, according to Biography.com. The Associated Press later reported that a slew of international investigations concluded that both Diana and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed had passed away from injuries following a tragic drunk driving accident.

Shortly after, theories emerged that her death was actually an assassination – some even claiming that it was the dirty work of Prince Philip, another member of the royal family, or even Prince Charles himself. The motive? To prevent Diana from marrying Fayed, a Muslim, and giving birth to his child, according to the conspiracy theory.

Although the princess had speculated in a letter about her being in danger, according to the Associated Press, there is no evidence that she was pregnant at the time or contemplating marriage to Fayed.

2. Prince Harry’s marriage to Meghan Markle is a plot by the British to win back control over America

One outlandish theory is that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s marriage is part of a larger British ploy.

One recent, if light-hearted, conspiracy theoryclaims that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’smarriageis part of a larger British ploy. Greg Pollowitz, an editor at conservative site Twitchy.com, tweetedthis take about the couple last year, prompting responses from around the world:

“Prince Harry’s kids will be Americans,” he wrote. “What if one grows up to be president and is in line for the throne at the same time? Brits are playing long-ball here, but it’s a smart move. They want America back and this is how they’ll do it.”

3. The British monarchs are actually alien lizards

Former BBC sportscaster theorist David Icke claims to have eyewitness evidence.

Former BBC sportscaster and hardcore conspiracy theorist David Icke has become infamous forhis assertionthat the world is controlled by leaders descended from a race of alien lizards, so it’s no surprise that he claims the British royal family, including Queen Elizabeth, arepart of this conspiracy.

Icke claims he has eyewitness evidence of this – but no one besides him and his diehard followers give it any credence.

4. Queen Elizabeth I was actually a man

According tothis theory, Queen Elizabeth I fell ill and died as a child. In order to replace the dead girl, her caretakers found a local boy who they passed off as her to her father, King Henry VIII. The boy then remained in Elizabeth’s position for the rest of his life.

The theory was initially put forward as an explanation for Elizabeth’s chastity and strong leadership, but today isacknowledged as mere misogyny, according to the Royal Museums Greenwich.

5. Jack the Ripper was actually Queen Victoria’s grandson Prince Albert Victor

Some members of the public suspected that Prince Albert Victor committed the brutal killings.

In the years after the infamousJack the Ripper murderstook place in London in the late 1800s, some suspected Prince Albert Victor (also known as Prince Eddy) of having committed the brutal killings, but nothing was ever proven. But according to theNew York Times, a surgeon who said he knew the identity of the killer died in 1970, and claimed Jack the Ripper was”a scion of a noble family.”

The surgeon’s son burned his father’s papers before anyone could read them, so the mystery of Jack the Ripper’s identity may never be solved.

6. One member of the Russian monarchy escaped execution

One of the most enduring is that one member of the Russian Romanov dynasty, the young princess Anastasia, survived the execution of her family by the Bolsheviks.

 

Everett Historical/Shutterstock

Although many royal conspiracies concern the British monarchy, there are a few famous claims about other royal families around the world. One of the most enduring is that one member of the Russian Romanov dynasty, the young princessAnastasia, survived the execution of her entire family by the Bolsheviks.

Legend has it that she escaped death by firing squad by sewing jewelry into her dress that made it bulletproof – and later escaped never to be heard from again. But according to Biography.com, a DNA reanalysis in 2007 confirmed that her body had been buried near those of her family members in 1918.

7. The Man in the Iron Mask, who was imprisoned by King Louis XIV, was of royal blood

Could King Louis XIV’s most famous prisoner have been his illegitimate son?

 

dimm3d/Shutterstock

Well before French writer Alexandre Dumas made the tale of the “Man in the Iron Mask” a popular story in France, conspiracy theories abounded about King Louis XIV’s most famous and mysterious prisoner. The most intriguing theory about the man’s identity held that he was the king’s bastard son, who had been dismissed from Louis’s court after being outed as gay, according to National Geographic.

Origin : https://www.businessinsider.my/royal-conspiracy-theories-2018-5/

How To Help Protect Your Kids From ‘Online Luring’

Kids are spending more time online than ever.

Keeping your children safe online seems to get more difficult by the day. Children as young as five are getting tablets and smartphones. Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram and other apps have become essential to how kids and teens communicate with each other.

And yet, in the decades since children have been using the internet, a host of parental controls and devices have been developed to make it easier to monitor online use. And the new crop of parents are more familiar with the inner workings of the internet than ever before.

One of the most fearsome threats to kids is online luring – the act where a predator attempts to coerce or trick a child from the safety of their homes or schools, with the intention of committing sexual offenses or abducting them.

Parents should use what technology is available to protect their kids, but the most important thing parents can do, experts told Business Insider, is talk to their children about being safe online.

“The best parental control out there is talking to your kid,” said Stephen Balkam, the founder and CEO of the Family Online Safety Institute.

Every child and teen is different. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to keeping your kids safe.

“It has to be a really complicated and layered approach. It really is different for every family, every parent and every kid,” said Paige Hanson, chief of identity education at Symantec.

Here’s what you need to know about protecting your kids from online predators – including online luring.

What is online luring?

Online luring is the act of coercing or tricking a child into leaving the safety of their homes or schools, with the intention of committing sexual offenses or abducting them.

The most effective way to protect against predators is to keep tabs of what your children are doing online, say experts.

Don’t let your child sign up for social media if they’re under 13

A screenshot from Facebook’s Messenger Kids app

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act already makes it illegal for children under 13 to sign up for websites that gather data about users, which notably includes most social media sites.

Parents should stick to this rule, or even wait until their child is older, Balkam said. But sometimes it’s easier said than done to enforce.

Parents who help their children under 13 make Facebook accounts “to talk with Grandma” should instead consider downloading Facebook Messenger Kids, the social media giant’s dedicated app for children between the ages of 6-12. The app lets parents see their child’s messages, control their contact list, and set time limits.

But Messenger Kids is controversial and has been met with backlash from health experts and child advocates, who have called on the app to be shut down completely, on the basis that the app could push children towards smartphone addiction in their earliest stages.

Another problem parents may have to contend with: Kids can simply lie about their age. In these cases, it may be difficult to stop them from making an account entirely, especially if they have their own tablet or smartphone. But experts recommend having a conversation with children who want social media accounts before they open one.

iOS and Android parental controls

Parents can set restrictions on any iPhone, iPad, or Android device.

In an iPhone or iPad’s settings, go to “General” and find “Restrictions.” Once there, parents can restrict access to certain apps or games, including the Safari web browser and the camera. Parents can also prevent children from making any purchases or downloads in the app store.

On Android, parents can download the Family Link app, which lets users set restrictions on what apps and videos can be downloaded from the Google Play store. Without the Family Link app, parents can set content restrictions directly in the Google Play app by going to the “parental controls” option in the app’s settings.

“Dumb” phones

For children as young as five, parents may want them to have a way to contact them, especially in the case of an emergency.

“I grew up in small town Iowa. We didn’t need a phone. We just said we were at our friend’s house and I could be trusted to be home before dinner. It’s not the same thing now. You need to be able to be reached in case of an emergency,” Hanson said.

Here are some popular phones and smartwatches with only basic capabilities for children:

Jitterbug Flip: The Jitterbug Flip only lets children call and text. The phone is made for seniors, but it can also be useful for children as well.

LG GizmoGadget: The Gizmo Gadget smart watch lets parents track their kid’s location as well as keep in touch with them. Kids can make and receive calls with up to 10 contacts and send texts, either in the form of a preset message or an emoji.

Kid-friendly tablets

On average, children between the ages of 0-8 spend 48 minutes on a tablet per day, according to a 2017 study from Common Sense Media. For many young children, tablets are the most common, accessible, and easy-to-use devices.

But with a tablet comes unfettered access to the internet, which may be concerning for parents with young children. With an iPad, you’d have to download third party parental control software or manually change which apps children can and can’t visit. Some parents may find it easier to buy a pared down version of a tablet that has built-in parental controls.

“If you are going to get a younger child a tablet, go after one of the ones that is built and designed specifically for them,” Balkam said. “These are specifically developed hardware and software with parental controls with little kids in mind.”

Balkam’s recommendations:

Fire Kids Edition Tablet: The kid version of the popular Amazon device gives children access to over 15,000 age appropriate books, movies, TV shows, and games. Parents can control what content is available, and how much time they can spend on the device.

Verizon GizmoTab: Instead of a home screen with rows of apps, Verizon’s tablet has 300 preloaded apps that children can view by visiting different “islands.” Children can’t browse the internet, unless a parent allows it.

Third party monitoring apps can help…

If a child has a device that allows them to surf the web, it may a good idea to install a third-party parental control app that can lets you set screen-time limits and block certain websites and apps.

These apps allow for more control than the default iOS and Android settings, but they require more work to set up. And parents should consider privacy, especially for older children, before installing some of the more invasive parental control measures, the experts we spoke to said.

Here are some of the most popular parental control apps:

Qustodio: The free version of the app lets parents block certain websites or apps or limit how much time is spent on them. Plans starting at $54.95 per year allow parents to monitor, social media, calls, and even the content of a child’s text messages. Additionally, the paid plan lets parents enable location tracking and panic alerts.

Net Nanny: Net Nanny is a powerful filtering tool that can block websites entirely, profanity, or give a warning before a child accesses a website instead of blocking it altogether. The app also lets parents monitor social media and set time limits. Plans start at $59.99 for five devices.

FamilyTime Premium: For $1.15 per month for up to five devices, FamilyTime lets parents block apps and websites, set time limits, create a “contact watchlist” that notifies the parent each time a contact on the list calls or texts, track locations, and monitor texts.

…but overstepping can erode trust



Third-party parental apps can allow for some serious snooping, such as monitoring calls and texts. While for parents, these measures are a way to keep children safe, it can also erode trust in a relationship – especially with teens who are older.

“If you found out everything you were doing was being monitored, you’d probably feel pretty violated,” Hanson said.

That’s why it’s important, Hason said, that parents at least be up front and have a conversation about what they’re monitoring and why. It may be satisfactory to be friends with or follow your teen on social media as a condition of having the account.

Be careful of how your child shares location data

When teens post anything publicly online, there’s a good chance they’ll be able to use a geolocation feature, which lets followers know exactly where the child is located. But for young teens, broadcasting exactly where they are and what they’re doing might make them targets.

“It’s a cool feature, it’s a convenience thing,” Hanson said. “But then on the other hand you have the security aspect, that you’re posting publicly where they’re at and what they’re doing and not realizing the consequences of being targeted now because they’re in that specific area.”

Signing a contract

Hanson suggests using a tool like Smart Talk, a website with resources about online safety and an agreement where parents and kids can set guidelines for how kids use the internet.

“It’s cool because it’s not just a parent telling a kid what to do, you’re actually having a conversation about it together, which has proven to be more successful.”

Make sure any device has a passcode

In the event a child’s device is lost or stolen, it’s important that it have a passcode on it, Hanson said. That way, sensitive information will be protected from any would-be predator who wanted to scour it for personal details.

Above all, have a conversation

Kids are going to be online no matter what. Making sure they know how to be careful and they know how to deal with talking to strangers and having social media is important, experts said.

Especially as kids get older, talking to strangers online is increasingly normal and it’s not always sinister. Sometimes, it happens during a video game, or on a social media site. It’s up to parents to set ground rules early on, engage with children about being socially responsible online, and discuss how to respond healthily to being in online communities.

“We want to make sure they aren’t being warped into basing their self esteem off of the number of likes and comments they get because that’s really where it might go wrong,” Hanson said. “Teens may be looking for a positive influence on online, but then all of the sudden it could turn into a bad situation.”

Origin : https://www.businessinsider.my/protect-kids-online-luring-2018-5/

Relationship Experts Say These Are The 8 Red Flags To Look Out For When You Start Dating Someone — And Some Are Surprisingly Common

Any new relationship is full of challenges. You’re getting to know someone, and there’s no telling when something might happen to burst the bubble of your new romance.

In general, it’s fun learning all there is to know about someone who used to be a stranger. But sometimes, there will be signs that you shouldn’t take things further.

Everyone has their own quirks and opinions, and someone who’s a bit different isn’t a reason to run for the hills. But it’s a major red flag if you find yourself compromising on yourself or feeling uncomfortable.

Business Insider asked eight relationship experts, many who specialise in helping people who have been in abusive relationships, about what they think are the major red flags.

Here’s what they said:

1. You justify their bad behaviour.


“If you find yourself justifying away what he does or says, even though these feel wrong in your gut, then that’s a surefire red flag.

“The mind is the most skilled Photoshopper – it can rationalise anything and paint any picture of anyone, depending on our initial perspective. There is a psychological phenomenon known as the ‘confirmation bias,’ where we are inclined to discard all evidence that does not align with our views and only keep those that do. And with a potentially toxic person, they have worked to create a false positive impression to worm their way into your heart.

“So even if they do something bad or say something that’s off, you may think, ‘He’s only this way because he went through X.’ This is when ticking boxes of ‘Is he rude to the waiter?’ ‘Is he nice to his family members?’ doesn’t work. He could be all that – the sleekest toxic people are.

“But underlying it, if he says things like, ‘So they’ll treat us better the next time,’ or he has a mean mouth towards some people, and if you find yourself justifying his transactional mindset or meanness, then it’s time to pause and step back. Our brains work overtime to convince us of someone who’s not good for us, even when our guts know it.”

– Perpetua Neo, a psychologist and expert in toxic relationships who created the Detox Your Heart program

2. They don’t talk through issues.


“I’d say the one major red flag in a person’s behavior that may indicate that the relationship won’t work is the unwillingness to talk through issues, big or small.

“All couples have disagreements. That’s perfectly normal and healthy. But it’s how you handle those disagreements that can really make or break things. Does your partner walk away? Shut down? Place all the blame on you? Throw a tantrum? These are all red flags.

“In a good relationship, a couple can and will talk through issues, listening to the other person’s point of view and expressing his or her own. No one needs to win or lose. It’s about expressing how something makes you feel and being heard. Communication is key.”

– Erika Ettin, a dating coach who founded the dating site A Little Nudge

3. They’re constantly testing your boundaries.

“Run from anyone who attempts to cross a boundary that you have set.”

Examples:

• “You have said you do not want to go further sexually and they insist.”

• “You say you are not available on Sunday, but they push you to see them.”

• “You are not ready to have them meet your family members or friends, but they push you.”

• “They push you to date exclusively before you are ready.”

• “They want to move in or get married or set up a bank account before you want.”

• “They try to change the way you wear your hair or your clothes or anything else about you that feels like ‘you,’ and it makes you uncomfortable.”

– Lisa Aronson Fontes, a psychologist who wrote the book “Invisible Chains: Overcoming Coercive Control in Your Intimate Relationship“

4. They have a massive sense of entitlement.

“When we see that somebody feels entitled to us doing more for them than what is equal in a relationship, that’s a huge red flag that they are someone who uses people. Are they comfortable with using us? Because it just shows a real clear lack of care.

“I think [it shows] when we ask somebody for help because we’re tired, or we’re overwhelmed, or our plate is too full, and that person says, ‘Yeah, I’ll get to that,’ and never does. Or the person says, ‘Well, I can’t right now,’ when they’re not really that busy.

“I see this a lot in marriages and dating relationships, where there’s always one person who’s feeding the needs of the other person. One person is giving and giving and giving, and the other person gives one back. There’s an imbalance. And the other selfish person is typically fine with their needs being met.

“If you use somebody, you don’t really care about them, or their well-being, or their overall happiness in life. It’s a habitual pattern. It’s almost like life is there to meet their needs and people are just commodities to get that done.”

– Shannon Thomas, a therapist who wrote the book “Healing from Hidden Abuse: A Journey Through the Stages of Recovery from Psychological Abuse“

5. Something in your gut feels wrong.

“Since red flags happen along the way road of abuse, victims see different behaviors as time and abuse goes on.

“The first thing to look for is your own intuition and listening to your gut – if you have the feeling something is wrong, things aren’t adding up, then trust that. Past relationship history is key to understanding their behaviors, as is the way they talk about past partners. If everyone in their past was ‘crazy,’ that is a huge red flag.

“Actions speak louder than words. If the date says one thing and does another, look deep into yourself and tell yourself it will only get worse and walk away. If you are dating someone who tries to rush a relationship without giving you time to get to know them properly, slow it down yourself and take control. If they are not patient with this request, you get out.

“Never be rushed, even if it feels good. A soulmate will be kind and patient, while abusers rush to confuse victims and to control. If you prove hard to control quickly, an abuser will back off, and you will save yourself heartache.”

– Tracy Malone, a relationship expert on YouTube

6. Everything is about them.

“One major red flag in relationships is when everyday life, events, conversations, and basic interactions are frequently about that person – where there’s constant manipulation and abuse of power over you.

“For instance, you could confront the person you’re dating about something they did or said that hurt you. Rather than listening to your concern and apologising, they will manipulate and flip the conversation, telling you all the things you’ve done to hurt and upset them.

“This scenario shows signs of narcissism, and things only get worse the more time you spend together. They don’t care about you and your concerns; they only care about themselves. Narcissists are void of empathy. They don’t believe they are wrong about anything, and they will constantly feel victimised, accusing you of attacking them when you’re just expressing your feelings in a situation.

“Over time, you may will feel alone, constantly guilty, and you’ll even doubt your own self-confidence and self-worth. This is definitely a reason to distance yourself from the person you’re dating. Narcissistic abuse is emotionally and psychologically damaging to their partners and most everyone they interact with.”

– Catenya McHenry, a journalist who wrote the book “Married to a Narcissist“

7. They are overly critical about their previous partners.

“I find that people are very predictable. Whatever they have done in previous relationships they are likely to do again.

“This means that if you listen carefully to how your new lover describes his or her important previous relationships and how he or she speaks about their exes, you can learn a lot about how this person is likely to treat you.

“When people describe all of their exes as terrible people and put all the blame on them for the relationship’s failure, this is a red flag for me. It practically shouts: ‘I cannot take any responsibility for whatever went wrong. I have not learned anything from these relationships. It is totally up to you to make our relationship work.’

“It is also likely to mean that they are unable to see people in an integrated and realistic way. When they started dating these other people, they probably saw them as highly desirable and all good. Now that these relationships are over, these same people are all bad. Either they have a knack for picking the absolutely worst people with whom to be in a relationship, or they are seeing all of these people in a very distorted way.

“If they could not see anyone before you realistically or make any of these relationships work, they are unlikely to be able to do it with you.”

– Elinor Greenberg, a psychologist who wrote the book “Borderline, Narcissistic, and Schizoid Adaptations: The Pursuit of Love, Admiration, and Safety“

8. They constantly deny, criticise, or dismiss you.

“You may be in a relationship with an emotional manipulator if you see an emotional double standard in the relationship, experience your feelings being denied, criticised, or dismissed, find yourself ‘giving in’ to keep the peace, and see your self-esteem diminishing.

“You may get a feeling that there is something not right – e.g., secrets, unexplained behaviors, unexpected reactions, or are increasingly criticised, blamed, put down, or discounted (often done jokingly at first), and feel confused by ‘explanations’ given about hurtful behaviors.”

– Margalis Fjelstad, a therapist who wrote the book “Stop Caretaking the Borderline or Narcissist: How to End the Drama and Get On with Life“

Origin : https://www.businessinsider.my/relationship-red-flags-you-should-look-out-for-2018-1/