Oh, what was this? The end might not be near Doom might not be inevitable, but not according to the news. After a weekend of dramatic White House emergency actions U.S President Joe Biden has given the go-ahead for a controversial oil drilling scheme. Environmentalists say it's a carbon bomb and despite a wet winter in the west, persistent drought and over development caused record low water levels for tens of millions of. Americans And a warning.

this is going to be part of the Fallout from the dramatic roiling controversy sort of culture. War Type disinformation Witch Hunt Those were lies. Uh, not language you use if you are hoping for a diplomatic outcome. The Forest imagine it's your home.

It's both your shelter and your source of sustenance. It offers rocks to make sure this is after later. This is the other second. I Hope this is doesn't sound good I Saw the footage of the officers that like went to the school responded like the last shooting or whatever right? It was posted within like minutes or hours after the shooting.

It was posted by like officials right? Why did the footage of the of the office or whatever in Texas when they failed and they didn't do a good job? Well then that one get posted. I Don't get it. Why? If you allow yourself to post a success, you should also always have accountable to pose for the failures. That's it's that goes both ways it did I Didn't see it.

Yeah. I'd love to build shelters but most importantly berries and nuts and ducks and all sorts of food. But to get to it you have to go out. Out is scary.

Out is where the threats are. You're on a path, Your sight lines are limited. This forces you to walk to search as a necessity for survival, to find the food that will feed you, your mate or your child that will ensure a slightly altered copy of your DNA gets copied once again to keep the species. Alive You Need To Tread into the unknown.

So you walk. and you search. And you walk. And you search.

And you walk. and you search the video and you walk. I'll give it a chance. there's a bear, epinephrine, cortisol.

your heart rate spikes, breathing quickly, digestion stops, your vision, focuses, your pupils, dilate your hearing, drops out, your muscles tense, and within an instant your body has reworked itself. Re-prioritize resources, switching from a physiological State suited to exploring to one that can best assess a dress or evade a threat. This split-second moment of identifying a threat has occurred immeasurable times through human history, ending in immeasurable different outcomes. But each of these outcomes can be categorized into one of two categories: survival or death.

Extraneous factors altered each. a slippery rock slow to retreat, a convenient cave offered Refuge A blunt spear inhibited a defense, but when summing up the total of those immeasurable instances, there was a pattern: The degree of that physiological response correlated to the likelihood of survival. How well muscles tense? How much Vision focused, how quickly cortisol released. All this mattered to whether or not a human service encounter with a threat.

So through the totality of humanity, the DNA that created humans with a stronger response to the negative was more likely to get recreated through. Offspring That's Evolution. But that's also a theory. What we do know with certainty is that today's humans respond more strongly to a negative stimulus than a positive one, even when those two stimuli are objectively equal in weight.

Think back to high school: What do you remember? the great jokes you told, or all the awkward. Encounters This disproportionate response is something that we can and have have proved time and time again in academic research. So we call it the negativity bias. But what we can't directly prove is whether or not this is also called the one guy bias to something natural, something rooted in our DNA crafted by Evolution.

Or if it's cultural, maybe Society over emphasizes negative moments. Maybe the awkward encounters from middle school really did have more of an impact on others perception of us than the great jokes. And so we've learned to react to them appropriately. But evolution leaves its fingerprints and natural experiments can search for them.

Certain humans are male, certain others are female, and the most critical component of evolution is reproduction during human pregnancy. The Evolutionary influence of Parental death differs depending on whether it occurs to a father or mother. If a father dies. yeah, sex, not gender.

the hood of reproductive success does go down. There's then only one individual in a diminished physical state to find food and fight off threats. But there's still a chance if the mother dies. However, that's it.

Reproduction fails Evolution stops. but simultaneously, in an era when pregnancy was far more perilous than today, reproductive success went up when food was more plentiful. Therefore, the chance of a father's DNA getting passed on increased as they found more food. But to do so, they couldn't be too worried about the negative.

The threats. Why is that? Why is it you think I'm afraid I don't know if you take your mindset up. well I did to be motivated. There's a difference between between them this and a social construct like what is Audi Mana like what do you want to do? You guys see the difference because you're too edgy.

We get it wrong, you're cool as Falcon you're a baller, you're an adding a Ross fan and you know your life is going absolute aware. Look at it. Moving on, Beta: to take the level of risk that optimizes for finding the most food possible, even if it increases their chances of death. Meanwhile, the mother with far higher and more direct evolutionary pressure to survive must first and foremost focus on her and her child's survival.

Her fight or flight response needs to be huge, so she's able to best respond to any threat that she might encounter when studied. The facts support this: Theory Male humans exhibit a weaker negativity bias than female ones. They still have the bias. They still respond disproportionately to the negative, but not quite as strongly.

It seems like Evolution worked crafting a structure that appropriately optimized for the greatest likelihood of successful reproduction. So the case is made as best. We can tell the negativity bias was not learned, it was evolved. It's natural.

the positive just doesn't elicit the same emotional response in humans. And there's not a whole lot we can do about it because it is literally rooted in our DNA that developed before farming and restaurants and electricity and supermarkets and telephones. and TV and the internet and the information overload that inundated us far faster than Evolution could possibly respond. We are dumb monkeys using our dumb monkey brains to trick other dumb monkeys into giving other dumb monkeys attention.

and there's nothing we can do about it. so we react more quickly and with more Force to the negative. It follows then that our eyes are naturally drawn first towards the day's bad news, but the trend towards the negative starts even before you, the consumer. It begins with a journalist subject to the same natural negativity bias.

It's more likely that what a journalist ends up pitching to their editor takes on a negative slams subconsciously. It just feels more important to cover, more exciting to follow, and Carries more potential to Captivate an audience. This negative lean of course goes up the line influencing the editor. that then green line to the story, the news institution that publishes the story, and the award juries that recognize exceptional work.

Next, the negativity bias gets rewarded by the public. IT supplies to demand, receiving clicks, views, engagement, outrage, and attention from people who can't help but react to the bad news. It's all very intuitive. Bad news proliferates because it's biologically what reporters are drawn to report on and consumers are drawn to consume.

But none of this explains why some countries' media is more negative than others that has less to do with human nature and more with how a society goes about making news. Among journalists, there's surprisingly little consensus as to what exactly is defined as news. Sure, there's a dictionary definition, but it's so broad that it might be easier to identify what news isn't than is a functional definition. on the other hand, has proved hard to come by and harder to agree on to some journalists.

News is news when it fits into one or more of these particular identifiable bins. I've been is why we have like buzzwords and show you that and new labels like oh, this is dysphopia. this is that and this is the this one is oh this guy just did this label or that buzzword oh my God not that and then we have so many of them it's like it's crazy. Now it's like I don't know.

For others, it's just really differs for others. Still, the notion of even trying to qualify what actually counts as news is too much to ask. You know, when you see it, it simply is. Zoom out further and questions become more vexing.

What is News 4 Is it entertainment or a public service Whose role is it to produce and provide the news? The state or independent organizations? Who does the news serve stakeholders? shareholders? The states? the Republic But while these questions might keep yeah, don't don't act. You know that when you hear something phobia, you know it's really bad. It's really bad, right? Because but then there's something that aren't that aren't that bad and they put they put liberal on it. Then and now it's like either you're almost like forced to react to that I Think it's odd academics up at night I Think it's institutions answer them every moment of every day with every piece they publish, offering through example after example of exactly what that particular society has decided as news and the homophobia.

Terrible one. You hear that somebody's been sorry, Did something homophobic? That's how you react according to the media, right? But then. But then let's say sorry. Something that isn't recognized as that bad I Had to say it.

Sorry you guys I'm talking about Society now I'm not what I think about it. Let's say fat phobia, right? Yeah, fat phobia. But then I think it's because of the label behind it. When you put some label something or a buzzword, then it almost automatically ramps up the severity of what that is.

Yeah, there's so many of them now it's getting crazy Now it's like and you do. Oh wow, dude, that is like a brain dead phobia. Oh dude, it's like a but there's a bunch now I think it's odd purpose of news. For decades, critical onlookers have studied America's Pro private, hyper-competitive for-profit media landscape and have drawn two broad conclusions.

It tends to be more negative than most, and it's getting more negative. What's been more difficult though, was proving to what extent, if any. U.S Media skewed more negatively than other nations, with different events impacting different countries after all, and with different cultural assumptions as to what different events mean, it's not really impossible drawing a clean comparison between any two. Nations Media Maybe in a bigger country, there's just too much bad happening to leave airtime for the good.

Well, that was until one story came to impact every single media Market on the planet at the exact same time. Really like no other phenomena before it, the Covid-19 Pandemic and its near Universal weight offered the rarest of opportunities to compare media tone across countries. Some identify the chance, and in early 2021 this paper, analyzing and comparing English language stories is approach to reporting on the pandemic went public collecting some twenty thousand covert articles from these sources in the US and these sources abroad. The researchers traced the prevalence of negative words and terms to predict the negative slant of each.

There's results were staggering. This is the negativity Trend in international sources across much of 2020, hovering steadily around 50 percent. Then this is the U.S media whose covenanting coverage leans negative at a whopping 87 percent across the study. And this vast Gulf between just how bad the news is in the U.S versus the rest of the world is only exacerbated by these additional findings that the nation's most popular news sources Trend Even more negative than average performers.

Clearly, the negativity bias is working, fueling a vicious cycle that will only lead to more and more and more events. and this all feels like a problem. But maybe it's not. Maybe it's just a thing.

After all, this is natural. Maybe negativity is just how we communicate. Maybe it's even a good thing we talk about our issues to address them. or maybe it can be both.

A simultaneous ly is the problem I Think they're all part of the problem, but Tucker is maybe skilled. A little a little bit of pot of more I guess than you need to use it because he says some that's putting on the engine but you know I had Tucker on I was playing games at one day well as of his house I took on the back talking here and I zone out when I play games twice or like more than that I'm like I'm like what the octaneous sources say. negative news gets just 10 more attention. First, one must consider that it's an arms race.

There are only so many eyeballs. so when the success metric is eyeballs in a competitive news industry, any Edge be it little will get captured. So a 10 attention Edge will lead to 20 or 30 or 40 percent more negative news because if everyone else is doing it then everybody has to do it. It's an exponential effect.

Next, say there are two stories, but there's only time for one. The first is on a brand new vaccine, a miracle cure, something that will improve one's odds of Survival by 50. The second is on a crime rate. It's not also only bad.

No, it doesn't Only bad takes them okay I believe that everybody has at least some good decks in there I don't think that's better I Thought his take about Kanye was such a really smart attack that was really well put up. I can cross with all the negatives and all the bad thing. his guy Faker was 45 headed a shooting spree. something that will decrease the odds of Survival by five percent.

In this theoretical environment that Second Story wins, it's scarier. It's more dramatic. It's going to keep the eyeballs from switching to that other channel. This will kill people.

The crime wave might stop the attention, might lead to intervention, but all the while more people are dying of a preventable Disease an epidemic that could have been stopped. If only people had heard of that new miracle cure. In our heads, problems feel far more significant than potential. We'd much rather solve a problem than capture potential.

Early in the coveted pandemic, there was no news, but Coven news, But not all was negative. There were times when things got better. For every upslope there was a down slope, but you could hard tell based on the news Research into the matter. Found that the degree of negativity of Coven news had little, in fact, sometimes inverse correlation with the covid case count at the given moment.

This meant that while a news consumer might have theoretically known that things were comparatively, it didn't necessarily feel that way since the tone of the media inputs stayed consistently done. This did have an impact. Now with retrospect, we understand the cost of covid precautions. precautions got in the way of precautions.

The Persistence of mass mandates and school closures and Border restrictions led to a changing calculus of when they should have been implemented in the Public's minds. Think of it like this: If a town will have only tolerated 12 months of mass mandates over 36 months of the pandemic, they probably should have been applied here as hospitalizations and deaths were Rising most quickly, but rather on average they were applied here at the start, just stretching until tolerance waned, meaning a limited supply of precaution was wasted on times when cases were naturally waning. Of course, this sort of rationality can only be applied in retrospect, but it demonstrates the impact. We were incapable of properly assessing risk, perhaps in part because our information inputs didn't modulate tone in step with the risk.

Things always felt at their worst, so it never felt like the moment for a reprieve. Take another dramatically different example research. Yeah, yeah. time in being political, you guys I'd be offensive.

Okay, but listen. I have no political party I Hate all of them. Okay, but people are the same. Oh dude, that is Trump's America I'm Gonna Keep it a bucket I said I've been living in here for like the longest time with both both presidents.

How was binds America any much better? how I don't I don't see I don't know she's demonstrated in elections for a second term are penalized more for a worsening economy than rewarded for an improving one. That's to say, making the economy five percent worse matters a lot more to the electorate than making the economy five percent better. possibly because the public hardly knows when things are getting awesome. The media I thought the economy was being pretty decent considering covid, and now it's loosening up.

Now this shit's going down since it's a fun disaster. I Get now I Think they overcompensated with all the packages or whatever for company whatnot and I I guess since they they printed money out, whatever there needs to be a recovery. I Think that's pretty much why it's doing that so not doesn't talk about it. Only the reverse I should optimize for is the President who is best at improving the economy.

And so this SKU means there's ever so slight irrationality in how we assess a politician. We potentially voted out presidents and more often, other politicians irrationally because we don't have an understanding of their accomplishments. It's a game of who's more terrible rather than who's the best. So the news operates as perhaps a distorted, fun house mirror of society.

It is mostly accurate. it mostly conveys the truth, but waiting matters. The public makes inferences based on the quantity and frequency of information, and so this distorted mirror does inject irrational information into both democratic and individual decision making. There are interventions.

We know this because we know this negativity bias is at its worst in the U.S in the UK for example, are close cultural cousins to the U.S and yet their media tends to be far less negative. Perhaps the most notable difference in their media landscape is the dominance of public broadcasters, broadcasting corporations, and do so without needing to so fiercely compete to attract eyeballs. They can optimize for quality of information over eyeballs attracted as their funding is less directly tied to quantity of eyeballs. They each rely on money from the public, funded through the government.

Meaning, the metric of success is providing a service the public considers worthwhile. But inevitably, everyone's definition of worthwhile is different. True autonomy from the government, while relying on politicians to continue to authorize funding is near impossible to achieve, and public broadcasters constantly face scandals for failing to properly critique those who write their checks. So, while negativity might be lower, some might ask at what cost True Media Autonomy is essential.

Thoughts on Leftists woke, mind you guys. Put my media agenda Narrative: bro. you just had like eight buzzwords that went no meaning. what does that even mean Yo chat guys guys.

Thoughts on: Left Right is upwards backwards winning BlackRock Vanguard Inflation deflation Right now? That's an odd I Have three Awesome. That's odd I'm gonna say true tone balance is essentially important supported model. There's really no perfect option. and at the end of the day, it's not a question of if there's negativity bias, just how much.

When we look into a distorted funhouse mirror. We don't think our heads actually look that big or our stature is actually that short, or our hips are actually that wide. because we know that's not reality. We've seen ourselves in normal mirrors so we know what we actually look like.

But if you never saw yourself through a normal mirror, if that fun house option was it, you might know that your head and height and hips are not that size. But slowly you'd Forget by just how much you forget what you actually look like. Blind to yourself. left only with the choice of avoiding the mirror, rejecting any sort of self-reflection or accepting a flawed image because it's really the only mirror you have I Don't think it's a bad video undoubtedly important, and there has perhaps never been a more powerful tool for this than the internet.

Access information is cool. No, it's better. You know it's not cool. I Hit some misinformation because that's I mean that grows at a faster rate, right? I Mean you get more dog that that's the power of the internet has increased.

There's been a worrying Trend towards its nationalization. The Internet should be the exact same no matter where you are. but it's not. You say there are an increasing number of censors policies you would probably line with a liberal than a conservative LOL like on Healthcare Schooling Guns Etc I Think guns are fine, probably not on guns.

It's kind of hard to convince me anything about guns to be honest. I Think guns are chilling again. Inflation limiting where you can access what and different versions of sites depending on the country I Encounter this all the time when research will take it. Um, people have guns forever.

Okay I I Feel like it. The only thing that's different is the crazy Andy behind the gun. That's the problem I mean I hate to say it I mean the gun doesn't just go on the street itself I mean I'm absolute unhinged dumb is gonna have to be the one that shoots it I don't know um other. otherwise I mean I don't want anything.

How's it a bad? Take him.