SoylentNews

She’s the world’s top empathy researcher. But colleagues say she bullied and intimidated them

Tania Singer, a celebrated neuroscientist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany, is known as one of the world’s foremost experts on empathy. In her research, she has sought to demonstrate that meditation can make people more kind and caring. The title of a profile of Singer written by this reporter in 2013 summed up her public image: Concentrating on Kindness.

But inside her lab, it was a very different story, eight former and current colleagues say in interviews with Science. The researchers, all but one of whom insisted on remaining anonymous because they feared for their careers, describe a group gripped by fear of their boss. “Whenever anyone had a meeting with her there was at least an even chance they would come out in tears,” one colleague says.

Singer, one of the most high-profile female researchers in the Max Planck Society (MPG), sometimes made harsh comments to women who became pregnant, multiple lab members told Science. “People were terrified. They were really, really afraid of telling her about their pregnancies,” one former colleague says. “For her, having a baby was basically you being irresponsible and letting down the team,” says another, who became a mother while working in Singer’s department.

[...] In a plan presented to the researchers on 25 July, MPG said it would separate Singer from her current colleagues and allow her to set up a new, smaller research group in Berlin for 2 to 3 years while the postdocs and Ph.D. students in Leipzig finish their projects and move on. (The Leipzig group, which once numbered more than 20 scientists, has dwindled to just five.) She would then return to her lab.

“It appears the Max Planck Society decided it would rather sacrifice another generation of students than risk a scandal,” says one former colleague. Asked how MPG would ensure that future students are treated better, a spokesperson says details of the plan are still being discussed.

[...] [Colleagues] say working with Singer was always difficult. She wanted to be in control of even the most minute research details but was often not available to discuss them. In-person meetings could quickly turn into a nightmare, one colleague says: “She gets extremely emotional and when that turns dark it is terrifying.” Another co-worker describes what happened after he told Singer some people in her group were unhappy: “She was very hurt by this and started crying and screaming,” he says. “It escalated to the extent that she left the room and went door to door in the institute in our department, crying, yelling to the people in the room ‘Are you happy here?’ When she came back, she said: ‘I just asked and everyone said they’re happy so it’s obviously you that’s the problem.’” (A colleague who says he was present corroborates the story.)

Almost every current or former lab member brought up Singer’s treatment of pregnant women; the issue was also on a list of grievances, shared with Science, that lab members say they drew up after a meeting with the scientific advisory board in February 2017 to record what was said. “Pregnancy and parental leave are received badly and denied/turned into accusations,” the notes say.

How Goop's Haters Made Gwyneth Paltrow's Company Worth $250 Million: Inside the growth of the most controversial brand in the wellness industry. (archive)

On a Monday morning in November, students at Harvard Business School convened in their classroom to find Gwyneth Paltrow. She was sitting at one of their desks, fitting in not at all, using her phone, as they took their seats along with guests they brought to class that day — wives, mothers, boyfriends. Each seat filled, and some guests had to stand along the back wall and sit on the steps. The class was called the Business of Entertainment, Media and Sports. The students were there to interrogate Paltrow about Goop, her lifestyle-and-wellness e-commerce business, and to learn how to create a "sustainable competitive advantage," according to the class catalog.

She moved to the teacher's desk, where she sat down and crossed her legs. She talked about why she started the business, how she only ever wanted to be someone who recommended things. When she was in Italy, on the set of "The Talented Mr. Ripley," she'd ask someone on the crew about, say, where the best gelato was. When she was in London, on the set of "Shakespeare in Love," she asked a crew member where to find the best coffee; in Paris, she asked an extra where to find the best bikini wax; in Berlin, the massage you can't miss. She wasn't just curious. She was planning this the whole time. The first iteration of the company was only these lists — where to go and what to buy once you get there — via a newsletter she emailed out of her kitchen, the first one with recipes for turkey ragù and banana-nut muffins. One evening, at a party in London, one of the newsletter's recipients, a venture capitalist named Juliet de Baubigny, told her, "I love what you're doing with Goop." G.P., as she is called by nearly everyone in her employ, didn't even know what a venture capitalist was. She was using off-the-shelf newsletter software. But De Baubigny became a "godmother" to Paltrow, she said. She encouraged her vision and "gave permission" to start thinking about how to monetize it.

[...] G.P. didn't want to go broad. She wanted you to have what she had: the $795 G. Label trench coat and the $1,505 Betony Vernon S&M chain set. Why mass-market a lifestyle that lives in definitional opposition to the mass market? Goop's ethic was this: that having beautiful things sometimes costs money; finding beautiful things was sometimes a result of an immense privilege; but a lack of that privilege didn't mean you shouldn't have those things. Besides, just because some people cannot afford it doesn't mean that no one can and that no one should want it. If this bothered anyone, well, the newsletter content was free, and so were the recipes for turkey ragù and banana-nut muffins.

[...] A gynecologist and obstetrician in San Francisco named Jen Gunter, who also writes a column on reproductive health for The Times, has criticized Goop in about 30 blog posts on her website since 2015. A post she wrote last May — an open letter that she signed on behalf of "Science" — generated more than 800,000 page views. She was angry about all the bad advice she had seen from Goop in the last few years. She was angry that her own patients were worried they'd given themselves breast cancer by wearing underwire bras, thanks to an article by an osteopath who cited a much-debunked book published in 1995. Gunter cited many of Goop's greatest hits: "Tampons are not vaginal death sticks, vegetables with lectins are not killing us, vaginas don't need steaming, Epstein Barr virus (E.B.V.) does not cause every thyroid disease and for [expletive] sake no one needs to know their latex farmer; what they need to know is that the only thing between them and H.I.V. or gonorrhea is a few millimeters of latex, so glove that [expletive] up."

But something strange happened. Each of these pronouncements set off a series of blog posts and articles and tweets that linked directly to the site, driving up traffic. At Harvard, G.P. called these moments "cultural firestorms." "I can monetize those eyeballs," she told the students. Goop had learned to do a special kind of dark art: to corral the vitriol of the internet and the ever-present shall we call it cultural ambivalence about G.P. herself and turn them into cash. It's never clickbait, she told the class. "It's a cultural firestorm when it's about a woman's vagina." The room was silent. She then cupped her hands around her mouth and yelled, "VAGINA! VAGINA! VAGINA!" as if she were yodeling.

Who would hate on a pseudoscientific goop-peddling succubus with steam-cleaned nether regions (and an egg)?

Previously: NASA Disputes Origins of Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop "Healing Stickers"

Original Submission

Crazy Rich Asians isn’t about money, it’s about entitlement—and that’s a good thing

Why Did It Take So Long to See a Cast Like ‘Crazy Rich Asians’? (archive)

Right, so I was in a mood tonight and considering how idiotic it is for white folks to think I should venerate the cultures and traditions of my ancestors from hundreds of years ago when they don't even venerate the cultures and traditions of their still living ancestors. Being the smartass I am, I went outside and did a rain dance (Okay, so it bore a strong resemblance to the Thriller dance. Fuck you. I'm an indian and if I say it's a rain dance, it's a rain dance.) while I was having a smoke.

I finish my smoke and come back in, quite amused with myself and do a #weather on IRC to get the forecast and fuck me if it didn't work.

So, I'm sitting here greatly amused with myself and then I remember I was going to take my boat out for half a day of jug fishing tomorrow.

Fucking stupid ancestral magic powers.

ASUS' Android Go phone comes to the US for $110

The first Android Go phone to reach the US, the Alcatel 1X, was frankly lackluster between its not-even-720p screen and mediocre processing power. ASUS, however, is hoping to spice things up by launching the ZenFone Live (L1) in the US as a Best Buy exclusive. The unlocked handset costs slightly more than its rival at $110, but you're getting a lot more for your extra Hamilton. The ZenFone carries an 18:9 ratio, 5.5-inch 1,440 x 720 LCD screen, a speedier Snapdragon 425 processor and a heftier 3,000mAh battery, not to mention dual nano-SIM slots and a place for your microSD cards. This might be an ideal phone if you're a traveler who'd rather not risk their main device on a trip.

Related: An $80 Android Go Smartphone For Sale in USA

$ tar cvfz ~/Desktop/make_doug_even_happier.tgz ./trunk/

I'm copying trunk to my other box on a stick because I can't be bothered to figure out how to make Subversion work over NedSpace's WiFi.

I'll be stepping across the street to Peet's Coffee And Tea where I shall make Doug even happier than he previously was.

When I asked John Sununu about his part in this history — whether he considered himself personally responsible for killing the best chance at an effective global-warming treaty — his response echoed Meyer-Abich. “It couldn’t have happened,” he told me, “because, frankly, the leaders in the world at that time were at a stage where they were all looking how to seem like they were supporting the policy without having to make hard commitments that would cost their nations serious resources.” He added, “Frankly, that’s about where we are today.”

While nosing around, I came across this article by Bjorn Lomborg (a notable economist who has come out against most climate change mitigation):

Looking into the future, it’s likely that hurricanes will indeed become somewhat stronger by the end of the century. They will also likely become less frequent, and societies will definitely become more robust. A respected Nature review shows that hurricane damage currently costs 0.04% of global gross domestic product. Accounting for an increase in prosperity, this would drop fourfold to 0.01% by 2100. But the global warming factor making hurricanes fewer but stronger will mean total damage will end around 0.02%.

This shows that global warming is a problem, but it also shows us that even accounting for this, damages will decline.

[...]

Research shows that the Kyoto Protocol, the first major global deal to cut carbon and rein in temperatures (and, it would follow, help prevent hurricanes) failed to achieve a thing. The Paris climate treaty is on track to cost the globe about $1 trillion to $2 trillion per year for the rest of the century. The U.N. body responsible for the treaty estimates that the cuts promised until 2030 will achieve 1% of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2 Celsius, or 3.6 Fahrenheit.

What this suggests is that spending 1%-2% of GDP on climate policies could, at best, help avoid much, much less than 0.01% of GDP lost to hurricanes. That is an infuriatingly bad investment.

In other words, this sort of incredibly terrible economic trade-offs is why current climate change mitigation isn't going to happen on a large scale in the majority of the world that isn't wealthy and can't afford that sort of virtue signalling. There's obviously more harm to climate change than just a slight increase in sea level, but all of the costs of it have been exaggerated while the costs of mitigation have been ignored.

Finally, I think it's worth reinvestigating the key dynamic that kills climate change mitigation. Poverty is the leading cause of climate change and other environmental harm not wealth. Extremely poor people can't afford to care about climate change. Here's a 2013 story that illustrates that. A Willis Eschenbach talks about several examples of where poverty destroys the environment (such as the notable different in tree coverage between deforested and more impoverished Haiti and neighboring, better forested San Domingo), a key one was a story about some shenanigans in the Solomon Islands where local people sold out for pennies on the dollar to logging companies.

So that inexpensive purchase of the island councilors, I heard it was ten grand US$ per man, gave the logging company the right to negotiate a contract with the locals if they wanted to sign. One afternoon, some of the young Vella Lavella guys made the trip over to the island where I lived to ask if I would help them. I bought the beers, and we talked about the logging company. They said that they’d been agitating to convince the people to keep the company out and take care of their own forests. But the sentiment among the people was against them. They wanted the easy money, just sit back and let the company do the work.

So Mr. Eschenbach tries to help with predictable results.

So I went over the whole document and marked it up. Then I met up with the guys again, and we went over the whole thing, clause by clause. I’d re-written about two-thirds of the clauses, and I’d worked with my friend the Public Solicitor, and we’d put together a document that would be a good deal for the locals. The loggers would still make out, but like businessmen, not like highway robbers.

[...]

So the big night came for the meeting. Everyone showed up, loggers and islanders. I played the genial host, and left them to discuss the fate of the forest.

And in the morning? They all came out, shamefaced. I took one look, and my heart sank. I asked one of the old guys, one of the big men, what had happened. “Oh, the logger men were very nice! Can you imagine, they gave us a whole case of Black Label whiskey. They explained the contract, and it sounded wonderful, so we signed it” … oh, man, my blood was angrified mightily and I was in grave danger of waxing wroth … but I knew the old man, and he wasn’t a bad guy, just weak. So I curbed my tongue and shook my head, and I said that his sons might approve, but his grand children would wonder why he sold their birthright for pennies … then I went and talked to the young guys. They said they couldn’t stop it, once the big men were drunk they got combative and wouldn’t listen to anyone and they would have signed anything.

After some rhetorical soul-searching

And at the end of the day, I realized that I was on a fool’s errand. Oh, I’d fight the fight again, in a minute, but I’d lose again. It’s what happens when big money hits a poor country—the environment gets screwed, whether it’s logging, fishing, or mining. Until the country is wealthy enough to feed its citizens and to protect itself, its resources are always on sale to the lowest bidder … by which I mean the bidder with the lowest morals.

Now, I started this sad tale for a reason, to give substance to the damage that poverty does to the environment. When you can buy an island council for ten grand a man and there are literally millions of dollars at stake, that council will get bought no matter how hard I fight against it. Per capita GDP in the Solomons is about $600 annually, it’s classed as an “LDC”, a Least Developed Country … and in a country where ten thousand dollars is almost twenty years wages, you can buy many people for ten large …

And concludes:

So this is where I came in, explaining about how people fighting against CO2 hurt the environment. Let me repeat the links in the chain:

1. Led in part by the environmental NGOs, many people and governments have declared war on CO2.

2. Their preferred method of warfare is to raise energy prices, through subsidies, bans, taxes, renewable energy requirements, pipeline refusals, and the like.

3. The rise in energy prices both impoverishes the poor and prevents the development of poor countries.

4. As Obama pointed out, even wealthy people with economic worries tend to ignore the environment … so stomping on the development possibilities of poor countries by raising energy prices is a guarantee of years of environmental damage and destruction.

I'll note also that poor people tend to be fertile people.

In other words, the attempts to fix climate and environmental problems makes the conditions which created the problems even worse. This is self-defeating. One doesn't need to be blocked by Big Oil propaganda when doing more harm than good and people figure that out.

And that brings me back to the fundamental tragedy of the earlier journal article. There, the author repeatedly describes all the harms that supposedly will accrue from climate change (pathologically reproducing the behavior that discredited him in the first place) while completely ignoring the harm that comes from his destructive fixes for climate change. Why should we listen and agree with this one-sided argument?

Venezuelan Officials Say President Nicolás Maduro Is Unharmed After Drone 'Attack'

My son, Osama: the al-Qaida leader’s mother speaks for the first time

Editor’s Note: This narrative by Nathaniel Rich is a work of history, addressing the 10-year period from 1979 to 1989: the decisive decade when humankind first came to a broad understanding of the causes and dangers of climate change. Complementing the text is a series of aerial photographs and videos, all shot over the past year by George Steinmetz. With support from the Pulitzer Center, this two-part article is based on 18 months of reporting and well over a hundred interviews. It tracks the efforts of a small group of American scientists, activists and politicians to raise the alarm and stave off catastrophe. It will come as a revelation to many readers — an agonizing revelation — to understand how thoroughly they grasped the problem and how close they came to solving it.

But one merely needs to read the preface to the article to see the very overt motive:

The world has warmed more than one degree Celsius since the Industrial Revolution. The Paris climate agreement — the nonbinding, unenforceable and already unheeded treaty signed on Earth Day in 2016 — hoped to restrict warming to two degrees. The odds of succeeding, according to a recent study based on current emissions trends, are one in 20. If by miracle we are able to limit warming to two degrees, we will only have to negotiate the extinction of the world’s tropical reefs, sea-level rise of several meters and the abandonment of the Persian Gulf. The climate scientist James Hansen has called two-degree warming “a prescription for long-term disaster.” Long-term disaster is now the best-case scenario. Three-degree warming is a prescription for short-term disaster: forests in the Arctic and the loss of most coastal cities. Robert Watson, a former director of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has argued that three-degree warming is the realistic minimum. Four degrees: Europe in permanent drought; vast areas of China, India and Bangladesh claimed by desert; Polynesia swallowed by the sea; the Colorado River thinned to a trickle; the American Southwest largely uninhabitable. The prospect of a five-degree warming has prompted some of the world’s leading climate scientists to warn of the end of human civilization.

What is remarkable about this is that it's completely pulled out of the author's ass without support from actual research (and no, I don't consider extrapolations from computer models that have little to do with reality as actual research). I get that a 5C increase in global temperature probably will result in significant problems for mankind. But there's no consideration here of what actually will happen or how adaptable humanity will be to it (protip: humanity turns out to be quite adaptable to such things). What could have been an interesting study of that period of climatology has turned into yet more preaching.

What I see here is one sad person's acknowledgement that the con is over. They will never again have a population as gullible as we were in 1989. Here's a telling two paragraphs:

The answer, as any economist could tell you, is very little. Economics, the science of assigning value to human behavior, prices the future at a discount; the farther out you project, the cheaper the consequences. This makes the climate problem the perfect economic disaster. The Yale economist William D. Nordhaus, a member of Jimmy Carter’s Council of Economic Advisers, argued in the 1970s that the most appropriate remedy was a global carbon tax. But that required an international agreement, which Nordhaus didn’t think was likely. Michael Glantz, a political scientist who was at the National Center for Atmospheric Research at the time, argued in 1979 that democratic societies are constitutionally incapable of dealing with the climate problem. The competition for resources means that no single crisis can ever command the public interest for long, yet climate change requires sustained, disciplined efforts over decades. And the German physicist-philosopher Klaus Meyer-Abich argued that any global agreement would inevitably favor the most minimal action. Adaptation, Meyer-Abich concluded, “seems to be the most rational political option.” It is the option that we have pursued, consciously or not, ever since.

These theories share a common principle: that human beings, whether in global organizations, democracies, industries, political parties or as individuals, are incapable of sacrificing present convenience to forestall a penalty imposed on future generations. When I asked John Sununu about his part in this history — whether he considered himself personally responsible for killing the best chance at an effective global-warming treaty — his response echoed Meyer-Abich. “It couldn’t have happened,” he told me, “because, frankly, the leaders in the world at that time were at a stage where they were all looking how to seem like they were supporting the policy without having to make hard commitments that would cost their nations serious resources.” He added, “Frankly, that’s about where we are today.”

This last bit in a nutshell is why they lost. It wasn't that people didn't care about the climate or near future convenience (excuses which conveniently allowed these theorists to ignore that important things are done with the burning of fossil fuels). It's that climate change mitigation required huge sacrifices for little gain in the present and future. Thus, while politicians could afford the pretense of caring about climate change, they couldn't actually afford to plunge their countries into greater poverty for this green ideology.

I think we're seeing a glimpse of the end game for the current bout of climate change ideology, namely, that the Chicken Littles of the world spin grand and nostalgic tales of how we could have prevented global disaster, if only we had remained as gullible as we used to be.

I think however there is a more important lesson to learn for those who wish to. Credibility is important here. When one lies and hides evidence for the good of the world [edit: in particular, exaggerating both the harm expected and degree of confidence in the science, both which the author above does], they lose credibility and the public trust. That happened over the past two decades. They may still get what they want, but it becomes an uphill battle with every victory dearly won and defeat possible even at the hands of opponents with minuscule resources.

Sad to say, this author didn't learn that lesson and instead doubles-down, making all sorts of claims of impending disaster with that peculiar lack of evidence. This is why we're where we are now.