Psychology

Subheadline

Nominated for a Webby award, Defy Dementia was created by Allison Sekuler, a researcher at the Baycrest Centre and ��˾��ֱ�� psychology professor, and science communicator Jay Ingram

Cognitive neuroscientist Allison Sekuler says she and science communicator Jay Ingram launched the Defy Dementia podcast to empower people to make simple changes to improve their brain health.

What she didn’t expect was that the project would inspire her to make changes of her own.

As the Baycrest Centre’s Sandra A. Rotman Chair in cognitive neuroscience at the Rotman Research Institute and president and chief scientist of Baycrest Academy for Research and Education and Centre for Aging + Brain Health Innovation, Sekuler is well-versed in the growing body of science linking dementia risk to lifestyle factors such as social isolation, sleep and exercise.

But when Defy Dementia launched a year ago, Sekuler admits that she had fallen into a rut on the fitness front. Despite continuing to pay monthly membership fees, she hadn’t set foot in a gym since the COVID-19 lockdowns in early 2020.

That soon changed as she and Ingram heard from listeners who were putting the podcast’s advice into practice.

“It’s been gratifying, intellectually, that we're able to make a difference in people's lives,” says Sekuler, who is a professor of psychology in the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Arts & Science. “But it's also had a deep personal impact on me, inspiring me to get myself up off the couch and start becoming more active.”

In particular, she credits two podcast conversations with getting her back into the gym: a pep talk from octogenarian bodybuilder Ernestine Shepherd, and the story of listener-turned-guest Ravi Venkatesh, an IT specialist in Mississauga, Ont., who told the hosts how the podcast had motivated him to recommit to his yoga regimen.

As Sekuler sees it, she’s just one beneficiary of the community of learning that has sprung up around Defy Dementia, which is currently vying for a voter-chosen Webby Award for podcasts in the health, wellness and lifestyle category (voting is open until April 18).

A general term encompassing several diseases that impair memory, thinking and reasoning, dementia is projected to afflict 150 million people by 2050, including more than one million in Canada, according to research published in The Lancet.

“Obviously, nobody wants to get dementia, and there are things you can do to decrease your risk. But even people who are living with the disease, it's not necessarily, you know, a death sentence,” says Sekuler, whose research specializes in the links between perception, memory and aging.

“Our goal was … to portray a realistic view of the disease and of aging, but [also] to show the possibilities that are there.”

Sekuler is among the scientists at the Baycrest Centre working to advance the field of “precision aging,” applying the principles of precision medicine to aging and brain health to detect, treat and care for people with dementia in a personalized way.

Research suggests we have more control over dementia than one might think – a 2020 report by the Lancet Commission found a dozen modifiable risk factors account for 40 per cent of dementias, including hearing impairment, smoking and obesity – but Sekuler stresses that many of the interventions under development are only effective if the disease is caught early.

Hence, a key challenge facing the field is the popular belief that dementia is a disease determined solely by your genes.

On Defy Dementia, Sekuler and Ingram, who have been collaborating since the 1990s, push back against this misconception by offering tips on reducing risk through lifestyle changes. That includes episodes focused on subjects such as cognitive engagement, nutrition, sleep and stress.

Sekuler attributes much of the podcast’s resonance to its format. Each episode features one guest sharing their personal experience with dementia, followed by a scientist who responds to the story with expert context and insights.

“It made the science that much more accessible and relatable,” she says.

Sekuler says she was surprised to find that people of all ages are tuning in – not just the older crowd that she and Ingram initially expected to attract.

“You’re never too young or too old to take care of your brain,” Sekuler says. “The sooner you start taking actions to improve your lifestyle, the more it becomes a habit for you throughout your life.”

Personality type can help predict who's single or in a relationship - and how happy they are: Study

Christopher.Sorensen — Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:20:47 +0000

Personality type can help predict who's single or in a relationship - and how happy they are: Study

Christopher.Sorensen Wed, 04/10/2024 - 13:20

Cutline

(photo by Prostock Studio/Getty Images)

Josslyn Johnstone

Topic

Breaking Research

Graduate Students

Subheadline

"Our study contributes to a more complex picture of single lives that goes beyond the misleading stereotype of the miserable single person”

The phrase “single life” may conjure images of a busy Sex and the City-like social calendar, packed with dates and drama. But researchers at the University of Toronto say most singles are actually introverts – a far cry from the extroverted stereotypes we often see depicted in movies and on TV.

In a study published recently in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, the researchers reveal how certain personality traits – particularly how extroverted, conscientious and neurotic someone is – predict who is likelier to be single or in a relationship.

It’s one of several links between personality, well-being and relationship status described in the research.

Elaine Hoan (supplied image)

“As marriage rates decline and more people live alone, our study contributes to a more complex picture of single lives that goes beyond the misleading stereotype of the miserable single person,” says lead author Elaine Hoan, a PhD candidate in in the lab of Geoff MacDonald, a professor in the department of psychology in the Faculty of Arts & Science.

“While on average people in relationships are more satisfied with their lives than single people, there are many happy singles – relationships don't play as big of a role in one’s overall life satisfaction as you may think.

“We found that personality, more than relationship status, determines who is happy with their life and who isn’t.”

For the study, researchers recruited over 1,800 participants between the ages of 20 and 59 who had either been single for at least six months or in a relationship for at least six months. Participants completed a set of questionnaires that measured personality, satisfaction with relationship status, sexual satisfaction and life satisfaction to shed light on how personality traits affect well-being in the context of relationship status.

For the personality measurement, Hoan used the “Big Five” model of personality, which focuses on the following traits: extroversion (outgoing and high-energy), agreeableness (compassionate and respectful), conscientiousness (productive and dependable), neuroticism (anxious and depressed) and openness (curious and creative).

Where someone fell on the introversion and extraversion scale was more strongly related to whether they would be single or in a relationship.

“In a world that caters to extroverts, introverts are misrepresented as antisocial,” says Hoan. “The reality is, introverts enjoy their alone time and independence, and can emotionally regulate – meaning, they can manage their reactions to their feelings on their own. So, an introvert may prefer being single more than being in a relationship.

“On the other hand, extroverts are happier than introverts in general – regardless of whether they were single or not – and introversion makes it a bit tougher to get into a relationship in the first place because introverts may not find themselves in social situations as often.

“Other existing research also suggests that being in a relationship may make someone more extroverted, by increasing confidence and widening their social circle.”

The researchers also found notable, though weaker, connections to the traits of conscientiousness and neuroticism. Single people were less likely to identify with descriptors like “keeps things neat and tidy” and “gets things done” and agreed more strongly with phrases like “can be tense”, “often feels sad” and “is temperamental.”

“Conscientious people are more likely to be goal-oriented, especially towards traditional goals like getting a job and getting married, as well as exhibit a strong work ethic, so that may feed into their desire and ability to start and commit to a romantic relationship,” says Hoan. “Depressive symptoms like sadness and low energy may make it more difficult to pursue and maintain a relationship – while the emotional support you get in a romantic relationship could reduce these symptoms.”

Next, Hoan is researching happiness in married versus unmarried people. She hopes her work continues to challenge societal misconceptions about who people are and how they choose to live their lives, whether in a relationship or not.

“There is stigma associated with being single – you know, people saying, ‘You’d be happier if you were in a relationship, so why aren’t you?’ – when that’s not necessarily true for everyone,” she says.

“I hope what people take from our research is the idea that you don’t have to be someone you’re not – just be yourself.”

Little evidence linking five 'love languages' to healthy relationships, researchers say

Christopher.Sorensen — Thu, 04 Jan 2024 15:16:15 +0000

Little evidence linking five 'love languages' to healthy relationships, researchers say

Christopher.Sorensen Thu, 01/04/2024 - 10:16

Cutline

Assumptions around love languages, such as physical touch and gifts, don't hold up to scientific scrutiny, according to research by ��˾��ֱ�� Mississauga psychologist Emily Impett and her research partners (photo via Pexels)

Topic

��˾��ֱ�� Mississauga

Subheadline

��˾��ֱ�� Mississauga's Emily Impett and her collaborators say good relationships are more like a balanced diet, where people receive a wide range of essential nutrients

Even if you don’t know your love language, you’ve probably heard of the concept.

The theory’s pervasiveness in pop culture has only increased in the 30-odd years since Baptist minister Gary Chapman published his book The Five Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts.

But when psychology researchers at the University of Toronto decided to test Chapman’s main assumptions, they found they don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Emily Impett (supplied image)

“We were very skeptical about the love languages idea, so we decided to review the existing studies on it,” says Emily Impett, a professor in ��˾��ֱ�� Mississauga’s department of psychology who collaborated with graduate student Gideon Park and York University Assistant Professor Amy Muise.

“None of the 10 studies supported Chapman’s claims.”

For example, Chapman uses the language metaphor to represent how individuals tend to prefer giving and receiving love. The notion rests on three premises: that every person has a primary love language, that there are five love languages (physical touch, words of affirmation, acts of service, quality time and gifts), and that when couples “speak” the same love language it improves the quality of their relationships.

But each of these assertions broke down when Impett and her team evaluated them against the 10 studies they reviewed (the team’s results are scheduled to be published in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science).

“People determine their primary love language by taking Chapman’s quiz, which forces them to select the expressions of love they find most meaningful,” says Impett, who is also the director of the Relationships and Well-Being Laboratory. “It could be choosing between receiving gifts or holding hands, for example. These are trade-offs we don’t have to make in real life.

“In fact, people report that they find all of the things described by the love languages to be incredibly important in a relationship.”

When it comes to the number of love languages, the studies found inconsistent evidence for the five languages Chapman identifies, while other relationship research shows there are additional ways of expressing and receiving love.

“One key thing to remember is that Chapman developed the five love languages by working with a sample of white, religious, mixed-gender, traditional couples,” says Impett. “There are certain things that are left out, such as affirming a partner’s personal goals outside of the relationship, which might be significant to couples with more egalitarian values.”

Most importantly, Impett and her team found no scientific evidence for Chapman’s central contention that people who choose partners that speak their love language, or learn to speak it, will have more successful relationships.

“There’s no support for this matching effect,” says Impett. “People are basically happier in relationships when they receive any of these expressions of love.”

Impett and her collaborators recognize that people crave easy tools to enhance their love lives – which helps explain why Chapman’s book has sold millions of copies and turned the “love languages” into romantic shorthand.

“Everyone wants to be in a good relationship, so we didn’t just say the love languages are scientifically debunked and stop there,” she says.

The team offered an alternative metaphor – one that’s rooted in research. It proposes that relationships are a balanced diet, where people need a full range of essential nutrients (including the factors described by the five love languages and others such as companionship and emotional support) to nourish lasting love.

“It keeps all expressions of love on the menu and invites partners to share what they need at different times,” says Impett. “It allows for the fact that people and relationships aren’t static and can’t be categorized into neat boxes.”

This is not the first time Impett has put common beliefs about relationships to the test. “I really like challenging these lay ideas because my goal is always to translate the best scientific evidence to therapists and the general public,” she says.

In his latest book, ��˾��ֱ�� prof tells the story of the human mind

Christopher.Sorensen — Wed, 22 Nov 2023 19:10:20 +0000

In his latest book, ��˾��ֱ�� prof tells the story of the human mind

Christopher.Sorensen Wed, 11/22/2023 - 14:10

Cutline

Paul Bloom, a professor of psychology, provides an overview of major aspects of psychology in his seventh book: Psych: The Story of the Human Mind (photo by Greg Martin)

Chris Sasaki

Topic

Our Community

Subheadline

Paul Bloom says psychology is "about the most interesting topic there is – us"

Paul Bloom’s latest book kicks off by recounting a daydream in which he quits his job as a psychology professor to venture into the world of cosmology.

But his fantasy of studying the vast reaches of the universe was brief because, he writes, “...all of psychology gives me this buzz. It’s about the most interesting topic there is – us. It’s about our feelings, experiences, plans, goals, fantasies, the most intimate aspects of our being.”

A professor in the University of Toronto’s department of psychology in the Faculty of Arts & Science, Bloom’s research focuses on developmental psychology, personality and how we make sense of the world – with a particular interest in pleasure, morality, religion, fiction and art.

His seventh book, Psych: The Story of the Human Mind, had its origins in the introductory psychology course Bloom taught at Yale University and, as such, provides an excellent overview of major aspects of psychology.

In its pages, he attempts to “put forth the best answers we have” to the fundamental questions most have pondered: How does the brain give rise to intelligence and conscious experience? Where does knowledge come from? How and why do we differ in personality, intelligence and other traits? How does the mind of a child differ from that of an adult? What makes people happy?

He also provides an overview of the different schools of psychological thought that offered their own best answers to the queries.

He describes the mechanistic or materialist point of view that our thoughts and emotions are the output of a vast assembly of nerve cells and the result of interactions between various molecules – or as Nobel Prize-winner and co-discoverer of the helical structure of DNA Francis Crick wrote: “Brain makes thought.”

He also describes “Cartesian dualism,” named for French philosopher and scientist René Descartes – the idea that our minds and our physical selves are distinct entities. In other words, we are bodies and souls. We feel certain, Bloom writes, “we are not our bodies; we inhabit these bodies. We are Ghosts in the Shell.”

Psych is filled with anecdotes and intriguing facts that help explain psychological principles and bring them to life – insights that would’ve sparked curiosity and interest among the students who either enrolled in the Yale course or took the online version of it that Bloom later developed.

He tells the story of Phineas Gage, who in 1848, while working on the construction of a railway, had a metal rod blasted through his brain. Gage survived and retained the ability to speak and understand language, as well as other intellectual capacities. However, Gage eventually suffered severe changes to his personality and emotional states, began having seizures and died – a clear demonstration of how physical damage to the brain affects who we are.

Bloom wrote the book during COVID-19, and he uses the pandemic to discuss the question: “If we’re so smart, why do we often seem so dumb?” Why is Holocaust denial still rampant, why do some believe 9/11 was an “inside job,” why are there so many followers of QAnon who believe, among other absurdities, that the actor Tom Hanks is a Satanist?

And why has COVID-19 become so politicized with so little regard to science? In writing about conspiracy theories like these, Bloom describes how beliefs about the disease contrast starkly between Democrats and Republicans (with neither side having a monopoly on accuracy). He cites a study showing that subjects supported a hypothetical government program, not on its merits, but on whether they were told it was a Democratic or Republican initiative.

Nonetheless, Bloom is optimistic and writes that, despite our irrationality, “... we are also the animal that is capable of acting intelligently for the long-term good...and tries to see things as they really are.”

The questions of consciousness and mind that Bloom raises in his book point to just how vast the story of the human mind is – despite its miniscule size compared to, say, a galaxy.

“The more you look at the mind and how it works from a serious scientific point of view, the more you appreciate its complexity, its uniqueness, and its beauty.”

Addicted to our devices: Researchers track global patterns of smartphone use

Christopher.Sorensen — Wed, 08 Nov 2023 14:58:05 +0000

Addicted to our devices: Researchers track global patterns of smartphone use

Christopher.Sorensen Wed, 11/08/2023 - 09:58

Cutline

Researchers surveyed more than 50,000 participants across 195 countries in a bid to understand who is at risk of smartphone addiction (photo by Erin Li/Pexels)

Topic

��˾��ֱ�� Mississauga

��˾��ֱ�� Scarborough

Subheadline

Survey suggests likelihood of problematic smartphone use greater among women, young people

Are you addicted to your smartphone? If so, you're not alone.

A team of researchers at the University of Toronto have collected the largest set of data in any study regarding problematic smartphone use.

The study – published in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction – found that among 41 countries with at least 100 participants, women scored higher than men in problematic smartphone use, with the results being inversely proportional to age. That is, the older a user is, the less likely they are to have problematic smartphone use.

“We weren’t expecting this kind of robust consistency,” says study co-author Jay Olson, a post-doctoral researcher in the department of psychology at ��˾��ֱ�� Mississauga.

Jay Olson (photo by Gabriel Helfant)

The data also allowed researchers – including Dasha Sandra, a PhD student in the department of psychological clinical science at ��˾��ֱ�� Scarborough – to identify geographic patterns since it covered multiple countries across several continents.

The highest scores of problematic use were found in Southeast Asia, while the lowest were in Europe.

Olson says the results prompt “fundamental questions in the field” such as: Why are women shown to have higher rates of problematic smartphone use? What is it about young people that increases their likelihood of problematic use? And what are the social and cultural differences from country to country that influence these results?

The researchers collected survey responses from 50,423 participants aged 18 to 90 across 195 countries. Survey participants answered questions according to the Smartphone Addiction Scale, a widely used measure to study problematic smartphone use.

Olson says problematic use among women may have something to do with how each gender generally uses their smartphones.

“Researchers think women tend to use their phones more for social reasons: communication with friends and family via social media,” he says, adding that uses related to social validation (for example, “likes” on Instagram) are “the kinds of uses that can build habits very quickly.”

It’s not that men don’t use their phones for social reasons, he says, but it’s believed they tend to use fewer social functions such as keeping up with group chats, connecting with family or following influencers.

The research team aims to test this hypothesis as they continue to analyze the data.

Problematic usage can also reflect distress or anguish experienced by individuals.

“People try to avoid negative emotions by using their phone – kind of like an adult pacifier,” he says, noting differences in both gender and age can be related to differences in distress levels.

The research also accounts for cultural differences around smartphone use. Using an index of “cultural tightness” and “cultural looseness,” researchers examined the data through varying social norms across the globe. The distinction can also be made by examining collectivist cultures – which prioritize group connections – versus individualist cultures.

Their hypothesis is that strictness of social norms plays a role in smartphone use. In an individualistic culture, for example, “it’s not expected that you would be calling your family every day,” Olson says.

Another factor is the number of available screens competing for users’ attention. Olson notes that some countries bypassed widespread laptop and desktop computers in favour of developing mobile data networks, meaning that smartphones became people’s primary computing device. For example, Europe, which recorded the lowest rates of problematic use, has been using the internet since it first arrived on personal computers in the 1980s and 1990s. Southeast Asia, by contrast, recorded the highest rates of problematic use and had widespread adoption of the internet via smartphones in just the last 15 years.

“It explains some differences in screen time,” Olson says.

Not all smartphone use is problematic since it largely depends on how an individual is using a phone.

“A social media manager could be logging eight hours of screen time a day, but this doesn’t necessarily have a problematic effect on your life versus somebody who uses their phone for half an hour from midnight to 12:30 a.m. while trying to fall asleep,” Olson explains.

The research team plans to run a longer-term version of the survey to track smartphone use over time. It’s also looking into developing a habit-based intervention for problematic smartphone usage, for which data like this is critical.

“This is in some sense a global experiment,” Olson says. “Smartphones became popular around 2008 and we’re just tracking the effects of this globally, post-hoc.”

Infants prefer live music over recorded version, study finds

lanthierj — Mon, 17 Jul 2023 19:22:00 +0000

Infants prefer live music over recorded version, study finds

lanthierj Mon, 07/17/2023 - 15:22

Cutline

Research found that babies' heart rates synchronized and they were more engaged when watching live music, compared to a recording of the same performance (photo by Envato Elements)

Topic

University of Toronto Scarborough

Subheadline

New research from ��˾��ֱ��'s TEMPO Lab suggests that even babies feel the impact of being at a live show, through both musicians’ interactions with an audience and the social experience of being in a crowd

You don't have to be an adult to feel the power of live opera – even babies prefer to attend in person, a new study suggests.

When infants watched a live performance of a baby opera, their heart rates synchronized and they were significantly more engaged than babies who watched an identical recording of the show, researchers say.

Laura Cirelli (supplied image)

“Their heart rates were speeding up and slowing down in a similar fashion to other babies watching the show,” says Laura Cirelli, assistant professor in the department of psychology at the University of Toronto Scarborough and co-author of a new study published in the journal Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts.

“Those babies were dealing with all these distractions in the concert hall, but still had these uninterrupted bursts of attention.”

The findings suggest that even babies feel the impact of being at a live show, through both musicians’ interactions with an audience and the social experience of being in a crowd. Cirelli recalls moments during the performance when a calm would sweep over the babies, and other times when a change in pitch or vocal riff would excite them all.

She says this may offer insights into why humans are hardwired to consume music and attend live shows.

“If there’s something happening that we collectively are engaging with, we’re also connecting with each other. It speaks to the shared experience,” says Cirelli, director of the TEMPO Lab, which studies how infants and children respond to music.

“The implication is that this is not necessarily specific to this one performance. If there’s these moments that capture us, then we are being captured together.”

It’s well established that socialization is crucial during early childhood development – an infant’s brain is laying the groundwork for future life skills and abilities as it grows. Cirelli says music can play a powerful part in making those important bonds. She points to research finding infants are more likely to socialize with someone after hearing them sing a familiar song or dancing to music with them, and that infants have strong emotional reactions to music and song even before their first birthday.

“We consistently find that music can be a highly social and emotional context within which infants can foster connections to their caregivers, other family members and even new acquaintances,” she says. “This audience study shows that even in a community context, infants are engaging with the music and connecting to their fellow audience members.”

Babies watched a selection of songs from The Music Box, an operatic performance designed for infants
(submitted photo)

For the study, researchers examined 120 babies ages six to 14 months as they watched a children’s opera performed at a concert hall that doubles as a research facility at McMaster University (61 babies watched in person, while the other 59 watched a recorded version).

Researchers meticulously broadcast the recording so that the performers were at the same size, distance and volume as the live version. The babies’ responses were tracked through heart monitors and tablets mounted on the backs of concert seats. Later, student research assistants combed through the footage to note when babies looked at the stage and when they looked away.

The live performance captured the babies' attention for 72 per cent of the 12-minute show while the recording held their attention for 54 per cent of the time. The live show also had infants continuously watching for longer bouts of time.

“Even little babies who may or may not have experienced music in a community context before are already engaging more when it’s delivered this way,” Cirelli says.

“That’s one question we have as music cognition researchers: What is it about the live experience that's worth it? Why would people go if there’s not something fundamental about that live music experience that's above and beyond listening to music by yourself?”

That’s not to say babies find virtual performances boring. After the onset of the pandemic, the researchers virtually studied one group of babies as they watched the same recording in their homes over Zoom. Those babies paid about as much attention as the ones who attended the live show – watching about 64 per cent on average – but they were more likely to become distracted and have shorter bursts of attention.

“The babies watching at home didn’t have the distraction of being in a new place – they were in their comfort zone,” Cirelli says. "But even without distractions, the quality of their attention was still not nearly as strong as the audience in the live condition.”

The study – which was co-authored by former TEMPO Lab postdoctoral researcher Haley Kragness, now an assistant professor at Bucknell University – will also feed into some of Cirelli’s other work.

In a different study, she and a team of researchers are exploring whether a live performance over Zoom has the same impact on engagement as a live performance in person, and whether musicians’ interactions with an audience can play a similarly powerful role in capturing attention.

Yet another study will investigate whether live performances affect their memory of the event and how watching a live performance versus a recorded version affects how they feel about the performer.

“If a baby is frequently brought to these kinds of events, will that shape their foundation for engaging in music and the community later in childhood?” Cirelli asks.

“It speaks to why we even engage with music at all.”

The study was funded by the ��˾��ֱ�� Connaught New Researcher Award and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Researchers explore shifting AI landscape at Absolutely Interdisciplinary conference

siddiq22 — Wed, 12 Jul 2023 19:00:25 +0000

Researchers explore shifting AI landscape at Absolutely Interdisciplinary conference

siddiq22 Wed, 07/12/2023 - 15:00

Cutline

Participants at the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society’s annual conference, Absolutely Interdisciplinary, discussed what AI can teach us about social systems, cognition, education, creativity and more (supplied image)

Topic

Our Community

Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society

Artificial Intelligence

Centre for Ethics

Computer Science

machine learning

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

Researchers across disciplines gathered recently at the Absolutely Interdisciplinary conference to reckon with the ramifications of the evolving AI landscape – from the technology’s transformative impacts on work and education, to its implications for human cognition and values.

The third annual academic conference held by the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society (SRI) at the University of Toronto featured 23 speakers from diverse fields such as computer science, psychology, law, economics, education, philosophy, media studies, and literature.

“The recent impacts of generative AI tools have really emphasized how important it is to build spaces for interdisciplinary conversations,” said SRI Director and Chair Gillian Hadfield, the inaugural Schwartz Reisman Chair in Technology and Society, CIFAR AI Chair and professor in the Faculty of Law and Rotman School of Management.

“Our goal with Absolutely Interdisciplinary is to foster new research agendas based in the creative interplay of diverse questions and framings as we explore the potentials of these new technologies.”

Cognition, storytelling and the future of intelligence

The conference featured an opening keynote by Blaise Agüera y Arcas, vice-president and fellow at Google Research, and a regular participant in developing cross-disciplinary dialogues about AI and ethics, fairness and bias, policy and risk.

“We’re all going through a bit of existential angst because most of us believe that we have been the smartest things on Earth for some time now,” he said. “I don’t think that will any longer be the case.”

In his keynote lecture, Blaise Agüera y Arcas of Google Research spoke about the history and potential future of AI development (supplied image)

Exploring the historical connections between neuroscience, computer science and cognitive science, Agüera y Arcas discussed the progress made in visual perception by neural networks in recent years, and delved into the concept of artificial general intelligence (AGI), including ongoing debates on whether AI might become sentient and pose a risk to humans.

“Some people take AGI to mean superintelligence, others take it to mean consciousness,” said Agüera y Arcas, who highlighted storytelling as an essential quality of human experience, and how the construction of personal narratives about ourselves and our past help to predict our future.

“We are the stories that we tell ourselves,” Agüera y Arca noted. “And as we interact with people, we construct and edit that story over time.”

AI, learning and the role of education

In a session pairing psychology with computational neuroscience, Joel Leibo of Google DeepMind and SRI Faculty Fellow William Cunningham, a professor in ��˾��ֱ��’s department of psychology, presented their ongoing work on modeling human social interactions using artificial agents to test social cognitive theory.

Leibo and Cunningham showed that by simulating coordination games in multi-agent reinforcement learning, they could test the origins of very human things like in-group bias and coalition-building.

SRI Research Lead Ashton Anderson, assistant professor in the department of computer science, moderated another session on learning from a different perspective: the implications of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT for educators and students.

Panelist Lauren Bialystok, an associate professor of social justice education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and acting director of ��˾��ֱ��’s Centre for Ethics, offered ideas on why we value the concept of “originality” and discipline students who violate it by using ChatGPT to write assignments.

“What is the benchmark against which cheating emerges as a moral wrong or a pedagogical error?” asked Bialystok.

“Is technology the enemy of originality? What about individual originality versus collective originality? We need to start sussing out what really matters to us in student learning and student assessment.”

From left to right: Moderator Nicolas Papernot with panelists William Cunningham and Joel Leibo, who described how multi-agent reinforcement learning can be used to test aspects of social cognitive theory (supplied image)

AI’s capabilities, behaviours and harms

One of the more frequent fears cited about AI is that it will replace workers – a subject tackled in a session moderated by SRI Research Lead Avi Goldfarb, the Rotman Chair in Artificial Intelligence and Healthcare and a professor of marketing at the Rotman School of Management. Economist Daniel Rock of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School shared his recent findings on which occupations are most likely to be impacted by large language models.

“People who process information [and] have knowledge as part of their work are more exposed,” said Rock, who noted that this exposure can be harmful or helpful.

“One of the key things for economists to add to this conversation is equilibrium,” Rock said. “It’s not just about AI replacing workers – there’s complementary innovation to be done here; there’s supply and demand; there’s the question of whether making one part of work cheap makes another part of it very expensive. There is a lot more work to be done here.”

New languages, new frameworks for understanding

The conference closed with a session on AI and creativity led by SRI Faculty Fellow Avery Slater, an assistant professor in the department of English in the Faculty of Arts & Science. The session featured presentations by literary scholar N. Katherine Hayles, whose work has focused on relations between science, literature and technology, and U.K.-based poet Polly Denny, who presented her experiments with text-generating AI systems that have yielded new forms of artistic collaboration.

Where Agüera y Arcas’s opening keynote highlighted the role of narration about the self as constitutive of what we might think of as AGI, Hayles also framed the question of whether AI is “alive” in similarly fundamental terms of how perception and meaning-making construct and define the environments in which we operate.

“Where there's life, there’s cognition. But computational media also have cognitive capabilities,” Hayles said.

Read the full story at the Schwartz Reisman Institute

Children are learning even if they don't pay attention: Study

Christopher.Sorensen — Wed, 21 Jun 2023 18:57:25 +0000

Children are learning even if they don't pay attention: Study

Christopher.Sorensen Wed, 06/21/2023 - 14:57

Cutline

(photo by Marko Geber/Getty Images)