Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Claire Wilcox, Adjunct Faculty in Psychiatry, University of New Mexico

People often joke that their favorite snack is “like crack” or call themselves “chocoholics” in jest.

But can someone really be addicted to food in the same way they could be hooked on substances such as alcohol or nicotine?

As an addiction psychiatrist and researcher with experience in treating eating disorders and obesity, I have been following the research in this field for the past few decades. I have written a textbook on food addiction, obesity and overeating disorders, and, more recently, a self-help book for people who have intense cravings and obsessions for some foods.

While there is still some debate among psychologists and scientists, a consensus is emerging that food addiction is a real phenomenon. Hundreds of studies have confirmed that certain foods – often those that are high in sugar and ultraprocessed – affect the brains and behavior of certain people similarly to other addictive substances such as nicotine.

Still, many questions remain about which foods are addictive, which people are most susceptible to this addiction and why. There are also questions as to how this condition compares to other substance addictions and whether the same treatments could work for patients struggling with any kind of addiction.

How does addiction work?

The neurobiological mechanisms of addiction have been mapped out through decades of laboratory-based research using neuroimaging and cognitive neuroscience approaches.

Studies show that preexisting genetic and environmental factors set the stage for developing an addiction. Regularly consuming an addictive substance then causes a rewiring of several important brain systems, leading the person to crave more and more of it.

This rewiring takes place in three key brain networks that correspond to key functional domains, often referred to as the reward system, the stress response system and the system in charge of executive control.

First, using an addictive substance causes the release of a chemical messenger called dopamine in the reward network, which makes the user feel good. Dopamine release also facilitates a neurobiological process called conditioning, which is basically a neural learning process that gives rise to habit formation.

As a result of the conditioning process, sensory cues associated with the substance start to have increasing influence over decision-making and behavior, often leading to a craving. For instance, because of conditioning, the sight of a needle can drive a person to set aside their commitment to quit using an injectable drug and return to it.

Second, continued use of an addictive substance over time affects the brain’s emotional or stress response network. The user’s body and mind build up a tolerance, meaning they need increasing amounts of the substance to feel its effect. The neurochemicals involved in this process are different than those mediating habit formation and include a chemical messenger called noradrenaline and internally produced opioids such as endorphins. If they quit using the substance, they experience symptoms of withdrawal, which can range from irritability and nausea to paranoia and seizures.

At that point, negative reinforcement kicks in. This is the process by which a person keeps going back to a substance because they’ve learned that using the substance doesn’t just feel good, but it also relieves negative emotions. During withdrawal from a substance, people feel profound emotional discomfort, including sadness and irritability. Negative reinforcement is why someone who is trying to quit smoking, for instance, will be at highest risk of relapse in the week just after stopping and during times of stress, because in the past they’d normally turn to cigarettes for relief.

Third, overuse of most addictive substances progressively damages the brain’s executive control network, the prefrontal cortex, and other key parts of the brain involved in impulse control and self-regulation. Over time, the damage to these areas makes it more and more difficult for the user to control their behavior around these substances. This is why it is so hard for long-term users of many addictive substances to quit.

What evidence is there that food is addictive?

Many studies over the past 25 years have shown that high-sugar and other highly pleasurable foods – often foods that are ultraprocessed – act on these brain networks in ways that are similar to other addictive substances. The resulting changes in the brain fuel further craving for and overuse of the substance – in this case, highly rewarding food.

Clinical studies have demonstrated that people with an addictive relationship to food demonstrate the hallmark signs of a substance use disorder.

Studies also indicate that for some people, cravings for highly palatable foods go well beyond just a normal hankering for a snack and are, in fact, signs of addictive behavior. One study found that cues associated with highly pleasurable foods activate the reward centers in the brain, and the degree of activation predicts weight gain. In other words, the more power the food cue has to capture a person’s attention, the more likely they are to succumb to cravings for it.

Multiple studies have also found that suddenly ending a diet that’s high in sugar can cause withdrawal, similar to when people quit opioids or nicotine.

Excessive exposure to high-sugar foods has also been found to reduce cognitive function and cause damage to the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, the parts of the brain that mediate executive control and memory.

In another study, when obese people were exposed to food and told to resist their craving for it by ignoring it or thinking about something else, their prefrontal cortexes were more active compared with nonobese individuals. This indicates that it was more difficult for the obese group to fight their cravings.

Finding safe treatments for patients struggling with food

Addiction recovery is often centered on the idea that the fastest way to get well is to abstain from the problem substance. But unlike nicotine or narcotics, food is something that all people need to survive, so quitting cold turkey isn’t an option.

In addition, eating disorders such as bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder often occur alongside addictive eating. Most psychologists and psychiatrists believe these illnesses have their root cause in excessive dietary restriction.

For this reason, many eating disorder treatment professionals balk at the idea of labeling some foods as addictive. They are concerned that encouraging abstinence from particular foods could trigger binge eating and extreme dieting to compensate.

A way forward

But others argue that, with care, integrating food addiction approaches into eating disorders treatment is feasible and could be lifesaving for some.

The emerging consensus around this link is moving researchers and those who treat eating disorders to consider food addiction in their treatment models.

One such approach might look like the one described to me by addiction psychiatrist and eating disorders specialist Dr. Kim Dennis. In line with traditional eating disorder treatment, nutritionists at her residential clinic strongly discourage their patients from restricting calories. At the same time, in line with traditional addiction treatment, they help their patients to consider significantly reducing or completely abstaining from particular foods to which they have developed an addictive relationship.

Additional clinical studies are already being carried out. But going forward, more studies are needed to help clinicians find the most effective treatments for people with an addictive relationship with food.

Efforts are underway by groups of psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists and mental health providers to get “ultraprocessed food use disorder,” also known as food addiction, into future editions of diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases.

Beyond acknowledging what those treating food addiction are already seeing in the field, this would help researchers get funding for additional studies of treating food addiction. With more information about what treatments will work best for whom, those who have these problems will no longer have to suffer in silence, and providers will be better equipped to help them.

I have two books for sale which address food addiction, and I could benefit financially from increased interest in the food addiction topic:

Wilcox C.E. Food Addiction Obesity and Disorders of Overeating: An Evidenced Based Assessment and Clinical Guide. (2021) Springer

Wilcox C. Rewire Your Food-Addicted Brain: Fight Cravings and Break Free from a High-Sugar Ultra-Processed Diet. (2025) New Harbinger Publications

– ref. Can you really be addicted to food? Researchers are uncovering convincing similarities to drug addiction – https://theconversation.com/can-you-really-be-addicted-to-food-researchers-are-uncovering-convincing-similarities-to-drug-addiction-261727

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Libby Richards, Professor of Nursing, Purdue University

As the autumn’s cool weather settles in, so does flu season – bringing with it the familiar experiences of sniffles, fever and cough.

Every year, influenza – the flu – affects millions of people. Most will experience the infection as a mild to moderate illness – but for some, it can be severe, potentially resulting in hospitalization and even death.

While the start of flu season may feel routine, it’s important to remember that the virus changes every year, making annual vaccination an important part of staying healthy.

What to expect this flu season

Public health experts are closely watching how this year’s flu season unfolds. Early reports suggest that the U.S. may see a moderate level of flu cases, partly because last year’s flu activity was high and it’s uncommon to have two severe flu seasons in a row.

However, the U.S. also uses data from the Southern Hemisphere’s earlier flu season, which lasts from April to October, to help predict what the season might look like. There, the flu season has been more severe than in years past.

Taken together, that means there could be a significant number of flu cases in the U.S., particularly among children, older adults and those with chronic health conditions.

Each year, the flu vaccine is updated to best match the strains of influenza expected to circulate. Because flu viruses mutate frequently, the effectiveness of the flu vaccine can vary each year. However, even when the match between the seasonal flu and the vaccine that is designed around it isn’t perfect, vaccination remains the best protection against severe illness.

In the U.S., all flu vaccines for the 2025-2026 season will be trivalent – which means they are formulated to protect against the three main groups of influenza virus strains. These are an A (H1N1) virus, an A (H3N2) virus and a B/Victoria virus.

Vaccine availability

Recent vaccine policy changes have created some confusion, particularly around COVID-19 vaccines. Many people are wondering if getting the flu vaccine has become more complicated. The good news is that flu vaccines remain widely available and accessible. Pharmacies, doctors’ offices, public health clinics and many workplaces are offering the seasonal shot, often at little or no cost.

The 2025-2026 flu vaccine is available now. Manufacturers start shipping vaccines doses in July and August to ensure access by September. While public health experts won’t know the exact effectiveness of the flu vaccine until flu season is over, the flu shot usually cuts your chances of needing to see a doctor for the flu by about half.

Vaccination helps reduce the severity of illness, the likelihood of hospitalization and the spread of infection within our communities.

It’s important to note that you can get the flu shot at the same time as other vaccines, such as the COVID-19 vaccine or the RSV and pneumonia vaccines for older adults, without compromising effectiveness. If you’re unsure which vaccines are right for you, your health care provider or pharmacist can help you decide based on your age and health status.

Who should get the flu shot

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that everyone 6 months and older receive the flu vaccine each year, with rare exceptions. That aligns with guidelines from other organizations, such as the American Association of Pediatrics.

The flu vaccine is especially important for:

• Adults 65 and older

• Children under 5 – and particularly those under 2

• Pregnant people

• People with chronic conditions such as asthma, diabetes or heart disease

• Health care workers and caregivers

Even if you’re healthy and rarely get sick, getting vaccinated protects not only you but also those around you who may be more vulnerable.

Practical prevention tips

In addition to vaccination, everyday actions help reduce the spread of flu and other respiratory viruses:

• Wash your hands frequently with soap and water.

• Cover your coughs and sneezes.

• Stay home if you’re feeling unwell.

• Consider wearing a mask in crowded indoor spaces during peak flu activity, particularly if you have a cough.

Even though flu season is part of life, serious illness doesn’t have to be. By staying informed, getting vaccinated and practicing healthy habits, everyone can play a role in keeping their communities safe and healthy.

If you haven’t gotten your flu shot yet, now’s the time to protect yourself, and those you care for, this flu season.

Libby Richards has received funding from the American Nurses Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute .

– ref. Flu season has arrived – and so have updated flu vaccines – https://theconversation.com/flu-season-has-arrived-and-so-have-updated-flu-vaccines-267058

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Prakash Nagarkatti, Professor of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, University of South Carolina

A special group of immune cells known as regulatory T cells, or Tregs for short, became an overnight sensation when a trio of U.S. and Japanese scientists won the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine on Oct. 6, 2025, for their discovery and elucidation of these cells.

Treg cells act as the “master regulators” of the immune system – much like conductors leading an orchestra – ensuring that all other immune cells work in harmony. People with too few or defective Treg cells often develop autoimmune diseases, where unchecked immune cells mistakenly attack the body’s own tissues or organs. Yet when Treg cells become too numerous, people can become more susceptible to cancer and infections.

For this reason, Treg cells are often described as a double-edged sword. Treg cells also control internal revolt in the form of an overactive immune response by other immune cells that can trigger allergies and autoimmune diseases such as arthritis, lupus and multiple sclerosis – diseases that develop when Treg cells are defective in either number, function or both.

The well-established functions of Treg cells in autoimmune diseases, cancer and infections have recently been complemented by research unraveling how environmental factors influence these cells and modulate the immune response.

We are a husband-wife team of immunologists who study how environmental factors such as chemicals, diet and gut bacteria affect Treg cells and the overall functioning of the immune system.

While our study dating back to 1984 found that certain environmental contaminants induce T cells that suppress the immune system, further study on such cells was hampered by an inability in the field at large to isolate and characterize these cells. The discoveries honored by this year’s Nobel Prize transformed how researchers understand the immune system.

The interplay of environmental factors

The environment plays a profound role in regulating the development, maintenance and functions of Treg cells. Some examples of environmental factors include chemical pollutants found in the air and water, microbes, sunlight, diet and medications.

Rather than being a single, static population, Treg cells are highly adaptable. They integrate a variety of environmental cues to either suppress or manage immune responses. They accomplish this by producing key molecules such as FoxP3 that send a signal to other immune cells to stop mounting an aggressive immune response.

Certain toxic chemicals can increase the number or activity of Treg cells. One of the best-known examples is a group of long-lasting pollutants called dioxins that accumulate in fatty tissues through consumption of contaminated meat, dairy and fish. They are produced from burning waste as well as chemical manufacturing and forest fires.

The most toxic dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, or TCDD, is a known human carcinogen. Researchers have linked exposure to this chemical to various health problems, including cancer and reproductive and developmental issues. Research shows that dioxins activate Treg cells through a sensor known as the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. This constitutes one of the mechanisms through which certain environmental chemicals promote cancer by enhancing Treg activity and suppressing the anti-cancer immune response.

Air pollution, such as diesel exhaust, can have the opposite effect, impairing Treg cell function and contributing to inflammatory diseases such as asthma. This may occur through damage to the FoxP3 gene.

How diet interacts with Treg cells

Diet also plays a powerful role in regulating Treg cells. Compounds known as indoles, found in vegetables from the cabbage family such as broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower, can activate Treg cells and help prevent gut inflammation. These compounds also work by stimulating the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, which boosts Treg numbers and activity.

Another way diet can influence Treg cells is through the regulation of the microbes that live in the gut.

The gut has trillions of microbial residents, both benefical and harmful. Previous research found that Treg cells in the gut play a crucial role in maintaining gut homeostasis – the dynamic balance between microbiota and immune cells found in the gut. Any disturbance leading to loss of Treg cell function can lead to hyperactivation of other immune cells in the gut. This can trigger inflammation in which the immune cells destroy the lining of the intestine, leading to conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease.

Other naturally occurring substances – such as naringenin, a chemical abundant in citrus fruits, and epigallocatechin-3-gallate, a compound found in green tea – also activate the aryl hydrocarbon receptor and promote Treg development.

A fiber-rich diet supports the growth of beneficial gut bacteria. This bacteria ferments fiber into short-chain fatty acids that enhance Treg cell function and help maintain gut health. Probiotic bacteria also increases Treg cell populations, thereby reducing inflammation.

In addition, dietary tryptophan – an amino acid found in foods such as poultry, eggs, tofu and seeds – is metabolized into compounds that activate the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, further boosting Treg cell activity and protecting against gut inflammation.

By contrast, a Western diet high in fat, sugar and processed foods disrupts the balance of gut bacteria. This, in turn, reduces the population of microbes that support Treg cells and promotes a more inflammatory environment in the gut.

Keeping Treg cells in harmony

Scientists like us and many others are working to understand the processes involved in maintaining the delicate balance of Treg cells that are influenced by all of these outside factors. The goal is to learn how Treg cells and other immune cells can be kept in equilibrium – strong enough to defend against infections and cancer yet restrained enough to prevent autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.

The profound environmental influence on Treg cell development and function makes understanding these interactions crucial for defining the fine line between health and disease.

Prakash Nagarkatti receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Mitzi Nagarkatti receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

– ref. How pollution and the microbiome interact with Tregs, the immune system regulators whose discovery was honored with the Nobel Prize – https://theconversation.com/how-pollution-and-the-microbiome-interact-with-tregs-the-immune-system-regulators-whose-discovery-was-honored-with-the-nobel-prize-266865

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Brittany Romanello, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Arkansas

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has spent the past few weeks in a moment of both mourning and transition. On Sept. 28, 2025, a shooting and arson at a Latter-day Saints meetinghouse in Michigan killed four people and wounded eight more. What’s more, Russell M. Nelson, president of the church, died the day before at age 101. Based on protocol, his role will most likely be filled by Dallin H. Oaks, the longest-serving of the church’s top leaders.

The next president will inherit leadership of a religious institution that is both deeply American and increasingly global – diversity at odds with the way it’s typically represented in mainstream media, from “The Secret Life of Mormon Wives” to “The Book of Mormon” Broadway musical.

As a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, I research Latter-day Saints communities across the United States, particularly Latina immigrants and young adults. When presenting my research, I’ve noticed that many people still closely associate the church with Utah, where its headquarters are located.

The church has played a pivotal role in Utah’s history and culture. Today, though, only 42% of its residents are members. The stereotype of Latter-day Saints as mostly white, conservative Americans is just one of many long-standing misconceptions about LDS communities and beliefs.

Many people are surprised to learn there are vibrant congregations far from the American West’s “Mormon Corridor.” There are devout Latter-day Saints everywhere from Ghana and the United Arab Emirates to Russia and mainland China.

Global growth

Joseph Smith founded The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in upstate New York in 1830 and immediately sent missionaries to preach along the frontier. The first overseas missionaries traveled to England in 1837.

Shortly after World War II, church leaders overhauled their missionary approach to increase the number of international missions. This strategy led to growth across the globe, especially in Central America, South America and the Pacific Islands.

Today, the church has over 17.5 million members, according to church records. A majority live outside the U.S., spread across more than 160 countries.

One way the church and researchers track this global growth is by construction of new temples.These buildings, used not for weekly worship but special ceremonies like weddings, were once almost exclusively located in the United States. Today, they exist in dozens of countries, from Argentina to Tonga.

During Nelson’s presidency, which began in 2018, he announced 200 new temples, more than any of his predecessors. Temples are a physical and symbolic representation of the church’s commitment to being a global religion, although cultural tensions remain.

Among U.S. members, demographics are also shifting. Seventy-two percent of American members are white, down from 85% in 2007, according to the Pew Research Center. Growing numbers of Latinos – 12% of U.S. members – have played a significant role sustaining congregations across the country.

There are congregations in every U.S. state, including the small community of Grand Blanc, Michigan, site of the tragic shooting. Suspect Thomas Jacob Sanford, who was fatally shot by police, had gone on a recent tirade against Latter-day Saints during a conversation with a local political candidate.

In the following days, an American member of the church raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Sanford’s family.

Growing pains

Despite the church’s diversity, its institutional foundations remain firmly rooted in the United States. The top leadership bodies are still composed almost entirely of white men, and most are American-born.

As the church continues to grow, questions arise about how well the norms of a Utah-based church fit the realities of members in Manila or Mexico City, Bangalore or Berlin. How much room is there, even in U.S. congregations, for local cultural expressions of faith?

Latino Latter-day Saints and members in Latin America, for example, have faced pushback against cultural traditions that were seen as distinctly “not LDS,” such as making altars and giving offerings during Dia de los Muertos. In 2021, the church launched a Spanish-language campaign using Day of the Dead imagery to increase interest among Latinos. Many members were happy to see this representation. Still, some women I spoke with said that an emphasis on whiteness and American nationalism, as well as anti-immigrant rhetoric they’d heard from other members, deterred them from fully celebrating their cultures.

Even aesthetic details, like musical styles, often reflect a distinctly American model. The standardized hymnal, for example, contains patriotic songs like “America the Beautiful.” This emphasis on American culture can feel especially out of sync in places in countries with high membership rates that have histories of U.S. military or political interventions.

Expectations about clothing and physical appearance, too, have prompted questions about representation, belonging and authority. It was only in 2024, for instance, that the church offered members in humid areas sleeveless versions of the sacred garments Latter-day Saints wear under clothing as a reminder of their faith.

Historically, the church viewed tattoos as taboo – a violation of the sanctity of the body. Many parts of the world have thousands of years of sacred tattooing traditions – including Oceania, which has high rates of church membership.

Change ahead?

Among many challenges, the next president of the church will navigate how to lead a global church from its American headquarters – a church that continues to be misunderstood and stereotyped, sometimes to the point of violence.

The number of Latter-day Saints continues to grow in many parts of the world, but this growth brings a greater need for cultural sensitivity. The church, historically very uniform in its efforts to standardize Latter-day Saints history, art and teachings, is finding that harder to maintain when congregations span dozens of countries, languages, customs and histories.

Organizing the church like a corporation, with a top-down decision-making process, can also make it difficult to address painful racial histories and the needs of marginalized groups, like LGBTQ+ members.

The transition in leadership offers an opportunity not only for the church but for the broader public to better understand the multifaceted, global nature of Latter-day Saints’ lives today.

Brittany Romanello does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The new president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will inherit a global faith far more diverse than many realize – https://theconversation.com/the-new-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-will-inherit-a-global-faith-far-more-diverse-than-many-realize-266337

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Gregory P. Magarian, Thomas and Karole Green Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis

The assassination in September 2025 of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has heightened attention on the relationship between political rhetoric and political violence.

Even before police had identified a suspect, President Donald Trump blamed the shooting on the “rhetoric” of the “radical left.” The Trump administration has since acted to silence left-leaning speakers and is threatening to intensify its attacks on left-wing political speech.

But my decades of studying free speech law have convinced me that suppressing political rhetoric, even through social norms rather than law, undermines the discussion, debate and constructive disagreement essential for a healthy democracy.

Gun proliferation complicates the problem by making political violence much easier to carry out.

Rise of political violence

Political violence – by which I mean any physical attack on people that aims to achieve a political goal – harms democracy by shifting the field of political disagreement from debate to aggression.

Under the U.S. constitutional system of limited government and individual rights, political violence by the government – for example, government assaults on anti-government protesters – is among the gravest threats to liberty.

But political violence committed by private individuals or groups also corrodes constitutional democracy. In the United States, acts of private political violence against members of government and against ordinary people have both increased dramatically in recent years.

Political assassinations are the most vivid form of political violence. The Kirk assassination is only the latest example.

In June 2025, a shooter with a “hit list” of left-liberal targets assassinated Minnesota Democratic Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband. In December 2024, a shooter angry about health insurance costs killed United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. In July 2024, a shooter wounded Trump at a campaign rally in a failed assassination attempt.

Political violence also includes bias-motivated murders. In 2022, a white supremacist murdered 10 Black patrons at a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y. In 2019, an anti-immigrant racist murdered 23 mostly Latino shoppers at a Wal-Mart in El Paso, Texas. In 2018, an antisemite murdered 11 congregants at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

In those incidents and numerous others, extreme political ideas appear to have motivated the attackers. The linkage of extremist speech to lethal violence has prompted calls to legally restrict or punish extremist speech.

Political violence, free speech and cultural editing

The First Amendment, however, protects extremist speech, including advocacy of violence. Violent rhetoric must actually incite or threaten violence to lose the First Amendment’s shelter.

If law cannot curb the sorts of speech that may inspire political violence, what about social norms – widely shared beliefs about what speech is socially acceptable or appropriate?

Much speech that the First Amendment protects from government regulation eventually disappears from public discourse. That happens through a process I call “cultural editing”: popular and institutional rejection of outmoded or repellent ideas. For example, no serious medical conference discusses treating hay fever with cocaine, and no respectable political science panel includes Nazis.

The Trump administration’s blaming of the Kirk assassination on “radical left” rhetoric points toward a deeper level of cultural editing.

Trump and other conservatives have not cited speech that advocated violence against Kirk. Instead, some conservative activists, spurred on by Trump administration officials, called for harassing and punishing critics of Kirk’s statements and actions.

But such criticisms of Kirk, whatever their merits or lack thereof, fall within the scope of ordinary political debate.

Kirk was not a government official, but he had strong influence in the Trump administration. Robust democratic discourse requires space for people to criticize such powerful figures. Large-scale cultural editing of those criticisms, amounting to suppression of left-leaning views, would hurt the public’s ability to discuss and resolve political disagreements.

However, Trump and others who push for suppressing harsh political rhetoric might argue that the stakes of verbal attacks have increased. They might say that U.S. political culture can no longer indulge political invective because political violence has become more common.

Political violence and guns

That argument for suppressing harsh political speech ignores an independent cause of political violence: gun proliferation.

Most political violence in the U.S. involves guns. Guns make political violence easier by erasing the distance between extremist ideas and lethal action. Hate or fanaticism can end a life in an instant, hundreds of yards from the victim.

The U.S. has by far the highest number of civilian guns and rate of civilian gun ownership in the world. Since 2008, when the Supreme Court declared an individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, annual U.S. gun purchases have increased from about 9 million to about 16 million.

Governments often find regulating speech easier, even though less effective, than tackling underlying problems. At times, federal and state governments have addressed political violence by regulating guns. The 1994 federal assault weapons ban exemplifies regulatory efforts to curb overall gun violence.

But the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment cases now appear to bar strong gun regulations.

People in a democratic society need freedom to make harsh, even extreme political statements with a minimum of cultural editing. The Second Amendment protects access to lethal weapons. This combination of free speech and gun rights makes the growing problem of political violence much harder to solve.

Gregory P. Magarian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Political violence: What can happen when First Amendment free speech meets Second Amendment gun rights – https://theconversation.com/political-violence-what-can-happen-when-first-amendment-free-speech-meets-second-amendment-gun-rights-265223

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jessica D. Ayers, Assistant Professor of Psychological Science, Boise State University

Despite how natural friendship can feel, people rarely stop to analyze it. How do you know when someone will make a good friend? When is it time to move on from a friendship? Oftentimes, people rely on gut intuitions to answer these kinds of questions.

In psychology research, there’s no universally accepted definition of a friend. Traditionally, when psychologists have analyzed friendship, it’s often been through the lens of exchange. How much did that friend do for me? How much did I do for them? The idea is that friendships are transactional, where friends stick around only as long as they are getting at least as much as they are giving in the friendship.

But this focus doesn’t capture what feels like the essence of friendship for many people. We and our colleagues think another model for relationships – what we call risk-pooling – better matches what many people experience. In this kind of friendship, no one is keeping track of who did what for whom.

Our research over the past decade suggests that this kind of friendship was essential for our ancient ancestors to survive the challenges they encountered. And we feel it’s essential for surviving the challenges of life today, whether navigating personal struggles or dealing with natural disasters.

A focus on what friends give you

The traditional social exchange theory of friendship views relationships as transactions where people keep a tally of costs and benefits. Building on this framework, researchers have suggested that you approach each friendship with a running list of pluses and minuses to decide whether to maintain the bond. You keep friendships that provide more benefits than costs, and you end those that don’t.

The theory holds that this balancing act comes into play when making decisions about what kinds of friendships to pursue and how to treat your friends. It’s even made its way into pop psychology self-help spaces.

We contend that the biggest issue with social exchange theory is that it misses the nuances of real-life relationships. Frankly, the theory’s wrong: People often don’t use this cost-to-benefit ratio in their friendships.

Less accounting, more supporting

Anybody who has seen a friend through tough times – or been the one who was supported – can tell you that keeping track of what a friend does for you isn’t what friendships are about. Friendships are more about companionship, enjoyment and bonding. Sometimes, friendship is about helping just because your friend is in need and you care about their well-being.

Social exchange theory would suggest that you’d be better off dropping someone who is going through cancer treatment or a death in the family because they’re not providing as many benefits to you as they could. But real-life experiences with these situations suggest the opposite: These are the times when many people are most likely to support their friends.

Our research is consistent with this intuition about the shortcomings of social exchange theory. When we surveyed people about what they want in a friend, they didn’t place a high value on having a friend who is conscientious about paying back any debts – something highly valued from a social exchange perspective.

People considered other traits – such as loyalty, reliability, respectfulness and being there in times of need – to be much more important. These qualities that relate to emotional commitment were seen as necessities, while paying back was seen as a luxury that mattered only once the emotional commitment was met.

Having friends who will help you when you’re struggling, work with you in the friendship and provide emotional support all ranked higher in importance than having a friend who pays you back. While they might not always be able to provide tangible benefits, friends can show they care in many other ways.

Of course, friendship isn’t always positive. Some friends can take advantage by asking too much or neglecting responsibilities they could handle themselves. In those cases, it can be useful to step back and weigh the costs and benefits.

Friendship is more than the sum of its parts

But how do friendships actually help people survive? That is one question that we investigated as part of The Human Generosity Project, a cross-disciplinary research collaboration.

The risk-pooling rather than exchange pattern of friendship is something that we found across societies, from “kere kere” in Fiji to “tomor marang” among the Ik in Uganda. People help their friends in times of need without expecting to be paid back.

The Maasai, an Indigenous group in Kenya and Tanzania who rely on cattle herds to make their living, cultivate friends who help them when they are in need, with no expectation about paying each other back. People ask for help from these special friends, called osotua partners, only when they are in genuine need, and they give if they are asked and able.

These partnerships are not about everyday favors – rather, they are about surviving unpredictable, life-altering risks. Osotua relationships are built over a lifetime, passed down across generations and often marked with sacred rituals.

When we modeled how these osotua relationships function over time, we found they help people survive when their environments are volatile and when they ask those most likely to be able to help. These relationships lead to higher rates of survival for both partners compared to those built on keeping track of debts.

These friends act as social insurance systems for each other, helping each other when needs arise because of unpredictable and uncontrollable events.

And we see this in the United States, just as we do in smaller-scale, more remote societies. In one study, we focused on ranchers in southern Arizona and New Mexico embedded in a network of what they call “neighboring.” They don’t expect to be paid back when they help their neighbors with unpredictable challenges such as an accident, injury or illness. We also found this same pattern in an online study of U.S.-based participants.

In contrast, people such as the ranchers we studied are more likely to expect to be paid back for help when needs arise because of more predictable challenges such as branding cattle or paying bills.

Catastrophic insurance, not tit for tat

What all this research suggests is that friendship is less about the exchange of favors and more about being there for each other when unforeseeable disaster strikes. Friendship seems more like an insurance plan designed to kick in when you need it most rather than a system of balanced exchange.

What lets these partnerships endure is not only generosity, but also restraint and responsibility: Maasai expect their osotua partners to take care of themselves when they can and to ask only when help is truly needed. That balance of care, respect and self-management offers a useful model.

In a world of growing uncertainty, cultivating risk-pooling friendships and striving to be a good partner yourself may help you build resilience. Our ancestors survived with the help of this kind of relationship; our future may depend on them too.

Athena Aktipis receives funding from the National Science Foundation. She is the Executive Director of the Cooperative Futures Institute.

Jessica D. Ayers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Friendships aren’t just about keeping score – new psychology research looks at why we help our friends when they need it – https://theconversation.com/friendships-arent-just-about-keeping-score-new-psychology-research-looks-at-why-we-help-our-friends-when-they-need-it-258549