Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nerilie Abram, Chief Scientist, Australian Antarctic Division and Professor of Climate Science, Australian National University

Antarctica has long been seen as a remote, unchanging environment. Not any more.

The ice-covered continent and the surrounding Southern Ocean are undergoing abrupt and alarming changes. Sea ice is shrinking rapidly, the floating glaciers known as ice shelves are melting faster, the ice sheets carpeting the continent are approaching tipping points and vital ocean currents show signs of slowing down.

Published today in Nature, our new research shows these abrupt changes are already underway – and likely to significantly intensify in the future.

Several authors of this article have witnessed these startling changes during fieldwork on the ice. These changes spell bad news for wildlife, both iconic and lesser known. But the changes will reach much further. What’s happening in Antarctica right now will affect the world for generations to come, from rising sea levels to extreme changes in the climate system.

What is an abrupt change?

Scientists define an abrupt change as a climatic or environmental shift taking place much faster than expected.

What makes abrupt changes so concerning is they can amplify themselves. For example, melting sea ice allows oceans to warm more rapidly, which melts more sea ice. Once triggered, they can be difficult or even impossible to reverse on timescales meaningful to humans.

While it’s common to assume incremental warming will translate to gradual change, we’re seeing something very different in Antarctica. Over past decades, the Antarctic environment had a much more muted response overall to human-caused climate warming compared to the Arctic. But about a decade ago, abrupt changes began to occur.

Shrinking sea ice brings cascading change

Antarctica’s natural systems are tightly interwoven. When one system is thrown out of balance, it can trigger cascading effects in others.

Sea ice around Antarctica has been declining dramatically since 2014. The expanse of sea ice is now shrinking at double the rate of Arctic sea ice. We found these unfolding changes are unprecedented – far outside the natural variability of past centuries.

The implications are far reaching. Sea ice has a reflective, high-albedo surface which reflects heat back to space. When there’s less sea ice, more heat is absorbed by darker oceans. Emperor penguins and other species reliant on sea ice for habitat and breeding face real threats. Less sea ice also means Antarctica’s ice shelves are more exposed to waves.

Vital ocean currents are slowing

The melting of ice is actually slowing down the deep ocean circulation around Antarctica. This system of deep currents, known as the Antarctic Overturning Circulation, plays a critical role in regulating Earth’s climate by absorbing carbon dioxide and distributing heat.

In the northern hemisphere, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is facing a slowdown.

We’re now observing a similar risk in Southern Ocean currents. Changes to the Antarctic Overturning Circulation may unfold at twice the rate of the more famous North Atlantic counterpart.

A slowdown could reduce how much oxygen and carbon dioxide the ocean absorbs and leave vital nutrients at the seafloor. Less oxygen and fewer nutrients would have major consequences for marine ecosystems and climate regulation.

Melting giants

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet as well as some regions of East Antarctica are now losing ice and contributing to sea level rise. Ice loss has increased sixfold since the 1990s.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone has enough ice to raise global sea levels by more than five metres – and scientists warn we could be nearing the point where this ice sheet could collapse even without substantial further warming, though this might take centuries to millennia.

These enormous ice sheets represent the risk of a global tipping point. They contribute the greatest uncertainty to projections of future sea level rise because we don’t know just how quickly they could collapse.

Worldwide, at least 750 million people live in low-lying areas near the sea. Rising sea levels threaten coastal infrastructure and communities globally.

Wildlife and ecosystems under threat

Antarctica’s biological systems are also undergoing sudden shifts. Ecosystems both under the sea and on land are being reshaped by warming temperatures, unreliable ice conditions and human activity bringing pollution and the arrival of invasive species.

It’s essential to protect these ecosystems through the Antarctic Treaty, including creating protected areas of land and sea and restricting some human activities. But these conservation measures won’t be enough to ensure emperor penguins and leopard seals survive. That will require decisive global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Which future?

Antarctica is often seen as a symbol of isolation and permanence. But the continent is now changing with disturbing speed – much faster than scientists anticipated.

These abrupt changes stem largely from the extra heat trapped by decades of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions. The only way to avoid further abrupt changes is to slash emissions rapidly enough to hold warming as close to 1.5°C as possible.

Even if we achieve this, much change has already been set in motion. Governments, businesses and coastal communities must prepare for a future of abrupt change. What happens in Antarctica won’t stay there.

The stakes could not be higher. The choices made now will determine whether we face a future of worsening impacts and irreversible change or one of managed resilience to the changes already locked in.

Nerilie Abram received funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Ariaan Purich receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Felicity McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Jan Strugnell receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Matthew England receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

– ref. From sea ice to ocean currents, Antarctica is now undergoing abrupt changes – and we’ll all feel them – https://theconversation.com/from-sea-ice-to-ocean-currents-antarctica-is-now-undergoing-abrupt-changes-and-well-all-feel-them-262615

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Australian National University; Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University; Adjunct Professor of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia

Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said recently the Israeli cabinet has “lost its reason and humanity” in Gaza, reflecting a widespread view around the world.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s staunch defiance over the Gaza war has led many Western states to recognise the state of Palestine in recent weeks. More could come before the UN General Assembly meeting in September, too.

These Western leaders have used strong words to push for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said when Australia pledged to recognise Palestine:

There is a risk there will be no Palestine left to recognise if the international community don’t move to create that pathway to a two-state solution.

Recognition of a Palestinian state sends a strong message of the world’s revulsion to the Netanyahu government’s actions in Gaza. However, it is unlikely to make much of a difference on the ground without Israel and the United States agreeing to move forward on a two-state solution.

So, how can Western states give teeth to their recent pledges to recognise a Palestinian state? What kind of pressure would actually work?

1. Suspend trade deals and arms exports

Israel is by no means self-sufficient. It is very much dependent on the US for its defence capability and economic and financial wellbeing, as well as military supplies coming directly and indirectly from other Western countries.

Germany has now taken the lead in this respect by suspending military exports to Israel over its decision to expand the war. Slovenia also banned all weapons trade with Israel this month.

Other Western nations should be more transparent about the exports of specific parts to a global supply chain that Israel can access, such as those for F-35 jets, and be willing to block these.

In addition, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has advocated for the European Union to suspend its trade deal with Israel for breaching an article “on respect for human rights and democratic principles”.

Suspending the deal in full would require unanimous agreement among all 27 EU members. A partial suspension is possible, however, if just 15 EU members agree.

---

Read more:
EU sanctions against Israel: here’s what’s on the table

---

2. A strong US stand on a two-state solution

Western states could also put pressure on US President Donald Trump to persuade Israel that its future peace and prosperity depends on a two-state solution.

The US has long supported a two-state solution as a core policy. However, the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, recently suggested this might be changing. Trump has not endorsed a two-state solution nor a new US position on it.

Given Netanyahu’s long-held opposition to a two-state solution, this might be a tough sell. However, Trump could be compelled to take a firm stand on the issue, given American public opinion is gradually shifting against Israel.

This is also reflected in assertions by some key MAGA supporters, such as the strategist Steve Bannon, Congresswoman Margorie Taylor Greene and media personality Tucker Carlson, as well as some far-right podcasters. They have questioned America’s support of Israel and, in some cases, called for an end to American aid to the country.

Trump is a transactional leader and could be amenable to pressure from his base and outside allies.

3. Push for an oil embargo

An oil embargo on Israel and its supporters is another means of pressure.

Earlier this year, Israel granted exploration licenses for natural gas deposits off its coast to a consortium of oil companies, including British Petroleum (BP) and Azerbaijan’s SOCAR.

Israel imports nearly three-quarters of its crude oil from three countries: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Gabon. It relies on this crude oil and refined petroleum to fuel its fighter jets, tanks and bulldozers.

Gabon is a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC); Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are part of an expanded group called OPEC+.

The Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (part of OPEC) implemented such an embargo against the United States and other countries in 1973 in retaliation for supporting Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and its seizure of Egyptian and Syrian land afterwards. Israel itself was cut off, too.

It proved effective. The embargo prompted Henry Kissinger, then-national security advisor in the Nixon administration, to engage in “shuttle diplomacy” between Israel, Egypt and Syria. This led to force disengagement agreements in early 1974, and the lifting of the oil embargo.

It also contributed to the diplomatic path that eventually resulted in the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, with US President Jimmy Carter’s mediation, in 1978.

Under the accords, Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in return for a peace treaty with Egypt. A framework for Palestinian autonomy and self-government was also agreed to. However, subsequent talks on the path forward broke down for a number of reasons – among them Israel’s refusal to make concessions on key issues – much to Carter’s fury.

Israel also refused to withdraw from Syria’s Golan Heights, which it later annexed.

4. Move to suspend Israel from the UN

A final option is the threat of suspending Israel from the United Nations. This has been advocated by the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francisca Albanese, and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

Suspending a member from the UN is not easy. It requires the consent of the General Assembly, as well as the recommendation of the Security Council, which counts Israel’s steadfast ally, the US, as a member.

Nonetheless, the forthcoming UN General Assembly meeting in September would be a suitable time to heighten this threat. The assembly’s resolutions are not binding, but it is still a tool for the international community to apply pressure.

In the 1970s, for example, the General Assembly moved to suspend South Africa’s membership over its apartheid system of government. Although the Security Council blocked South Africa’s expulsion, it remained suspended in the General Assembly until 1994.

These measures are now needed to maximise the pressure on Netanyahu’s leadership to relent on a two-state solution. Whether Western countries have the political will to go beyond mere recognition and implement them is another question.

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

– ref. How can Western countries back up Palestine recognition with action? Here are 4 ways to pressure Israel – https://theconversation.com/how-can-western-countries-back-up-palestine-recognition-with-action-here-are-4-ways-to-pressure-israel-263273

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Simon Copland, Honorary Fellow in Sociology, Australian National University

New, extreme, and often bizarre social movements and communities are popping up around the world. As each one arises, journalists and academics are pumping out books that do “deep dives” into these communities.

In liberal sociologist Arlie Hochschild’s Strangers in Their Own Land, published in 2016, she looks at the Tea Party voters who who would become Donald Trump’s MAGA base. And in her 2021 book, QAnon and On, Australian journalist Van Badham investigated the QAnon conspiracy theory.

Such books can give us real insight into why these communities grow and develop – in turn, helping us address both extremism, and its impact on the broader community. Yet, such deep dives can be risky. At times, they turn into journalistic sideshows that simply give these communities more (unneeded) attention.

In his third book, Lost Boys, Guardian journalist James Bloodworth adds to this catalogue. As I did in my own, research-based recent book, he conducts a “deep dive” into the manosphere: a loose network of blogs, forums and social media channels dedicated to “men’s rights”, anti-feminism and extreme misogyny.

---

Review: Lost Boys: A Personal Journey Through the Manosphere – James Bloodworth (Atlantic)

---

He attends a manosphere conference. He participates in seduction workshops: events where manosphere leaders teach men how to pick up women, often involving going onto the street or into bars, where men “practice” on women in real life. And he interviews manosphere leaders, seeking to understand this community.

He asks:

Why are so many men susceptible to the sinister beliefs these groups promote? What does the emergence of these communities say about Western society? And what can we do about it?

While the book asks these big, important questions, it struggles to actually answer any of them. Bloodworth doesn’t really formulate a clear argument about the manosphere, and it is unclear what his stance is in relation to the community.

Instead, his meandering book unfortunately tells us more about how not to do these types of investigations than about the manosphere itself.

Behind the scenes of the manosphere

Lost Boys begins promisingly. Bloodworth takes us back to being a 23-year-old, awkward, young straight man, when he spent thousands of dollars to take a seduction course. He reassures us he didn’t believe a lot of the manosphere stuff – but, like many other men, just wanted more confidence in picking up women.

His course ended up on a night out in the West End of London, where he nervously avoided trying to use the techniques he’d been taught, until his instructor encouraged him, using slogans like “your organ is a spear”. Despite his anxiety, Bloodworth eventually began approaching women in a bar, feeling deflated after he was pushed by his instructor, but was flatly rejected.

I hoped this was going to take us somewhere exciting and different. Accounts from men who have been sucked into these communities in the past are few and far between – particularly from someone who can then turn their experience into a major book. A genuine reflection on how Bloodworth ended up in this place at that time – and how we could take those lessons to other men – could be very interesting.

Unfortunately, that moment is left behind after the opening chapters. The rest of the book lacks this personal touch. Instead, we get a meandering and broad description of the manosphere that jumps from major player to major player.

He details the rise of Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and his campaigns against political correctness and examines the violent attack of manosphere adherent Lyndon McLeod, who murdered five people in Colorado in 2021. He concludes by documenting the accusations against notorious self-proclaimed misogynist and manosphere influencer Andrew Tate.

Yet, these descriptions add little to our knowledge. Bloodworth tells us who these figures are, what they believe and how they become famous, but not much more.

He interviews some of these figures, such as former pickup artist Anthony “Dream” Johnson – the so-called “president of the manosphere”, who organised the annual 21 Convention manosphere conference. Even these interviews, which are briefly described, offer very little.

They yield no actual new information about these men, how they operate, or what is going on behind the scenes.

Major sins

This isn’t the major sin of the book, however. This comes about halfway through, when Bloodworth travels to the United States. He starts with a trip to Florida, where he attends multiple talks at the 21 Convention, the so-called “Woodstock of the manosphere” (last organised in 2023, though cancelled that year). The 21 Convention included talks from manosphere leaders about the evils of feminism and how men can become masculine again, as well as tips for seduction and how to live.

This moment, I am sure, was full of trepidation and fear: conference participants would have been unlikely to welcome an undercover journalist seeking to document their ideas. But Bloodworth reports on it almost as if he is going to a science show: he details the content of each talk he attends, then moves on. Again, it lacks a personal touch, and there’s not even much reflection of what this content actually means.

Things get worse when he travels to Las Vegas to participate in a “Men of Action” course, hosted by dating and performance coach Michael Sartain. The course promises men to “learn how to meet incredible women, make high status friends, and attend exclusive venues”.

Some academics, such as feminist media and culture studies scholar Rachel O’Neill, who embedded herself in seduction communities in London for her PhD, have taken this approach, to great effect. O’Neill uses her research to fully investigate the underlying economy of this community, exposing it for the business fraud it is.

Bloodworth, however, goes even further than O’Neill: he doesn’t just attend the course, but also takes up a role in coaching the young men. While he is a little unclear in the book about how he managed to get this role and what he was doing, in a later interview with GQ Magazine, he explained.

I was invited to do it by one of the people who was working for [Sartain]. I’d take a group of men to the club – the big nightclubs in Vegas, like Omnia, Encore, XS – supervise them and make sure they weren’t being weird.

He also explains that he never hid who he was; organisers knew he was a journalist.

As a coach, Bloodworth explains how he took men to clubs and provided them tips on how to approach women. (He does say, at times, he tries to guide students in a “certain direction”, less sexist than their official teachings).

In doing so, he provides some interesting titbits, including a section where students complain about how “shallow and disingenuous” the techniques are. In another moment, he overhears sexist commentary repeating classic ideas from within the manosphere. One man says “women nowadays only want attention from the most valuable men in the world”.

‘I hadn’t gone out there to save anybody’

Despite some of these minor insights, however, I found this extremely problematic. As Bloodworth himself explains, the techniques used in these courses are based on extremely sexist stereotypes, and often involve coercion and manipulation. “The problem with courses like this one is that men are essentially being taught to view women as prettifying props: ornamentation for their high-status content,” he writes.

These courses are also terrible for the men themselves. They teach unrealistic ideas about what it is to be a man, and terrible notions of how they should engage with women.

Despite acknowledging all this, Bloodworth still helps to lead a course. This could have been worth it if he explored some of these ethical qualms – or if he managed to gain some valuable new insight. But he doesn’t.

At the end of his trip to Vegas, for example, Bloodworth offers little actual analysis. He concludes:

It was time for me to leave Vegas. I hadn’t gone out there to save anybody; but I didn’t want to participate (inadvertently or otherwise) in making anybody worse either. I was exhausted by the merry-go-round of electric pastel clubs, narcoleptic bedtimes and pay-as-you-go sincerity. They could keep their Lambos, ripped jeans, velvet ropes, red-carpet events, bikini competitions, Playboy playmates, high-status social networks, Facetuned deltoids and Dan Bilzerian. I just wanted to get home and have a nice cup of tea, even if it wouldn’t generate a lot of heat on the “gram”.

This just leaves more questions. How did he feel giving men dodgy advice on how to improve their lives? Did he have ethical qualms about participating in an inherently sexist industry?

Bloodworth doesn’t even attempt to answer any of these questions.

How not to do it

This was the major problem with Lost Boys. For me, the book is a perfect guide on how not to engage in deep dives on extreme communities. For a book seeking to understand the manosphere, it seems to lack any purpose, let alone a point of view. It feels like the project of a journalist who gets a thrill out of “going undercover” and reporting his heroics.

This may be OK for other topics, but when it comes to the manosphere, it is not good enough. This community is creating real violence: primarily for women, the victims of the sexism emanating from it, but also for the men who get sucked into the space. To embed yourself within these spaces without any seeming attempt to do something about this harm may be a thrill for the journalist, but in the end it just adds to the pain these communities cause.

Here, I cannot help but compare Lost Boys to Jamie Tahsin and Matt Shea’s 2024 book on Andrew Tate, Clown World, described as “part Gonzo journalism, part masculinity rabbit hole”.

For a short period, Tahsin and Shea become close to Tate, even participating in one of his infamous War Room programs. But they are unflinchingly critical of him and his cronies. They used their opportunity not just to challenge him, but also to do real investigations into his dodgy dealings. In particular, they uncovered the first criminal allegations against Tate – and their journalism played a role in him facing criminal charges in the UK.

Unlike Bloodworth, Tahsin and Shea took a position. They used their journalism and writing to expose the fault lines in these communities, producing real-life outcomes.

Time for a sideshow is over

While promising in its scope, therefore, Bloodworth’s book fails. While he asks the question of why so many men are attracted to the manosphere, he seems unable to even try to answer it. And in writing it, he fell into into common journalistic traps we need to be avoiding while studying these communities.

He treats the manosphere as a sideshow to be gawked at, even when acknowledging the real harm it can do. He spends too much time simply describing rather than analysing, which just ends up giving them more attention. And he offers nothing substantive that can help us deal with the community.

And the worst sin of all: Bloodworth centres himself. The book’s subtitle, “a personal journey through the manosphere” makes clear from the outset that this is its central premise. But in practice, it makes the book seem like it’s more about trying to have an adventure in an extreme community than trying to make a real impact.

When it comes to the manosphere and the far-right, the time for a journalistic sideshow is over. These spaces have been described enough, and its leaders have been interviewed to death. At this critical global period, we must be clear about why we are researching these communities – and how our work can help reduce their harm. Lost Boys does not do this.

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

– ref. ‘I hadn’t gone out there to save anybody’: a deep dive into the manosphere fails to address its harms – https://theconversation.com/i-hadnt-gone-out-there-to-save-anybody-a-deep-dive-into-the-manosphere-fails-to-address-its-harms-261468

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kelvin (Shiu Fung) Wong, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology

Personality tests have become increasingly popular in daily life. From hiring to dating, they promise to help us understand who we are and how we are similar, or different, to others.

But do these tests paint an accurate picture? And could it be harmful to take them too seriously?

What are personality tests?

A personality test is an instrument designed to elicit a response that may reveal someone’s “personality” – that is, their patterns of behaving and thinking across different situations.

These tests can take the form of self-reporting questionnaires, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (first developed in the 1940s) and the Big Five Inventory (developed in the 1990s).

Or they may be “projective” tests, where the individual talks freely about their interpretation of ambiguous stimuli. One famous example of this is the Rorschach inkblot test, developed in the early 1920s by Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach.

Early beginnings

Personality testing isn’t new. Historical texts from across the globe suggest humans have been interested in understanding and categorising personality for thousands of years.

Around 400 BCE, Greek philosopher Hippocrates suggested an individual’s temperament was influenced by the balance of four bodily fluids, known as “humours”.

Even earlier, around 1115 BCE, government officials in ancient China examined the behaviour and character of individuals to determine their suitability for different jobs in the public system.

However, the systematic and scientific development of tools to understand and categorise personality only began in the 20th century.

One of the first was developed in 1917 by the United States army to predict how new recruits may react to war, and whether they were at risk of “shell shock” (now classified as post-traumatic stress disorder). The goal was to identify individuals who may be unsuitable for combat.

This assessment had 116 “yes” or “no” items, including questions about somatic symptoms, social adjustment, and medical and family history. Examples included “Have you ever fainted away?” and “Do you usually feel well and strong?”. Those who scored highly were referred to a psychologist for further assessment.

Since then, thousands of similar “personality” tests have been developed and used across clinical, occupational and educational settings. Many of these, such as the Myers-Briggs test, have gained mainstream appeal thanks to the internet and media.

Why are we drawn to these tests?

The answer to this lies not in the specific characteristics of the tests, but in the deep-seated psychological need they promise to satisfy.

The drive to understand oneself starts at an early age and continues throughout life. We ask ourselves questions such as “who am I?” and “how do I fit into the world?”

Personality tests are a simple way to get answers to these difficult questions. It can be quite comforting – even exhilarating – to see yourself reflected in the results.

According to American psychologist Abraham Maslow’s theory of human needs, people are driven towards self-improvement and “self-actualisation”, which broadly refers to the realisation of one’s potential.

So, people may be drawn to personality tests in the hope that knowing their personality “type” will help them make better choices for their personal growth, whether that’s in their career, relationships, or health.

Maslow also identified another human need: the need for belonging. Learning your personality type, and the types of those around you, is one way to find “your kind of people”. According to social identity theory, finding a group we feel we belong to feeds back into our sense of who we are.

The Barnum effect

It’s worth noting there is psychological research which questions the validity and reliability of the Myers-Briggs test.

One of the main critiques is that completing the test more than once within a short period of time can generate different results (what is called poor “test-retest reliability”). Since personality is generally stable in the short-term, you would ideally expect the same results.

Furthermore, Myers-Briggs and similar tests use broad, positive, and sufficiently vague language when describing personality types. In doing so, they effectively harness the “Barnum effect” or “Forer effect”: the tendency for people to accept general statements as unique descriptions of themselves.

Sound familiar? That’s because horoscopes do the same thing. The results of horoscopes and personality tests can “feel right” because they are designed to resonate with universal human experiences and aspirations.

That said, personality tests are still routinely used in research and clinical practice – although experts suggest using measures that are proven to be scientifically sound.

One common test used in clinical practice is the revised form of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2-RF). This 338-item test measures problematic personality traits that may impact an individual’s mental health.

While it has its own set of problems, the MMPI-2-RF is useful in accurately assessing for symptoms of personality disorders, and predicting how different personality traits may impact treatment outcomes.

Taking tests too seriously

If you pigeonhole yourself into a rigid personality type, you run the danger of limiting yourself to the boundaries of this label. You may even use the label to excuse your own or others’ problematic behaviours as “just ESTP things”.

Moreover, by seeing the world purely through these simplified categories, we may ignore the fact that personality can evolve over long periods. By putting others, or ourselves, into a box, we fail to see people as individuals who are capable of change and growth.

While there’s nothing wrong with taking a personality test for fun, out of curiosity, or even to explore aspects of your identity, it’s important to not get too attached to the labels – lest they become all that you are.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Are you really an ISFJ? The truth about personality tests – and why we keep taking them – https://theconversation.com/are-you-really-an-isfj-the-truth-about-personality-tests-and-why-we-keep-taking-them-261183

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sonia Mycak, Research Fellow in Ukrainian Studies, Australian National University

The last time Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited the White House earlier this year, he was berated by Donald Trump.

On Monday, he returned with European leaders by his side. He emerged with some signs of progress on a peace deal to end Russia’s war against Ukraine.

The presence of the European leaders no doubt had a great impact on the meeting. After Trump’s recent summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, they were concerned he was aligning the United States with the Russian position by supporting Putin’s maximalist demands.

We see from Trump’s statements over the last couple of months, the only pullback from his erratic pronouncements, largely based on Russian disinformation, seems to come when a body politic around him brings him back to a more realistic and informed position. So, this show of European unity was very important.

Security guarantees remain vital

There was considerable progress on one critical part of the negotiations: security guarantees for Ukraine.

It is significant that the US is to be involved in future security guarantees. It was not that long ago Trump was placing all the responsibility on Europe. So, this signals a positive development.

I listened to the briefing Zelensky gave outside the White House in Ukrainian for Ukrainian journalists. He explained it will take time to sort out the details of any future arrangement, as many countries would be involved in Ukraine’s future security guarantees, each with different capabilities to assist. Some would help Ukraine finance their security needs, others could provide military assistance.

Zelensky also emphasised that funding and assistance for the Ukrainian military will be a part of any future security arrangement. This would involve strategic partnerships in development and production, as well as procurement.

Zelensky made a point of this at a news conference in Brussels prior to Monday’s meeting. It is a priority for Ukraine to have a military strong enough to defend itself from future Russian attacks.

Reports also indicate the security guarantees would involve Ukraine buying around US$90 billion (A$138 billion) of US military equipment through its European allies. Zelensky also suggested the possibility of the US buying Ukrainian-made drones in the future.

According to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, there was also discussion about an Article 5-type security guarantee for Ukraine, referring to the part of the NATO treaty that enshrines the principle of collective defence for all members.

However, contrary to popular belief, NATO’s Article 5 does not actually commit members of the alliance to full military intervention if any one member is attacked. It allows NATO states to decide what type of support, if any, to provide. This would not be enough for Ukraine.

Ukraine has already seen the result of a failed security arrangement. In the
Budapest Memorandum of 1994, the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia guaranteed to respect Ukraine’s borders and territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

However, look what happened. Russia invaded in 2014 without any serious consequences, and then launched a full-scale invasion in 2022.

Given this, any future security guarantee for Ukraine will need to be rigorous. Ukrainians are very cognisant of this.

Loss of Ukrainian territory

Prior to his Alaska summit with Trump, I would have said Putin is not interested in any kind of deal. We saw how in previous meetings in Istanbul, Russia sent low-level delegations, not authorised to make any decisions at all.

However, I think the scenario has changed because, unfortunately, in Alaska, Trump aligned himself with Putin in supporting Russia’s maximalist demands. It’s highly likely Putin now believes he has an advocate for those demands in the White House.

This could mean Putin now perceives there is a realistic chance Russia could secure Donbas, the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

I don’t believe Ukraine would ever agree to any formal or legal recognition of a Russian annexation of Crimea or any of the other four regions that Russia now partly occupies – Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

Zelensky has been adamant Ukraine would not cede territory to Russia in any peace deal. And he alone cannot make such a decision. Changing any borders would need a referendum and a change to the constitution. This would not be easy to do. For one thing, it’s a very unpopular move. And Ukrainians living in Russian-occupied territory would not be given a free and fair vote.

---

---

Putin’s war against Ukraine is an attempt at illegally appropriating very valuable land. In Alaska, he demanded Russia essentially be gifted the entire regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, including land not currently occupied by the Russian military.

This land has extensive Ukrainian military fortifications. Giving up this territory would leave Ukraine completely exposed to future Russian invasions – the country would effectively have no military protection along its eastern border regions. This would put Russia in a very advantageous position in future plans to regroup and attack again.

Even if Zelensky felt compelled to agree to some kind of temporary occupation and a frozen conflict along the current front lines, I don’t believe Ukraine could give up any land still under Ukrainian control.

In a recent Gallup poll, 69% of Ukrainians favoured a negotiated settlement to the war as soon as possible. In my view, this reflects the fact the United States, under the Trump administration, is proving to be an unreliable partner.

A settlement that rewards Russia for its genocidal war against Ukraine would set a very dangerous precedent, not only for the future of Ukraine but for Europe and the rest of the world.

At recent negotiations between the two sides in Istanbul, the head of the Russian delegation reportedly said “Russia is prepared to fight forever”.

That has not changed, no matter what niceties have occurred between Trump and Putin. They are prepared to continue to fight.

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

– ref. Zelensky leaves Washington with Trump’s security guarantees, but are they enough? – https://theconversation.com/zelensky-leaves-washington-with-trumps-security-guarantees-but-are-they-enough-263423

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Clare Corbould, Associate Professor of History and Associate Head (Research) of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University

Omar El Akkad does not want you to look away. An award-winning journalist and novelist, El Akkad was born in Egypt, lived as a teenager in Qatar and Canada, and migrated as an adult to the US, where he now lives with his family in the Pacific Northwest.

His essay collection, One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This, draws on his life, from childhood to new fatherhood. He combines these reflections with a sharp grasp of modern history to examine responses in the west to “the world’s first livestreamed genocide” in Gaza.

Finding that response wanting, he urges readers to watch, listen, reflect and act.

---

Review: One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This – Omar El Akkad (Text Publishing)

---

As someone whose parents migrated to the west for the freedoms and opportunities it would afford their children, El Akkad has an acute sense of the past events, ideas and structures that have shaped the present. He pays keen attention to the legacies of colonial rule.

Witnessing history

El Akkad’s descriptions of atrocity are not easy to read. Nor is his blunt demand to do something. Yet the force of his observations and the bite of his prose make it hard to turn away.

His purpose is akin to many famed witnesses in history. Contemporaneous statements about violence often serve later as testimony in determining what happened, who was responsible, and what recompense is due.

Think of George Orwell on propaganda in Spain. Or British journalists Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge exposing famine in 1930s USSR, while other western communists looked away. Or Victor Klemperer’s diaries, published after the war, which tracked how the Nazis twisted everyday speech.

Above all, this kind of testimony guards against future claims of innocence, against the reassuring assertion that “they didn’t know what was going on” or “they were of their time”.

Less well-known to Australian readers may be American journalist Ida B. Wells, but El Akkad’s fire and fury also brought her to mind. In the 1890s, Wells fiercely attacked lynching in her own newspaper, the Memphis Free Speech. She investigated specific instances of ritualised mob violence.

Wells also catalogued how news outlets told those stories. They minced words to protect the perpetrators, while smearing the reputations of the dead, who were always named.

El Akkad also pays close attention the way the violence in Gaza is framed and described. He observes how reporters use the passive voice, which not only hides the names of killers but implies mass death came about by accident or magic. “Palestinian Journalist Hit in Head by Bullet During Raid on Terror Suspect’s Home,” read one Guardian headline, he notes.

Both Wells and El Akkad show how victims of racist and colonial violence are cast as already guilty. With lynching, the pretext was often an accusation of rape, though that was rarely the actual spark. Far more common were disputes between men over land, pay, labour organising, business competition or voting drives.

In the case of Gaza, the media mimics the claims of Israeli politicians, its military and allies of both. They all cast civilians as terrorists or terrorists-in-waiting, even children. The words clean the consciences of onlookers. They launder harm as if it were cash.

Modes of resisting

As the book’s title, which began life as a viral tweet, goes: One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This.

Bearing witness to the atrocities and the gutless responses, El Akkad reminds liberal readers that if Gaza had happened in the past, they would condemn the violence. What’s more, they would imagine that, had they been alive at the time, they would have firmly resisted the wrong or even taken a heroic stance against it.

One blistering passage will hit very close to home for Australian readers:

I read an op-ed in which a writer argues that the model for Palestinian-Israeli coexistence is something like Canada’s present-day relationship with the Indigenous population, and I marvel at the casual, obvious, but unstated corollary: that there is an Indigenous population being colonized, but that we should let this unpleasantness run its course so we can arrive at true justice in the form of land acknowledgments at every Tel Aviv poetry reading.

As well as diagnosing the problem, El Akkad surveys and evaluates modes of resisting what is happening in Gaza. He discards as ineffective the old appeal to westerners’ self-interest. Pointing out that horrors they permit elsewhere will eventually come for them just doesn’t work.

His essays were written between the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and August 2024, when the US presidential campaign was in full swing. Much of his energy goes to addressing the “lesser of two evils” debate about voting in a democracy where the options are far right and, at most, centre-a-bit-left. Only from a relatively protected position, he observes, could one vote for the Democratic Party on the grounds that the other side “would be so much worse”.

Making this case, El Akkad says, rests on a quiet assent to mass death. He calls this a “reticent acceptance of genocide” and asks liberals in the United States (and by implication in other western democracies) to examine their consciences.

The remedying action El Akkad proposes is widespread negation, or “walking away”. People, en masse, must refuse to accept that the meagre promises of the less conservative political parties are the best options on offer.

This will require sacrifices. El Akkad provides examples of people he admires: the writer who refused a prize from an organisation that had been silent about Gaza; the teacher brave enough to talk with teenage students about the intolerable rate of children and civilians (not “noncombatants”) dying. Most starkly, he writes of Aaron Bushnell, the US Air Force veteran, whose last words before setting himself on fire outside the Israeli embassy in Washington D.C. were “free Palestine”.

Systematic violence

Like Wells, El Akkad links systematic violence to the structures that underpin the modern world. Chief among them is capitalism. Real change, he suggests, will come when enough of us, to use the old 1960s parlance, “drop out”, though he prefers “negation”, a word that that implies there is something to defy.

It is time, he argues, for a well-educated western citizenry to say “enough”. Our phones are smart enough; we are (collectively) rich and sated enough.

It might be hard at first, but we will learn that “maybe it’s not all that much trouble to avoid ordering coffee and downloading apps and buying chocolate-flavored hummus from companies that abide slaughter”.

Doing so might just halt a genocide. In time, this kind of collective action might also stop other looming calamities, not least climate collapse. El Akkad’s steady focus throughout the book on the death, maiming and immeasurable psychic injury to the children of Gaza makes that case feel urgent.

If that sounds hyperbolic, El Akkad might ask what children you had in mind when you flinched from his diagnosis and prognosis. Your answer likely turns on the location, colour and wealth of the children you have in mind. Children in Tuvalu, for example, know he is not exaggerating.

In one of the book’s most arresting lines, El Akkad asks: “How does one finish the sentence: ‘It is unfortunate that tens of thousands of children are dead, but …’”

Better, he suggests, that we all behave in a way whose ethics is grounded in the claim: “there’s no such thing as someone else’s children.”

---

Omar El Akkad will be appearing at the Wheeler Centre, Melbourne, on October 22, 2025

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

– ref. ‘There’s no such thing as someone else’s children’ – Omar El Akkad bears witness to the destruction of Gaza and the West’s quiet assent – https://theconversation.com/theres-no-such-thing-as-someone-elses-children-omar-el-akkad-bears-witness-to-the-destruction-of-gaza-and-the-wests-quiet-assent-251615

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Wenjia Tang, Postdoctoral Research Associate in Digital Communication, University of Sydney

What can you do in 60 seconds? In short dramas, or “micro dramas”, that’s enough time for a billionaire CEO to fall in love with his contracted wife, or for a werewolf mafia boss to break a curse.

These vertically framed, minute-long serials are reshaping the way we consume screen entertainment.

ReelShort, NetShort and DramaBox are currently the leading short drama platforms. DramaBox has been downloaded more than 100 million times on Google Play, while ReelShort was ranked second on Apple’s top free entertainment apps at the time of writing, ahead of Netflix, HBO Max, Prime Video and Disney+.

Short dramas originated in China in the early 2020s through short video platforms such as Douyin (TikTok’s sister app) and Kuaishou (also known as Kwai).

The format has since expanded globally through both Chinese platforms and social media apps such as TikTok and Instagram. It reflects a growing trend in smartphone entertainment towards shorter, scrollable content.

Our new research, which involved interviewing 12 people in the short drama industry, shows it is creating much-needed job opportunities. At the same time, this industry is expanding faster than regulation can catch up – and that spells trouble.

Cliffhangers and outrageous storytelling

Short dramas are optimised for fragmented viewing via smartphones. The format blends TikTok’s fast-paced plotting style with recognisable screen genres. Think: a cheesy lifetime flick delivered in one-minute bursts. Most series have between 50 and 100 episodes.

Their appeal lies in dramatic storylines and cliffhangers. Each episode ends with a twist, designed to keep you hooked. This might be the revelation of a mysterious identity, or a tangled misunderstanding that is bound to lead to conflict. As ReelShort puts it: “every second is a drama”.

Let’s look at the hit series Playing by the Billionaire’s Rules as an example. Over 89 episodes, the series features a contract lover, million-dollar debts, an accidental pregnancy and a secret love triangle.

While it falls short of Hollywood standards of plot, dialogue and acting, it captures viewers’ attention through a conflict-ridden plot and provocative (sometimes amateurish) performances.

Playing by the Billionaire’s Rules is one of thousands of such series available online. In most cases, the first five to ten episodes are free, after which viewers must pay (usually right when the story is at its most thrilling).

A low-cost format, ripe for expansion

Despite illogical storytelling, crude production and exaggerated, stereotypical characters, short dramas are proving to be highly lucrative. In one 2023 article, The Economist described this “latest Chinese export to conquer America” as a hybrid of TikTok and Netflix.

Their popularity can also be linked to the COVID pandemic and the Hollywood writers’ strike, both of which slowed down the global screen industry.

Our research shows short drama production teams, which are mostly led by Chinese producers, have now expanded globally to the United States, Australia, eastern Europe and other parts of Asia, in search of new collaborative opportunities.

Los Angeles is emerging as the fastest-growing production hub. According to one LA Times article, short drama apps outside of China made US$1.2 billion (about A$1.8 billion) last year. Some 60% of this revenue came from the US.

Companies the world over are cashing in on the opportunity. Spanish-language media company TelevisaUnivision has started investing in the format, as has Ukrainian startup Holywater, which is using AI to generate almost fully synthetic short dramas.

Even the Hollywood giant Lionsgate has taken notice of short dramas, and is exploring their commercial potential.

It’s also possible short dramas will open the door for new players in the streaming wars. Although Netflix isn’t currently producing short dramas, it has started experimenting with the vertical short format (in the form of series and movie clips) on its mobile app.

Short dramas are also easily replicated across countries and various market conditions, and allow for localised content strategies. For example, the short drama Breaking the Ice reboots the Chinese campus romance template into a story centred on hockey players, making it more relatable for North American audiences.

Fantasy templates, such as those featuring werewolves, vampires, and witches, have also proven universally successful – and are often used by Chinese producers as low-risk, easily localised genres to test new markets.

Concerns behind the scenes

Our research finds the short drama industry is seen as a promising avenue for creating job opportunities, and for allowing actors and creators to get significant exposure on a modest budget.

But we’ve also found the industry to be far less regulated than more established screen industries.

There are growing concerns in the industry around labour exploitation and copyright infringement, as well as uncertainty over how sustainable the model will be in the long run.

One of our interviewees, a producer based in Los Angeles, revealed several concerning practices including problems with overtime work, stealing and recycling of drama scripts, underpayment of film school graduates, and a prevalence of unfair contracts for screenwriters.

The screenwriters we interviewed told us they hadn’t received proper credit for their work, and were bound by “buyout contracts” that excluded them from receiving additional compensation – even if their scripts garnered millions of views.

Earlier this year, the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance and Casting Guild of Australia issued a joint statement urging local actors to verify the credentials of any “vertical series” production teams before signing contracts with them.

Still, the short drama format continues to draw significant attention from across the screen industry. More than just a passing content trend, this may be the beginning of a structural shift in what “television” means: low-cost, easily replicated and recklessly fast-paced.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Werewolf exes and billionaire CEOs: why cheesy short dramas are taking over our social media feeds – https://theconversation.com/werewolf-exes-and-billionaire-ceos-why-cheesy-short-dramas-are-taking-over-our-social-media-feeds-259385

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ronald Suny, Professor of History and Political Science, University of Michigan

For all the pomp and staged drama of the summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska, the substantive part of the spectacle – that is, the negotiations between two great powers over the grinding war in Ukraine – did not at first appear to yield much. There was no deal and little detail on purported areas of progress.

The post-Alaska analysis, however, suggested the U.S. had shifted away from Ukraine’s position. Trump, it was reported, essentially agreed to Putin’s call for territorial concessions by Ukraine and for efforts toward a conclusive peace agreement over an immediate ceasefire – the latter opposed by Putin as Russia makes gains on the battlefield.

Those apparent concessions were enough to prompt alarm in the capitals of Europe. A hastily arranged follow-up meeting between Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy – and assorted European Union allies – and Trump in the White House on Aug. 18 yielded vague promises of security guarantees for Ukraine.

This is all very frustrating for those looking for some concrete foundations of a peace deal.

Yet, as a longtime scholar of Russian and Soviet history, I believe that the diplomatic whirl has revealed glimpses of what a future peace deal may look like. Or, more precisely, what it looks like for Putin and Trump.

It may be a bitter pill for Ukraine to swallow, but what it all suggests is a meeting of minds between the leaders of the two great powers involved: Russia and the United States. After all, as Trump told Fox News following the Alaska summit: “It’s good when two big powers get along, especially when they’re nuclear powers. We’re No. 1 and they’re No. 2 in the world.”

Known knowns and unknowns

Some of what we already knew remains unchanged. First, the European powers – notably Germany, France and the U.K. – remain fully supportive of Ukraine and are prepared to back Kyiv in resisting the Russian invasion and occupation.

Second, Zelenskyy opposes concessions to Russia, at least publicly. Rather, Ukraine’s leader seemingly believes that with Western – and most importantly, American – arms, Ukraine can effectively resist Russia and secure a better end to the conflict than is evident at this moment. Meeting Trump again in the Oval Office after being ambushed by Trump and Vice President JD Vance in February, Zelenskyy was as deferential and grateful to the U.S. president as his more formal dress indicated.

In contrast to Zelenskyy and the European powers, the aims and positions of the United States under Trump appear to be fluid. And while Putin talks of the need to address the “primary causes” of the Ukraine conflict and publicly pushes a maximalist position, it isn’t entirely clear what he will actually settle for in regard to the security and land arrangements he says he needs.

The imperial mindset

I would argue that there are two ways of interpreting the aims of both the United States and Russia: “imperial” and “hegemonic.” The former stems from an understanding of those countries’ long experience as empires. Countries that have descended from empires have memories of former greatness that many wish to repeat in the present.
And while there is nothing fatalistic about such imperial fantasies that translate the past into the present, they often echo in the repertoire of the influential and powerful.

There are signs in the rhetoric of both Trump and Putin of such grandiose imperial impulses. Both have talked of returning their country to a “great” past and have harbored desires of annexing or dominating other countries.

And many Western analysts of Russia are convinced that Putin dreams of becoming another Peter the Great, who expanded his empire into the Baltic region, or Catherine the Great, who sent her armies south into “New Russia” – that is, what is today Ukraine.

Hegemonic thinking

But there is also another way, short of empire, that explains how great powers act in the world: as hegemons, either regionally or globally.

Instead of the colonizing of other territories and peoples, hegemons act to dominate other countries economically and militarily – and perhaps ideologically and politically, as well. They do so without taking over the smaller country.

The United States, through its dominant position in NATO, is a hegemon whose sway is paramount among the members of the alliance – which can hardly operate effectively without the agreement of Washington.

Putin’s interests, I would contend, are short of fully imperial – which would require complete control of Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policy. But they are flagrantly hegemonic. In this reading, Putin may well be satisfied to get what the Soviets achieved in Finland during the Cold War: a compliant state that did not threaten Moscow, but remained independent in other ways.

Putin has such an arrangement with Belarus and might be satisfied with a Ukraine that’s not fully sovereign, militarily weak and outside of NATO. At the Alaska summit, Putin not only mentioned Ukraine as a “brotherly nation,” but also emphasized that “the situation in Ukraine has to do with fundamental threats to Russian security.”

One can read Putin’s words in many ways, but his public comments in Alaska framed the Ukraine conflict in Russian security terms, rather than in imperialist language.

Are negotiations possible?

The problem for Putin is that Russia does not have the economic and military power, or the reputational soft power attraction, to become a stable, influential hegemon in its neighborhood. Because it cannot achieve what the U.S. has accomplished through a mix of hard and soft power since the fall of the Soviet Union – that is, global hegemony – it has turned to physical force. That move has proved disastrous in terms of casualties, domestic economic distress, the mass migration of hundreds of thousands of Russians opposed to the war, and isolation from the global capitalist economy.

What Putin desires is something that shows to his people that the war was worth the sacrifices. And that may mean territorial expansion in the annexation of four contested provinces of Ukraine – Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson – as well as Crimea, taken in 2014. That goal certainly seems imperial.

And while the distinctions between an imperial foreign policy and a hegemonic one may seem semantic or academic, they are crucial when looking at the prospects of peace. Imperialism is always about conquest and total subordination of one regime to another.

If indeed Putin is an imperialist who wants full control of Ukraine – or, as is often claimed, its elimination as a sovereign state and the recreation of a polity akin to the Soviet Union – then negotiation and compromise with Russia become impossible.

My sense is that to solidify his relations with Trump and his territorial gains in Ukraine, Putin will be satisfied with accepting the rest of Ukraine as a nation-state that remains outside of NATO and is neither a base for Western powers nor a perceived military threat to Russia.

The problem here, of course, is that such a solution may be unacceptable to Zelenskyy and would have to be imposed on Kyiv. That would be anathema to the major European powers, though not necessarily for Trump.

And here we find another obstacle to peace in Ukraine: Europe and the U.S. do not have a united position on the final solution to the war. Even if both accept the view that Russia’s aims are primarily about its own idea of security rather than conquest or elimination of Ukraine, would Europe accept Putin’s demands for a major overhaul of the military balance in east-central Europe.

Trump appears less concerned about the prospect of a truncated Ukraine subordinated to Russia. His major concerns seem to lie elsewhere, perhaps in the Nobel Peace Prize he covets. But the United States may have to guarantee the security of Ukraine against future Russian attacks, something that Trump has hinted at, even as he abhors the idea of sending American troops into foreign conflicts.

Realism at odds with a just peace

Wars have consequences, both for the victorious and the defeated. And the longer this war goes on, the more likely the grinding advance of Russia further into Ukraine becomes, given the military might of Russia and Trump’s ambivalent support of Ukraine.

With those realities in mind, the solution to the Russia-Ukraine war appears to be closer to what Russia is willing to accept than Ukraine. Ukraine, as Trump so brutally put it, does not have cards to play in this tragic game where great powers decide the fate of other countries.

We are back to Thucydides, the ancient Greek founder of political science, who wrote: “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

Not surprisingly, this is what international relations theorists call “realism.”

Ronald Suny 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. Alaska summit and its afterlife provides a glimpse into what peace looks like to Putin and Trump – https://theconversation.com/alaska-summit-and-its-afterlife-provides-a-glimpse-into-what-peace-looks-like-to-putin-and-trump-263309

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Celeste Rodriguez Louro, Associate Professor, Chair of Linguistics and Director of Language Lab, The University of Western Australia

Last year I attended a panel on generative AI in education. In a memorable moment, one presenter asked: “What’s the big deal? Generative AI is like a calculator. It’s just a tool.”

The analogy is an increasingly common one. OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman himself has referred to ChatGPT as “a calculator for words” and compared comments on the new technology to reactions to the arrival of the calculator.

People said, ‘We’ve got to ban these because people will just cheat on their homework. If people don’t need to calculate a sine function by hand again […] then mathematical education is over.’

However, generative AI systems are not calculators. Treating them like calculators obscures what they are, what they do, and whom they serve. This easy analogy simplifies a controversial technology and ignores five crucial differences from technologies of the past.

1. Calculators do not hallucinate or persuade

Calculators compute functions from clearly defined inputs. You punch in 888 ÷ 8 and get one correct answer: 111.

This output is bounded and unchangeable. Calculators do not infer, guess, hallucinate or persuade.

They do not add add fake or unwanted elements to the answer. They do not fabricate legal cases or tell people to “please die”.

2. Calculators do not pose fundamental ethical dilemmas

Calculators don’t raise fundamental ethical dilemmas.

Making ChatGPT involved workers in Kenya sifting through irreversibly traumatising content for a dollar or two an hour, for example. Calculators didn’t need that.

After the financial crisis in Venezuela, an AI data-labelling company saw an opportunity to snap up cheap labour with exploitative employment models. Calculators didn’t need that, either.

Calculators didn’t require vast new power plants to be built, or compete with humans for water as AI data centres are doing in some of the driest parts of the world.

Calculators didn’t need new infrastructure to be built. The calculator industry didn’t see a huge mining push such as the one currently driving rapacious copper and lithium extraction as in the lands of the Atacameños in Chile.

3. Calculators do not undermine autonomy

Calculators did not have the potential to become an “autocomplete for life”. They never offered to make every decision for you, from what to eat and where to travel to when to kiss your date.

Calculators did not challenge our ability to think critically. Generative AI, however, has been shown to erode independent reasoning and increase “cognitive offloading”. Over time, reliance on these systems risks placing the power to make everyday decisions in the hands of opaque corporate systems.

4. Calculators do not have social and linguistic bias

Calculators do not reproduce the hierarchies of human language and culture. Generative AI, however, is trained on data that reflects centuries of unequal power relations, and its outputs mirror those inequities.

Language models inherit and reinforce the prestige of dominant linguistic forms, while sidelining or erasing less privileged ones.

Tools such as ChatGPT handle mainstream English, but routinely reword, mislabel, or erase other world Englishes.

While projects exist that attempt to tackle the exclusion of minoritised voices from technological development, generative AI’s bias for mainstream English is worryingly pronounced.

5. Calculators are not ‘everything machines’

Unlike calculators, language models don’t operate within a narrow domain such as mathematics. Instead they have the potential to entangle themselves in everything: perception, cognition, affect and interaction.

Language models can be “agents”, “companions”, “influencers”, “therapists”, and “boyfriends”. This is a key difference between generative AI and calculators.

While calculators help with arithmetic, generative AI may engage in both transactional and interactional functions. In one sitting, a chatbot can help you edit your novel, write up code for a new app, and provide a detailed psychological profile of someone you think you like.

Staying critical

The calculator analogy makes language models and so-called “copilots”, “tutors”, and “agents” sound harmless. It gives permission for uncritical adoption and suggests technology can fix all the challenges we face as a society.

It also perfectly suits the platforms that make and distribute generative AI systems. A neutral tool needs no accountability, no audits, no shared governance.

But as we have seen, generative AI is not like a calculator. It does not simply crunch numbers or produce bounded outputs.

Understanding what generative AI is really like requires rigorous critical thinking. The kind that equips us to confront the consequences of “moving fast and breaking things”. The kind that can help us decide whether the breakage is worth the cost.

Celeste Rodriguez Louro receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Google.

– ref. Generative AI is not a ‘calculator for words’. 5 reasons why this idea is misleading – https://theconversation.com/generative-ai-is-not-a-calculator-for-words-5-reasons-why-this-idea-is-misleading-263323

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

Videos promoting #testosteronemaxxing are racking up millions of views. Like “looksmaxxing” or “fibremaxxing” this trend takes something related to body image (improving your looks) or health (eating a lot of fibre) and pushes it to extreme levels.

Testosterone or “T” maxxing encourages young men – mostly teenage boys – to increase their testosterone levels, either naturally (for example, through diet) or by taking synthetic hormones.

Podcasters popular among young men, such as Joe Rogan and Andrew Huberman, enthusiastically promote it as a way to fight ageing, enhance performance or build strength.

However, taking testosterone when there’s no medical need has serious health risks. And the trend plays into the insecurities of young men and developing boys who want to be considered masculine and strong. This can leave them vulnerable to exploitation – and seriously affect their health.

---

Read more:
Get big or die trying: social media is driving men’s use of steroids. Here’s how to mitigate the risks

---

What is testosterone?

We all produce the sex hormone testosterone, but levels are naturally much higher in males. It’s produced mainly in the testes, and in much smaller amounts in the ovaries and adrenal glands.

Testosterone’s effects on the body are wide ranging, including helping you grow and repair muscle and bone, produce red blood cells and stabilise mood and libido.

During male puberty, testosterone production increases 30-fold and drives changes such as a deeper voice, developing facial hair and increasing muscle mass and sperm production.

It’s normal for testosterone levels to change across your lifetime, and even to fluctuate daily (usually at their highest in the morning).

Lifestyle factors such as diet, sleep and stress can also affect how much testosterone you produce.

Natural testosterone levels generally peak in early adulthood, around the mid-twenties. They then start to progressively decline with age.

A doctor can check hormone levels with a blood test. For males, healthy testosterone levels usually range between about 450 and 600 ng/dL (nanograms per decilitre of blood serum). Low testosterone is generally below 300 ng/dL.

Diagnosing low testosterone

In Australia, taking testosterone is only legal with a doctor’s prescription and ongoing supervision. The only way to diagnose low testosterone is via a blood test.

Testosterone may be prescribed to men diagnosed with hypogonadism, meaning the testes don’t produce enough testosterone.

This condition can lead to:

• reduced muscle mass
• increased body fat
• lower bone density (increasing the risk of fracture)
• low libido
• erectile dysfunction
• fatigue
• depression
• anaemia
• difficulty concentrating.

Hypogonadism has even been linked to early death in men.

A manufactured panic about ‘low T’

Hypogonadism affects around one in 200 men, although estimates vary. It is more common among older men and those with diabetes or obesity.

Yet on social media, “low T” is being framed as an epidemic among young men. Influencers warn them to look for signs, such as not developing muscle mass or strength as quickly as hoped – or simply not looking “masculine”.

Extreme self-improvement and optimisation trends spread like wildfire online. They tap into common anxieties about masculinity, status and popularity.

Conflating “manliness” with testosterone levels and a muscular physical appearance exploits an insecurity ripe for marketing.

This has fuelled a market surge for “solutions” including private clinics offering “testosterone optimisation” packages, supplements claiming to increase testosterone levels and influencers on social media promoting extreme exercise and diet programs.

There is evidence some people are undergoing testosterone replacement therapy, even when they don’t have clinically low levels of testosterone.

What are the risks of testosterone replacement?

Taking testosterone as a medication can suppress the body’s own production, by shutting down the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, which controls testosterone and sperm production.

While testosterone production can recover after you stop taking testosterone, this can be slow and is not guaranteed, particularly after long-term or unsupervised use. This means some men may feel a significant difference when they stop taking testosterone.

Testosterone therapy can also lead to side effects for some people, including acne and skin conditions, balding, reduced fertility and a high red blood cell count. It can also interact with some medications.

So there are added risks from using testosterone without a prescription and appropriate supervision.

On the black market, testosterone is sold in gyms, or online via encrypted messaging apps. These products can be contaminated, counterfeit or incorrectly dosed.

People taking these drugs without medical supervision face potential infection, organ damage, or even death, since contaminated or counterfeit products have been linked to toxic metal poisoning, heart attacks, strokes and fatal organ failure.

Harm reduction is key

T maxxing offers young men an enticing image: raise your testosterone, be more manly.

But for healthy young men without hypogonadism, the best ways to regulate hormones and development are healthy lifestyle choices. This includes sleeping and eating well and staying active.

To fight misinformation and empower men to make informed choices, we need to meet them where they are. This means recognising their drive for self-improvement without judgement while helping them understand the real risks of non-medical hormone use.

We also need to acknowledge that young men chasing T maxxing often mask deeper issues, such as body image anxiety, social pressure or mental health issues.

Young men often delay seeking help until they have a medical emergency.

If you’re worried about your testosterone levels, speak to your doctor.

Samuel Cornell receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Timothy Piatkowski receives funding from Queensland Mental Health Commission. He is affiliated with Queensland Injectors Voice for Advocacy and Action and The Loop Australia.

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

– ref. Why are young men ‘T maxxing’ testosterone? Do they need it? And what are the risks? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-young-men-t-maxxing-testosterone-do-they-need-it-and-what-are-the-risks-263203