Category: The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tennessee Randall, PhD Candidate in Social Psychology, Swansea University

Meat has a large environmental impact, but could consuming more of it be part of the answer?

Meat-eaters in western countries today typically focus on the muscle tissue of animals and often avoid consuming offal (internal organs like the heart, liver and kidney). But eating more offal could lower the number of animals that are killed for food and so the greenhouse gases produced by the meat industry.

Offal also has potential health benefits. It’s packed with protein, vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids and often contains more nutrients than the meat that we would usually eat. For example, 100 grams of liver provides around 36% of your recommended daily iron but eating the same amount of minced meat would provide around 12%.

Offal was once a popular food choice in the UK during the second world war. In Japan, eating offal is motivated by cultural values such as “mottainai”, which describes a sense of regret around being wasteful. Similarly, “nose-to-tail” eating is becoming more popular in the UK, which is also based on principles around reducing food waste and respecting the animal’s sacrifice.

Despite the potential health and environmental benefits, getting consumers to accept offal is more difficult than one might expect. Typically, people who haven’t tried offal are disgusted by the thought of eating it and often consider it to be contaminated. Others are put off because they just don’t know how to make a tasty meal that their children will also eat.

One way to overcome this is to use offal in a familiar meal with other ingredients. I explored this with other researchers in a recent study of 390 UK meat eaters. Specifically, we looked at their opinions of offal in its natural form and compared it to when offal (liver and kidney) was included as an ingredient within minced meat (for instance, “offal-enriched” mince).

We found the offal-enriched mince was considered more acceptable and was expected to be tastier, more satisfying, intriguing and easier to prepare than livers and kidneys. Although, livers and kidneys were expected to be more natural, have less fat and better for the environment than offal-enriched mince.

Men v women

When we compared these ratings across men and women, it was clear that men felt more positive about eating “pure” offal than women. Whereas men and women expressed similar opinions about eating offal within minced meat.

We also compared opinions across six different types of offal-enriched meals, which included a burger, curry, spaghetti bolognese, meatballs, shepherd’s pie and a stir fry. The spaghetti bolognese was a clear favourite for its expected taste, but people were equally curious to try the stir fry, which they also believed would be healthier and more natural than the other meals.

Consumers also answered questions on their personality type and motives for choosing food, which meant we could flesh out the psychology behind why some people are more open to trying offal-enriched meals than others.

On the plus side, it turns out that people who prioritise their health when choosing food think offal-enriched meals would be tastier and more intriguing. However, people who are fearful of eating new foods think the opposite. In psychology, this is known as “food neophobia” and has been linked with less healthier food choices in some populations. In our sample, women had higher food neophobia than men.

Tackling the stigma

There may also be some stigma around eating offal, as we found that people who were more likely to control how they were viewed by others formed more negative opinions of offal-enriched meals. This type of social interaction is known as “impression management” and has been shown to influence food choices.

Much of the offal produced in the UK is exported because the consumer demand is low. This means that offal is much cheaper than other meat cuts, such as a steak or a lamb’s leg. However, this could fuel misperceptions about the meat being a lower quality, or that it is chosen by those who cannot afford the expensive cuts.

In reality, eating more of the animal could support a healthy diet and could be a more achievable recommendation for sustainable eating, especially for the men who love their meat.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Tennessee Randall receives funding from the Economic Social Research Council Wales Doctoral Training Partnership.

– ref. The planet wants you to eat more offal – here’s how to increase consumption – https://theconversation.com/the-planet-wants-you-to-eat-more-offal-heres-how-to-increase-consumption-267051

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matt McLain, Senior Lecturer in Education and Professional Learning, Liverpool John Moores University

Studying design and technology (D&T) at school gives children the opportunity to get up from behind a desk and learn practical skills. It’s the only subject in the national curriculum in which children can develop and create tangible solutions to real problems.

They can get an insight into whether they might enjoy careers in design, fashion, engineering, technology or food. And they can learn skills that will be useful to them at home, in the workplace and in society.

D&T could play a crucial role in the government’s aim to revitalise the national curriculum in England, enrich children’s learning, and prepare young people for vocational education and training. The practical and hands-on approach children learn through D&T in primary and secondary schools can raise their awareness of vocational options and prepare them for technical and vocational education after their GCSEs, whether or not they chose an overtly D&T-related career pathway.

Once a thriving part of the national curriculum, D&T has suffered years of decline. The ongoing review of the national curriculum in England provides the ideal opportunity for national education policy to revive the value of practical and creative learning for its pupils.

D&T was a compulsory GCSE until 2004. It has since plummeted in popularity. The number of GCSE entries has shrunk in England from over 400,000 entries in 2004 to 137,016 in 2025. School funding has also decreased in real terms, affecting relatively expensive subjects such as D&T.

The introduction of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc), which compares schools based on how many students take certain GCSEs, has added to this issue. The EBacc is weighted towards traditionally academic subjects: English, maths, the sciences, geography or history and a language. It incentivises schools to encourage students towards these subjects.

The knock-on effect of this has been the drastic reduction of curriculum time and budgets for more practical and creative subjects, such as D&T, in many secondary schools. This prioritisation of certain subjects over others may also affect how young people think about learning skills that prepare them for work in the creative and manufacturing industries.

There also aren’t enough D&T teachers. Government census data for England shows that in 2024-25, just 618 D&T trainees were recruited – 39% of the target number. It was an even lower number the year before.

Bursaries for new teachers are also lower for D&T than for subjects such as chemistry, computing, mathematics and physics. This means graduates in Stem subjects – science, technology, engineering and maths – who would be good candidates to teach D&T may opt for science or maths instead. In 2018, the Department for Education excluded D&T from a list of what it considered Stem subjects.

Yet in a world facing rapid technological change, climate challenges and skills shortages, practical and creative subjects such as D&T are more vital than ever. England faces a critical skills gap in design, engineering and manufacturing. These are industries essential for growth.

The World Economic Forum’s 2025 Future of Jobs report outlines the core skills prioritised by employers. Many of these are promoted by D&T: they include creative thinking, technological literacy, quality control, and design and user experience.

Design and technology is not a nostalgic throwback or a soft alternative to academic rigour. It is a challenging and vital part of preparing young people for the future. As England faces economic, environmental and social challenges, we need a curriculum that equips students to think creatively, solve real-world problems and engage with technology meaningfully.

The final report of England’s review of school curriculum and assessment, due for publication this autumn, presents an opportunity for a renaissance in practical and creative learning, as well as a revaluing of experience alongside knowledge.

Matt McLain received funding from the Department for Education to draft the current subject content for GCSE and A Level design and technology. He is also a trustee for the Design and Technology Association, who support the teaching of the subject in schools.

– ref. Design and technology’s practical and creative skills should see it revived in the school curriculum – https://theconversation.com/design-and-technologys-practical-and-creative-skills-should-see-it-revived-in-the-school-curriculum-266123

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Jones, Associate Dean for Education and Student Experience at Aston Business School, Aston University

From ChatGPT crafting emails, to AI systems recommending TV shows and even helping diagnose disease, the presence of machine intelligence in everyday life is no longer science fiction.

And yet, for all the promises of speed, accuracy and optimisation, there’s a lingering discomfort. Some people love using AI tools. Others feel anxious, suspicious, even betrayed by them. Why?

The answer isn’t just about how AI works. It’s about how we work. We don’t understand it, so we don’t trust it. Human beings are more likely to trust systems they understand. Traditional tools feel familiar: you turn a key, and a car starts. You press a button, and a lift arrives.

But many AI systems operate as black boxes: you type something in, and a decision appears. The logic in between is hidden. Psychologically, this is unnerving. We like to see cause and effect, and we like being able to interrogate decisions. When we can’t, we feel disempowered.

This is one reason for what’s called algorithm aversion. This is a term popularised by the marketing researcher Berkeley Dietvorst and colleagues, whose research showed that people often prefer flawed human judgement over algorithmic decision making, particularly after witnessing even a single algorithmic error.

We know, rationally, that AI systems don’t have emotions or agendas. But that doesn’t stop us from projecting them on to AI systems. When ChatGPT responds “too politely”, some users find it eerie. When a recommendation engine gets a little too accurate, it feels intrusive. We begin to suspect manipulation, even though the system has no self.

This is a form of anthropomorphism – that is, attributing humanlike intentions to nonhuman systems. Professors of communication Clifford Nass and Byron Reeves, along with others have demonstrated that we respond socially to machines, even knowing they’re not human.

We hate when AI gets it wrong

One curious finding from behavioural science is that we are often more forgiving of human error than machine error. When a human makes a mistake, we understand it. We might even empathise. But when an algorithm makes a mistake, especially if it was pitched as objective or data-driven, we feel betrayed.

This links to research on expectation violation, when our assumptions about how something “should” behave are disrupted. It causes discomfort and loss of trust. We trust machines to be logical and impartial. So when they fail, such as misclassifying an image, delivering biased outputs or recommending something wildly inappropriate, our reaction is sharper. We expected more.

The irony? Humans make flawed decisions all the time. But at least we can ask them “why?”

For some, AI isn’t just unfamiliar, it’s existentially unsettling. Teachers, writers, lawyers and designers are suddenly confronting tools that replicate parts of their work. This isn’t just about automation, it’s about what makes our skills valuable, and what it means to be human.

This can activate a form of identity threat, a concept explored by social psychologist Claude Steele and others. It describes the fear that one’s expertise or uniqueness is being diminished. The result? Resistance, defensiveness or outright dismissal of the technology. Distrust, in this case, is not a bug – it’s a psychological defence mechanism.

Craving emotional cues

Human trust is built on more than logic. We read tone, facial expressions, hesitation and eye contact. AI has none of these. It might be fluent, even charming. But it doesn’t reassure us the way another person can.

This is similar to the discomfort of the uncanny valley, a term coined by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori to describe the eerie feeling when something is almost human, but not quite. It looks or sounds right, but something feels off. That emotional absence can be interpreted as coldness, or even deceit.

In a world full of deepfakes and algorithmic decisions, that missing emotional resonance becomes a problem. Not because the AI is doing anything wrong, but because we don’t know how to feel about it.

It’s important to say: not all suspicion of AI is irrational. Algorithms have been shown to reflect and reinforce bias, especially in areas like recruitment, policing and credit scoring. If you’ve been harmed or disadvantaged by data systems before, you’re not being paranoid, you’re being cautious.

This links to a broader psychological idea: learned distrust. When institutions or systems repeatedly fail certain groups, scepticism becomes not only reasonable, but protective.

Telling people to “trust the system” rarely works. Trust must be earned. That means designing AI tools that are transparent, interrogable and accountable. It means giving users agency, not just convenience. Psychologically, we trust what we understand, what we can question and what treats us with respect.

If we want AI to be accepted, it needs to feel less like a black box, and more like a conversation we’re invited to join.

Paul Jones 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 do some of us love AI, while others hate it? The answer is in how our brains perceive risk and trust – https://theconversation.com/why-do-some-of-us-love-ai-while-others-hate-it-the-answer-is-in-how-our-brains-perceive-risk-and-trust-268588

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Doug Specht, Reader in Cultural Geography and Communication, University of Westminster

Maps do more than show us where we are or help us find where we need to go. They are powerful cultural documents, reflecting – and often shaping – the values, priorities and secrets of the societies that create them.

This lesson is brought to vivid and sometimes unsettling life in the British Library’s new exhibition, Secret Maps, which draws on more than 100 remarkable items to trace the long and tangled history of mapping as a tool for both revelation and concealment.

From hand-drawn naval charts presented to Henry VIII, to the satellite data hoovered up by our smartphones, the exhibition explores how, across centuries, maps have given form to power, plotted imperial ambitions, and encoded anxieties about security and privacy. But it also shines a light on how maps have empowered communities, memorialised injustice and contested official narratives.

One of the most striking themes of Secret Maps is the use of cartography as an instrument of state secrecy. Many of the earliest items on display were never meant for public eyes: confidential maps of the English coast commissioned for Tudor monarchs, closely guarded charts of “secret” trading routes by the Dutch East India Company and classified military plans for the D-Day landings. The shaping of knowledge was, and often still is, an act of geopolitical strategy.

A particularly evocative display pairs an 1876 map of Dover stripped of its military details for public consumption with a “secret” version, replete with every casemate (a fortified gun emplacement) and hill.

As one panel explains, such acts of omission, deliberate or otherwise, “reflect accepted priorities”. When official cartography leaves blank spaces, it can signal what those in power would rather not acknowledge publicly, or risk falling into enemy hands.

Maps in conflict and protest

State secrecy is only part of the picture. The exhibition moves through the maps used to anticipate or orchestrate conflict. There are projected atomic attack plans for cold war London, clandestine surveys of military posts during the 1926 general strike, and maps of prison sites that are rarely officially recognised. One contemporary exhibit, a quilt made by inmates of Bullingdon Prison, visually and symbolically places the prisoners “back on the map”. It’s a striking refusal to be rendered invisible.

Secret Maps also highlights the dual nature of mapping in social movements. While some communities have had to fight to be mapped at all, Kibera in Nairobi, for example, has long appeared as a blank space on government maps due to its informal settlement status. Others now find themselves surveilled and exposed by new forms of cartographic data, such as through smartphone location data collected by apps including many digital transport tickets. The transition from omission to unwelcome documentation – particularly through community mapping and digital tracking – raises profound questions about power, visibility and autonomy.

Perhaps the most relevant questions raised by Secret Maps concern the intersection of mapping technology and personal privacy.

In a world awash with smartphones, bank cards and travel passes, our movements are continuously logged and mapped. As one exhibit panel observes: “Every day, we unknowingly trade privacy for convenience.” These “secret maps” of our movements are bought, sold, and used to target us in ways most of us never fully grasp. It’s a modern paradox in which the act of mapping becomes both empowering and intrusive.

Crucially, the exhibition doesn’t treat these as merely problems of technology, but as questions of agency. Maps have always both granted power and threatened it, depending on who controls the data, the scale and the narrative.

Secret Maps is at its best when inviting us to reflect on these paradoxes. One central claim, echoed across several displays, is that: “Maps shape perceptions, empowering some while disempowering others.” What is included or excluded is rarely neutral. From colonial land surveys used to dispossess Indigenous peoples, to the “gay-friendly” city guides and Indigenous countermaps (that promote perspectives, knowledge, and rights in opposition to the colonial or state cartography on display), maps have always marked the battle lines of legitimacy and erasure.

The exhibition does not shy away from difficult topics. Maps tracing the infrastructure of apartheid, or those produced to facilitate war or surveillance, sit alongside playful artefacts such as the iconic Where’s Wally? books. The effect is to remind us that all mapping, whether for adventure, statecraft, or protest, is fundamentally about control: who gets to see, who gets seen and who decides.

A rare glimpse behind the lines

With loans from the British Library’s archives and other national collections, the exhibition offers a rare glimpse into how states historically used maps to control knowledge and project power. But it also foregrounds resistance. Community memory projects, counter-mappings, and the growing use of open-source tools reveal what authorities would like to hide.

As lead curator Tom Harper remarked during the opening of the exhibition: “Mapping has responded to the human desire to explore and define our world but can also be used as a tool of concealment.” Secret Maps succeeds in making tangible these tensions, showing how the map, ostensibly a neutral record, is always, in fact, a site of contest.

Secret Maps isn’t just about the maps that reveal or keep secrets, it’s about how those secrets shape our shared and private lives. It’s a timely reminder that every map is as much about power, memory, and identity as about topography or direction.

Whether you are a curious citizen, a student of history, or a digital cartographer, this exhibition offers an essential lens through which to reconsider the lines that shape our world.

Secret Maps is at the British Library in London until January 18 2026.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Doug Specht 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. Secret Maps at the British Library reconsiders the lines that shape our world – https://theconversation.com/secret-maps-at-the-british-library-reconsiders-the-lines-that-shape-our-world-268464

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matt Barlow, Lecturer International Political Economy, University of Glasgow

In late October Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, won a decisive victory in the country’s midterm elections. The scale of the result caught most political commentators off-guard. It now gives the president the legislative capacity to push through his much touted programme of labour and tax reforms.

While voter turnout hit a historic low, those who did vote overwhelmingly supported Milei’s Liberty Advances party, strengthening his chances of consolidating his radical economic agenda of austerity and free-market capitalism.

Milei’s defeat in local legislative elections in Buenos Aires province only a month earlier had led me to ask whether his economic agenda was at risk of being derailed. But this time around, in the same province – a traditional stronghold of the opposition Peronist party – Milei’s party took most of the seats.

Even in his historic presidential election victory in 2023, this was a province that Milei had been unable to win. So victory now could be seen as a validation of his wider austerity policies – and a mark of his popularity.

It is a popularity that seemingly transcends borders – all the way to the White House. In the run-up to the election, much was written on US intervention into Argentine politics. US president Donald Trump offered a US$40 billion (£30 billion) bailout while simultaneously warning the country’s electorate that the offer was conditional on strong voter support for Milei in the midterms.

Immediately after his electoral victory, members of the Trump administration heaped praise on Milei, calling him a patriot and freedom fighter who would make Argentina great again.

Such is the deepening of relations between the US and Argentina that even during the fanfare of President Trump’s east Asia trip, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent talked with Milei and posted support for his political and economic agenda on social media. Meanwhile, Milei thanked the US for its “unwavering” support.

Bessent’s post also alluded to the fact that the market should easily meet the “republic’s financing needs for 2026”. This is a bold statement when the market has long been sceptical about Argentina, even when its governments have pursued market-friendly policies.

Investors reacted enthusiastically to the election result, however, pushing the value of the Argentine peso up by 10% (at one point) against the US dollar on the Monday after the vote.

Uncertainty about future government policies towards the peso, which floats in an exchange rate band that prevents it from moving beyond upper and lower levels, meant that all the currency gains had been virtually wiped out by the Tuesday.

Yet there remains an optimism in Argentina that Milei’s electoral victory opens up opportunities for debt sales that could provide a pathway for much needed US dollars to make their way into the economy.

Argentinian oil companies YPF and Tecpetrol have sparked an early bond rush by issuing fresh debt into the markets, while provincial governments are reportedly negotiating with banks to package and sell debt to investors abroad. All of this signals growing investor confidence and could bolster the value of the peso.

A bumpy road ahead

It is of course not all plain sailing. While Milei’s policies have so far tamed inflation – and delivered a surplus for the government finances – they come with risks and high social costs.

Many Argentinians do not, as yet, feel better off. A fall in purchasing power thanks to things like rising supermarket prices and transport costs has meant that many citizens are not feeling the benefit of the lower overall rate of inflation. Some 250,000 jobs have been lost across public and private sectors and 18,000 business have closed, leading to high unemployment and underemployment. Many people must now borrow money to make it to the end of the month.

Milei has previously employed vetoes to stall funding increases in higher education, disability allowances and pensions. These are all emotive policy areas and are likely to generate public backlash as well as placing some of the most vulnerable at risk.

The national budget could also come under renewed pressure. Debt repayments including US$3.3 billion to the IMF are due next year and investment is badly needed into Argentine infrastructure.

Milei has sought investment into extractive industries such as lithium and shale gas and oil as part of his growth strategy. But the infrastructure projects that allow for the transportation of these commodities – and which attract investment – fell under his chainsaw as part of major austerity cuts in 2024.

Half of the 2,700 public work projects unfinished from former president Alberto Fernández’s administration have seen no progress during Milei’s presidency.

Meanwhile, the US bailout is not free money, and voters have voiced worries around the potential costs of Trump’s support. This is not just about economic costs but also autonomy, with some commentators describing Argentina as a new US colony.

It is easy to see why. The Argentine government removed export taxes on grain to increase sales and boost dollar reserves in September, only to re-impose them 72 hours later.

This occurred at the same time as leaked messages show there was concern in the US government that Argentina had an unfair advantage through not paying export taxes. This led Bessent to reassure American farmers that the tax advantage enjoyed by farmers in Argentina would end soon, which it did.

The midterms were both an incredible result for Milei and a moment of reflection for the opposition and political analysts. The vote ended a volatile period of Argentine politics, which was recently described to me as being like a Netflix series.

But as with all good series, there are often sequels. Milei has weathered his first electoral challenge, but many others remain that could hinder the economic growth and prosperity that he has promised.

Matt Barlow 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. Milei’s win should lock in financial backing from Trump. But at what cost to Argentinians? – https://theconversation.com/mileis-win-should-lock-in-financial-backing-from-trump-but-at-what-cost-to-argentinians-268806

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Taylor, Professor of Anatomy, Lancaster University

Around 2,000 people visit A&E every year due to injuries caused by fireworks. Although fireworks are an essential part of Bonfire Night celebrations for many revellers, these colourful pyrotechnics can be as dangerous as they are spectacular. And the injuries you might sustain from them can range from minor to downright gruesome if you aren’t careful.

The most common injuries caused by fireworks are, of course, burns. These account for approximately two-thirds of injuries caused by fireworks – typically due to people holding onto a firework when lighting them or when they explode. This is also why approximately 40% of fireworks-related injuries occur in the hands or wrist.

But the force generated in these blasts won’t just burn you. They’re also powerful enough to deglove fingers or hands, which, as the name suggests, is where the skin is removed like a glove.

These blasts can also snap or separate bones – either from each other or from the hand completely. While the skin and bones of the fingers can sometimes be reattached and regain function, this isn’t always the case.

Standing too close to fireworks, treading on smouldering debris or being impaled by a firework that has been launched at spectators are also all risks for injury. Alongside burns, fractures and breaks, there have been cases where the shards of metal that give fireworks their colour have become lodged in the skin and underlying tissue of the feet. Sadly, in one instance, a man had to have his leg amputated after he tripped over a firework mortar and it hit his leg.

Typically, the most common head injuries are those affecting the ears – such as ringing in the ears and perforated ear drums. These injuries happen when fireworks go off in close proximity to the head. Eye injuries are also not uncommon. In fact, one charity reports that ten people in the UK are blinded each year due to fireworks-related accidents – with another 300 suffering eye injuries.

More significant, traumatic injuries to the eye, eye socket and skull itself have been reported. This includes burns, eyeball rupture, damage to soft tissues and blood vessel damage in the skull and throat, which can affect breathing.

Injuries to the head and neck are often challenging to recover from and require multiple specialist teams to repair. Still, in many cases, visual impairment can persist long after recovery.

Teeth may also be at risk on Bonfire Night. In 2021, a UK woman ate what she thought was popping candy – but turned out to be fun snaps. These snaps are mini-fireworks made of sand or gravel mixed with explosive silver fulminate, all wrapped in paper. These exploded in her mouth, breaking her tooth and leaving her with burns to her lips and mouth.

More dangerous than fireworks

Perhaps even more dangerous than fireworks in general are sparklers specifically, which many see as a harmless way to join in on the Bonfire Night fun. But sparklers account for a significant proportion of injuries that are caused by fireworks.

Children are most at risk of sparkler injuries. Two-thirds of sparkler injuries happen to children under five. They burn at incredibly hot temperatures, some close to 1000°C. This is ten times hotter than boiling water. As you’d expect the most typical injuries from sparklers are burns affecting the fingers and hands. But since many people wave sparklers around while using them, this could put the face, eyes and many other parts of the body at risk of injury if not careful.

Younger children have thinner skin, so heat that an adult could normally tolerate will cause more significant damage to a child’s skin.

There’s also the possibility of sparklers igniting children’s clothing, which can result in significant burns across their whole body. One case saw a child receive full thickness burns – where all layers of the skin are destroyed and the underlying muscle and bone is damaged – across nearly 50% of their body after a sparkler ignited their clothes.

Wearing gloves can help prevent against burn injuries from sparklers, however the glove material can be a fire risk if it’s synthetic. If gloves do set on fire, they can melt to the skin, so do not try to remove them as this may cause more damage to the skin.

Approximately 75% of fireworks injuries occur in men and the majority of fireworks injuries occur at private or family displays rather than professionally organised events. So if you are planning to celebrate Bonfire Night at home with some fireworks, be sure to wear sensible clothing made of natural fibres which cover as much skin as possible.

If you are organising Bonfire Night celebrations at home, whoever is in charge of lighting fireworks should be wearing protective equipment, such as goggles and gloves. They should only launch fireworks from sturdy ground – and launch away from observers. Keep material on-hand to extinguish any stray fireworks and water for any potential burns. All these can help reduce the risk of significant injury.

Take extra precautions if you use sparklers. Wearing gloves made of natural fibres may help prevent burns and aim to keep them at arm’s length, away from the face. Always keep children under close supervision and remember they’re a risk to themselves and others with sparklers.

Emergency services also advocate for attending organised events for Bonfire Night, which have stringent safety protocols in place for fireworks displays.

Adam Taylor 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. Bonfire Night: why it’s never a good idea to mess around with fireworks – https://theconversation.com/bonfire-night-why-its-never-a-good-idea-to-mess-around-with-fireworks-263766

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Claire Hart, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Southampton

Teamwork can bring out both the best and the worst in people. Working together means sharing ideas and coordinating actions. But sometimes, it can also involve swallowing pride, particularly when people with strong personalities, such as those with narcissism, take charge.

In our new study, we explored how grandiose narcissism – the inflated belief that you’re brighter, bolder and more capable than everyone else – affects cooperation in a team.

Instead of running surveys in a lab, we took narcissism into the wild: with more than 100 people locked in commercial escape rooms, racing the clock to solve puzzles together.

Personality psychologists distinguish between two sides of grandiose narcissism. Narcissistic admiration is the charming, confident, magnetic side that wins people over. Narcissistic rivalry, by contrast, is the defensive, combative side – quick to take offence when its status feels threatened.

Both protect a grandiose self-image, but in different ways: admiration draws people in, rivalry pushes them away. We wanted to see which side helps or harms teamwork when the pressure’s on.

The escape-room experiment

Participants were split into small teams of four or five, most meeting for the first time. After a quick ice-breaker, they entered a jungle-themed escape room with 60 minutes to find clues and escape. Success depended on communication, trust and problem-solving: exactly what makes real-world teams thrive.

Before and after the escape-room challenge, players rated themselves and one another on traits like likeability, empathy and confidence. This let us see how first impressions held up when the pressure kicked in.

We also measured the two sides of narcissism – admiration (charm, confidence, leadership) and rivalry (defensiveness, competitiveness). Finally, we tracked how well the teams gelled together, how much conflict emerged and how successful they were – not just how successful they felt, but how many rooms they actually escaped.

This was what’s called a round-robin design: every team member rated both themselves and each of their teammates. This let us capture not just how narcissistic people see themselves, but how they’re actually seen by others – giving a rare glimpse into real-time reputation and perception within teams.

Rivalry wrecks performance

The findings were striking. Teams high in narcissistic rivalry performed worse than others, making around one-third less progress in the escape challenge. They solved fewer puzzles, reported less unity and generally found the experience more frustrating.

Why? Rivalry undermined team cohesion: the sense of unity that keeps people working towards a shared goal. Under pressure, rivalrous people tended to withdraw, dismiss others’ suggestions or hold back information. They didn’t always start arguments, but their defensiveness quietly slowed the group down.

The takeaway is simple: ego doesn’t just make teammates annoying, it breaks the collective bond that gets the job done.

The admiration side of narcissism told a more seductive story. Those high in admiration looked confident, likeable and ready to lead. Early on, they seemed to boost morale. But by the end of the task, teammates saw them as more arrogant and less empathic.

In other words, the charisma that first impressed others soon wore thin once teamwork required genuine give and take. It’s the office classic: the confident self-promoter who dazzles in the meeting, but frustrates everyone by the project’s end.

Modern workplaces run on collaboration: hybrid meetings, agile teams, constant “visibility”. Yet confidence and self-promotion are still too often mistaken for competence.

Our research shows that the wrong kind of confidence can quietly undermine trust, creativity and performance. As organisations rethink leadership and teamwork in the wake of the pandemic and remote work, it’s worth asking: are we rewarding charisma over collaboration? Are our “team players” actually playing for themselves?

The fix isn’t to sideline confident people. But it’s to value good listeners as much as good talkers. Leaders who prize only assertiveness risk breeding rivalry instead of cooperation.

Building psychologically safe teams, where members can speak up without fear of ridicule, helps counteract the corrosive effects of ego.

Even team-building games reveal this dynamic. Escape rooms, often sold as fun bonding exercises, also expose who dominates, who supports and who quietly gives up when they’re not centre stage. Those moments tell you far more about teamwork than any personality test.

The escape-room setting gave us a rare window into narcissism in motion. Participants couldn’t hide behind screens or polish their image: every decision, glance and interruption played out in real time.

What we saw was clear: rivalry isolates, admiration impresses but fades.
The most successful teams weren’t the loudest, but the ones that stayed cohesive, communicative and generous – even when the clock was ticking.

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. How narcissism ruins teamwork – and why it matters in the workplace – https://theconversation.com/how-narcissism-ruins-teamwork-and-why-it-matters-in-the-workplace-268460

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Callum Smith, Historian of Modern British History & Head of Online Learning, Aberystwyth University

It’s hard to think about politics today without immediately picturing the face of a party’s leader, charismatic or otherwise. Whether delivering a rousing conference speech, squirming through a TV interview, or being caught by a “hot mic”, figures like Nigel Farage, Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson have dominated the political landscape in recent years.

We often talk about them more than the parties they represent. In many ways, the party has become a faction of its leader. But is this rise in personality politics really anything new? History – particularly 18th-century history – suggests otherwise.

Nobody embodied this form of politics better than Charles James Fox, as my latest book explores. Fox was as famous for his charisma and scandals as he was for his statesmanship. Though an aristocrat, he was known as the “man of the people”, with a loyal following within and outside of parliament.

Fox might technically have belonged to the Whig party, over its rival the Tory party. But such distinctions in his day were almost useless. Politics in Fox’s era was factional and centred around personality as much as politics.

So strong was the draw and bond of the Foxites’ leader, that when Fox died in 1806, his movement collapsed, and his followers scattered. A testament to the fragility of leader-based politics.

Rather than voting or speaking in terms of party we often talk of “Faragists”, “Corbynistas” or “Trumpites”. Just as with the Foxites, these terms can not only describe the popular following, but also the political group itself. These factions are often not united by a shared or defined political philosophy, but more by allegiance to their chosen leader.

Which raises the question, have we returned to the Foxite era of factionalism and the cult of personality? Modern case studies indicate that this trend is not just a phenomenon of the right or left, but a theme across the political spectrum. And it’s evident on both sides of the Atlantic.

From Fox to Farage and Corbyn

Take Nigel Farage. He led Ukip into mainstream notoriety in the early 2010s, but the party fractured as its leader grew. It was always more about brand Farage than brand Ukip.

In quick succession the party morphed into the Brexit party, and now Reform UK. Just as Fox did during the election of 1784, Farage positioned himself as the “man of the people”, never far from his trademark pint of ale, an enduring symbol of working-classness. He spoke not as the leader of a political machine, but as an individual apparently freed from the constraints of conventional internal party structures.

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn essentially mirrored this approach. Momentum – created to mobilise his supporters – took on a life of its own. It expanded into Corbyn’s primary political and organisational body, faction in all but name. Rather than riding to victory under Corbyn’s popular appeal, the Labour party struggled with internal conflict, overshadowed by its leader.

Personality politics persists on the left, with the recent election of outspoken Zack Polanski beginning to dominate Green party output. The party’s traditional milder-mannered eco focus is transforming under Polanksi’s banner to become an insurgent electoral force and a threat to Labour. Are we seeing the genesis of the Polanski faction?

None of the aforementioned politicians – Fox included – ever reached the highest political office. But personality politics did catapult Boris Johnson to Number 10 and Donald Trump to the Oval Office. Both show how leader-led movements can insulate a figure from traditional political and media accountability.

Johnson’s carefully crafted popular appeal endured a number of scandals. It took a global pandemic, and public outcry at lockdown partying, to finally oust the then prime minister.

Read more:
The Conservatives always adapt to survive – or do they?

Much like the Foxites in 1806, the Tory party fractured in Johnson’s wake. Not only as a result of scandal, but because their previous electoral success was build on the bedrock of Johnson’s popularity.

Far from being a British phenomenon, Trump’s two terms in office are the very epitome of personality politics. You would be forgiven for forgetting that the president has any relationship with the Republican party. Maga has fast become the faction of Trump. As with Fox, the man eclipsed the institution.

The charisma trap

This form of politics was and is only possible because of the media attention awarded to individual leaders at the expense of party. In the 18th century, Fox was satirised and simultaneously promoted to the public. He could attract a cult following, because the media inflated his cult status.

Although forms of media have evolved from caricatures and broadside, television, tabloids and social media continue to favour individual charisma and controversy over collectivism and party unity.

But, as my book argues, as the importance of the factional leader grows, so too do the risks of sudden and dramatic downfall. History suggests that we are destined to repeat and follow the patterns of Fox’s era. But it also suggests that such factions rarely outlast their leaders. Which raises the question, what comes next?

Callum Smith has previously received research funding from the AHRC, a branch of UKRI, more specifically from the South, West and Wales DTP.

– ref. How 18th-century politician Charles Fox mastered personality politics long before Trump and Farage – https://theconversation.com/how-18th-century-politician-charles-fox-mastered-personality-politics-long-before-trump-and-farage-267480