TIME Music

America’s Most Buzzed-About Music Festival Is…

Kanye West at South by Southwest 2014
Kanye West performs onstage at South by Southwest on March 12 in Austin, Texas. Rick Kern—Getty Images for Samsung

A new study says that one festival is more discussed than Coachella, Lollapalooza, Bonnaroo or Governor's Ball

A study sponsored by Eventbrite and Mashwork has determined that South by Southwest — held each March in Austin, TX — is America’s most buzzed-about music festival, beating out perennial favorites like Coachella in Indio, Calif., Lollapalooza in Chicago and Governors Ball in New York City. Ranking just behind SXSW in the top five were Las Vegas’ iHeartRadio, Chattahoochee Hills, GA’s TomorrowWorld, Lollapalooza and Coachella.

Despite South by Southwest’s strong showing, Texas didn’t rank amongst the top three states in terms of most chatter — that distinction went to New York, Nevada and California. The study also confirmed what may have already been obvious: music festivals are heavily youth-dominated, with 75% of the conversation generated by those between the ages of 17 and 34.

Eventbrite

A few other interesting tidbits from the report:

  • 54% of the conversation takes place before the event itself, easily besting the 17% that occurs during the festival and the 29% after it.
  • For Bonnaroo in Manchester, Tenn. and Hangout in Gulf Shores, Ala., it was all about the music — at both festivals, excitement about the full lineup or particular artist accounted for 65% and 63%, respectively, compared with a 47% average for the top 25 festivals overall.
  • People at Coachella spent way more time talking about style than at the average event — fashion discussion made up for 27% of the conversation there, compared with just 10% nationwide.
  • Though the ages of music festival fans closely mirrored the average age of Twitter users, a much wider spread is apparent from music fans’ taste in brands, where Starbucks, McDonalds and, of all places, Walmart proved favorites. Whole Foods, Best Buy and IHOP also scored highly.

Check out the full report here.

TIME psychology

Over-Confident People Are Seen as Smarter, Even When They’re Not

Young businesswoman, portrait
Getty Images

Fooling yourself can help you fool others into thinking you're not a fool

Turns out “fake it till you make it” is actually real. A new study found that over-confident students were more likely to be perceived as smart by their peers, regardless of their actual grades.

Researchers at Newcastle University and University of Exeter found that students who over-estimated their own grades tended to be perceived as more talented, and students who under-estimated their grades were seen as less talented, regardless of their actual capabilities. “Our results support the idea that self-deception facilitates the deception of others,” concluded Shakti Lamba and Vivek Nityananda in their study published Wednesday in Plos One. “Overconfident individuals were overrated and underconfident individuals were underrated.”

Because the study was focused on students studying psychology and anthropology, subjects that generally attract more female students, the sample size was female-biased. But while Lamba and Nityananda acknowledged that previous studies have found that men tend to be over-confident and women tend to be under-confident, their research found that gender had no effect on how people perceive self-assured men and women.

The researchers also warned that over-confidence can have more of an effect on individual decisions like picking a mate or hiring for jobs, resulting in self-deceptive and risk-prone people being promoted to powerful roles. “Promoting such individuals we may be creating institutions such as banks, trading floors and armies, that are also more vulnerable to risk,” they wrote.

In other words, even if you’ve made it, you’ll probably keep on faking it.

TIME Parenting

Maybe Orphanages Aren’t So Bad After All, Study Says

ranplett—Getty Images/Vetta

Author of biggest study to date says the institutions have been unfairly stigmatized

Orphanages, as we all know from Charles Dickens, studies of kids from former Eastern Bloc countries and the musical Annie, are bad for children. Except, as a few studies are now beginning to find, when they’re not. The latest study looked at children from five not-so-wealthy countries in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa over the course of three years and found that being in an institution did not necessarily make them much worse off.

Whether or not orphanages are a viable solution for children with no homes is no small issue. According to the most recent figures from UNICEF, there were more than 132 million orphans in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean in 2005. That’s a scary number — more than the entire population of Britain and Italy combined — and figuring out the best way to look after that many vulnerable beings is a problem of significant complexity.

Even the definition of “orphan” is complicated. Not all of those 132 million-plus kids had lost both parents; closer to 13 million are what UNICEF calls “double orphans.” And 95% of all orphans, single or double, were over the age of five. So while the mental image of an orphan is of an abandoned baby in a basket, the reality is quite different.

There’s a reasonably heated debate over the best way to look after kids with no homes to go to. Studies out of Romania and Russia have found that kids raised in orphanages were vastly worse off than kids raised by foster families. A slew of studies suggest that children who were institutionalized as babies are much worse off than those who were not and that these effects remain through to adulthood.

But the new study, led by Kathryn Whetten, a Duke professor of public policy and director of the Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research (CHPIR), and published by PLOSone, is the largest and most geographically and culturally diverse study of its kind. It followed 1,300 kids, aged six to 15 who were in institutions and 1,400 kids who were in family care in Cambodia, Ethiopia, India, Kenya and Tanzania. Researchers kept watch on such measures as the kids’ physical health, emotional difficulties, growth, learning ability and memory.

And it concluded that closing down all the orphanages — now sometimes known in more fancy circles as residential educational facilities — and finding other options for the 2 million kids currently living in such institutions would be a significant setback in addressing the issue.

“Our findings put less significance on the residential setting as a means to account for either positive or negative child well-being over time,” Whetten said. Much more important is the kind of country, neighborhood or community the child lives in, and, even more crucially, the kind of kid he or she is. Age, gender, existing emotional and nutritional status, and what kind of life each child has had so far have a lot more impact on that child’s fate than whether or not she or he was raised in a group setting.

Whetten, who first released similar findings from a different cross-sectional study in 2009, believes orphanages have been unfairly stigmatized by studies that have focused in on the dire institutions in Romania and Russia. Many of them rely on data from the Bucharest Early Intervention project, which tracks kids from the notoriously bad Romanian orphanages of the Ceausescu era. “This is reminiscent of what happened to mental health facilities in the U.S. in the 1980s,” she says. “We have taken findings from some of the most emotionally and socially deprived orphanages and are assuming that those outcomes would hold true for all group homes. An analogy that a colleague used yesterday was that it is like if we were evaluating whether to send our daughter to a summer camp and, to make our decision, we examined data from a girls prison camp.”

Indeed while Whetten’s study focused in on less wealthy countries, she believes there are implications for America, especially with the foster care system in such crisis. “In the U.S. there is a movement to see long-term residential care as detrimental to all children and that only when no other options are available do we place children in residential care and with the condition that they stay for as little time as possible,” she says. “Yet many of the residential centers here in the U.S. provide family-like care with long-term caregivers/parents who are continuously trained and supported in how to raise children who have experienced significant chaos and trauma in their lives. The children have family meals and can consider the children in the unit to be like siblings.”

While the study does not go so far as to recommend a whole-scale return to the practice of sending orphaned kids off to institutions, Whetten does think they should be one of a menu of solutions, and chosen when it suits the kid. “We need to evaluate each child individually to see where they will best thrive given the available options,” she says. “For example, if a child has four siblings and they would be broken apart if placed in families, but can stay together in a good group home, the group home may be best for all of them. All children deserve a loving family, and the family can look different depending on the situation.”

TIME Television

New Data Suggests That the Emmys Actually Don’t Matter At All

Jim Parsons accepts his trophy for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series at the 66th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards
A familiar—if unwelcome—sight for Emmys viewers. Michael Tran—FilmMagic

Just ask Jon Hamm. Or Amy Poehler. Or anyone from The Wire

On Monday night’s Emmy Awards, The Big Bang Theory‘s Jim Parsons won his fourth Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series. Seeing as Parsons wins that award pretty much always (four times in the last five years, interrupted only by Jim Cryer’s nod for Two and a Half Men in 2012), this wasn’t much of a surprise. What may shock you, however, is that if Parsons wins again next year, he’ll have more Best Actor Emmy awards than anyone else in the history of television. More than Breaking Bad‘s Bryan Cranston, more than Frasier‘s Kelsey Grammar — even more than The Sopranos‘ James Gandolfini.

The Big Bang Theory is a wildly popular show (just ask your mom/uncle/grandparents for their thoughts), with nearly 20 million viewers tuning in every week. Parsons and co-stars Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting and Johnny Galecki were just given approximately $1 million per episode for its upcoming eighth season. But in terms of critical acclaim, the CBS comedy sits comfortably at the bottom of the barrel. So when Parsons won his fourth Emmy, people were understandably confused, and more than a little upset. Many of those people felt similarly when Modern Family — a show whose best days may be three or four years behind it — won awards for Outstanding Comedy Series (its fifth), Outstanding Supporting Actor (Ty Burrell’s second) and Outstanding Directing for a Comedy Series (Gail Mancuso’s second).

Knowing this, it’s little surprise that a recent study by USC professor Jeetendr Sehdev found that over 82% of Americans believe that the Emmys are less significant than the Oscars, 73% say they’re not “overly excited” by the award show and fewer than one in 10 are more inclined to watch a series because it has won an Emmy. Those are some pretty stunning numbers (maybe not as much so as the Parsons figure above, but still surprising).

For a show like Breaking Bad, which cleaned up at Monday night’s ceremony, entirely disregarding a show’s Emmy success might be a mistake, but the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences is far better known for its misses than its hits. People should feel free to watch whatever they choose, but the fact that Modern Family is completely bulletproof at the Emmys doesn’t mean viewers should choose it over Veep — and Parsons’ reign doesn’t make Theory any more worthy of its lofty Nielsen ranking.

Though the Academy has been criticized for its comedy choices in recent years, it’s had its fair share of drama-related foibles as well. The Wire was never nominated for Best Drama. Neither was Deadwood. Jon Hamm has never won a Best Actor award for playing one of the most iconic television characters of the 21st century — or any other — on Mad Men.

Point being, it can be difficult to get people to care about your awards when they don’t consistently award true excellence. This isn’t to say that the Oscars are flawless either — or that poor selections are the Emmys’ only problem (last night’s show featured way too many awards and didn’t bring quite enough funny to sustain a three-hour ceremony), but it’s as good a place as any to start.

TIME Environment

Climate Change Could Happen Slower for the Next Decade, Study Says

California's Drought Becomes Critical
One of two major water storage lakes on the Russian River is lake Mendocino, which is nearly empty on January 24, 2014, near Ukiah, California. George Rose—Getty Images

Atmospheric temperatures are expected to rise slowly in the next decade

Temperatures have risen more slowly in the past decade than in the previous 50 years and will continue to rise at a somewhat slower rate in the next decade, according to a new study, even as climate change continues to raise temperatures to unprecedented levels worldwide.

The study, published in the journal Science, explained the temporary slowdown in rising temperatures as a potential consequence of the end of a 30-year current cycle in the Atlantic Ocean that pushes heat into the ocean.

“In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans,” the study says.

Despite this brief respite, the study says temperatures will begin to rise more quickly after the cycle is complete.

“Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850,” according to a different study published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“Trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends,” the IPCC study said, cautioning that the slowdown in global warming does not mean the atmosphere will not continue to heat at a faster rate.

TIME

Why Your Fear of Looking Stupid Is Making You Look Stupid

New research indicates that we're all scared of asking for help and looking dumb. But we shouldn't be -- people find you more competent if you come to them for advice

Have you ever been in a situation where you wanted to ask someone’s advice, but were worried you would look incompetent? Well, in the words of RuPaul, “Your fear of looking stupid is making you look stupid.”

In fact, a new report released this week by researchers from Harvard Business School and Wharton School suggests that RuPaul is on to something, (though, obviously, the researchers phrased it in a slightly more delicate fashion). The research, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Management Science, found that though many people are afraid to ask for advice — and risk looking incompetent — they’ve actually got it backwards. People who seek advice are likely to be thought of as more competent, at least by the people they’re asking.

The researchers came to that conclusion by conducting a series of studies. In the first, researchers tried to determine whether people are actually afraid of looking incompetent by telling participants to imagine that they needed advice from a co-worker. Some were then told that their hypothetical selves would actually seek advice and others were told they would not. Participants were then asked to rate how competent they thought their hypothetical co-worker found them. Turns out, the people who hypothetically asked for help felt that they would be viewed as less competent than those who didn’t.

Which is understandable, to an extent. Though the old adage says “there are no stupid questions,” anyone who has spent time on the snark-riddled internet knows that that’s not actually the case. Sometimes it feels wiser to shut up and muddle through, than risk looking like a complete fool.

Yet that’s where the new reasearch gets interesting. In the next study, researchers paired participants with an unseen partner that they could only communicate with over instant message. (Their partners did not actually exist; the messages sent were programmed by the researchers.) The participants were then asked to do a brain teaser, before handing the task off to their partner. Once they’d finished the task, they received a message from their “partner” that either read, “I hope it went well. Do you have any advice?” or “I hope it went well.” Later, when asked by the researchers, people rated the partners who asked for advice as being more competent than those who had simply wished them well. What’s more, the harder the brain teaser, the more competent the advice-seeking “partners” were rated.

Even more interesting, is that when the researchers asked participants to rate their own self-confidence after completing a task, the ones who had been asked for advice felt better about themselves than the ones who had not been asked.

The researchers concluded that people’s egos are boosted when they’re consulted and asked to dole out advice, which in turn leads them to think more highly of the people who’ve just boosted their egos.

Essentially, people are so flattered to be asked for advice that their heads swell a little and they think of themselves as smart; that reflects well on the advice-seeker who is in turn believed to be smart enough to recognize their game. So take our advice: the next time you’re itching to ask for help, do it.

TIME Family

Why Access to Screens Is Lowering Kids’ Social Skills

Brothers Watching TV
Chris Stein—Getty Images

Kids read emotions better after being deprived of electronic media

People have long suspected that there’s a cost to all this digital data all the time, right at our fingertips. Now there’s a study out of UCLA that might prove those digital skeptics right. In the study, kids who were deprived of screens for five days got much better at reading people’s emotions than kids who continued their normal screen-filled lives.

The California research team’s findings, published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior this month tries to analyze the impact digital media has on humans’ ability to communicate face-to-face.

As an experiment, 51 sixth graders from a public school in Southern California were sent to outdoor education camp, spending five whole days completely deprived of TV, phone and Internet. Contrary to the kids’ expectations, they survived just fine and actually had genuine fun.

The first pool of kids was then compared to another group of 54 sixth graders from the same school who had not yet attended the camp, but had spent the previous five days with their normal amount of screen time.

Both sets of students were given photos of people expressing emotions—sadness, anger, joy, anxiety and so on, before the camp and after the camp. Both sets of students were also shown video of people interacting and displaying emotions. The students who had been to camp got much better at discerning how the people in the photos and the videos were feeling after that five day period. They scored much higher at recognizing non-verbal emotional cues (facial expressions, body language, gestures) than they had before the camp, while the scores of the students who had not been deprived of screens did not change at all.

With online training courses being used for almost everything now, this new study may give teachers, parents and administrators pause on such widespread use of digital media in education. “Many people are looking at the benefits of digital media in education, and not many are looking at the costs,” said Patricia M. Greenfield, a distinguished professor of psychology at UCLA and senior author of the study. “Decreased sensitivity to emotional cues is one of the costs—understanding the emotions of other people. The displacement of in-person social interaction by screen interaction seems to be reducing social skills.”

Lead author Yalda T. Uhls, a senior researcher with the Children’s Digital Media Center, said she hopes that people won’t merely take away the idea that all screens are bad, but that face-to-face time for young people is an important part of the socialization process.

According to a survey given to the study’s participants, the kids spent an average of four-and-a-half hours texting, watching television and playing video games during a single typical school day. According to Uhls, this is on the low end–many children and teenagers spend more than seven-and-a-half-hours a day interacting with a screen of some sort. And when interacting with a screen, they aren’t interacting with a human.

“You can’t learn non-verbal emotional cues from a screen in the way you can learn it from face-to-face communication,” Uhls said.

MONEY College

How To Get Full Credit When You Swap Colleges

140820_FF_COLLEGETRANSFER
B.O'Kane—Alamy

Transfers typically lose an entire semester's worth of credit and tuition, a new federal study has found. Here are three ways to avoid missing out on that money and time.

The more than one million Americans who transfer from one college to another each year find that about 13 credits on average—or about a semester’s worth of courses—are refused by their new school, a new analysis by the Department of Education has revealed.

Depending on the college, that means you typically spend anywhere from about $1,300 to more than $13,000 in tuition for classes that don’t get your closer to a degree when you transfer.

The federal study, which examined a large sample of college transcripts dating back to 2003, found great variation in the amount of lost credit. About 40% of transfer students lost all of their credits when they transferred. On the other hand, almost a third got credit for all of their courses. Overall, about 35% of college freshmen ended up transferring, the study found.

“This is pretty disturbing confirmation of problems in our system of higher education,” says David Baime, spokesperson for the American Association of Community Colleges. Other studies show that such wastes of time and money cause many students to give up and drop out, Baime notes.

The good news, Baime and other experts say, is that the new research, along with new laws and new web tools, can help your improve the odds of transferring all of your hard-earned credits.

Choose the Right Starting and Target Schools

More than 80% of students transferring out of for-profit colleges lost all of their credits when they jumped to a public or private non-profit school, the federal study found. (Noah Black, spokesperson for the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, says that many schools’ transfer rules have changed recently. he added: “The question should be posed to other institutions as to why they are not accepting of credits from accredited institutions,” such as the for-profit colleges that make up his group.)

But the typical student at a public community college who transferred to a public university paid for 38 credits at the two-year school, and got credit for about 30 at the university, a loss of 21%. The researchers found that private colleges generally gave transfer students from public colleges credit for about two-thirds of their courses.

David Bergeron, vice president for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress, notes that students who take a community college curriculum that qualifies them for admission to a selective private college also tend to win credit for most of their courses. “So try to go for the most selective college you can,” Bergeron says, adding that a growing number of private colleges are recruiting and awarding aid to community college transfers students. “Families should be exploiting that,” he says.

Check New State Laws

A growing number of states, including Florida, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, are requiring colleges to make credits more transferable among public colleges, Baime notes.

Take Advantage of New Web Tools

While budget cuts have forced some public colleges to cut back on counselors who might help you figure out which courses will transfer, there are a growing number of web tools that you can use to find the courses that will be approved for transfer. One site Baime recommends is CollegeFish.Org, which is sponsored by Phi Theta Kappa, the International Honor Society of Community Colleges. And many colleges, such as the University of Virginia, now have tools that allow you to look up the transferability of each community college course.

 

 

 

 

TIME psychology

5 Secrets to Improve Learning and Memory

I’ve already posted a research round-up on becoming an expert at anything. That was focused on the big picture of how to master something over a period of years.

This time let’s get less macro and focus more on the nitty-gritty of what you need to do when you sit down, roll up your sleeves and try to learn something new.

Yeah, It’s Gonna Take Effort

No, I’m not going to lecture you like Grandpa about the virtues of hard work, but your brain takes in a lot every day and remembering everything isn’t realistic. Research consistently shows effort is how you let your grey matter know something is worth retaining.

The more effort you expend, the better you learn:

…undergraduates in the study scored 29 to 63 percentage points higher on tests when they used study techniques like recording complete notes, creating comparative charts, building associations, and crafting practice questions on their screens.

You’re not going to learn much passively. Re-reading material four times was not nearly as effective as reading it once and writing a summary. Even just writing by hand is beneficial. More effort, better results.

There is a system for developing a near-photographic memory and it works, but takes some practice.

The two key things to remember here are testing yourself and spacing out learning over time.

In more than two dozen studies published over the past five years, he has demonstrated that spaced repetition works, increasing knowledge retention by up to 50 percent. And Kerfoot’s method is easily adapted by anyone who needs to learn and remember, not just those pursuing MDs.

Get Invested

Feeling a connection to the material is powerful. Finding an angle on the subject that makes you curious about it is gold.

Is it too boring? Get invested by betting on your ability to remember it. Yeah, like gambling. Promise yourself a reward before you go to bed and you’ll learn more as you sleep.

Don’t just try to drill knowledge in, connect it to things you already know. Really try to understand it, not just memorize it. This is why teaching someone else is a great way for helping you learn. If you can’t explain it, you don’t know it.

Steroids For Your Brain

Save the healthy eating for another time, coffee and a donut is steroids for your brain. Yes, it’s science. Yes, Red Bull isn’t just for partying, it’s also for studying.

I don’t want to recommend cigarettes to anyone but if you’re already a smoker, light up before you learn. Nicotine does improve cognitive performance.

Fundamentals

We’re always looking for a magic bullet. Truth is that just as with getting in shape, fundamentals like getting enough sleep and regular exercise have far greater effects than well-marketed supplements. Seriously, naps after learningare powerful.

You need to calm down and concentrate. Turn off the music. No group studying. Stop kidding yourself — you can’t multitask. (Guys, when studying stay away from pretty girls. Don’t even think about them.)

Little Tricks

There are lots of little tips that can help as well:

Too lazy for all this? Get a good luck charm. Seriously, they work.

Related posts:

Join over 90,000 readers and get a free weekly update via email here.

This piece originally appeared on Barking Up the Wrong Tree

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46,170 other followers