Feeling negative or impulsive? You might be sleep deprived
Dr Foster spoke at the Hay Festival of Literature and Arts, which has partnered with The Independent.
He explained that sleep deprivation can cause the brain to remember negative experiences while forgetting positive ones, biasing one's worldview.
He added that tiredness leads to impulsivity, potentially causing people to make poor and unreflective decisions.
Dr Foster suggested that political leaders' sleep deprivation could impact their ability to make sensible decisions. The results of a pilot study on the topic will be released soon.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why I withdrew my book from an LGBTQ+ literary prize
Last week, I withdrew my nomination from the longlist for the Polari first book prize. The awards had become mired in controversy due to the nomination of the Irish author John Boyne, best known for The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, for the main prize for his novel Earth. Four days before the longlist announcement, Boyne had written in the Irish Independent, celebrating JK Rowling 'as a fellow terf' and saying of women who had 'pilloried' her for her gender activism: 'For every Commander Waterford, there's a Serena Joy standing behind him, ready to pin a handmaiden down as her husband rapes her.' I think such a viewpoint is abhorrent, but Boyne is free to hold whatever views he wants. What was unacceptable was a statement from the Polari prize addressing the backlash, emphasising its commitment to 'support trans rights and amplify trans voices', but defending Boyne's inclusion on the grounds that submissions are assessed purely 'on the merits of craft and content' and that 'within our community, we can at times hold radically different positions on substantive issues'. I immediately withdrew upon reading it, after the resignation of judge Nicola Dinan, who won the prize last year, and withdrawal of fellow longlisted author Mae Diansangu. Since then, a further judge has withdrawn and at least 16 authors across both lists have excused themselves from consideration. It was not a difficult or painful decision – I felt misled about the principles underpinning the organisation and I no longer cared to be awarded by it. I have, in the past, been shortlisted for my work alongside writers whose views I did not agree with. But in those instances, their positions didn't undermine the stated values and politics of the prize. This isn't a matter of differing views, but of an institution properly and accurately representing itself. The prize has always been for the entire LGBTQ+ community, as evidenced by previously shortlisted, and winning, entries from trans writers. And so it is a contradiction to include someone who is trans-exclusionary (terf stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist). The prize claims that it does 'not eliminate books based on the wider views of the writer'. But a prize claiming to be a celebration of LGBTQ+ inclusion should know that the condition of trans people isn't reducible to a debate in which people are simply holding 'different positions' – they are a minority group facing unprecedented levels of harassment and political antagonism. Not all of my fellow longlisted authors have chosen this path; some have, while affirming their commitment to trans rights, stated their intentions to remain. Avi Ben-Zeev (the only trans author nominated) stated his reasoning as, 'If I walk away, I'm erasing my trans story' and regretted that 'transphobia has shifted the conversation away from the celebration of LGBTQ+ literature', while emphasising the solidarity between longlisted writers regardless of their decision. I can understand such a position, but I think it undermines collective solidarity, rather than being an example of it. I think there is significant power in authors acting as a collective bloc. I was particularly moved by the example of the US writers who withdrew from the PEN America literary awards last year, in protest against the institution's lack of criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza. And to me, the real celebration of LGBTQ+ literature has come not from the prize, but from the community that has rallied behind the withdrawn authors. Our withdrawal has been followed by a 800-strong petition to remove Boyne from the longlist. That is not about him per se – he is obviously suffering great personal upset at this situation. It is, once again, about the stated aims of the organisation. We have, of course, been subjected to the usual name-calling: described as the 'Trans Taliban' and 'Queer Isis' by Julie Bindel; accused of being proponents of 'radicalised', 'totalitarian' politics by Canadian novelist Allan Stratton. Some have accused critics of bullying Boyne, and compromising freedom of speech and expression. But we have not called for his books to be pulped, and evidently he has, and continues to be, more than free to share whatever views he likes and write as many books as he wants. Boyne has since issued a statement outlining his views on trans rights and calling on the writers who have withdrawn their nominations to restore themselves to the longlist, writing that he has 'shelves full of awards at home' and that while he would not withdraw, he would ask the judges not to shortlist him. Perhaps some writers will take up this offer. But from where I stand, the response is not for Boyne to propose, as this action is not specifically about him – it is about Polari as an institution. Where does it go from here? This year's prizes are still going ahead and a 'shortlist' will still, somehow, be forged from the depleted pool of authors (PEN America, under similar circumstances, had the good sense to cancel its awards). Polari has also said it will be 'undertaking a full review of the prize processes', to avoid the 'hurt and anger' caused by this year's awards. I do wonder what that will look like. Poring through the public statements of all authors to ensure that nothing offending has been said? I can only hope that whatever processes are put in place will be sufficient to secure the confidence of the queer writers who have found themselves having to weather abuse and hostility for taking a public stand. Mostly, though, I think – with or without Boyne's nomination – Polari needs to figure out what it wants to be. If it wants to be a prize that is inclusive of trans-exclusionary views and writers, it is free to do this and must accept that large swaths of the community will find this intolerable and disengage. I suspect that this reluctance to commit is exactly because of that. As the response to this boycott has shown, the swell of public support is behind those who are supportive of the entire LGBTQ+ community. At one time, Polari seemed to recognise this: Bindel herself has noted that in 2021, after 'the trans train had chugged into town', she was told by its organisers that her presence at an event would cause 'a major pushback'. Polari finds itself at another crossroads, called upon to tell us what kind of organisation it is and where it really stands. Perhaps bridges will be rebuilt and the community will return, or we will go off and build something else. Jason Okundaye is an assistant newsletter editor and writer at the Guardian. He edits The Long Wave newsletter and is the author of Revolutionary Acts: Love & Brotherhood in Black Gay Britain Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Daily Mail
3 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Reform-controlled council axes funding for Pride march as deputy leader brands event 'political street theatre'
A Reform-controlled council has cut funding for a Pride march next year after its deputy leader branded the event 'political street theatre'. Darren Grimes, Durham County Council's second-in-command, said the money would instead be diverted to key services. The decision, however, has sparked fury from the event organisers and historic trade union, the Durham Miners' Association. The groups said the event is inclusive of everyone, attracts thousands of people from all over the UK, promotes tourism and helps to boost the local economy. Thousands of people descend on Durham every year for the annual celebration of the LGBT+ community. Durham County Council invested £12,500 in this year's event which is held across two days in May. Announcing the council's decision to scrap the funding, Mr Grimes said: 'Durham Pride won't be getting a single penny from this council next year. 'If Labour or the Lib Dems want to raid their members' budgets to fund political street theatre, that's on them - Reform will spend ours on the services everyone relies on, not on flying the latest alphabet flag for the professional offence industry. 'Pride stopped being a celebration of gay rights a long time ago. 'It's morphed into a travelling billboard for gender ideology and political activism that many in the gay community - myself included - want no part of. 'Taxpayers shouldn't be bankrolling it. The event can and will go ahead safely, but Durham County Council isn't an ATM for contested causes. 'Our residents deserve bins emptied, roads fixed and services funded - not more council-sponsored politics in fancy dress.' The row comes after Durham County Council sparked fury by removing a Pride flag from outside the council's HQ ahead of this year's event. A Ukrainian flag erected by the previous administration outside Durham County Hall was also removed. Liberal Democrat county councillor Ellie Hopgood said: 'We know from their social media posts that Reform councillors are keener on Russia's flag than Ukraine's or Pride's.' She added it was a 'petty and mean-spirited act' ahead of a Pride in Armed Forces event. But the council's deputy leader, Mr Grimes, defended the decision to fly the Union Jack, flag of St George and the County Durham flag. 'Together, they represent every Briton, gay or straight, black or white, Christian, Sikh, or otherwise, who has fought, died, and sacrificed under those colours,' he said. 'Flying our national and local flags is an act of unity. Swapping them out for niche political symbols is just more toxic identity politics.' Reform had previously been forced to clarify its stance on the flying of flags from council buildings. The party had announced that Reform-controlled councils would only fly the Union Jack or St George's flag. But there was uproar after it was claimed this would also ban the flying of county flags, such as the red rose flag of Lancashire. Reform later clarified that it would allow the flying of county flags.
BBC News
3 minutes ago
- BBC News
Council postpones decision over new Desford housing estate
A proposed new housing estate in Leicestershire was likened to a "really unpleasant rash" by a councillor as a local authority voted to postpone a decision on the to build 120 homes at Ashfield Farm, off Kirkby Road, Desford, were approved by the government in 2023 after Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council rejected the proposals four Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) said Davidsons Development hoped to move forward with the next stage of the scheme, including details like the layout of the estate, and the size and style of the the council raised concerns about the number of private roads in the plans and this week voted to defer a decision. 'Just keeps coming back' Councillors on the authority's planning committee also expressed concerns over proposed management fees to pay for the future upkeep of the development's roads, labelling them as "stealth taxes".They also criticised the site's layout, such as the positioning of green spaces next to open fields rather than between new and existing homes, and called for a traffic management plan to be provided before construction Richard Allen said: "I've been dealing with this one for longer than I care to remember. "It's like one of those really unpleasant rashes which just keeps coming back."Warning that the council was "storing up problems for the future" by approving developments with lots of unadopted roads, council leader Stuart Bray said it was a "real problem"."What happens is that people buy these new houses," Bray said. "They get all excited. And they don't realise in 10 years' time they're going to end up with a huge bill to repair the roads."I want us to take the strongest line that we can possibly take to make sure that as many roads in this borough going forward are adopted."Richard Henderson, a planning manager at Davidsons, said the scheme would be "high quality" and "well designed", adding the 40 affordable homes were a voted unanimously to defer the decision so planning officers could discuss the committee's concerns.
