Latest news with #KobeUniversity
Yahoo
a day ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Optimists Are Alike, but Pessimists Are Unique, Brain Scan Study Suggests
Optimists have similar patterns of brain activation when they think about the future—but pessimists are all different from one another, a brain scan study suggests 'All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.' This is the first line of Leo Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina, and it may hold a kernel of truth that goes beyond family dynamics. In a recent study of optimism, neuroscientists found an equivalent principle at play: optimists shared similar patterns of activity in a key brain region when they imagined future events, but each pessimist's brain patterns was unique. The results help neuroscientists understand what distinguishes optimism from pessimism in the brain. This is an important question because optimism is associated with better physical, mental and social health. The results were published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 'We tend to think of imagining the future as a deeply personal, subjective act,' says Kuniaki Yanagisawa, the study's lead author and a psychologist at Kobe University in Japan. 'Our study, however, shows that—especially for optimists—the way our brains do this can be similar' and suggests that such shared cognitive frameworks for imagining the future might explain why we 'click' with some people, he says. Prior studies have shown that optimists have larger social networks and higher acceptance by their peers. Yanagisawa wanted to understand 'whether this social success is just about personality,' he says, 'or if optimists might share a fundamental brain mechanism that makes it easier for them to form social connections.' [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] The researchers scanned participants in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine while they imagined specific future events happening to either them or their spouse. Some of the events were positive; others were neutral or negative. Afterward the team had the participants take a questionnaire to determine their level of optimism or pessimism. The researchers conducted the study twice, once in a group of 37 participants and again in a group of 50. To analyze the brain scans, the researchers zoomed in on one region that's particularly active while imagining future events: the medial prefrontal cortex, located in the middle of the very front of the brain. They compared patterns of brain activation in each possible pair of participants and used statistical tests to determine how similar the activations were to each other in these pairs. The team found that only pairs consisting of two optimistic participants had similar brain activation; pairs where one or both participants were more pessimistic were dissimilar to each other. The researchers also found that optimistic people showed bigger differences between brain patterns for emotionally positive and negative events than pessimists did. A few prior studies of 'positive' social traits have shown similar results. A 2022 brain scan study showed that people who held a central position in their social network have similar activation patterns to one another—but that less central people had a lot of individual differences, or idiosyncrasies. The same pattern held true in another study of people with low versus high levels of loneliness. Elisa Baek, a social neuroscientist now at the University of Southern California and lead author of those two studies, refers to these results as examples of the 'Anna Karenina principle,' the idea that successful endeavors have similar characteristics but that unsuccessful ones are each different in their own way. 'One intriguing interpretation [of the optimism study], consistent with the Anna Karenina principle, is that there may be many different ways for a person to be pessimistic, while optimistic people tend to converge on a few shared mental models of a hopeful future,' Baek says. Together, these studies 'may point to a more general principle—that being 'on the same page' as others is a foundational mechanism that underlies the experience of social connection.' If there is an Anna Karenina principle at work for positive social traits, what would be causing it? After all, the traits we deem 'positive' vary greatly among different societies, so there's a risk of cultural bias. Yanagisawa thinks that these cultural values could actually be driving the effect—they orient people toward a specific goal that is valued in a society, such as being optimistic or having a lot of social connections, perhaps leading those individuals to behave and think similarly over time. It's also possible that optimism, as measured in this study, is picking up on related traits such as people's level of loneliness or position in a social network. 'These convergent findings raise an important question about the overlap between constructs such as optimism, loneliness and network centrality,' Baek says. 'Because the new study didn't control for loneliness or social network position, and my prior work didn't control for optimism, it is unclear how much these dimensions are overlapping or distinct.' Optimism and pessimism aren't unchanging traits; they tend to shift with age, although the trajectories vary from culture to culture. Nor is optimism an unquestioned good. 'Extreme optimism might not always be a good thing because we might not plan for the future as well as we should,' says Aleea Devitt, a psychologist at the University of Waikato in New Zealand, who studies future thinking. And 'pessimism may be a useful 'positive' trait in some situations; there's evidence that some people can be defensive pessimists, which can actually help them better prepare for the future.' Solve the daily Crossword
Scientific American
a day ago
- Science
- Scientific American
Optimists Are Alike, but Pessimists Are Unique, Bran Scan Study Suggests
'All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.' This is the first line of Leo Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina, and it may hold a kernel of truth that goes beyond family dynamics. In a recent study of optimism, neuroscientists found an equivalent principle at play: optimists shared similar patterns of activity in a key brain region when they imagined future events, but each pessimist's brain patterns was unique. The results help neuroscientists understand what distinguishes optimism from pessimism in the brain. This is an important question because optimism is associated with better physical, mental and social health. The results were published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 'We tend to think of imagining the future as a deeply personal, subjective act,' says Kuniaki Yanagisawa, the study's lead author and a psychologist at Kobe University in Japan. 'Our study, however, shows that—especially for optimists—the way our brains do this can be similar' and suggests that such shared cognitive frameworks for imagining the future might explain why we 'click' with some people, he says. Prior studies have shown that optimists have larger social networks and higher acceptance by their peers. Yanagisawa wanted to understand 'whether this social success is just about personality,' he says, 'or if optimists might share a fundamental brain mechanism that makes it easier for them to form social connections.' On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The researchers scanned participants in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine while they imagined specific future events happening to either them or their spouse. Some of the events were positive; others were neutral or negative. Afterward the team had the participants take a questionnaire to determine their level of optimism or pessimism. The researchers conducted the study twice, once in a group of 37 participants and again in a group of 50. To analyze the brain scans, the researchers zoomed in on one region that's particularly active while imagining future events: the medial prefrontal cortex, located in the middle of the very front of the brain. They compared patterns of brain activation in each possible pair of participants and used statistical tests to determine how similar the activations were to each other in these pairs. The team found that only pairs consisting of two optimistic participants had similar brain activation; pairs where one or both participants were more pessimistic were dissimilar to each other. The researchers also found that optimistic people showed bigger differences between brain patterns for emotionally positive and negative events than pessimists did. A few prior studies of 'positive' social traits have shown similar results. A 2022 brain scan study showed that people who held a central position in their social network have similar activation patterns to one another—but that less central people had a lot of individual differences, or idiosyncrasies. The same pattern held true in another study of people with low versus high levels of loneliness. Elisa Baek, a social neuroscientist now at the University of Southern California and lead author of those two studies, refers to these results as examples of the ' Anna Karenina principle,' the idea that successful endeavors have similar characteristics but that unsuccessful ones are each different in their own way. 'One intriguing interpretation [of the optimism study], consistent with the Anna Karenina principle, is that there may be many different ways for a person to be pessimistic, while optimistic people tend to converge on a few shared mental models of a hopeful future,' Baek says. Together, these studies 'may point to a more general principle—that being 'on the same page' as others is a foundational mechanism that underlies the experience of social connection.' If there is an Anna Karenina principle at work for positive social traits, what would be causing it? After all, the traits we deem 'positive' vary greatly among different societies, so there's a risk of cultural bias. Yanagisawa thinks that these cultural values could actually be driving the effect—they orient people toward a specific goal that is valued in a society, such as being optimistic or having a lot of social connections, perhaps leading those individuals to behave and think similarly over time. It's also possible that optimism, as measured in this study, is picking up on related traits such as people's level of loneliness or position in a social network. 'These convergent findings raise an important question about the overlap between constructs such as optimism, loneliness and network centrality,' Baek says. 'Because the new study didn't control for loneliness or social network position, and my prior work didn't control for optimism, it is unclear how much these dimensions are overlapping or distinct.' Optimism and pessimism aren't unchanging traits; they tend to shift with age, although the trajectories vary from culture to culture. Nor is optimism an unquestioned good. 'Extreme optimism might not always be a good thing because we might not plan for the future as well as we should,' says Aleea Devitt, a psychologist at the University of Waikato in New Zealand, who studies future thinking. And 'pessimism may be a useful 'positive' trait in some situations; there's evidence that some people can be defensive pessimists, which can actually help them better prepare for the future.'
The Guardian
a day ago
- Health
- The Guardian
Optimists share similar brain patterns when thinking about the future, scans show
Whether it's an exam, flight or health check, some people take a sunny view of the future while others plan for catastrophes. Now researchers have found that people with an upbeat outlook show similar patterns of brain activity when they mull over future scenarios. 'Optimists seem to use a shared neural framework for organising thoughts about the future, which likely reflects a similar style of mental processing rather than identical ideas,' said Kuniaki Yanagisawa, first author of the research from Kobe University in Japan. He said the results could shed light on previous findings that showed optimists tended to be more socially successful. 'What this [new study] tells us is that the foundation of their social success might be this shared reality,' he added. 'It's not just about having a positive attitude; it's that their brains are literally on the same wavelength, which may allow for a deeper, more intuitive kind of connection.' In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers said they asked 87 participants to complete a questionnaire to reveal how optimistic they were. Each participant also underwent an MRI brain scan, during which they were asked to imagine various different possible future life events, some of which were positive – such as taking an 'epic trip around the world' – while others were neutral or negative, such as being fired. A subset of the participants were asked to imagine scenarios related to death. The team found participants who were more optimistic showed greater similarities in the patterns of their brain activity in a region involved in future-oriented thinking, called the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) Yanagisawa said one possibility was that the more diverse brain activity among pessimists reflected a more varied set of concerns when thinking about negative scenarios. However, he said another possibility was that optimists viewed their futures within a shared framework of socially accepted goals which pessimists might feel disconnected from for personal reasons, meaning they each had a different way of thinking about the future. The researchers said the results had parallels with the first line of Leo Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina: 'Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.' 'On the basis of this principle, we propose that optimistic individuals are all alike, but each less optimistic individual imagines the future in their own way,' the team wrote. The researchers also found patterns of brain activity in the MPFC showed clearer differences for positive and negative future events in optimists. 'This suggests that optimists not only 'think alike' in a structural sense, but they also process emotional information about the future differently with a greater ability to separate what's good from what's bad, which may help them stay resilient,' said Yanagisawa. He said previous work had associated this kind of clearer separation with a more abstract, psychologically distant way of thinking about negative events. 'We're not saying that optimists have identical thoughts about the future, or that they imagine the exact same scenarios,' said Yanadisawa. 'Rather, what we found is that their brains represent future events in a similar way, especially in how they distinguish between positive and negative possibilities. So while we wouldn't say they have the same thoughts, we can say that they appear to think in the same way – structurally.' Prof Lisa Bortolotti of the University of Birmingham, in the UK, who was not involved in the work, said the study suggested optimists pictured future negative events in less vivid and concrete detail than positive ones, meaning such potential scenarios affected them less. 'These findings might suggest that optimism does not amount to a form of irrationality or reality distortion because it does not change how we see things out there but how those things impact us,' she added. Bortolotti said assuming things won't go wrong brought no benefits if it left us unprepared for challenges, but noted that optimism worked when it motivated us to pursue goals. 'Picturing a positive outcome in detail as feasible and desirable makes us value it and work for it, ultimately making it more likely that we will achieve it,' she said.
The Guardian
a day ago
- Health
- The Guardian
Optimists share similar brain patterns when thinking about the future, scans show
Whether it's an exam, flight or health check, some people take a sunny view of the future while others plan for catastrophes. Now researchers have found that people with an upbeat outlook show similar patterns of brain activity when they mull over future scenarios. 'Optimists seem to use a shared neural framework for organising thoughts about the future, which likely reflects a similar style of mental processing rather than identical ideas,' said Kuniaki Yanagisawa, first author of the research from Kobe University in Japan. He said the results could shed light on previous findings that showed optimists tended to be more socially successful. 'What this [new study] tells us is that the foundation of their social success might be this shared reality,' he added. 'It's not just about having a positive attitude; it's that their brains are literally on the same wavelength, which may allow for a deeper, more intuitive kind of connection.' In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers said they asked 87 participants to complete a questionnaire to reveal how optimistic they were. Each participant also underwent an MRI brain scan, during which they were asked to imagine various different possible future life events, some of which were positive – such as taking an 'epic trip around the world' – while others were neutral or negative, such as being fired. A subset of the participants were asked to imagine scenarios related to death. The team found participants who were more optimistic showed greater similarities in the patterns of their brain activity in a region involved in future-oriented thinking, called the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) Yanagisawa said one possibility was that the more diverse brain activity among pessimists reflected a more varied set of concerns when thinking about negative scenarios. However, he said another possibility was that optimists viewed their futures within a shared framework of socially accepted goals which pessimists might feel disconnected from for personal reasons, meaning they each had a different way of thinking about the future. The researchers said the results had parallels with the first line of Leo Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina: 'Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.' 'On the basis of this principle, we propose that optimistic individuals are all alike, but each less optimistic individual imagines the future in their own way,' the team wrote. The researchers also found patterns of brain activity in the MPFC showed clearer differences for positive and negative future events in optimists. 'This suggests that optimists not only 'think alike' in a structural sense, but they also process emotional information about the future differently with a greater ability to separate what's good from what's bad, which may help them stay resilient,' said Yanagisawa. He said previous work had associated this kind of clearer separation with a more abstract, psychologically distant way of thinking about negative events. 'We're not saying that optimists have identical thoughts about the future, or that they imagine the exact same scenarios,' said Yanadisawa. 'Rather, what we found is that their brains represent future events in a similar way, especially in how they distinguish between positive and negative possibilities. So while we wouldn't say they have the same thoughts, we can say that they appear to think in the same way – structurally.' Prof Lisa Bortolotti of the University of Birmingham, in the UK, who was not involved in the work, said the study suggested optimists pictured future negative events in less vivid and concrete detail than positive ones, meaning such potential scenarios affected them less. 'These findings might suggest that optimism does not amount to a form of irrationality or reality distortion because it does not change how we see things out there but how those things impact us,' she added. Bortolotti said assuming things won't go wrong brought no benefits if it left us unprepared for challenges, but noted that optimism worked when it motivated us to pursue goals. 'Picturing a positive outcome in detail as feasible and desirable makes us value it and work for it, ultimately making it more likely that we will achieve it,' she said.
Daily Maverick
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Top Antarctic meeting kicks off behind ‘Ice Curtain' as transparency goes up in flames
Antarctica's fate is debated in secrecy behind closed doors and confusion in Milan. The world's premier meeting on the governance of Earth's most threatened continent — representing 10% of the planet — opened today in Milan behind closed doors. The 47th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) involves 29 consultative states — including the US, China, Russia and South Africa — which gather annually to deliberate the future of the frozen, but melting, wilderness. There are also 29 observer states with no decision-making powers. During the course of the next week and a half, the decision-maker states will debate a range of governance matters relating to the Antarctic as part of a 1959 treaty which is devoted to peaceful activities like science and tourism. Under the treaty's environmental constitution, the Madrid Protocol, mining is banned. The live substance of the meeting, seen as diplomatically sensitive, has always been held behind closed doors. According to some sources, only 30 minutes of the 150-minute opening plenary of the ATCM on Tuesday morning were public. However, according to the meeting rules, the entire 'opening plenary session shall be held in public, other sessions shall be held in private, unless the Meeting shall determine otherwise'. No decisions have been published on the committee's website to indicate why the opening plenary was closed or partially closed. The meeting is hosted in alphabetical order by a different consultative state every year. This year hosted under a far-right coalition government led by Giorgia Meloni and her party, Brothers of Italy, the meeting's organising committee has yet to respond to Daily Maverick's repeated questions about how to access the now-concluded opening plenary — first sent in August 2024. And yet the British Antarctic Survey this month released science showing that it's not just South Pole transparency that seems to be going up in flames. According to the scientific agency, the population of emperor penguins — whose protection China and Russia have blocked at the consultative meeting in recent years — has declined 22% over the 15 years to 2024. The reported plunge in numbers of these iconic flightless ambassadors relates to a 'key sector of the continent' of the West Antarctic. 'This compares with an earlier estimate — 2009 and 2018 — of a 9.5% reduction across Antarctica as a whole,' the agency reports. In another study released this week, the agency reveals that Signy Island seal populations have sharply declined by about 50% over 50 years — a trend that is 'strongly linked to shifts in sea ice; when it forms and melts each year, and how long it lasts'. Next year, the meeting will be hosted by Japan. A prominent Japanese polar academic, Kobe University's Professor Akiho Shibata, is in Milan this week and reported on his Facebook page that multiple delegates were kicked out of the treaty's environmental protection committee session on Monday. 'A confusion at the beginning with just too small a room (Brown Hall) with too few chairs; those standing, including me, were ordered to leave the room for security reasons!' exclaimed Shibata, an Antarctic law expert. In a twist that would be farcical if the ecological and geopolitical stakes were not so high, Shibata added: 'Because of that, I could not observe an important discussion on 'Enhancing the Transparency in the ATCM and CEP [Committee for Environmental Protection] proposed by the Netherlands, Australia and Korea — more media access to the meetings; more proactive public outreach; and possible increase of experts).' Shibata, an accredited delegate, wrote earlier this week: 'Very difficult to find the way in, with a lot of construction going on.' He advised: 'Have extra time to come on Monday for CEP and Tuesday for plenary.' The meeting has been criticised by other experts for its 'Ice Curtain' approach — a phrase coined by Tasmania-based polar author and journalist Andrew Darby. Unlike the high-profile UN Ocean Conference held in Nice, France, earlier this month, the Antarctic meeting was not broadly advertised. The Antarctic Treaty is not part of the UN. When asked, South African official Ashley Johnson promptly replied to our queries, but seemed as mystified as the press. For streaming details of the opening plenary, Johnson suggested that we contact the organising committee, which has not responded to our questions. Despite being sent multiple unaddressed emails requesting information on media access to the public session, organising committee official Orazio Guanciale last month claimed that Italy was 'still waiting for … say … receiving the interest of members of the press to participate in the public session of Tuesday, 24 June'. 'Of course we are open to facilitate to the maximum extent possible the participation of the press and … say … the broadcasting of the public session.' He noted: 'The issue of transparency is really very, very important … say … the Antarctic Treaty embodies the principle of transparency… ' Per tradition, the documents discussed at the meeting are to be unlocked on the secretariat archive directly after the talks on 3 June — however, the actual live minutes will only be released after scrutiny by the consultative states some months later. 'Closed discussions can be useful for facilitating open discussion and exchange of ideas. However, this has to be balanced with the need for transparency and accountability,' Claire Christian, executive director of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, a network of NGOs, told Daily Maverick. 'Other international organisations have implemented various practices to promote transparency without compromising their effectiveness or ability to have productive discussions. As an example, papers for the meeting could be made publicly available ahead of the meeting so that the public could better understand the issues that are being discussed.' DM
