Latest news with #UniversityofTartu
Economic Times
21-05-2025
- Business
- Economic Times
New study uncovers the world's most and least satisfying jobs, and the results will shock you: Is it not about money or status?
The Science Behind the Smiles Heavenly Careers: Writing, Healing, and the Soul's Work iStock Among the professions that ranked highest in satisfaction were clergy members, healthcare professionals, and writers. The Daily Grind: Where Satisfaction Sputters iStock Interestingly, the study found that highly structured jobs with lots of responsibility, such as corporate managers, also fared poorly in satisfaction. Prestige and Pay: Mere Illusions? Why the Self-Employed Are (Usually) Happier A Culturally Grounded Truth—But With Global Echoes In a world where we often equate job titles with success and salaries with happiness, a groundbreaking new study flips the script on everything we thought we knew about career satisfaction. Conducted by researchers at the University of Tartu in Estonia, the study explores a deceptively simple question: What makes a job truly satisfying?And the answers might just surprise to an article on the New Scientist, drawing on data from over 59,000 people and a whopping 263 different professions, the research team—led by Kätlin Anni—dug deep into the Estonian Biobank . Participants had not only donated blood but also answered detailed surveys about their careers, income levels, personalities, and overall satisfaction with life. The result? Arguably the most comprehensive look yet at what jobs actually make people happy—or no, it's not about driving a Porsche to a high-rise the professions that ranked highest in satisfaction were clergy members, healthcare professionals, and writers. These jobs, while vastly different in day-to-day function, share a common thread: a strong sense of purpose. Whether it's tending to the spiritual needs of a community, saving lives, or crafting words that move people, these careers seem to offer something money can't buy— says that these findings highlight a powerful truth: jobs offering a sense of achievement and service to others deliver a deeper kind of fulfillment. Even if they don't come with the glamor of a corner office or the thrill of a million-dollar deal, they connect with something elemental in the human the other end of the spectrum, jobs in kitchens, warehouses, manufacturing, transportation, and sales were associated with the lowest satisfaction scores. Add to that roles like security guards, mail carriers, carpenters, and even chemical engineers, and the pattern becomes clearer—when routine meets rigidity, joy often exits the the study found that highly structured jobs with lots of responsibility, such as corporate managers, also fared poorly in satisfaction. The stress and lack of autonomy, it seems, can sap even the most prestigious role of its of the most revelatory insights from the research was that neither job prestige nor a fat paycheck was a reliable predictor of satisfaction. 'I was expecting job prestige to be more associated with satisfaction, but there was only a slight correlation,' Anni admits. The takeaway? A big title or a six-figure salary doesn't necessarily translate to waking up excited for autonomy, creativity, and the chance to make a tangible impact played far more decisive roles in how people felt about their jobs—and their there's one group that seems to have cracked the happiness code, it's the self-employed. Their secret? Freedom. The ability to set their own schedules, make decisions independently, and shape their workdays allows them a level of agency often missing in more conventional doesn't mean self-employment is for everyone, but it does speak volumes about the value of autonomy in the workplace—a factor that might be worth prioritizing over perks and the study is based in Estonia, its findings resonate far beyond its borders. Although cultural norms might influence how job satisfaction is experienced, the overarching trends—purpose over prestige, autonomy over authority—are universally an era increasingly defined by burnout, quiet quitting, and career pivots, these findings arrive like a timely reminder: fulfillment isn't found in your bank balance or your LinkedIn bio. It's found in the quiet hum of work that feels right—for the next time you daydream about your ideal job, don't just chase the dollar. Ask yourself what kind of work would actually light you up inside. Science now backs what many have long suspected—happiness at work has less to do with status and everything to do with meaning.
Time of India
21-05-2025
- Health
- Time of India
New study uncovers the world's most and least satisfying jobs, and the results will shock you: Is it not about money or status?
In a world where we often equate job titles with success and salaries with happiness, a groundbreaking new study flips the script on everything we thought we knew about career satisfaction. Conducted by researchers at the University of Tartu in Estonia, the study explores a deceptively simple question: What makes a job truly satisfying? And the answers might just surprise you. The Science Behind the Smiles According to an article on the New Scientist , drawing on data from over 59,000 people and a whopping 263 different professions, the research team—led by Kätlin Anni—dug deep into the Estonian Biobank . Participants had not only donated blood but also answered detailed surveys about their careers, income levels, personalities, and overall satisfaction with life. The result? Arguably the most comprehensive look yet at what jobs actually make people happy—or miserable. And no, it's not about driving a Porsche to a high-rise office. Heavenly Careers: Writing, Healing, and the Soul's Work Among the professions that ranked highest in satisfaction were clergy members, healthcare professionals, and writers. These jobs, while vastly different in day-to-day function, share a common thread: a strong sense of purpose. Whether it's tending to the spiritual needs of a community, saving lives, or crafting words that move people, these careers seem to offer something money can't buy—meaning. You Might Also Like: Manager calls employee 'just a number' and mocks him as replaceable. Techie quits and costs company Rs 2.5 crore loss. How? Anni says that these findings highlight a powerful truth: jobs offering a sense of achievement and service to others deliver a deeper kind of fulfillment. Even if they don't come with the glamor of a corner office or the thrill of a million-dollar deal, they connect with something elemental in the human psyche. iStock Among the professions that ranked highest in satisfaction were clergy members, healthcare professionals, and writers. The Daily Grind: Where Satisfaction Sputters At the other end of the spectrum, jobs in kitchens, warehouses, manufacturing, transportation, and sales were associated with the lowest satisfaction scores. Add to that roles like security guards, mail carriers, carpenters, and even chemical engineers, and the pattern becomes clearer—when routine meets rigidity, joy often exits the scene. Interestingly, the study found that highly structured jobs with lots of responsibility, such as corporate managers, also fared poorly in satisfaction. The stress and lack of autonomy, it seems, can sap even the most prestigious role of its appeal. iStock Interestingly, the study found that highly structured jobs with lots of responsibility, such as corporate managers, also fared poorly in satisfaction. Prestige and Pay: Mere Illusions? One of the most revelatory insights from the research was that neither job prestige nor a fat paycheck was a reliable predictor of satisfaction. 'I was expecting job prestige to be more associated with satisfaction, but there was only a slight correlation,' Anni admits. The takeaway? A big title or a six-figure salary doesn't necessarily translate to waking up excited for work. You Might Also Like: In new job trend, many employees are resigning without another offer. HR expert's explanation will surprise you Instead, autonomy, creativity, and the chance to make a tangible impact played far more decisive roles in how people felt about their jobs—and their lives. Why the Self-Employed Are (Usually) Happier If there's one group that seems to have cracked the happiness code, it's the self-employed. Their secret? Freedom. The ability to set their own schedules, make decisions independently, and shape their workdays allows them a level of agency often missing in more conventional employment. That doesn't mean self-employment is for everyone, but it does speak volumes about the value of autonomy in the workplace—a factor that might be worth prioritizing over perks and promotions. A Culturally Grounded Truth—But With Global Echoes While the study is based in Estonia, its findings resonate far beyond its borders. Although cultural norms might influence how job satisfaction is experienced, the overarching trends—purpose over prestige, autonomy over authority—are universally recognizable. In an era increasingly defined by burnout, quiet quitting, and career pivots, these findings arrive like a timely reminder: fulfillment isn't found in your bank balance or your LinkedIn bio. It's found in the quiet hum of work that feels right—for you. So, the next time you daydream about your ideal job, don't just chase the dollar. Ask yourself what kind of work would actually light you up inside. Science now backs what many have long suspected—happiness at work has less to do with status and everything to do with meaning.
CNA
28-04-2025
- Politics
- CNA
'Catastrophic': experts sound alarm over possible Crimea deal
Recognising Russia's annexation of the Ukrainian Black Sea peninsula of Crimea would undermine the international order and raise serious legal challenges, experts said as the Kremlin on Monday (Apr 28) called the concession "imperative" to resolving the conflict. The comments came as US President Donald Trump pushed Russia to accept a ceasefire, telling reporters on Sunday that he believed Volodymyr Zelenskyy might concede Crimea as part of a settlement - a suggestion the Ukrainian leader has repeatedly rejected. But as a possible deal looms, experts raised concerns over the legality of any agreement, which would mark a monumental shift in the post-World War II international order. "The message it sends is that it can pay off, for great powers at least, to violate that prohibition of the use of force," said Lauri Malksoo, an international law professor at the University of Tartu in Estonia. "CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES" After 1945, nations set rules to uphold international law - and made it clear that borders could not be changed by force. As a result, "there has been no case of a country expanding its size by militarily seizing the territory of another for 80 years," said Phillips O'Brien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St Andrews. The Kremlin has repeatedly outlined its demands for a Ukraine settlement, comprising Crimea, which Moscow seized in a lightning operation in 2014, as well four regions it annexed after its full-scale invasion three years ago but does not fully control. Kyiv has denounced the annexations as an illegal land grab and says it will never recognise them, while experts have warned that accepting Moscow's demands sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to future Russian aggression. Forcing Ukraine to recognise Russian sovereignty over Crimea would be "a return to the right of conquest", said Elie Tenenbaum at the French Institute for International Relations (IFRI). And the repercussions could extend far beyond the conflict in Ukraine, said Michel Erpelding at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. Such a precedent could have "extremely destabilising, even catastrophic consequences for world peace", he told AFP. "UNDER DURESS" The United States has signalled its willingness to recognise Russia's annexation of Crimea, but there is a debate whether any deal would be legally valid - even if Ukraine signs. "In principle, at least, treaties produced through coercion are void," said Malksoo, warning that any agreement signed under pressure by Kyiv could spark a legal battle. Before accepting Russian sovereignty over the peninsula, each country would assess whether Moscow coerced Kyiv into giving up Crimea. And Ukraine could "use this argument to challenge the validity of any agreement it may have been pressured into signing", said Erpelding. Washington has not revealed details of its peace plan, but has suggested freezing the front line, effectively handing Russia the four regions it now occupies since launching its February 2022 invasion. By agreeing to cede Crimea, Ukraine would be setting a precedent that "could be used by Russia to take over the rest of the country", O'Brien said. "It's the thin end of the wedge in the Russian plan to end Ukraine," he added.
Straits Times
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
‘Catastrophic': Experts sound alarm over possible Crimea deal
People walk along a street near a banner in the colours of the Russian flag reading "We don't abandon our people", in Yalta, Crimea. PHOTO: REUTERS PARIS - Recognising Russia's annexation of the Ukrainian Black Sea peninsula of Crimea would undermine the international order and raise serious legal challenges, experts said as the Kremlin on April 28 called the concession 'imperative' to resolving the conflict. The comments came as US President Donald Trump pushed Russia to accept a ceasefire, telling reporters on April 27 that he believed Mr Volodymyr Zelensky might concede Crimea as part of a settlement – a suggestion the Ukrainian leader has repeatedly rejected. But as a possible deal looms, experts raised concerns over the legality of any agreement, which would mark a monumental shift in the post-World War II international order. 'The message it sends is that it can pay off, for great powers at least, to violate that prohibition of the use of force,' said Professor Lauri Malksoo, an international law professor at the University of Tartu in Estonia. 'Catastrophic consequences' After 1945, nations set rules to uphold international law – and made it clear that borders could not be changed by force. As a result, 'there has been no case of a country expanding its size by militarily seizing the territory of another for 80 years,' said Dr Phillips O'Brien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St Andrews. The Kremlin has repeatedly outlined its demands for a Ukraine settlement, comprising Crimea, which Moscow seized in a lightning operation in 2014, as well four regions it annexed after its full-scale invasion three years ago but does not fully control. Kyiv has denounced the annexations as an illegal land grab and says it will never recognise them, while experts have warned that accepting Moscow's demands sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to future Russian aggression. Forcing Ukraine to recognise Russian sovereignty over Crimea would be 'a return to the right of conquest', said Dr Elie Tenenbaum at the French Institute for International Relations (IFRI). And the repercussions could extend far beyond the conflict in Ukraine, said Dr Michel Erpelding at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. Such a precedent could have 'extremely destabilising, even catastrophic consequences for world peace', he told AFP. 'Under duress' The United States has signalled its willingness to recognise Russia's annexation of Crimea, but there is a debate whether any deal would be legally valid – even if Ukraine signs. 'In principle, at least, treaties produced through coercion are void,' said Prof Malksoo, warning that any agreement signed under pressure by Kyiv could spark a legal battle. Before accepting Russian sovereignty over the peninsula, each country would assess whether Moscow coerced Kyiv into giving up Crimea. And Ukraine could 'use this argument to challenge the validity of any agreement it may have been pressured into signing', said Dr Erpelding. Washington has not revealed details of its peace plan, but has suggested freezing the front line, effectively handing Russia the four regions it now occupies since launching its February 2022 invasion. By agreeing to cede Crimea, Ukraine would be setting a precedent that 'could be used by Russia to take over the rest of the country', Prof O'Brien said. 'It's the thin end of the wedge in the Russian plan to end Ukraine,' he added. AFP Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
New York Times
05-02-2025
- Science
- New York Times
Ancient DNA Points to Origins of Indo-European Language
In 1786, a British judge named William Jones noticed striking similarities between certain words in languages, such as Sanskrit and Latin, whose speakers were separated by thousands of miles. The languages must have 'sprung from some common source,' he wrote. Later generations of linguists determined that Sanskrit and Latin belong to a huge family of so-called Indo-European languages. So do English, Hindi and Spanish, along with hundreds of less common languages. Today, about half the world speaks an Indo-European language. Linguists and archaeologists have long argued about which group of ancient people spoke the original Indo-European language. A new study in the journal Nature throws a new theory into the fray. Analyzing a wealth of DNA collected from fossilized human bones, the researchers found that the first Indo-European speakers were a loose confederation of hunter-gatherers who lived in southern Russia about 6,000 years ago. 'We've been on the hunt for this for many years,' said David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard who led part of the new research. Independent linguists had mixed reactions to the findings, with some praising their rigor and others highly skeptical. Many decades ago, linguists began trying to reconstruct the proto-Indo-European language by looking at words shared by many different languages. That early vocabulary contained a lot of words about things like wheels and wagons, and few about farming. It looked like the kind of language that would have been spoken by nomadic herders who lived across the steppes of Asia thousands of years ago. But in 1987, Colin Renfrew, a British archaeologist, questioned whether nomads who were constantly on the move would have stayed in any one place long enough for their language to catch on. He found it more plausible that early farmers in Anatolia (a region in what is now Turkey) spread the language as they expanded, gradually converting more and more land to farm fields and eventually building towns and cities. The archaeologist argued that an Anatolian origin also fit the archaeological evidence better. The oldest Indo-European writing, dating back 3,700 years, is in an extinct language called Hittite, which was spoken only in Anatolia. In 2015, two teams of geneticists — one led by Dr. Reich — shook up this debate with some remarkable data from ancient DNA of Bronze Age Europeans. They found that about 4,500 years ago, central and northern Europeans suddenly gained DNA that linked them with nomads on the Russian steppe, a group known as the Yamnaya. Dr. Reich and his colleagues suspected that the Yamnaya swept from Russia into Europe, and perhaps brought the Indo-European language with them. In the new study, they analyzed a trove of ancient skeletons from across Ukraine and southern Russia. 'It's a sampling tour de force,' said Mait Metspalu, a population geneticist at the University of Tartu in Estonia who was not involved in the research. Based on these data, the scientists argue that the Indo-European language started with the Yamnaya's hunter-gatherer ancestors, known as the Caucasus-Lower Volga people, or CLV. The CLV people lived about 7,000 years ago in a region stretching from the Volga River in the north to the Caucasus Mountains in the south. They most likely fished and hunted for much of their food. Around 6,000 years ago, the study argues, the CLV people expanded out of their homeland. One wave moved west into what is now Ukraine and interbred with hunter-gatherers. Three hundred years later, a tiny population of these people — perhaps just a few hundred — formed a distinctive culture and became the first Yamnaya. Another wave of CLV people headed south. They reached Anatolia, where they interbred with early farmers. The CLV people who came to Anatolia, Dr. Reich argues, gave rise to early Indo-European languages like Hittite. (This would also fit with the early Indo-European writing found in Anatolia.) But it was their Yamnaya descendants who became nomads and carried the language across thousands of miles. Some experts praised the work. 'It's a very intelligent scenario that's difficult to criticize,' said Guus Kroonen, a linguist at Leiden University in the Netherlands who was not involved in the studies. But Dr. Metspalu hesitated to jump from the new genetic data to firm conclusions about who first spoke Indo-European. 'Genes don't tell us anything about language, period,' he said. And Paul Heggarty, a linguist at Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, said that the DNA analysis in the study was valuable, but he rejected the new hypothesis about the first Indo-European speakers originating in Russia as 'smoke and mirrors.' In 2023, Dr. Heggarty and his colleagues published a study arguing that the first Indo-Europeans were early farmers who lived over 8,000 years ago in the northern Fertile Crescent, in today's Middle East. Dr. Heggarty suggested that the CLV people actually belonged to a bigger network of hunter-gatherers that stretched from southern Russia into northern Iran. Some of them could have discovered farming in the northern Fertile Crescent, and then developed the Indo-European language, which would align with his findings. These early farmers could have given rise to Hittite speakers thousands of years later in Anatolia, he said, and later given rise to the Yamnaya. The Yamnaya brought Indo-European languages to northern and Central Europe, Dr. Heggarty argued, but they were only one part of a bigger, older expansion. As the Indo-European debate advances, one thing is clear: Our understanding of its history now stands in stark contrast to the racist myths that once surrounded it. Nineteenth-century linguists called the original speakers of Indo-European Aryans, and some writers later pushed the notion that ancient Aryans were a superior race. The Nazis embraced the Aryan myths, using them to justify genocide. But Dr. Reich said that studies on ancient DNA show just how bankrupt these Aryan stories were. 'There's all sorts of mixtures and movements from places that these myths never imagined,' he said. 'And it really teaches us that there's really no such thing as purity.'
