Dolly Parton took control of her career by making men the butt of the joke

Dolly Parton was fond of saying, ‘It takes a lot of money to look this cheap.’ Paul Natkin/Getty Images

Stephanie Vander Wel, University at Buffalo

Of all the moments that capture Dolly Parton’s musical talents, fierce intelligence and driving ambition, I often find myself thinking back to an awkward, ad-libbed live television duet on “The Porter Wagoner Show.”

The year was 1973. Parton had been performing alongside Wagoner on the syndicated variety show since 1967. Though this had been her big break in Nashville, Parton was feeling confined by playing second fiddle to Wagoner, who, as her producer, often took control of the musical arrangements of her songs. Despite Parton’s commercial success, he was often dismissive of her creative vision.

With Parton and Wagoner set to perform “Run That By Me One More Time” – a song Parton had written in 1970, about a marital quarrel – Wagoner begins by saying, “Me and my sidekick, she just kicked me in the side.” Dolly retorts, “Not yet, but I think I will after this.”

After the two sing the opening lines, Parton dives into her verse:

“Well you’re late again I see

What’s your excuse this time?

Don’t try to kiss and make up

When you smell so strong from wine.”

Right as Wagoner moves in to sing his excuse for coming home late, Parton unexpectedly interrupts him by singing a prolonged, “Well, I –” as if she were going to sing another line. Porter, caught by surprise, pauses. Parton laughs, “I thought I’d throw that in.” A flustered Wagoner asks Parton where they are in the song.

Back on track, Wagoner begins the next verse, demanding to know what Parton has done with the rent money. She ad-libs her explanation: “You seen me put that money in that cookie jar the same day you brought it home and one day I come back from shopping and I looked and every dime of that money was gone but I didn’t get it and you know I didn’t get it.”

She’s gone well over her allotted time, and Wagoner starts singing his planned retort. But Parton doesn’t let up and starts speaking over him: “I didn’t get it. I don’t know who got it but I don’t want you packing it on me no more.”

Guffaws are audible from the crowd. All Wagoner can do is awkwardly laugh as he says, “Would you run – me by that one more time.”

Dolly Parton and Porter Wagoner perform ‘Run That By Me One More Time’ on a 1973 episode of ‘The Porter Wagoner Show.’

Wagoner eventually recovers and the two cheerfully finish the song to applause. But for anyone watching, it’s clear who’s in control and whose song it is.

A year later, Parton left the show after writing the hit songs “Jolene” and “I Will Always Love You.” Her 1976 album, “All I Can Do,” was nominated for a Grammy for Best Country Vocal Performance, Female.

The rest – 25 No. 1 country singles, 10 Grammy awards, 44 Top 10 country albums – is history.

Turning the tables

Parton, who died on Aug. 25, 2026, didn’t simply tell jokes for cheap chuckles.

In my work as a scholar of country music, I’ve written about how female country artists from the mid-20th century to the 2010s deployed humor to elbow their way into an industry that has often been hostile to women.

Throughout the genre’s history, female country artists could be treated as window dressing for the male main attractions. And when women did achieve success, the industry could be quick to portray them as climbers who abandoned their country roots in pursuit of pop stardom.

Women also traditionally have had a harder time getting recording contracts and radio airplay. As recently as 2015, radio consultant Keith Hill controversially said that country stations should play mostly male artists, describing men as the “lettuce” and women as the “tomatoes” in a salad.

One way female artists fought back? By using humor to upend expectations about how women should behave.

In Lulu Belle’s comedic take on marriage in her 1939 song “I Wish I Was a Single Girl Again,” she plays the part of the female rube. By assuming the caricature of female hillbilly, she was able to do or say things that a conventionally respectable female character couldn’t.

Similarly, June Carter often played the unruly country girl who aimed her punchlines at male hosts and duet partners, including Johnny Cash. And in the uproarious “Got My Name Changed Back,” the contemporary trio Pistol Annies use humor to turn the pain of divorce into a celebration of female empowerment.

But few have ever wielded humor as deftly as Parton. She used quick-witted retorts and self-deprecating jokes as weapons to disarm audiences and shine a spotlight on double standards and gendered biases.

Dolly Parton hugs comedian John Belushi at Windows on the World in New York City in May 1977. Art Zelin/Getty Images

She often did this by making men the butt of her jokes.

Take two of Parton’s first commercial hits: “Dumb Blonde,” written by Curly Putman, and her self-penned “Something Fishy.”

In “Dumb Blonde,” Parton tells the story of a cheating man who, upon being confronted, angrily accuses her of being a “dumb blonde.” After announcing that “this dumb blonde ain’t nobody’s fool,” the song’s narrator triumphantly declares, “If there’s one thing this blonde has learned, blondes have more fun,” before walking away from the relationship on her own terms.

“Something Fishy” is another song about a cheater. Parton’s lyrics contrast the man’s thin lies about “going on fishing trips” with her suspicion of his infidelities.

“Something fishy is going on,” she says wryly, playing up the pun. The audience is in on the mockery of this dim-witted man, whose astute wife can see right through him.

Dolly’s world

Dolly Parton performs at the Wembley Empire Pool in London in April 1976. Andrew Putler/Redferns via Getty Images

In the same way that Parton took the spotlight from Wagoner during that televised duet in 1973 – and makes it clear who’s in control and who isn’t – Parton also took control of the narrative of her career. When critics questioned her commitment to country, she demonstrated that popular stardom and country authenticity were not mutually exclusive. When they condemned her ambition, she made no apologies for wanting more. When they tried to ridicule her look, she owned her Dolly image by means of her wit.

As Parton would often say, “It costs a lot of money to look this cheap.”

There’s so much in that line. For one, it’s hilarious. But it also signals that she intentionally crafted her campy persona, and that her calculated appearance also contributed to her wild success.

That was Dolly: self-deprecating, self-aware, self-assured and, yes – wickedly funny.

Stephanie Vander Wel, Associate Professor of Music, University at Buffalo

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

Would you eat a grasshopper? In Oaxaca, it’s been a tasty tradition for thousands of years

Jeffrey H. Cohen, The Ohio State University

Billions of people regularly eat insects. In the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca, chapulines – toasted grasshoppers – stand out as a beloved seasonal treat that follows the start of the rainy season, a period that runs from late May through September.

My new book, “Eating Grasshoppers: Chapulines and the Women who Sell Them,” dives into the history and cultural significance of entomophagy (eating insects) and this unique snack.

Chapulineras – the women who sell chapulines – often learn their craft from their mothers and grandmothers. Most will use nets or mesh bags to capture grasshoppers in their “milpa” – alfalfa and maize fields – during the cool, early morning hours.

Teresa Silva, whom I spoke with at her home in Zimatlán, Oaxaca, shared some of her experience:

“I began with my husband’s family, following their traditions after we married. My husband would bring me chapulines in large quantities, and with him and my in-laws’ support, I started to cook and sell [them]. It wasn’t easy at first … but I liked the money I made. Now, I have been selling chapulines for 23 years.”

Prepping chapulines isn’t hard. A dip in boiling water turns the grasshoppers a rich, deep red. Then you toss them on the “comal” – a ceramic or metal cooking surface – with a little garlic, lemon, chile and “sal de gusano,” a mixture of ground agave worms, salt and other seasonings. In a few minutes, the grasshoppers are ready to eat.

Culture and cuisine in Oaxaca

Chapulines have been a staple food for thousands of years. Like other insects and their by-products – including honey – grasshoppers are easily digestible, high in protein and an excellent source of vitamins and minerals.

They are also plentiful. Archaeologist Jeffrey Parsons estimates that harvests before the arrival of European settlers might have included 3,900 metric tons of insects and their eggs, if not more, annually.

One of the earliest references to chapulines appears in Franciscan Friar Bernardino de Sahagún’s 1577 “General History of the Things of New Spain.” Sometimes called the “first anthropologist,” Sahagún describes their importance as a beloved seasonal food in the local diet.

An illustration of grasshoppers from Bernardino de Sahagún’s ‘General History of the Things of New Spain.’ Mexicolore

High praise. But perhaps it isn’t surprising that Spanish colonists largely ignored grasshoppers and other Indigenous foods while introducing new crops, animals and unique ways of eating. The Spanish also reorganized life according to the casta system – a racially based hierarchy that restricted the rights and opportunities of Indigenous people.

While chapulines and other insects remained critical to the local diet, the Spanish preferred eating dishes made from the animals and crops they’d brought with them, including wheat and cattle.

Nor were these new foods readily adopted by locals. Indigenous cuisine lacked Spanish parallels. Grains and livestock were not suited to local dishes; furthermore, even as the Spanish colonists had locals grow these new crops, they usually prohibited them from keeping any of the harvest.

An old reliable

Of course, with time, the introduced crops and livestock took hold, and local cuisine incorporated these foods into many of the dishes the world knows today as Mexican.

However, whenever there’s not enough to eat – whether due to discrimination, a natural disaster or a human-made crisis – Mexicans often fall back on edible insects. They were critical following floods and famines in the 18th and 19th centuries. And when Oaxacans fled their homes and farmland during the Mexican Revolution, they turned to chapulines as a replacement for more typical proteins like chicken, turkey, beef tripe and pork.

Boiling chapulines gives them their rich, red color. Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Most recently, when the COVID-19 lockdowns made it nearly impossible to shop for foods, chapulineras created a touchless economy that connected vendors and customers through messaging services like WhatsApp. Some chapulineras also provided no-interest loans to people who could not cover the costs of their orders.

Carmen Mendoza, whom I interviewed at Mercado Benito Juárez in Oaxaca City, described her experience of the lockdown:

“When the pandemic hit, I said to myself, ‘Look, you need to keep selling, but from home.’ I know where I am, and I know my clients. I also know how much people want, how many kilos of chapulines they will buy. So people came to my house. Sometimes they would bring me their harvest, other times they would call and ask for two or three kilos. I could do that.”

The meaning, use and value of chapulines are changing, as Oaxaca has become a popular tourist destination and has been commemorated as a UNESCO heritage site. For foodies and tourists, tasting chapulines is a way to consume and experience the past.

Chapulineras will happily sell to foodies who want to “eat bugs.” But they also know tourists cannot support their market. Visitors usually swoop in for a few days, buy a small handful of chapulines and leave. Most will never return.

And so chapulineras continue to depend on locals whose families have been eating the insects for generations. Many chapulineras have achieved financial security through their efforts, earning incomes that exceed that of most rural women in Oaxaca.

In Oaxaca, just as it was 3,000 years ago, chapulines are “what’s for dinner.”

Jeffrey H. Cohen, Professor of Anthropology, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

Are high school sports living up to their ideals?

Most coaches want to be able to do more than teach their athletes to win faceoffs and dodge defenders. Hannah Foslien/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Jedediah Blanton, University of Tennessee and Scott Pierce, Illinois State University

Coach Smith was an easy hire as the head coach of a new high school lacrosse team in Tennesseee: She had two decades of coaching experience and a doctorate in sport and exercise science.

After signing the paperwork, which guaranteed a stipend of US$1,200, Smith – we’re using a pseudonym to protect her identity – had four days to complete a background check, CPR and concussion training and a Fundamentals of Coaching online course. After spending $300 to check all these boxes, the job was hers.

The Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association’s mission statement highlights how high school athletes should be molded into good citizens and have their educational experiences enhanced by playing sports.

Yet Coach Smith hadn’t received any guidance on how to accomplish these goals. She didn’t know how a high school coach would be evaluated – surely it went beyond wins, losses and knowing CPR – or how to make her players better students and citizens.

Over the past 15 years, our work has focused on maximizing the benefits of high school sports and recognizing what limits those benefits from being reached. We want to know what high school sports aspire to be and what actually happens on the ground.

We have learned that Coach Smith is not alone; this is a common story playing out on high school fields and courts across the country. Good coaching candidates are getting hired and doing their best to keep high school sports fixtures in their communities. But coaches often feel like they’re missing something, and they wonder whether they’re living up to those aspirations.

Does the mission match reality?

Dating back to the inception of school-sponsored sport leagues in 1903, parents and educators have long believed that interscholastic sports are a place where students develop character and leadership skills.

Research generally backs up the advantages of playing sports. In 2019, high school sports scholar Stéphanie Turgeon published a review paper highlighting the benefits and drawbacks of playing school sports. She found that student-athletes were less likely to drop out, more likely to be better at emotional regulation and more likely to contribute to their communities. While athletes reported more stress and were more likely to drink alcohol, Turgeon concluded that the positives outweighed the negatives.

The governing body of high school sports in the U.S., the National Federation of State High School Associations, oversees 8 million students. According to its mission statement, the organization seeks to establish “playing rules that emphasize health and safety,” create “educational programs that develop leaders” and provide “administrative support to increase opportunities and promote sportsmanship.”

Digging deeper into the goals of sports governing bodies, we recently conducted a study that reviewed and analyzed the mission statements of all 51 of the member state associations that officially sponsor high school sports and activities.

In their missions, most associations described the services they provided – supervising competition, creating uniform rules of play and offering professional development opportunities for coaches and administrators. A majority aimed to instill athletes with life skills such as leadership, sportsmanship and wellness. Most also emphasized the relationship between sports and education, either suggesting that athletics should support or operate alongside schools’ academic goals or directly create educational opportunities for athletes on the playing field. And a handful explicitly aspired to protect student-athletes from abuse and exploitation.

Interestingly, seven state associations mentioned that sports participation is a privilege, with three adding the line “and not a right.” This seems to conflict with the National Federation of State High School Associations, which has said that it wants to reach as many students as possible. The organization sees high school sports as a place where kids can further their education, which is a right in the U.S. This is important, particularly as youth sports have developed into a multibillion-dollar industry fueled by expensive travel leagues and club teams.

We also noticed what was largely missing from these mission statements. Only two state athletic associations included a goal for students to “have fun” playing sports. Research dating back to the 1970s has consistently shown that wanting to have fun is usually the No. 1 reason kids sign up for sports in the first place.

Giving coaches the tools to succeed

Missions statements are supposed to guide organizations and outline their goals. For high school sports, the opportunity exists to more clearly align educational initiatives and evaluation efforts to fulfill their missions.

If high school sports are really meant to build leadership and life skills, you would think that the adults running these programs would be eager to acquire the skill set to do this. Sure enough, when we surveyed high school coaches across the country in 2019, we found that 90% reported that formal leadership training programs were a good idea. Yet less than 12% had actually participated in those programs.

Few high school coaches are required to complete leadership training. Andy Cross/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A recent study led by physical education scholar Obidiah Atkinson highlighted this disconnect. While most states require training for coaches, the depth and amount of instruction varied significantly, with little emphasis on social–emotional health and youth development. In another study we conducted, we spoke with administrators. They admitted that coaches rarely receive training to effectively teach the leadership and life skills that high school sports promise to deliver.

This type of training is available; we helped the National Federation of State High School Associations create three free courses explicitly focused on developing student leadership. Thousands of students and coaches have completed these courses, with students reporting that the courses have helped them develop leadership as a life skill. And it’s exciting to see that the organization offers over 60 courses reaching millions of learners on topics ranging from Heat Illness Prevention and Sudden Cardiac Arrest, to Coaching Mental Wellness and Engaging Effectively with Parents.

Yet, our research findings suggest that if these aspirational missions are to be taken seriously, it’s important to really measure what matters.

Educational programs can be evaluated to determine whether and how they are helping coaches and students, and coaches ought to be evaluated and retained based on their ability to help athletes learn how to do more than kick a soccer ball or throw a strike. Our findings highlight the opportunity for high school athletic associations and researchers to work together to better understand how this training is helping coaches to meet the promises of high school sports.

Taking these steps will help to make sure coaches like Coach Smith have the tools, support and feedback they need to succeed.

Jedediah Blanton, Assistant Professor of Kinesiology, Recreation and Sport Studies, University of Tennessee and Scott Pierce, Professor of Kinesiology and Recreation, Illinois State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Stop Texting and Emailing and Try Talking for a Change

by Daniel B. Griffith, J.D., SPHR, SHRM-SCP

As a workplace mediator, I am astounded by the many times I've helped employees work through their conflicts simply by having them reassess their methods of communicating. Conflict often escalates because individuals rely on technology -- texts and emails -- to communicate rather than honestly talk face to face. For example:

• A department chair and office manager rarely meet in person. The chair exercises his faculty privilege to work from home and the manager feels blamed for not addressing student and faculty needs, mostly because she can't get clarity through email from the chair about how to respond.
• Initial emails in a long email stream between two faculty are seemingly innocuous but escalate over many weeks to barbed comments, sarcasm, innuendo, accusations, half-truths, and SHOUTING. They have never spoken directly with one another about their concerns.
• Two students pull out their phones and trace the series of text exchanges between them, quickly realizing their frequent use of abbreviations, emojis, and curt replies, and overlooked texts within the stream led to significant misunderstandings and unfounded judgments and assumptions each made of the other.

My job as mediator is to help individuals unpack the causes of their conflict and see for themselves where their differences lie, but it is tempting in cases like these simply to say, "stop it!" The answer seems obvious but is evidently more difficult for many who have come to rely on their devices to communicate to the point they avoid, fear, or forget to communicate in person or have lost or never developed the skills for doing so.

If this is you, or fear it may be, consider these suggestions for evaluating your technology use and extricating yourself from the confusion to improve your relationships and conflict resolution skills:

Get clear on your reasons for relying on e-communication when dealing with conflict. Conflict resolution starts with identifying root causes. With respect to technology misuse, causes for users' misdeeds and misunderstandings that foment conflict include:

• Cowardice. Hiding behind the keypad to send out missives, barbs, strident comments, and other conflict-enhancing messages due to a lack of courage, fortitude, or integrity to face others in person.
• Fear. Avoiding face-to-face interaction due to either genuine or unfounded fear of confrontation, thereby finding safety in perpetuating the conflict behind the keypad.
• Laziness or busyness. While we know we could talk over the cubicle or knock on a colleague's door (or do so virtually through a video meeting), we don't do so, either from inertia or by blaming our busy schedule. It is simply easier to stay behind the keypad.
• Ignorance. Some individuals lack awareness of how their written exchange may come across as curt, dismissive, unclear, or harsh. Others may simply not know, or were never taught, that in-person exchange is the best option for addressing conflicts and more serious conversations.
• Lack of skills. Some may recognize the need for face-to-face interaction but feel awkward, tongue-tied, and unskilled, feeling more comfortable behind the keypad. They will continue in this mode if they lack the means to develop skills or to ask for help.
• Norms. When e-communication is the default within your organization, or among your community, age group, or friends, the thought of a different means for more important conversation never crosses your mind.

Change your mindset and manner of communicating. As conflict escalates, we experience diminishing returns in our ability to meaningfully communicate and resolve issues with colleagues. As this occurs and you get an inkling that your electronic foibles may be a contributing cause, it's time to wake up to the need for a different approach to your communication exchange.

These inklings may arise, among other means, if you sense your common use of abbreviations and emojis are being misinterpreted or causing offense, your written explanations become lengthier in response to a colleague's baseless accusations, you've lost track of the stream and wonder where the misunderstanding first arose, or you discontinue communication altogether -- electronic or otherwise -- because it has become exhausting and demoralizing to attempt further communication.

The first response to this dilemma is simple (physically, if not emotionally): take your fingers off the keypad. The next step is perhaps more challenging, particularly if you are accustomed to hiding behind the keypad: find a way to initiate face-to-face communication to address your conflict. This probably means walking down the hall to talk with your colleague (or to do the virtual equivalent by requesting a video meeting).

If this is too difficult to initiate cold, or your colleague is as or more skilled as you in hiding behind electronic walls, begin with a polite email, such as, "I think it would be best at this point to talk this through than to continue through email. Could we meet soon?" If your colleague continues to attempt electronic "conversation," you may need to be more direct: "I've requested previously that we meet to discuss this. I will not continue to respond to this concern through email. Would Tuesday at 3:00 or Wednesday at 9:00 be a better time to meet?"

The point is to back away from e-communication, minimize or discontinue e-responses until you can meet in person, and transition discussion on issues causing conflict to in-person exchange.

Don't get pulled into others' misuse of technology. Truly recalcitrant colleagues relying on electronic forms may disregard your message and continue their methods. In any conflict, someone must be the first to break the cycle. Don't give in and return to your old ways simply because the other person hasn't responded as requested. To the extent business must continue through electronic means, keep it to business, provide information only as pertinent to move forward with business decisions, and remind the person of your standing request to meet in person on the matter of concern.

While your awkward radio silence may further jeopardize your relationship momentarily, leave an information void, and generate further misunderstandings and frustration (perhaps even escalating the other person's e-responses), realize the cost in time, energy, and loss of goodwill to continue or return to an unhealthy cycle, tempting as it may be to respond in kind.

Establish clear expectations about how you will communicate and the methods you will use. Whether correcting a dysfunctional relationship precipitated by poor e-communication or establishing a new relationship to avoid such problems, establish an understanding of how you will address the natural miscommunications and conflicts that arise and how e- vs. in-person communication will play a role. Consider informal norms or grounds rules covering situations where e-communication is appropriate and when transition to in-person is needed. Hint: e-communication for general business and information exchange; in-person when a deeper conversation is needed, or when matters initiated through e-communication require transition to in-person to ensure clarity. So armed, you now have a basis for disrupting e-communication to transition to in-person without surprising your colleague and begin a fluid, productive process for addressing concerns through face-to-face interaction.

This article is republished from HigherEdJobs^® under a Creative Commons license. 

The Power of Pets

Love. Community. Belonging. Pets offer people the chance to explore friendships and connections they didn’t always think were possible.

Pets provide companionship and help bring people together. In fact, according to Mars’ “Pets Connect Us” report 73% of pet parents have made connections despite generational, cultural or ethnic differences because of their four-legged pals.

Learn more about the report, which leveraged consumer insights to shed light on the future of pet parenthood in the U.S. and Canada, at BetterCitiesForPets.com/2023report.

SOURCE:
Mars Petcare 

   

Make Summer as Safe as It is Fun

With school out for summer, children will be away from teachers and coaches who might be trained in first aid and CPR, making it crucial for parents and summer caregivers to brush up on safety tips and life-saving skills.

No matter where your summer plans take you, make sure you’re equipped with the knowledge and tools you need for safe, fun days in the sun.

Keep a First Aid Kit on Hand
Having basic first aid supplies handy lets you take care of minor boo-boos so the summer play can carry on. Plan to include cleansers, wound dressings, bandages and tape; antibiotic ointment; scissors and tweezers; bug bite treatment; and over-the-counter medications such as pain relievers and antihistamines for allergic reactions.

Learn CPR
Sudden cardiac arrest can happen to anyone at any age. Summer activities like swimming, boating and other watersports can lead to drowning or serious injuries, but so can outdoor play and sporting events in extreme heat. In fact, more than 23,000 children experience cardiac arrest outside of the hospital each year, according to the American Heart Association, approximately 40% of which are related to sports.

Immediate CPR and automated external defibrillator (AED) use can double or even triple someone’s chance of surviving cardiac arrest. For teens and adults, Hands-Only CPR could save their life. For infants and children, CPR with breaths is recommended.

Studies show children as young as 9 years old can learn and retain CPR skills. This summer, there are many learning options available to families, including online CPR courses, local in-person Heartsaver courses, CPR Anytime Training Kits and CPR kiosks, available in public places and airports across the country.

Know the Signs of Heat Exhaustion
Even when it doesn’t seem extreme, heat and humidity can take a toll. On one end of the heat stress spectrum are heat cramps, which may ease if you take a break, drink water and cool off.

More serious heat exhaustion may occur when the body’s temperature rises to 100-102 F and can include an inability to maintain physical activity, dizziness, nausea, dehydration and rapid heart rate. Try to cool down and drink water, but if symptoms worsen or vomiting occurs, seek medical help.

Heat stroke may cause death or permanent disability. It is characterized by a body temperature of 104-106 F or higher, heat exhaustion symptoms, trouble walking and neurological difficulties such as slurred speech or confusion.

Be Smart Around Water
Drowning can happen quickly and silently. Every day, an average of 10 people of all ages die in the United States from accidental, non-boating related drowning. Always swim with a friend and keep watch, especially where water isn’t clear and underwater obstacles may be present. When boating, always wear a life jacket. At home, install fencing at least 4 feet high around pools and remove toys from the pool when it’s not in use so children aren’t tempted to play without supervision.

Bike Safely
Taking some safety precautions can make bike rides even more enjoyable. Before heading out, check all riders’ bikes to ensure everything is in good operating condition, including brakes, tires, chains and gears.

Always wear a helmet and consider guards to protect your knees, elbows and hands in the event of a fall. Avoid riding at night, when you’re less visible to drivers, and wear bright colors that make you stand out. Drive with traffic (not against it) and follow the same rules as a car when it comes to street signs and intersections. Remain alert at all times and avoid distractions such as music that can prevent you from hearing warning sounds such as a car horn.

Join the American Heart Association’s Nation of Lifesavers and make this summer as safe as it is fun with tips on CPR and other safety concerns at heart.org/nation.

SOURCE:

American Heart Association

People say they prefer stories written by humans over AI-generated works, yet new study suggests that’s not quite true

Artificial intelligence is expected to generate a growing share of the world’s creative work. karetoria/Moment via Getty Images

Martin Abel, Bowdoin College and Reed Johnson, Bowdoin College

People say they prefer a short story written by a human over one composed by artificial intelligence, yet most still invest the same amount of time and money reading both stories regardless of whether it is labeled as AI-generated.

That was the main finding of a study we conducted recently to test whether this preference of humans over AI in creative works actually translates into consumer behavior. Amid the coming avalanche of AI-generated work, it is a question of real livelihoods for the millions of people worldwide employed in creative industries.

To investigate, we asked OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4 to generate a short story in the style of the critically acclaimed fiction author Jason Brown. We then recruited a nationally representative sample of over 650 people and offered participants US$3.50 to read and assess the AI-generated story. Crucially, only half the participants were told that the story was written by AI, while the other half was misled into believing it was the work of Jason Brown.

After reading the first half of the AI-generated story, participants were asked to rate the quality of the work along various dimensions, such as whether they found it predictable, emotionally engaging, evocative and so on. We also measured participants’ willingness to pay in order to read to the end of the story in two ways: how much of their study compensation they’d be willing to give up, and how much time they’d agree to spend transcribing some text we gave them.

So, were there differences between the two groups? The short answer: yes. But a closer analysis reveals some startling results.

To begin with, the group that knew the story was AI-generated had a much more negative assessment of the work, rating it more harshly on dimensions like predictability, authenticity and how evocative it is. These results are largely in keeping with a nascent but growing body of research that shows bias against AI in areas like visual art, music and poetry.

Nonetheless, participants were ready to spend the same amount of money and time to finish reading the story whether or not it was labeled as AI. Participants also did not spend less time on average actually reading the AI-labeled story.

When asked afterward, almost 40% of participants said they would have paid less if the same story was written by AI versus a human, highlighting that many are not aware of the discrepancies between their subjective assessments and actual choices.

Why it matters

Our findings challenge past studies showing people favor human-produced works over AI-generated ones. At the very least, this research doesn’t appear to be a reliable indicator of people’s willingness to pay for human-created art.

The potential implications for the future of human-created work are profound, especially in market conditions in which AI-generated work can be orders of magnitude cheaper to produce.

Even though artificial intelligence is still in its infancy, AI-made books are already flooding the market, recently prompting the authors guild to instate its own labeling guidelines.

Our research raises questions whether these labels are effective in stemming the tide.

What’s next

Attitudes toward AI are still forming. Future research could investigate whether there will be a backlash against AI-generated creative works, especially if people witness mass layoffs. After all, similar shifts occurred in the wake of mass industrialization, such as the arts and crafts movement in the late 19th century, which emerged as a response to the growing automation of labor.

A related question is whether the market will segment, where some consumers will be willing to pay more based on the process of creation, while others may be interested only in the product.

Regardless of how these scenarios play out, our findings indicate that the road ahead for human creative labor might be more uphill than previous research suggested. At the very least, while consumers may hold beliefs about the intrinsic value of human labor, many seem unwilling to put their money where their beliefs are.

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

Martin Abel, Assistant Professor of Economics, Bowdoin College and Reed Johnson, Senior Lecturer in Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies, Bowdoin College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

Transform the daily grind to make life more interesting – a philosopher shares 3 strategies to help you attain the good life

Approaching your regular day with a new mindset can send you in an interesting direction. d3sign/Moment via Getty Images

Lorraine Besser, Middlebury

Imagine it’s Monday morning, too cold and too dark, but once that alarm goes off, you know you’ve got to rally. The kids have to get to school. You’ve got to get to work. And, of course, your ever-growing to-do list hangs over your head like a dark cloud, somehow both too threatening to ignore and too threatening to start its tasks.

On days like this, you may be grateful simply to make it through. But then it begins, all over again.

While you can’t escape the grind, you can transform it. The latest psychological research on the good life points the way: By shifting your mindset, you can make your day-to-day more interesting and create psychological richness within your life. Psychological richness describes a robust form of cognitive engagement. It’s distinct from happiness and meaning, but just as important to the good life.

In collaboration with Shigehiro Oishi and his research lab, I’ve investigated whether the field of positive psychology has largely overlooked an important dimension of the good life. As the philosopher on our team, I had two directives. First, I helped to define the concept of psychological richness and understand what distinguishes it from happiness and meaning. Second, I set out to explore why psychological richness is valuable.

Our initial studies found that people value experiences that stimulate their minds, challenge them and generate a range of emotions. Many would choose a life full of these experiences, which we describe as psychologically rich, over a happy life or a meaningful life.

This insight points to the important role psychological richness can play within the good life, but it stops short of explaining why it’s good and why people ought to make space for psychological richness within their lives. These are value-laden questions that can’t be answered through empirical research. Their answers are found instead through philosophical analysis.

My philosophical analysis suggests that psychological richness is good for you because it’s interesting. My book, “The Art of the Interesting: What We Miss in Our Pursuit of the Good Life and How to Cultivate It,” shows how to add psychological richness to your life by making it more interesting.

One of the easiest ways to do this is by embracing a mindset characterized by curiosity, creativity and what I call “mindfulness 2.0.” When you bring these three perspectives to your day-to-day, you transform the grind into endless opportunities to experience the world as interesting. You develop the capacity to enhance your own life.

Mindfulness 2.0: Noticing without judging

What I call “mindfulness 2.0” means bringing nonevaluative awareness to the world around you – paying attention without judging.

Familiar from mindfulness practices, it’s a form of noticing that brings forth details you typically overlook: the texture of a houseplant’s leaves, the faces of the strangers you pass on the sidewalk, the differing heights of the cans on a store shelf. By bringing these details into your awareness, you stimulate your mind, allowing you to engage mentally with your surroundings in an active manner. Noticing things through mindfulness 2.0 is the first step toward having an interesting experience.

A good place to practice mindfulness 2.0 is during your morning commute. Because it’s routine, you probably don’t feel the need to engage much with the details of what you are doing. Instead you’ll find other ways to pass the time, such as listening to the news or your favorite podcast. These activities distract you from the otherwise boring commute by disengaging you from it.

Noticing an intriguing pattern as birds gather overhead can engage your mind as you move through the world. Menahem Kahana/AFP via Getty Images

But you can also get through the commute by engaging with it to make it less boring. Here’s where the power of mindfulness 2.0 kicks in. Through actively noticing things around you – be it the people clustered at the bus stop, or the traffic patterns created by a stoplight, or a flock of birds swooping overhead – you engage your mind and set yourself up to experience the interesting.

Curiosity: Exploring through questions

Curiosity isn’t just for kids. No matter how much you know, there’s always something to be curious about – especially if you’ve learned to notice the details through mindfulness 2.0.

Say you’ve noticed, during your commute, the group of people gathered around the bus stop. Now let your curiosity take off: Was that bus stop always there? How long has that exceptionally weird real estate advertisement been stuck on the seatback? So many people lined up this cold morning. You might wonder if you’d feel a little more connected if you were with them. But then you notice that no one is talking. Do they ride the same bus together, every day, without acknowledging each other?

Through asking questions, you ask your mind to consider something it hadn’t before. You create new thoughts, and if you let your mind keep going, you’ll have an interesting experience, all the while making that same commute. Even better, you’ll have created that interesting experience on your own. You’ve harnessed an ability to enhance your life, an ability that’s completely within your control.

Creativity: Trying something new

While people often think of creativity as a talent, native only to artists or inventors, everyone has the ability to be creative. Creativity is a skill that involves forming new connections with your mind. You’re creative whenever you do something new or different. Whether it is painting a brilliant landscape or wearing a new color combination, developing a new dish or simply tweaking a recipe, it all falls under the umbrella of creativity.

Exploring what your green thumb can coax to flourish is one creative path. Luis Alvarez/DigitalVision via Getty Images

When you are creative, in big or small ways, you generate novelty within your life, and this puts you on the path toward experiencing psychological richness. Novelty all but forces the mind to think and feel in new ways, stimulating that robust form of cognitive engagement that brings the interesting.

Even just a little bit of creativity will bring novelty to your day-to-day routine. Wear something you don’t normally wear. Add a little flair to your handwriting or choose a different colored pen to write with. Change the patterns on your screen saver. Notice the impact these little tweaks have on your day. Little by little, they’ll add up to make your day just a little more interesting.

Everyone’s experience of what’s interesting is unique. There’s no one interesting experience for all of us, because the interesting depends entirely on how our minds engage, react and respond. Through developing mindfulness 2.0, and bringing curiosity and creativity to your experiences, you train your mind to engage, react and respond in ways that will transform any experience into an interesting one.

This is the power a mindset can bring. It’s a capacity to enhance our lives that anyone can develop.

Lorraine Besser, Professor of Philosophy, Middlebury

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

In a new era of campus upheaval, the 1970 Kent State shootings show the danger of deploying troops to crush legal protests

Ohio National Guard soldiers move in on war protesters at Kent State University on May 4, 1970. AP Photo

Brian VanDeMark, United States Naval Academy

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has expressed his intention, if elected to a second term, to use the U.S. armed forces to suppress domestic protests. The New York Times reports that Trump’s allies are marshaling legal arguments to justify using National Guard or active-duty military troops for crowd control.

Moreover, as the Times notes, Trump has asserted that if he returns to the White House, he will dispatch such forces without waiting for state or local officials to request such assistance.

I am a historian who has written several books about the Vietnam War, one of the most divisive episodes in our nation’s past. My new book, “Kent State: An American Tragedy,” examines a historic clash on May 4, 1970, between anti-war protesters and National Guard troops at Kent State University in Ohio.

The confrontation escalated into violence: Troops opened fire on the demonstrators, killing four students and wounding nine others, including one who was paralyzed for life.

In my view, the prospect of dispatching troops in the way that Trump proposes chillingly echoes actions that led up to the Kent State shootings. Some active-duty units, as well as National Guard troops, are trained today to respond to riots and violent protests – but their primary mission is still to fight, kill, and win wars.

Archival footage from CBS News of the clash between campus anti-war protesters and Ohio National Guard troops at Kent State University on May 4, 1970.

Federalizing the Guard

The National Guard is a force of state militias under the command of governors. It can be federalized by the president during times of national emergency or for deployment on combat missions overseas. Guardsmen train for one weekend per month and two weeks every summer.

Typically, the Guard has been deployed to deal with natural disasters and support local police responses to urban unrest, such as riots in Detroit in 1967, Washington in 1968, Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992, and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the death of George Floyd.

The 1807 Insurrection Act grants presidents authority to use active-duty troops or National Guard forces to restore order within the United States. However, presidents rarely deploy Guard troops without state governors’ consent.

The main modern exceptions occurred during the Civil Rights Movement, when Southern governors resisted federal orders to desegregate schools in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. In each case, the troops were sent to protect Black students from crowds of white protesters.

The standoff at Kent State

The war in Vietnam had grown increasingly unpopular by early 1970, but protests intensified on April 30 when President Richard Nixon authorized expanding the conflict into Cambodia. At Kent State, after a noontime anti-war rally on campus on May 1, alcohol-fueled students harassed passing motorists in town and smashed storefront windows that night. On May 2, anti-war protesters set fire to the building where military officers trained Kent State students enrolled in the armed forces’ Reserve Officer Training Corps program.

In response, Republican Gov. Jim Rhodes dispatched National Guard troops, against the advice of university and many local officials, who understood the mood in the town of Kent and on campus far better than Rhodes did. County prosecutor Ron Kane had vehemently warned Rhodes that deploying the National Guard could spark conflict and lead to fatalities.

Nonetheless, Rhodes – who was trailing in an impending Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat – struck the pose of a take-charge leader who wasn’t going to be pushed around by a long-haired rabble. “We’re going to put a stop to this!” he shouted, pounding the table at a press conference in Kent on May 3.

Hundreds of National Guard troops were deployed across town and on campus. University officials announced that further rallies were banned. Nonetheless, on May 4, some 2,000 to 3,000 students gathered on the campus Commons for another anti-war rally. They were met by 96 National Guardsmen, led by eight officers.

There was an edge of confrontation in the air as student anger over Nixon’s expansion of the war blended with resentment over the Guard’s presence. Protesters chanted antiwar slogans, shouted epithets at the Guardsmen and made obscene gestures.

Doug Guthrie, a student at Kent State in 1970, looks back 54 years later at the events of May 4.

‘Fire in the air!’

The Guardsmen sent to Kent State had no training in de-escalating tension or minimizing the use of force. Nonetheless, their commanding officer that day, Ohio Army National Guard Assistant Adjutant General Robert Canterbury, decided to use them to break up what the Department of Justice later deemed a legal assembly.

In my view, it was a reckless judgment that inflamed an already volatile situation. Students started showering the greatly outnumbered Guardsmen with rocks and other objects. In violation of Ohio Army National Guard regulations, Canterbury neglected to warn the students that the Guardsmens’ rifles were loaded with live ammunition.

As tension mounted, Canterbury failed to adequately supervise his increasingly fearful troops – a cardinal responsibility of the commanding officer on the scene. This fundamental failure of leadership increased confusion and resulted in a breakdown of fire control discipline – officers’ responsibility to maintain tight control over their troops’ discharge of weapons.

When protesters neared the Guardsmen, platoon sergeant Mathew McManus shouted “Fire in the air!” in a desperate attempt to prevent bloodshed. McManus intended for troops to shoot above the students’ heads to warn them off. But some Guardsmen, wearing gas masks that made it hard to hear amid the noise and confusion, only heard or reacted to the first word of McManus’ order, and fired at the students.

The troops had not been trained to fire warning shots, which was contrary to National Guard regulations. And McManus had no authority to issue an order to fire if officers were nearby, as they were.

Many National Guardsmen who were at Kent State on May 4 later questioned why they had been deployed there. “Loaded rifles and fixed bayonets are pretty harsh solutions for students exercising free speech on an American campus,” one of them told an oral history interviewer. Another plaintively asked me in a 2023 interview, “Why would you put soldiers trained to kill on a university campus to serve a police function?”

A fighting force

National Guard equipment and training have improved significantly in the decades since Kent State. But Guardsmen are still troops who are fundamentally trained to fight, not to control crowds. In 2020, then-National Guard Bureau Chief General Joseph Lengyel told reporters that “the civil unrest mission is one of the most difficult and dangerous missions … in our domestic portfolio.”

In my view, the tragedy of Kent State shows how critical it is for authorities to be thoughtful in responding to protests, and extremely cautious in deploying military troops to deal with them. Force is inherently unpredictable, often uncontrollable, and can lead to fatal mistakes and lasting human suffering. And while protests sometimes break rules, they may not be disruptive or harmful enough to merit responding with force.

Aggressive displays of force often heighten tensions and worsen situations. Conversely, research shows that if protesters perceive authorities are behaving with restraint and treating them with respect, they are more likely to remain nonviolent. The shooting at Kent State demonstrates why force should be an absolute last resort in dealing with protests – and one fraught with grave risks.

Brian VanDeMark, Professor of History, United States Naval Academy

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

500 years ago, Machiavelli warned the public not to get complacent in the face of self-interested charismatic figures

Julius Caesar was the first tyrant of Rome, after which Rome was never again free. Steve Christo/Corbis via Getty Images

Vickie B. Sullivan, Tufts University

A United States president sought to remain in office after his term ended, maintains a worshipful following and has declared he will operate as a dictator only on “day one” if reelected. His cunning and manipulation of American politics and its legal system have, so far, blocked efforts to hold him accountable.

That sort of activity has been called “Machiavellian,” after Renaissance writer Niccolò Machiavelli, who lived from 1469 to 1527. He wrote a notorious little treatise called “The Prince,” in which he advises sole rulers – his phrase for authoritarians or dictators – as well as those who aspire to sole rule to use force and fraud to gain and maintain power.

But scholars of Machiavelli like me know there is much more to his analysis. His 16th-century writings discuss not only princely rule but also republican governments, in which citizens select leaders directly or indirectly for specified terms. He instructs republican citizens and leaders, including those of the United States, to recognize how vulnerable the governments they cherish are and to be vigilant against the threats of tyranny. Machiavelli’s advice is as relevant now as it was then.

Machiavelli’s republican experience

Cosimo de’ Medici was an autocratic ruler in Renaissance Florence, in what is now Italy. Bildagentur-online/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Machiavelli knew from experience and his extensive reading that there was a long history of nations with republican governments falling victim to ambitious individuals who sought to subvert their nations’ practices and institutions so they could rule alone and unchecked, with all others serving at their behest and on their authority.

For example, he was from the city-state of Florence in what is now Italy. Florence had had a republican tradition for centuries, but about 30 years before Machiavelli’s birth, banker and politician Cosimo de’ Medici had subverted that system. Cosimo had used his family’s wealth to propel himself to political power by exerting influence over officeholders so that he was the ultimate decision-maker.

Cosimo’s descendants inherited his political power. They briefly lost their grip on power just long enough for Machiavelli to participate for about a decade as an official and diplomat in a restored republic. Machiavelli was in office when the republic collapsed with the return of the Medici family to power.

Removed from office, Machiavelli wrote “The Prince.” He prefaced it with a dedicatory letter to the young member of the Medici whom the family had designated as the new ruler of Florence. Commentators have long disagreed about what Machiavelli sought by so obviously pandering to an autocratic ruler.

The ‘Discourses,’ Machiavelli’s republican writing

Niccolò Machiavelli was an Italian philosopher and writer. Photo 12/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

That puzzle is all the more perplexing because elsewhere Machiavelli expresses his commitment to republican government. He wrote another book, less well known and much less pithy than “The Prince,” entitled “Discourses on Livy.” In the “Discourses,” Machiavelli uses the work of the ancient Roman historian Livy to examine how the Roman republic was overthrown by a single leader.

At its founding, Rome was a kingship, but when subsequent kings became tyrannical, the Roman people overthrew the monarchy and established a republic, which had a remarkable history and lasted almost 500 years.

The Roman republic collapsed in 44 BCE when Julius Caesar declared himself dictator for life. Machiavelli wrote that Julius Caesar was the first tyrant in Rome, with the result that Rome was never again free.

Julius’ immediate successor Octavius, who assumed the name Caesar Augustus, ruled as the first of a long line of emperors.

Lessons from the demise of the Roman republic

The key lesson of Machiavelli’s examination of Roman history in the “Discourses” is this: A republic is fragile. It requires constant vigilance on the part of both the citizens and their leaders.

That vigilance is difficult to maintain, however, because over generations, citizens and leaders alike become complacent to a key internal threat that haunts this form of government. Specifically, they fail to grasp early enough the anti-republican designs of exceptionally ambitious citizens among them who harbor the desire to rule alone.

Machiavelli provides instructive examples of how Rome failed to protect its republican practices and laws against such a threat. When the republic was young, Rome allowed candidates to nominate themselves for high offices. This practice worked well because only worthy candidates put themselves forward. Later, however, the practice of self-nomination allowed into office those who wanted to promote their own popularity rather than respond to the needs of their country.

Machiavelli said that leaders and citizens devoted to the republic should have closed off this easy route to power to such candidates. But Rome failed to act. Because of its complacency, Caesar was able to build on the popularity that his predecessors had amassed and to transform Rome into a tyranny.

Actors recreate the assassination of Julius Caesar, which came too late to save the Roman republic from collapse into authoritarian rule. Andreas Solaro/AFP via Getty Images

The point of no return

If republican citizens and leaders fail to be vigilant, they will eventually be confronted with a leader who has accumulated an extremely powerful and threatening following. At that point, Machiavelli says, it will be too late to save the republic.

Machiavelli uses the examples of Caesar’s assassination in Rome and Cosimo’s exile from Florence to underscore this lesson. In each case, the supporters of their respective republic, finally perceiving the danger of tyranny, initiated an attack on the people’s idol. In each case, that effort led not to a restoration of republican freedom but rather to its elimination.

In Rome, Augustus used the public’s sympathy and devotion for the martyred Caesar to seal the republic’s demise. In Florence, Cosimo himself was welcomed back from exile to become Florence’s leading man.

The fate of the American republic

For Americans, the question is whether, as a result of public complacency, the republic will be lost. Will the American republic fall to the same perils that Machiavelli identified in ancient Rome and Renaissance Florence?

Perhaps an opportunity exists to breathe new life into the nation’s republican practices and institutions. Perhaps there is still time to reject through elections those who seek office only to enhance their own power.

Or perhaps it is so late that even that approach will not work. Then, Americans would be left to mourn the demise of their republic and to affirm Machiavelli’s counsel that republics fail through complacency. Such an outcome for one of history’s most exemplary republics would stand as a wretched testament to Machiavelli’s political insight.

Vickie B. Sullivan, Professor of Political Science, Tufts University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.