September 2018

Why the latest inter-Korea summit matters

The detente between North and South Korea continues, with South Korean President Moon Jae-in (right) pushing on regardless of the United States. -Benjamin Habib, Lecturer in International Relations, Department of Politics and Philosophy, La Trobe University. Last week’s fifth inter-Korean summit provided another round of iconic moments in a year of extraordinary drama in Korean Peninsula politics. From Moon Jae-in’s address at the Arirang Mass Games to the leaders’ photo-op on the shores of the crater lake at Paekdusan, the three-day summit produced plenty of symbolism. More importantly, it increased the detail and scope of confidence-building measures agreed in the earlier Panmunjom Declaration. Much of the commentary in the wake of the summit has focused on what the Pyongyang Declaration means for the potential denuclearisation of North Korea. To view the summit through the narrow lens of nuclear politics would be to overlook the significance of deeper patterns that are emerging from inter-Korean détente. Filling in the details The first notable feature of the Pyongyang Declaration is the increased depth of military-to-military confidence-building measures, as articulated in its attached annex. One of the questions emerging from the Panmunjom Declaration related to how that document’s vague commitments to cooperation would be fleshed out in detail. In the Pyongyang Declaration are measures for increased conflict management procedures and greater operational level consultation. This includes a series of measures along the demilitarised zone (DMZ) and Northern Limit Line maritime boundary to reduce the risk of confrontation. A holistic approach to security There is a clear human security focus in the breadth and depth of the Pyongyang Declaration that has moved inter-Korean engagement well beyond denuclearisation. Human security is about protecting individuals and communities from threats to their well-being and survival. This might be from traditional security threats of war or persecution, or from […]

Why talking about yourself in the third person could help control your emotions

Andy Henion, Postdoctoral Researcher, Michigan State University. During stressful times, talking to yourself in the third person—silently—could help you control your emotions. This method doesn’t take any more mental effort, say researchers, than talking to yourself in the first person, which is how people normally talk to themselves. The study in Scientific Reports indicates that such third-person self-talk may constitute a relatively effortless form of self-control. Say a man named John is upset about recently being dumped. By simply reflecting on his feelings in the third person (“Why is John upset?”), John is less emotionally reactive than when he addresses himself in the first person (“Why am I upset?”). “Essentially, we think referring to yourself in the third person leads people to think about themselves more similar to how they think about others, and you can see evidence for this in the brain,” says Jason Moser, associate professor of psychology at Michigan State University. “That helps people gain a tiny bit of psychological distance from their experiences, which can often be useful for regulating emotions.” The study involved two experiments that both significantly reinforced this main conclusion. In one experiment, at Moser’s Clinical Psychophysiology Lab, participants viewed neutral and disturbing images and reacted to the images in both the first and third person while an electroencephalograph monitored their brain. When reacting to the disturbing photos (such as a man holding a gun to their heads), participants’ emotional brain activity decreased very quickly (within 1 second) when they referred to themselves in the third person. The researchers also measured participants’ effort-related brain activity and found that using the third person took no more effort than using first person self-talk. This bodes well for using third-person self-talk as an on-the-spot strategy for regulating emotions, Moser says, as many other forms of emotion regulation, such […]

How to gently get a child to brush his teeth

How to gently get your child to brush his teeth

For most parents, the phrase “I don’t want to brush my teeth” is rather familiar. While it may seem easiest to pry their mouth open and force them to brush, research suggests there are better ways that may positively influence children’s future dental health. So, what does the literature say you should do to help children brush their teeth? What is gentle parenting? Gentle parenting centres around respect for the child. Parents who practise this approach generally avoid artificial or extrinsic rewards or punishments. These parents try to help their children habituate appropriate, or what we would call “good”, behaviours. The idea is the child should want to do the “right” thing for its own sake, not because it’s accompanied by a reward or because of the threat of a punishment. Studies suggest this method is effective because children will go on to have superior social skills and fewer behavioural problems. The effect is believed to continue into adulthood. Contrary to popular belief, this style of parenting does not eschew “consequences”. Rather, consequences are allowed to flow naturally from behaviour. Although, in the case of dental hygiene, we can’t let the natural consequence of not brushing lead to caries. So, what can you do? When should you start encouraging dental hygiene? One of the ways to ensure children brush their teeth, without resorting to bribes or punishments, is to start early. Dentists suggest brushing baby’s first teeth when they appear, even wiping gums, may help establish good dental hygiene early. By starting early with dental care, it will become an established part of life and may cause fewer power struggles. Let your child brush your teeth, and you theirs. from www.shutterstock.com Does routine help? Routine is said to be essential in children’s lives. Studies suggest routine can positively impact on children habituating positive behaviours because of the repeated exposure. Families who provide a loving and consistent structure are more likely to have children who brush […]

Why schools should teach the curriculum of the future, not the past

Schoolchildren use their XO laptops outside Laura Vicuna school in Laguna de Apoyo, Granada, Nicaragua. Robots,artificial intelligence, automation – no longer the stuff of science fiction movies. Overwhelming evidence shows the shift in what the workforce needs is already underway and that it will continue to grow much larger in the future. All around the world, leaders from government and industry debate the future of work and the changes brought by technology and automation. Despite this, the world is not reacting fast enough to update our system of education. According to analysis of 750 occupations by the McKinsey Global Institute, 51% of job activities are highly susceptible to automation – and that’s through adapting currently demonstrated technology alone. It’s also important to note that these activities span jobs across industries as well as skill and wage levels. This indicates that automation is much less likely to lead to the mass unemployment predicted by alarmists but is almost certainly going to necessitate the redefinition of most occupations and requisite skills. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014 US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014 Image: O*Net, McKinsey What are we doing to prepare future generations to thrive in this changing landscape? A student that begins primary school today will graduate from university in the mid-2030s and their career will last through 2060 or beyond. While we can’t predict exactly what our workforce’s needs will be in in the middle of the century, we already know they are changing and will continue to change with the rate of technological advancement. Yet, in most schools you visit in 2018, you see teachers teaching the exact same subject matter as they taught in 1918: reading, writing, math, science, history and foreign languages. Debates about the future of education centre on changing how we teach, […]