The Significance of the Derek Chauvin Verdict - The New Yorker’s Jelani Cobb discusses the trial’s outcome. - link
The Forgotten History of the Purging of Chinese from America - The surge in violence against Asian-Americans is a reminder that America’s present reality reflects its exclusionary past. - link
How 1.5 Degrees Became the Key to Climate Progress - The number has dramatically reorganized global thinking around the climate. - link
Getting the Shot - What vaccination means to New Yorkers. - link
The Trump Administration Is Over, but the Trump Crisis Is Not - Many Republicans are acting like the Capitol insurrection never happened, and much of Washington is fine with it. - link
A humanitarian and political crisis, with no clear resolution.
The bodies of the two brothers were left for more than a day. Their families knew they were there, but the soldiers wouldn’t let them collect the bodies. The soldiers left behind witnesses, though: two boys, barely teens, tied to a tree nearby, after the soldiers forced them to spend the night on the ground, between the bodies of the murdered men.
The brothers were Kahsay and Tesfay, who both cared for young children and elderly parents in a small village in the northeastern corner of Ethiopia’s Tigray region, in an area home to the Irob, a small ethnic minority.
Their homeland, on the border with Eritrea, has known unrest for decades, from the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea in 1998 and the years of tension that followed until a shaky peace deal was finally reached in 2018.
Nothing compares to what they’re seeing now.
“It was never like this,” said Fissuh Hailu of the Irob Advocacy Association. Before, he said, “We had places to run away.”
Hailu now lives abroad, but many members of his family are still in Tigray. He and his colleagues are relying on witness accounts to document the atrocities happening in their part of the region, including the story he told me of the two brothers, which they largely attribute to the Eritrean army. (The incident has not been independently verified by Vox.)
It’s one of many chilling reports that have emerged in recent months from Tigray, a region in northern Ethiopia that has been engulfed in war since November.
Tensions churned for months between the Ethiopian government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), the political party that represents the Tigray region. That erupted into violence after the TPLF attacked a federal military facility in Tigray in what it said was “preemptive self-defense.” The Ethiopian government launched what it called a “law enforcement operation” in response, a justification for a full-scale invasion.
The situation has since turned into a protracted conflict with disturbing humanitarian implications. Tigrayan defense forces are fighting against the Ethiopian National Defense Force, who have partnered with troops from neighboring Eritrea and other militias within Ethiopia, specifically Amhara forces.
Telecommunications blackouts and limited access to parts of Tigray have made it difficult to fully assess what is unfolding there. But in recent months, credible reports of war crimes and crimes against humanity have started to trickle out, including evidence of ethnic cleansing against Tigrayans.
An internal United States government report, which the New York Times reviewed in February, assessed that the Ethiopian military and their allies were “deliberately and efficiently rendering Western Tigray ethnically homogeneous through the organized use of force and intimidation.”
There have been massacres and mass executions. Jan Nyssen, a geography professor at the University of Ghent, and a team of researchers have compiled a list of 1,900 Tigrayans killed in approximately 150 mass killings since the fighting began.
“This is ongoing,” Nyssen told me earlier this month. “In the last month, we recorded 20 massacres, and it continues almost at the same speed.” There is a common pattern, he said: When the Eritrean or Ethiopian forces lose a battle, “they take revenge on civilians in the surrounding areas.”
Rape has been used as a weapon of war; a USAID report includes testimony from a woman who recalled her rapist saying he was “cleansing the blood lines” of Tigrayan women. Eritrean forces have been accused of mass looting, pillaging, and wanton destruction of everything from banks to crops to hospitals.
Most of the alleged atrocities point to Eritrean, Ethiopian, and Amhara forces, though Tigray People’s Liberation Front-linked groups have also been linked to at least one mass killing. The Eritrean government has denied involvement, and only just last week admitted to its presence in Tigray.
In March, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed acknowledged that reports “indicate that atrocities have been committed in Tigray region.” He said those responsible should be held accountable, though he also blamed the “propaganda of exaggeration.”
The security situation is fueling other crises. More than 60,000 refugees have fled to neighboring Sudan since the fighting began in November, and humanitarian groups — many of which remain cut off from parts of Tigray — say the security situation has likely displaced thousands of people internally.
The United Nations estimates that of Tigray’s 6 million people, 4.5 million are in need of food aid. A recent report from the World Peace Foundation warns of the risk of famine and mass starvation as people are displaced and crops, livestock, and the tools needed to make and collect food are destroyed.
One witness in Tigray, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he fears for his safety, told me that Eritrean soldiers will kill an ox and eat just one leg, leaving the rest of the carcass to rot. “The people are either dying by blood or by hunger,” he said by phone from Mekele, Tigray’s capital, earlier this month.
Prime Minister Abiy, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient who was once seen as the country’s peacemaker and a democratic liberalizer, is now leading a country that is beginning to turn on itself.
Violence and ethnic tensions are flaring up in other parts of Ethiopia. Sudanese and Ethiopian troops have clashed in a disputed border territory, a sign of how Tigray’s unrest is spilling over into an already volatile neighborhood where Ethiopia had been viewed, at least by some international partners, as a stabilizing force.
The war in Tigray has no clear end, and the reports of killing and rape and looting are still happening. “Everybody is just waiting, just waiting — not to live, but waiting for what will happen tomorrow, or in the night,” the man in Mekele said.
“We never know what will happen,” he added. “You never know what will happen to anybody.”
Tensions between Abiy’s government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front had been coursing for some time, and experts say anyone paying attention was warning of the possibility of war before it happened.
In 2018, Ethiopia’s government got a major shake-up. The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), a Marxist-Leninist party, had ruled the country for nearly three decades, having emerged victorious from a brutal civil war in 1991.
The party was a coalition representing four different regions or nationalities: the TPLF (made up of Tigrayans); the Amhara Democratic Party (representing the Amhara ethnic group); the Oromo Democratic Party (representing the Oromo ethnic group); and the Southern Ethiopian People’s Democratic Movement, which represented a few ethnic groups.
But the Tigrayan wing of the party dominated.
The Tigrayan-led government presided over rapid economic growth, but not all of it was equal, and many Ethiopians felt left behind. In 2015 and 2016, after decades in power, the government faced popular protests over human rights abuses, corruption, and inequality.
Some, including members of the Amhara and Oromo ethnic groups, were particularly angry about the TPLF’s control of the most important positions in politics and the military, despite representing just 6 percent of the country’s population.
In 2018, Ethiopia’s prime minister resigned, and other members of the ruling EPRDF coalition united against the Tigrayan wing. They elected Abiy Ahmed, a relative newcomer from the Oromo, as the leader.
Abiy began to establish himself as a democratizer, releasing political prisoners and promising free and fair elections. He also pursued peace with neighboring Eritrea. The two countries had gone to war in 1998 over a disputed border in Badme (also in the Tigray region), and though they signed a peace deal in 2000, it had basically become a stalemate, with occasional skirmishes erupting for 20 years.
All of this made Abiy a star in Africa and around the world. In 2019, he won the Nobel Peace Prize for resolving the border war and “for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation.”
At home, things were a bit more complicated. Abiy had promised to reform the EPRDF, but in late 2019 he created a new Prosperity Party (PP) meant to deemphasize the role of ethnic groups in the name of unity.
The Tigray People’s Liberation Front opposed this move and what it saw as Abiy’s attempt to consolidate federal power at the expense of regional and ethnic autonomy. The TPLF declined to join the PP, and though the party still retained control of Tigray’s regional government, members generally saw Abiy as taking steps detrimental to their interests and their region — and to the vision of Ethiopia that the TPLF had championed since the 1990s.
“At the root of the war in Tigray is this ideological difference between TPLF and Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed for the future of the country,” Tsega Etefa, an associate professor of history and Africana and Latin American studies at Colgate University, wrote in an email.
Experts said Abiy rode the wave of anti-TPLF grievance to try to consolidate his own power, especially as it became a lot harder to deliver on some of the political promises he’d made when he took over.
“In a bid to deflect the growing criticism of him, now that he was formally in charge, he began increasingly confronting Tigrayans and blaming them for everything that had gone wrong,” Harry Verhoeven, of the Oxford University China-Africa Network, told me.
Abiy portrayed Tigrayans as “the Ethiopian equivalent of the ‘deep state,’ if you like,” Verhoeven added.
Experts noted this kind of rhetoric had the effect of blurring the lines between the TPLF leadership — which had earned legitimate criticisms after decades in power — and the Tigrayan people themselves.
Tensions persisted into 2020, which was supposed to be an election year, until Abiy (with Parliament’s approval) postponed elections, citing the coronavirus pandemic. Abiy’s critics, including those in the TPLF, accused him of an anti-democratic power grab.
The Tigray region held elections anyway in September in an act of defiance. Abiy’s government deemed those elections illegal.
Ethiopia’s Parliament then voted to cut funds from the regional Tigrayan government, a move the TPLF said violated the law and was “tantamount to a declaration of war.” In late October, the TPLF blocked an Ethiopian general from taking up a post in Tigray. The International Crisis Group warned that this standoff “could trigger a damaging conflict that may even rip the Ethiopian state asunder.”
Just a few days later, Abiy accused the TPLF of attacking its military base. “The last red line had been crossed,” he said, as Ethiopian troops entered Tigray and he declared a six-month state of emergency. Reports of airstrikes accompanied the federal government’s push into the region.
The federal government’s communications blackout, combined with competing accounts from both the government and Tigray officials, made it hard to fully account for the situation.
By the end of the month, Abiy had declared the Ethiopian government “fully in control” of the region’s capital, Mekele.
Six months later, the war grinds on.
Tigrayan defense forces have since regrouped and are now fighting a guerrilla insurgency against Ethiopian federal troops and those backing them up — namely, Eritrean troops and Amhara militia fighters from the region south of Tigray.
The Eritrean government — led by President Isaias Afwerki, the country’s longtime brutal dictator — and Abiy repeatedly denied the presence of Eritrean troops in Tigray, despite mounting evidence of their involvement.
It took until the end of March 2021 for Abiy to publicly acknowledge that Eritrean troops were present in Tigray. Shortly after, the Ethiopian government said Eritrean troops were withdrawing, though the TPLF had said there were no signs of any exit.
A top United Nations officials also said last week that there was no sign Eritrea was leaving. In response, Eritrea did, officially, confirm its presence in Tigray in an April 16 letter to the UN Security Council. In it, Eritrea said it had “agreed — at the highest levels — to embark on the withdrawal of the Eritrean forces and the simultaneous redeployment of Ethiopian contingents along the international boundary.”
But both advocates and experts are skeptical that Eritrea will exit quietly, or quickly.
“There is no sign that the Eritrean forces are withdrawing,” Alex de Waal, a research professor and executive director of the World Peace Foundation at Tufts University, told me earlier this month. “If anything, they are inserting themselves more deeply into the Ethiopian military and intelligence structure.”
But Abiy’s pact with Eritrea is forged from a common goal: the desire to crush the Tigray People’s Liberation Front.
Ethiopia and Eritrea have a long and tangled history, but to understand it, it helps to start after World War II, when world powers decided the fate of Eritrea after its previous colonizer, Italy, lost control of its territory in East Africa.
In 1952, the UN General Assembly voted to make Eritrea a federal component of Ethiopia. Ten years later, Ethiopia annexed Eritrea, leading to a protracted battle for independence that culminated in an Eritrean independence referendum in the early 1990s.
During that struggle, Ethiopia’s TPLF cooperated with members of the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF), the latter of whom were fighting for Eritrean independence from Ethiopia. They were both opposed to rule in Addis Ababa and had cultural and linguistic ties, but the two movements had ideological differences. It was, in some ways, a relationship of necessity, and tensions simmered — and sometimes spilled out into the open — even when they were partners.
After Eritrea gained independence in 1993, relations between the country and the TPLF-dominated Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front began to deteriorate.
At first, the disputes were minor. But in 1998, Eritrea and Ethiopia went to war over a disputed border town. The two signed a peace agreement in 2000, allowing an independent commission would settle the status of the area. That commission, however, ruled in favor of Eritrea, and the TPLF-led government in Ethiopia objected to the ruling. That led to two decades of tension and sporadic fighting.
When Abiy took over, he moved to make peace with Eritrea, agreeing to accept the commission’s decision. Meanwhile, the TPLF continued to try to thwart Abiy’s overtures to Eritrea.
Still, President Isaias of Eritrea accepted those Abiy’s olive branch. But in doing so, he didn’t exactly bury old grudges, and continued to criticize the TPLF as “vultures” for undermining Eritrea’s and Ethiopia’s normalization of relations.
“Today is payback time for a number of deeply felt historical injustices, real or perceived — but certainly deeply felt,” Verhoeven said of Eritrea’s involvement.
Isaias rules a repressive state on a constant war footing, and he sees an opportunity to finally vanquish his political rival and settle political scores. It’s also a chance to assert himself as the Horn of Africa’s most consequential leader, which Verhoeven said “is very much something he’s always aspired to.” And he may believe he can’t achieve that as long as a politically influential TPLF still resides on his border.
Isaias wanted freedom from the TPLF. So did Abiy, who saw the TPLF as a challenge to his agenda. Abiy fed that animosity by attacking the TPLF and blaming it for trying to destabilize Ethiopia.
Experts told me the TPLF also made miscalculations, such as trying to frustrate Abiy’s ability to implement the peace deal on the ground, which may have helped to push Abiy closer to Isaias. The Tigray elections provoked even more acrimony with Abiy, though the momentum toward conflict had already been set in motion.
“All the sides really wanted to go to war, and all the sides were making the wrong moves that made war possible,” Awet Weldemichael, a Horn of Africa expert at Queen’s University in Ontario, said.
Just as Abiy forged a political pact with an outsider, Eritrea, his reliance on ethnic Amhara militias to help fight his war in Tigray is accelerating Ethiopia’s internal strife.
Amhara militias have reportedly taken control of parts of western Tigray. Amhara officials say the TPLF annexed this territory when it came to power in 1991, and say it rightfully belongs to them and they are re-seizing it.
But Tigrayan civilians and officials claim that the militias are now forcibly driving out the Tigrayan civilians who live there through a campaign of threats and violence. Amharan officials have denied this, despite growing evidence of a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Abiy has also defended the militias, saying in March that “portraying this force as a looter and conqueror is very wrong.”
This piece of land has been a longstanding source of tension between Amhara leaders and the TPLF, which fits into a broader history of grievances between the two.
Each held power at some point — Amhara’s elites before the rise of the EPRDF, the TPLF after that. The Tigray People’s Liberation Front considered the Amhara to be “oppressors” during their revolutionary campaign, and Amhara elites were marginalized during the TPLF’s reign.
Amhara’s elites also tend to interpret the TPLF’s vision of a federal Ethiopia — where each nationality has a degree of autonomy and power — as antithetical to their own. Theirs is one of a more unified Ethiopia with one national identity, albeit with them in control.
Abiy, too, has adopted that more unified vision, so the Amhara and Abiy found a politically beneficial partnership. But in aligning with the Amhara, just as with the Eritreans, Abiy is also putting his political survival in their hands.
Asafa Jalata, a professor of Africana studies at the University of Tennessee, said that Abiy didn’t care what the consequences were; he was focused on the TPLF and hadn’t planned beyond that. He, as other experts I spoke to did, thought Abiy showed his ineptitude and inexperience.
All of this has put Abiy in a very perilous position. “It makes very little sense,” Verhoeven said. “But it’s the course that he’s chosen to pursue, and Ethiopia is paying its price.”
The bullet that killed the 14-year-old boy brought his father down with it. The father stayed still beneath his boy’s bleeding body until the soldiers departed, leaving him and 19 others rounded up from their homes for dead.
The father escaped. “They saw him from afar,” the source from Tigray told me, recounting what the man, a farmer from the Gulomakeda district of Tigray, had told him about an incident at the end of November.
“When the soldiers saw that some were escaping, they came back to the bodies to check whether they’d died or not.” The soldiers, whom the farmer believed were Eritrean, went one by one, cutting the throats of the bodies that remained to make sure they were dead.
Researchers and human rights groups have slowly begun to compile accounts like this, piecing together a troubling picture of cruelty and violence happening inside Tigray.
Communications and electricity blackouts, especially outside the major cities, have made it difficult to get information. Witnesses and victims also fear speaking out will provoke reprisal; their attackers are still lurking, still a threat.
“We never know who is there, who’s listening to what,” Fissuh, of the Irob Advocacy Association, said.
Eritrean, Ethiopian, and Amhara forces have been linked to most of the attacks on Tigrayan civilians, though the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front are also implicated in mass killings during the conflict. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said in March that “credible information also continues to emerge about serious violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict in Tigray in November last year.”
Among those violations are extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, and widespread destruction of property. The UN and the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, an NGO affiliated with the government, have agreed to launch an investigation.
“There is active looting and destruction of public infrastructure and private businesses, there is weaponized rape, there is weaponized hunger happening everywhere,” Meaza Gebremedhin, a US-based international researcher with Omna Tigray, a Tigrayan advocacy group, told me. “And there are massacres happening in different pockets of Tigray.”
Those with connections on the ground have reported Eritrean soldiers rampaging through houses and destroying food sources. “They take everything from your house,” the witness from Tigray told me. “What they can’t carry, they burn.”
At least 500 women have self-reported rape to five clinics in Tigray, which the United Nations says is likely a low-range estimate given the stigma and general lack of functioning health services.
“Women say they have been raped by armed actors, they also told stories of gang rape, rape in front of family members, and men being forced to rape their own family members under the threat of violence,” Wafaa Said, deputy UN aid coordinator, said last month.
A USAID report included testimony from one woman who said she and five others were gang-raped by 30 Eritrean troops, as the soldiers laughed and took pictures.
There is also evidence of ethnic cleansing against Tigrayans. A recent report from the Associated Press spoke to Tigrayans who were issued new identity cards that erased their Tigrayan heritage. “This is genocide … Their aim is to erase Tigray,” Seid Mussa Omar, a Tigrayan refugee who twice fled to Sudan, told the Associated Press.
It coincides with reports of Tigrayans being driven from their homes in western Tigray by Amhara forces. “They said, ‘You guys don’t belong here,’” Ababu Negash, a 70-year-old woman fleeing Tigray, told Reuters in March. “They said if we stay, they will kill us.”
“The hallmarks of ethnic cleansing are there,” said Queen’s University’s Weldemichael, “and they’re not just allegations. They are a serious smoking gun to that charge.”
A top United Nations humanitarian official, Mark Lowcock, said in a closed-door meeting last week that the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate and that “the conflict is not over and things are not improving.”
More than 1 million people are believed to be internally displaced in Tigray, in addition to the 60,000 who have fled across the border to Sudan.
People are often fleeing from one place to another as violence erupts, taking shelter in schools and other overcrowded facilities — creating conditions that are especially worrisome amid the pandemic. In Tigray, just 13 out of 38 hospitals are functioning, and 41 out of 224 primary health facilities, according to Michele Servadei, UNICEF’s deputy representative in Ethiopia.
The region was already in a precarious position to begin with because of climate change and locusts. Ethiopia is approaching its rainy season — the traditional time for planting, to harvest food for the following year — but the destruction of property and the displacement of people from their lands may make this nearly impossible. Aid groups are trying to do what they can but are still unable to reach all parts of the region.
All of this has increased the very real possibility of famine in Tigray.
Ethiopian federal troops and their partners handed the Tigrayan Defense Forces early defeats. But the Tigrayan forces are now waging a war of attrition, and they have popular support. No one side really has the edge, so the prospects of a ceasefire look grim.
The longer the conflict goes on, the more dire the humanitarian consequences will become — and the more unpredictable Ethiopia’s future will be. As Ethiopian forces are bogged down in Tigray, long-simmering unrest is brewing in other regions of Ethiopia. Tigray is “unfortunately serving as a bit of a domino effect throughout the country,” Sarah Miller, a senior fellow at Refugees International covering the Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa, said. These multiple frontiers of conflict put Abiy in an even more uncertain position, both at home and abroad.
The international community has also started to be more vocal about what’s happening.
Earlier this month, foreign ministers from the G7 group of nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) issued a joint statement demanding the “swift, unconditional and verifiable” withdrawal of Eritrean troops.
US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has also called on foreign forces to withdraw from Tigray and asked for an investigation into potential human rights abuses — which US Secretary of State Antony Blinken referred to as “acts of ethnic cleansing.” Sullivan also said USAID would be providing another $152 million to address humanitarian needs in the country. The United Nations Security Council this week finally expressed “deep concern” about the humanitarian situation in Tigray.
International pressure is critical, experts told me, especially as Abiy’s sheen as a peacemaker wears off. “He’s playing for time and trying to deal with the international community, which has become slowly but surely ever more critical, and salvaging what remains of his influence in international affairs,” Verhoeven said.
Indeed, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) met with Abiy in March. But after the visit, Abiy confirmed the presence of Eritrean troops, admitted to possible violations, and said Eritrean troops were withdrawing. Again, there’s reason to be skeptical about these statements, but experts said it certainly is a sign that Abiy is sensitive to how the rest of the world, particularly the West, sees him.
Which is why experts told me they think the US and allies in Europe may be able to use this leverage and influence with Abiy. Economic pressure, many said, was particularly important, including the possibility of sanctions.
Stopping the carnage is the immediate concern, but finding a political solution looks precarious, as the status quo was already untenable. The war has pushed Tigray to embrace the possibility of independence, for example.
“Ethiopia may not survive as a country,” Verhoeven said.
All of this has troubling implications for the wider region as well. Ethiopia was seen as the steadying force in the Horn of Africa, something that Weldemichael said perhaps was a bit of wishful thinking — a reputation gained mostly because of the chaos around it.
“Think of a ship exploding, right? And you find yourself on a flat plank or a piece of wood that’s sailing smoothly in this messy water. That’s Ethiopia,” Weldemichael said.
But an Ethiopia in a protracted civil war could drag even more neighbors into the conflict — and generate even deeper humanitarian and refugee crises.
A psychologist explains why we want conversations to end sooner but usually get stuck.
Have you ever been stuck in an awkward conversation?
Of course you have. Who hasn’t bumped into that weirdo at the party who can’t stop talking? Or the chatty “gym guy” who can’t seem to understand that wearing headphones means “leave me alone”? Or the coworker who has to complain about something new every morning in the elevator?
Here’s the good news: The pandemic is almost over. We’re all going to be re-released into the social wilderness. The bad news is that you won’t be able to avoid thorny encounters anymore.
And if there’s a universal form of anxiety, it’s the feeling you get when you desperately want an interaction to end but can’t make it happen. The strange thing is it’s totally unnecessary: If we weren’t so desperate to avoid awkwardness, we could walk away or simply tell people what we want. But most of us don’t.
A study by a group of psychologists published in March throws some light on these dynamics. The researchers monitored more than 900 conversations and asked participants to report how they felt about the interaction, when they wanted it to end, and when they thought the other person wanted it to end. The findings won’t surprise you: Conversations “almost never ended when both conversants wanted them to” and “rarely ended when even one conversant wanted them to.” It turns out that, on average, conversations lasted about twice as long as people desired.
And that’s true not just of random conversations, like those at the gym, but also of interactions with friends, family, and loved ones. Roughly two-thirds of people said they wanted those conversations to end sooner.
I reached out to Adam Mastroianni, a doctoral student at Harvard and the study’s lead researcher, to talk about why our conversations last too long, how we can end them sooner, and why we should be less pessimistic about our interactions — and perhaps lean into the awkwardness.
A transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity, follows.
Why do most of our conversations last longer than we want them to?
Actually, the question of whether they last longer or shorter than we want them to is pretty complicated. The paper is about how conversations last a different amount of time than we want them to, which is both longer and shorter. I can walk you through the levels, and you can stop me whenever you get bored.
Cool?
Cool.
So when you just ask people, “Was there a point at which you felt ready for that conversation to end?” About 70 percent say “yes.” And for the vast majority of those people, they wanted it to end way earlier. So if you just look at that number, it looks like most people want their conversations to end before they do.
Then there’s a minority of people, roughly 30 percent, who wanted the conversation to keep going, and they wanted it to keep going by about as much as the other people wanted it to end sooner. You could look at that and think they cancel each other out, and therefore conversations don’t really end sooner or later than people want them to.
But if you dig a little deeper, you see that these numbers mean something different. If I say I wanted to go five minutes earlier, I’m totally sure about that. But when someone says they wanted to go 20 minutes longer, that’s a prediction. Maybe they would, or maybe they’d change their mind after a few minutes. So we can’t really weigh these numbers against each other.
I’m starting to get bored …
Yes, most people wish conversations ended sooner.
Is this true not just of conversations with random people but also [of conversations] with friends, family, and loved ones? Do those tend to last longer than we want them to?
Yeah, this was true of every kind of conversation that we studied. In one of our studies, we brought people into the lab who were meeting each other for the first time, and they talked as long as they wanted to. In our other study, we surveyed people about the last conversation that they had. If you think back to the last conversation you had, it’s probably with someone that you know really well and talk to all the time, especially in times like these. And we got the same results in both studies. Very few people say the conversation ended when they wanted it to, and they didn’t think it ended when the other person wanted it to either.
Confusion is unavoidable, but the one thing we can always do is communicate our preferences to the person we’re talking to. Why don’t we do it?
Imagine what would happen if you did. If you said, “I want to go,” you could offend me because I wanted to keep going. And now all of a sudden you’re saying that you’re done. If you said, “I want to keep going,” now you might trap me because I wanted to stop. And so instead of taking that risk and offending people one way or the other, we both hide our desires, so maybe nobody gets what they want but we also don’t offend anybody. And so we both leave dissatisfied, but we also leave as friends. This might be one of the prices that we pay for living in a decent society — we don’t all get exactly what we want all the time.
So you’re saying the price of a decent society is a veneer of bullshit?
I mean, you could call it bullshit or you could call it politeness.
Did you find that most people were afraid to offend the other person? Is that the main concern?
We’re afraid of offending people but also trapping them. If I was talking to you, and you had a little billboard that flipped up on your forehead when you wanted to go, I’d want to go too. I don’t want to talk to somebody who doesn’t want to talk to me. If I knew you wanted to continue, maybe I also would want to continue.
One of the reasons why conversations don’t end when people want them to is that we want different things. And part of the reason we want different things is because we don’t know what the other person wants. And this is a unique situation in which what I want is dependent, at least in part, on what you want.
Those things — honesty and politeness — are really in conflict, aren’t they?
Yeah, you can think of politeness as a series of rules. And the whole reason you have rules is because this isn’t what you would do if you did exactly what you want. We don’t need a rule that says you should continue to breathe, or that you should eat a bunch of ice cream. These are things that people would do whether you told them to or not. But we do need rules to govern people’s behavior around things that they might not do automatically.
What we think of as politeness is typically something that we think we do with strangers. But we don’t really think of it as politeness with people we know; we just think of it as kindness. But it’s the same thing: It’s a series of rules that govern your behavior toward another person. If I didn’t want to be kind to my partner or to my mother or to my friends, I would just walk away exactly when I wanted to. But because I care about them, and I don’t want to hurt their feelings and they don’t want to hurt mine, we’re willing to all stick around maybe a little longer than we would otherwise.
The shitty thing is that we all kind of know when someone has checked out of a conversation. You can see it in their face [and] in their eyes, and yet most of the time we keep on chatting. No one’s willing to acknowledge what both people already know. Are we just stuck with what game theorists call a “coordination problem”?
There’s actually two problems at play here that create this coordination problem. One is that we might think we know when the other person wants to leave, but when you notice that someone is shifting around, maybe breaking eye contact, looking a little glazed over, maybe that was the first moment they felt ready to leave, or maybe they felt ready to leave 10 minutes ago and you didn’t notice it then, or they didn’t signal it to you then. When we ask people to guess when the other people wanted to leave, they were off by about 60 percent of the length of their conversations. They had no idea when that person wanted to go. So that’s the first problem.
The other problem is that even when we’re pretty sure of what the other person wants, you can’t just end a conversation at any time. You can think of a conversation like driving down the highway. You can’t just exit at any point, or else you’re going to end up in a ditch or in a storefront or running into a tree. I can’t just interrupt a story. There are all these rules that make it pretty clear to both of us when we’re allowed to get out. And those exits have some distance between them.
I’ve had a couple periods in my life where I really tried to be authentic in my personal interactions, and I learned pretty quickly that people don’t like that. We’re so used to playing this choreographed social game, and radical honesty blows the whole thing up …
But what is your authentic self? Is it the thing that wants what it wants in the very moment that it wants it? Or is it the part of you that also cares about what the other person thinks? Is your authentic self the one that wants to rip a big fart the second you feel a rumbling in your tummy? Or is it the part that goes, “I don’t want to make other people feel embarrassed or have to smell the noxious fumes coming out of my ass.” Both of those could be some part of your authentic self, and maybe your authentic self is whatever emerges from the conflict between those desires.
Yeah, I don’t think my authentic self has ever wanted to drop farts on interlocutors, but I did find that if you really listen to people, if you give them your total attention, it can create some awkwardness because it’s not normal. But let me ask you this: Do you think the social benefits of playing the politeness game outweigh the potential benefits of a more honest game?
I don’t know for sure, and I’d love to know better. All of our studies were on Americans, and you and I are both pretty familiar with the rules that govern conversations in America. They’re not universal rules. In other cultures, the rules are much stricter, and so people might get stuck a lot more often than they do here. In other places, the rules are a lot more loose, and you can just say something like, “I’m done. Goodbye.” And what we don’t yet know is whether people actually enjoy conversations more when they tilt more toward the strict or more toward the loose.
If it’s true that most conversations last longer than both people want them to, wouldn’t someone be relieved if you’re actually willing to own that and be the one to pull the rip cord? Are we just overthinking this?
Maybe. We do know that the people who are left wanting more, that 30 percent, enjoy the conversation just as much as people who say it ended exactly [when] they wanted it to end. There’s not many of those people, but those two points are pretty much the same. So it’s definitely better to leave people wanting more than it is to leave people wanting less.
What’s your best advice to people who want to get better at ending conversations without also being assholes?
The big tip is that it’s almost always better to go too short than too long. If you’re feeling unsure about whether the other person wants to go but think that you do, that’s a pretty appropriate time to go. Especially if you could always talk to that person again. But the trick is that one of the reasons why conversations are so fraught is that it feels like the very fact of our parting is evidence that something has gone wrong, because if I liked you and you liked me and we were having a nice time, why don’t we keep going? You don’t stop eating ice cream when the ice cream tastes really good. You stop when you’re sick.
I think the best way to end a conversation is to address that problem head-on, to signal to the other person that nothing has gone wrong here — it’s just that sometimes, two people have to stop talking to each other, and this is one of those times. And this is why a main way people end their conversations is by signaling that they have to. You say, “I’d love to keep talking, but I gotta do X.” But another way to do it without lying is just to say, “I had a nice time talking to you, looking forward to doing it again.”
What do you do when you collide with that person — and we all know this person — who just refuses to notice your signals?
One of these people sort of inspired the paper. There was a person in our department who will remain nameless and, in fact, isn’t even there anymore. But you knew that if you were walking by this person you should be on the other side of the room or on the phone, because otherwise you’d be talking to them for an hour. How do you get out of a conversation with such a person? Maybe tell them about this study and they’ll get the hint. But otherwise, the nuclear option — besides walking away — is literally to say, “This has been really nice. I have to go.” If they don’t get it at that point, there’s no hope. You should probably walk away.
Most people are probably more comfortable being honest with friends and family, but do you think we should try to take the same approach to ending conversations with everyone?
That’s a good question. I think people might feel more comfortable with their families and friends, but the stakes are higher. If we’re chatting because we’re both waiting for a bus, I don’t want to hurt you because you’re another person, but I’m not as worried about what you think about me. But if you’re my partner or my mom, I am more worried. You mean a lot to me, and I don’t want to hurt you. So the relationship means more, and it’s hard to take the same strategy. I mean, who wants to cut off grandma in the middle of her story? I don’t. Sometimes it’s good for us to just sit there and listen.
I also think most of us are too pessimistic about our interactions. Sometimes conversations die not because we run out of stuff to say but because we’re in our damn heads too much. We’re not present, and that inattentiveness kills momentum.
That’s totally true. We can see this in our studies. This is a unique domain in which people are more pessimistic than they should be. Usually people are more optimistic than they should be. “I think I might win the lottery,” or “I definitely won’t break my leg,” that’s something that happens to other people. But when it comes to social interactions, people say things like, “Oh, I’m worse than other people at remembering names,” or in our studies, “I think other people liked me less than I liked them.”
Worrying is a huge dead weight on conversations. The best thing we can probably do is relax and just let the conversation run its course. All of these people that we’re trying to get out of conversations with, maybe they’re the ones having the most fun, and we should be doing what they’re doing instead of giving ourselves over to our neurotic thoughts and trying to escape.
Conversations will always be fraught with uncertainty because we can never know what someone else is thinking. But the anxiety we feel is a choice and a consequence of worrying too much. I’m going to try and do less of that.
Maybe the best way to think about ending conversations is what happens when you start having thoughts about leaving. Ask yourself: “Is this an anxious thought? Am I running because I’m afraid that I’m being judged? Or do I really need to get back to work (or whatever)”? If it’s the latter, if it’s real, then yeah, that’s a good time to leave. But if it’s fear, then maybe that’s the time to stick it out.
The CDC and FDA on Friday accepted recommendations that Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccinations should resume, but with a warning.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday evening accepted recommendations from an advisory group to lift the pause on the one-dose Covid-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson after determining that the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh its risks. The vaccine, however, should now come with a warning about the risk of blood clots, they said.
The agencies instituted a pause on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine on April 13 after six cases of a rare type of blood clot leading to one fatality were reported in people who had received the shot. The injection has already been administered to 8 million people in the US.
By the time the advisory group to the CDC met on Friday, there had been 15 cases of blood clotting complications known to be associated with the vaccine, including three deaths. Seven of these patients remain hospitalized while five have been discharged.
“These cases are not just numbers to any of us, and we take them very seriously,” said Joanne Waldstreicher, the chief medical officer of Johnson & Johnson, during the meeting of advisers on Friday. “These are people.”
While these complications are serious, it’s also clear that they are extremely rare. This posed a challenge for regulators in how to handle the risks as well as how to communicate the concerns to the public without undermining vaccination efforts. So far, though, it seems Americans remain confident in Covid-19 vaccines.
Having a third vaccine back online in the US could help close gaps in vaccination, particularly since the Johnson & Johnson vaccine only requires one dose instead of the two needed for the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccines. Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine is also cheaper and can be stored in ordinary refrigerators rather than freezers.
It’s also an important player in the global race to contain Covid-19. In addition to its lower costs and logistics requirements, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been shown to be effective against the new, more dangerous variants of the virus that causes Covid-19. South Africa, which is fighting a fast-spreading variant, decided to resume distribution of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine this week after the country paused its own distribution campaign last week.
On balance, experts say the decision to pause distribution of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to investigate these complications was the right one, but some argue that the decision to resume could have been made sooner, particularly given the continued onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The complication of concern here is known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), or vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).
Thrombocytopenia is a condition where platelets, blood cells that help form blood clots, drop to abnormally low levels in the bloodstream. That can lead to bruising and uncontrolled bleeding.
In the case of the Johnson & Johnson and the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccines, it seems that the vaccines in very rare cases can trigger an autoimmune response. White blood cells form proteins called antibodies that normally target hostile invaders, but in these cases, antibodies are binding to proteins that trigger platelets to form clots.
Those clots can spread throughout the body and have, alarmingly, been found in blood vessels leading away from the brain, a condition known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, or CVST. This can quickly turn deadly.
So the problem ends up being that so many platelets are consumed in making these unnecessary and dangerous blood clots that not enough are left over to form clots where they are actually needed.
That means that traditional treatments for clots like heparin, a blood thinner, won’t work here and could actually make the situation worse.
The blood clotting complications also mirror similar problems associated with the AstraZeneca/Oxford Covid-19 vaccine. Both of these vaccines use a modified version of another virus to deliver DNA instructions for making the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. It hints that there is a common mechanism at work.
But again, this is such a rare complication that only 15 cases were reported out of 8 million Johnson & Johnson shots. All of the cases were reported in women, with 13 TTS cases in those between the ages of 18 and 49 and two above the age of 50. Beyond warning young women to keep an eye out for any blood clot-related symptoms — headache, blurred vision, seizures, pain in the extremities, and a loss of control of the body — there’s not much health officials can offer in terms of screening vulnerable people.
“The benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the risk, at least in the older population,” said Robert Brodsky, director of the hematology division at Johns Hopkins University.
And if patients are concerned about blood clots, Brodsky said the risk of clots from contracting Covid-19 is far, far greater than the likelihood of one occurring in the wake of a vaccine. “My concern is that this vaccine gets deep-sixed,” he said. “It’s a very effective vaccine.”
The recommendation to lift the pause of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine echoes a similar decision from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) — the European Union’s pharmaceuticals regulator — on Wednesday. The EMA also said that a warning about rare blood clots should be added to the list of side effects for the vaccine. (The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is often identified with the name of its subsidiary Janssen in Europe.)
One of the main fears with the pause on the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine was that it would undermine public trust in vaccines, but polls seem to show that’s not the case.
An April 14 poll of 600 adults found that 58 percent of respondents were more confident in Covid-19 vaccines after the pause.
A quick check-in with U.S. adults reveals that contrary to the prevailing view on Twitter, the decision to pause the J&J vaccine due to a small number of blood clotting issues actually makes Americans more, not less, confident in the COVID-19 vaccines. pic.twitter.com/S8KtiVyOXR
— Echelon Insights (@EchelonInsights) April 14, 2021
Another poll on April 15 of 1,000 adults found that 36 percent of respondents saw no change in their likelihood of getting a vaccine and 40 percent said they were more likely to get a Covid-19 shot after the pause was announced. And a poll of 1,033 adults between April 16 and 19 found that 88 percent of respondents thought that the FDA and CDC were being responsible in pausing the Johnson & Johnson shot.
So it seems that most Americans were not fazed by the pause to review the vaccine, which was a relief for some observers.
“When I woke up that day, I was really depressed that they had paused the J&J vaccine rollout … I thought that it would increase vaccine hesitancy,” said Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease doctor and a professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco. “However, I actually changed my mind over the ensuing week.”
She noted that the polls aligned with the attitudes she saw in patients, who appreciated that regulators were taking safety issues seriously. Another factor that changed her mind is that with so many vaccines already administered in the US, the challenge now is convincing the remaining people who are more reluctant to get immunized.
“Anything that we can do to assure people who are still concerned about the safety of these vaccines, that everything is going to be closely looked at, I think will hopefully increase vaccine uptake,” Gandhi said.
But the pause had an opportunity cost. People who were in line to get the Johnson & Johnson vaccine had to scramble to find alternatives. And now more than a week has passed where people who otherwise would have had some degree of protection against Covid-19 may not have any.
This is the right call now, just as the pause was also initially the right call. Safety signals need to be investigated rapidly, especially when tied to severe outcomes, even if rare.
— Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) April 23, 2021
And for anyone wondering, would I get the J&J vaccine again?
Hell yes. It’s a great vaccine. https://t.co/PN3jRB0ktl
Though pausing the distribution of the vaccine was warranted, waiting more than a week to make a decision about it was likely excessive, according to Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “There was enough data to make the call last Wednesday,” he said.
Topol added that while vaccine confidence remains high in the US, it’s also important to keep the international context in mind with respect to Covid-19. People in the US also have multiple effective vaccines in circulation while other countries barely have any, and hesitancy on other continents is already on the rise. How the US manages rare complications will ripple into other countries. “The US is in the fishbowl of the world,” he said.
Priceless Ruler reigns in main event - Priceless Ruler (Nakhat Singh up) won the Bourbon King Handicap, the main event of the races held here on Saturday (April 24). The winner is owned by
Japanese Grand Prix to remain at Suzuka through 2024 - The track has been a regular fixture on the F1 calendar since 1987 and the multi-year extension is part of an effort to grow the sport in Asia
Gavaskar showers praise on Ravi Shastri for his handling of youngsters - He lauds bowling coach Bharat Arun for moulding a crop of world class bowlers.
Former Hyderabad cricketer Ashwin Yadav dies aged 33 - The former fast bowler suffered a cardiac arrest
2022 World Cup will be my swansong: Mithali Raj - Mithali is the only woman batter with 7000 plus ODI runs.
RSS warns against ‘anti-Bharat’ forces amid pandemic - Could exploit situation, create distrust, says general secretary Hosabale
Have 2,326 ICU-, 8,532 oxygen-supported beds for COVID patients in Rajasthan: State Health Minister - Apart from it, 42,886 beds have been kept in isolation wards for infection patients at over 400 hospitals in the State, Raghu Sharma said in a statement.
Coronavirus | IAF ferries empty oxygen containers from Pune to Jamnagar for refill - The filled tankers will be brought back by road or railway as they cannot be airlifted due to safety reasons, says an official
Siblings Sakina and Zainab narrate stories with a personal touch on their Instagram handle, @bohrasisters - They use stop-motion animation, videos and digital drawings to document memories of a small town, their love for Indian street food and Bollywood music
Kerala’s turnaround into oxygen surplus State in two years - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Till two years ago, Kerala used to depend on its neighbouring States for its regular supply of liquid oxygen for medical purposes.
Putin opponent Navalny ends hunger strike in Russian jail - Alexei Navalny refused food in a Russian jail for 24 days but his doctors appealed to him to stop.
French police station stabbing: Terror inquiry into Rambouillet knife attack - Anti-terror prosecutors are leading the inquiry after the unarmed employee was stabbed in the neck.
German gymnasts’ outfits take on sexualisation in sport - Women defy convention by ditching the leotard for a full-body suit at the European championship.
Iceland volcano eruption: Music video and wedding filmed at Fagradalsfjall - How an Icelandic band and a marriage ceremony made the most of spectacular scenes at Fagradalsfjall.
Black ballet dancer Lopes Gomes wins Berlin racism case - Berlin Staatsballett awards compensation after the ballerina complained of racism.
Apple’s ransomware mess is the future of online extortion - Hackers want $50 million to not release schematics they stole from Apple supplier. - link
CDC, FDA lift pause of J&J vaccine after advisors vote in support of use [Updated] - CDC advisors voted 10 to 4 to lift J&J pause, with new warning about clots - link
Backdoored password manager stole data from as many as 29K enterprises - Compromised update mechanism for Passwordstate pushes malware that steals data. - link
New 12.9-inch iPad Pro doesn’t support the previous Magic Keyboard - The new Apple TV 4K remote won’t work for some Apple TV games, either. - link
AirTags orders began today, but supplies are already dwindling - The iPhone is in stock, but AirTags are backed up to June in some cases. - link
But I still wish he wouldn’t
Edit: we need some help for whomever gave me the wholesome award lol
Edit: you people are sick
submitted by /u/Mai_man
[link] [comments]
Brian has a moustache.
submitted by /u/Nxxname
[link] [comments]
Get your drunk ass off the carousel.
submitted by /u/4x4Xtrm
[link] [comments]
A burglar broke into a house one night. He shined his flashlight around, looking for valuables when a voice in the dark said, ‘Jesus knows you’re here.’
He nearly jumped out of his skin, clicked his flashlight off, and froze. When he heard nothing more, he shook his head and continued.
Just as he pulled the stereo out so he could disconnect the wires, clear as a bell he heard ‘Jesus is watching you.’
Startled, he shined his light around frantically, looking for the source of the voice. Finally, in the corner of the room, his flashlight beam came to rest on a parrot.
‘Did you say that?’ he hissed at the parrot.
‘Yes’, the parrot confessed, then squawked, ‘I’m just trying to warn you that he’s watching you.’
The burglar relaxed. ‘Warn me, huh? Who in the world are you?’
‘Moses,’ replied the bird.
‘Moses?’ the burglar laughed. ‘What kind of people would name a bird Moses?’
‘The kind of people who would name a Rottweiler Jesus.’
submitted by /u/KeithTC
[link] [comments]
Bird 1: “I’m hungry, I’m going to try to find a mouse to eat.”
Bird 2: “You sure? It’s pretty damn dark to find a mouse.”
Bird 1: “There’s no harm in trying.”
Bird 2: “I guess..”
So bird 1 flies off into the darkness. Some time passes and the sun begins to rise. Bird 2 sees his pal flying back with a juicy beakful of blood.
Bird 2: “Wow! Where did you find a feast like that?”
Bird 1: “See that tree over there?”
Bird 2: “Yeah”
Bird 1: “Well, I didn’t.”
submitted by /u/LegendOfKhaos
[link] [comments]