Write a summary based on this article:

In 2008, Hillary Clinton was running against an inexperienced, untested young senator named Barack Obama. Clinton was known as one of the most serious policy wonks to ever run for president, and her network included most of the Democratic Party's top policy staff, many of whom had worked directly for her or her husband.

 But somehow, much of the Democratic policy establishment ended up supporting Obama. No one doubted that Clinton knew policy inside and out; they doubted that she would make the right calls in the face of public pressure.

 The Iraq War loomed largest here, but a smaller, though still important moment was when Hillary Clinton proposed suspending the federal gas tax for the summer travel season. Economists hate this sort of policy pander: It encourages people to use more gas, robs the highway trust fund of revenue that needs to be raised some other way, and ends up raising gas prices because of increased demand.

 But it polls well. And Clinton, who knows better, signed on to it. So did John McCain. But Obama didn't. He slammed the proposal as "short-term, quick-fix" thinking, and said, "This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election."

 Policy wonks agreed, and Clinton faced a storm of criticism for her pander. She was reduced to protesting, "I’m not going to put my lot in with economists," which didn't endear her to economists — or to anyone who actually does want policymakers to listen to economists when designing tax policy.

 Obama had his struggles with policy opportunism, too — notably, when he left the individual mandate out of his health-care plan, which led to a lot of health policy experts preferring Clinton (Obama ultimately flip-flopped on the issue in office). But it was moments like the Iraq War and the gas tax that helped Obama win over much of a Democratic policy establishment that had no reason to trust him.

 Clinton keeps taking positions that are ... hard to believe

 Of late, Clinton is again looking like the kind of candidate who puts polls in front of policy.

 First, she came out against Obamacare's Cadillac tax — a policy that enjoys wide support among health economists. Clinton knows the problems of the massive deduction for employer-provided health insurance well; decades ago, her health-care plan wiped out the tax code's preference for employer-based health care, and in 2008 she had a smaller, more targeted, version of the Cadillac tax in her proposal.

 I want to be clear here. Lots of people oppose the Cadillac tax, and for lots of reasons. What I have trouble believing is that Clinton and her policy advisers really think the Cadillac tax is a bad idea. Her past policies embrace its theory, her past advisers helped pass it into law, and virtually everyone who spends their days thinking about how to control health-care costs considers it one of Obamacare's most promising provisions.

 On Wednesday, Clinton came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, saying that she's concerned with the provisions around pharmaceuticals and the absence of provisions around currency manipulation. But as Tim Lee notes, Clinton strongly supported early versions of the deal — she called the TPP "the gold standard in trade agreements" — that were worse on pharmaceuticals and identical on currency manipulation.

 Good grief, the architect of "the pivot to Asia" opposes TPP? In her book she praised the deal! pic.twitter.com/9XDiv0btzM — Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) October 7, 2015

 Again, the argument here isn't that there aren't reasons to oppose the TPP, but rather that knowing Clinton's record, her advisers, and her past comments about the deal, it's hard to believe Clinton really opposes the TPP deal.

 Something of the same could be said for the Keystone XL pipeline. Clinton's initial take on the pipeline was positive, and then she said she wouldn't take a position until she was president, and then she finally came out against it. I'm a bit more inclined here to credit Clinton's position as authentic — she's a climate hawk, and while my sense is she thinks both sides make too big a deal over Keystone, I can see her leaning against it — but it's not exactly a bold, polls-be-damned approach to the issue.

 Opposing these policies may not even be good politics

 Clinton's reputation as a policy wonk is sterling; it's common to talk to Democratic (and, in some cases, Republican) staffers who tell you that they've never briefed a politician as sharp and informed as she is.

 But Clinton's reputation as a policymaker is iffier — her critics can rattle off a long list of important decisions, ranging from the Iraq War to the bankruptcy bill, where they think she was swayed by polls or interest groups.

 Clinton, of course, isn't just a policymaker — she's a politician, and particularly when it comes to reading polls and managing interest groups, she's a good one. Her vulnerability in the Democratic primary comes from the left, and to keep liberal challengers from gaining support, she needs to hold union support. Coming out against the TPP and the Cadillac tax is a great way to win over unions.

 But it's not a great way for Clinton to show she's willing to make some unpopular decisions if they lead to better policy — and that has political benefits that don't show up in narrow issue polls.

 I don't truly know what's in Clinton's heart — perhaps I'm wrong, and despite all evidence to the contrary, she holds all these positions deeply — but as a close reader of her record, I'm not convinced that Clinton, in office, wouldn't support policies like the Cadillac tax or negotiate trade deals like the TPP. And as someone trying to understand Clinton's likely governing philosophy, it's unnerving.

 And this is a broader problem for Clinton. Her political weakness, fairly or not, is that the voters and the media — or maybe it's the media and, thus, the voters — have decided that she's unusually poll-tested and calculating, even for a politician. Politically convenient policy changes don't help, and they cut against what should be her greatest asset: that she's an extraordinary policy mind who understands these issues better than her challengers, and so can be trusted to make better decisions on them.

 For more thoughts on Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign check out Vox's new podcast, "The Weeds" featuring Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias and Sarah Kliff. You can listen on Soundcloud and subscribe to new episodes on iTunes. ||||| In 2008, Hillary Clinton was running against an inexperienced, untested young senator named Barack Obama. Clinton was known as one of the most serious policy wonks to ever run for president, and her network included most of the Democratic Party's top policy staff, many of whom had worked directly for her or her husband.

 But somehow, much of the Democratic policy establishment ended up supporting Obama. No one doubted that Clinton knew policy inside and out; they doubted that she would make the right calls in the face of public pressure.

 The Iraq War loomed largest here, but a smaller, though still important moment was when Hillary Clinton proposed suspending the federal gas tax for the summer travel season. Economists hate this sort of policy pander: It encourages people to use more gas, robs the highway trust fund of revenue that needs to be raised some other way, and ends up raising gas prices because of increased demand.

 But it polls well. And Clinton, who knows better, signed on to it. So did John McCain. But Obama didn't. He slammed the proposal as "short-term, quick-fix" thinking, and said, "This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election."

 Policy wonks agreed, and Clinton faced a storm of criticism for her pander. She was reduced to protesting, "I’m not going to put my lot in with economists," which didn't endear her to economists — or to anyone who actually does want policymakers to listen to economists when designing tax policy.

 Obama had his struggles with policy opportunism, too — notably, when he left the individual mandate out of his health-care plan, which led to a lot of health policy experts preferring Clinton (Obama ultimately flip-flopped on the issue in office). But it was moments like the Iraq War and the gas tax that helped Obama win over much of a Democratic policy establishment that had no reason to trust him.

 Clinton keeps taking positions that are ... hard to believe

 Of late, Clinton is again looking like the kind of candidate who puts polls in front of policy.

 First, she came out against Obamacare's Cadillac tax — a policy that enjoys wide support among health economists. Clinton knows the problems of the massive deduction for employer-provided health insurance well; decades ago, her health-care plan wiped out the tax code's preference for employer-based health care, and in 2008 she had a smaller, more targeted, version of the Cadillac tax in her proposal.

 I want to be clear here. Lots of people oppose the Cadillac tax, and for lots of reasons. What I have trouble believing is that Clinton and her policy advisers really think the Cadillac tax is a bad idea. Her past policies embrace its theory, her past advisers helped pass it into law, and virtually everyone who spends their days thinking about how to control health-care costs considers it one of Obamacare's most promising provisions.

 On Wednesday, Clinton came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, saying that she's concerned with the provisions around pharmaceuticals and the absence of provisions around currency manipulation. But as Tim Lee notes, Clinton strongly supported early versions of the deal — she called the TPP "the gold standard in trade agreements" — that were worse on pharmaceuticals and identical on currency manipulation.

 Good grief, the architect of "the pivot to Asia" opposes TPP? In her book she praised the deal! pic.twitter.com/9XDiv0btzM — Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) October 7, 2015

 Again, the argument here isn't that there aren't reasons to oppose the TPP, but rather that knowing Clinton's record, her advisers, and her past comments about the deal, it's hard to believe Clinton really opposes the TPP deal.

 Something of the same could be said for the Keystone XL pipeline. Clinton's initial take on the pipeline was positive, and then she said she wouldn't take a position until she was president, and then she finally came out against it. I'm a bit more inclined here to credit Clinton's position as authentic — she's a climate hawk, and while my sense is she thinks both sides make too big a deal over Keystone, I can see her leaning against it — but it's not exactly a bold, polls-be-damned approach to the issue.

 Opposing these policies may not even be good politics

 Clinton's reputation as a policy wonk is sterling; it's common to talk to Democratic (and, in some cases, Republican) staffers who tell you that they've never briefed a politician as sharp and informed as she is.

 But Clinton's reputation as a policymaker is iffier — her critics can rattle off a long list of important decisions, ranging from the Iraq War to the bankruptcy bill, where they think she was swayed by polls or interest groups.

 Clinton, of course, isn't just a policymaker — she's a politician, and particularly when it comes to reading polls and managing interest groups, she's a good one. Her vulnerability in the Democratic primary comes from the left, and to keep liberal challengers from gaining support, she needs to hold union support. Coming out against the TPP and the Cadillac tax is a great way to win over unions.

 But it's not a great way for Clinton to show she's willing to make some unpopular decisions if they lead to better policy — and that has political benefits that don't show up in narrow issue polls.

 I don't truly know what's in Clinton's heart — perhaps I'm wrong, and despite all evidence to the contrary, she holds all these positions deeply — but as a close reader of her record, I'm not convinced that Clinton, in office, wouldn't support policies like the Cadillac tax or negotiate trade deals like the TPP. And as someone trying to understand Clinton's likely governing philosophy, it's unnerving.

 And this is a broader problem for Clinton. Her political weakness, fairly or not, is that the voters and the media — or maybe it's the media and, thus, the voters — have decided that she's unusually poll-tested and calculating, even for a politician. Politically convenient policy changes don't help, and they cut against what should be her greatest asset: that she's an extraordinary policy mind who understands these issues better than her challengers, and so can be trusted to make better decisions on them.

 For more thoughts on Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign check out Vox's new podcast, "The Weeds" featuring Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias and Sarah Kliff. You can listen on Soundcloud and subscribe to new episodes on iTunes. ||||| Play Facebook

 Twitter

 Embed Hillary Clinton breaks from Obama on Pacific trade deal 2:20 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog

 First Read is a morning briefing from Meet the Press and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter.

 Why Clinton’s flip-flop on trade is so unbelievable

 Yes, Hillary Clinton’s new opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord cleans up something she needed to do before next week’s first Democratic debate. And, yes, it puts pressure on Vice President Joe Biden getting into the race (because he’d be on the only major candidate in support of TPP). But make no mistake: This flip-flop isn’t believable at all. For starters, there was the time as secretary of state when she said TPP “sets the gold standard in trade agreements.” In her book, “Hard Choices” (which she sent out to all the GOP candidates), she called TPP “the signature economic pillar” of the Obama administration’s strategy in Asia. And then there’s the wiggle room she left for herself, as well as the fact that she hasn’t even fully reviewed the trade accord because it’s not public yet. “I’m continuing to learn about the details of the new Trans-Pacific Partnership, including looking hard at what’s in there to crack down on currency manipulation, which kills American jobs, and to make sure we’re not putting the interests of drug companies ahead of patients and consumers. But based on what I know so far, I can’t support this agreement,” she said in her statement yesterday. And because this opposition is so unbelievable, it feeds every negative stereotype about her -- despite the short-term political benefits.

 Why Hillary flipped: to protect her left flank

 So why did Clinton flip? It was all about protecting her left flank. As one of us wrote yesterday, Clinton’s newfound opposition to TPP protects her against Bernie Sanders’ challenge (especially before Tuesday’s debate; it helps solidify her support with organized labor; and it makes Biden the only Democrat in favor of the accord (if he gets into the race). But we want to focus on the point about organized labor. As AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka said on “Meet the Press” last month about Clinton and TPP: “I think if she doesn't take a position on TPP, then you can say she's looking for our vote. If she does take a position on TPP, then she's looking for our support. And the difference is, if you get my vote, I come out on Election Day and I pull the lever. If you've got my support, I get up at 7:00 in the morning, I stuffed 200 envelopes, I make seven calls, I go knock on a few doors, and I get my neighbors all excited about voting for her as well.”

 And why the reversal didn’t do the Obama administration any favors

 Here’s a final point we want to make about Clinton’s new opposition to TPP: It doesn’t do the Obama administration any favors, that’s for sure. Obama and his team face a situation where the entire Democratic '16 field (for now) opposes the TPP accord, which won't make it easier to twist Democratic arms to get congressional ratification. (In fact, it’s the opposite of the situation around the Iran deal, where the party’s ’16 contenders and much of the base SUPPORTED the Iran deal.) This time, the Obama White House will have to get much of its support from Republicans -- just like it did in winning fast-track authority earlier this year. And as House Ways & Means Chairman Paul Ryan suggested on “MTP Daily” yesterday, House Republicans might have some concerns about the TPP accord. There’s still plenty of time to go, but the Obama administration will start the ratification process on shaky ground.

 House Republicans hold their conference election for speaker

 As NBC’s Alex Moe reports, House Republicans will hold their conference-wide election for speaker today (though the full floor vote for both Democrats and Republicans won’t occur until Oct. 29). Here’s today schedule, per Moe: At 8:00 am ET, the House GOP conference will hold a special meeting for all three candidates for speaker -- Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Chairman Jason Chaffetz, and Rep. Daniel Webster -- to address the full conference because during the actual voting session candidates are NOT permitted to address colleagues. Then, at noon ET, the House GOP conference will vote for speaker. To win, a candidate must secure 50% + 1. If no one gets this on the first ballot, the top two candidates move on to a second ballot. It is widely speculated that McCarthy will win on the first ballot so this could go rather quickly. And Moe says that we should have a result around 1:30 pm ET. But the big question is what happens on Oct. 29. If all members are voting, Moe adds, 218 votes are required to elect a Speaker on the floor which means McCarthy can only lose 29 votes that day to win.

 But would Boehner need to stick around longer than he wants?

 Yet there are two questions to ask: One, if he wins, just how strong (or weak) of a position is McCarthy in -- and how will that affect the business that Congress needs to do later this year? “What was supposed to be a relatively smooth ascension for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has been rocked by his own gaffes, outsider challengers and the threat of an unprecedented floor fight that could undermine efforts to avoid a government shutdown and a historic default on the national debt before the year's end,” Talking Points Memo writes. Two, does a weakened McCarthy mean that outgoing Speaker John Boehner might need to stick around longer than he wants? (He’s supposed to step down on Oct. 30.) As Fox News’ Chad Pergram writes, “What happens if Republicans can’t agree on a Speaker? ‘I’ve never seen anything quite like this,’ murmured one senior House Republican aide. ‘I don’t know how this is going to work out.’ ‘I wouldn't be surprised if we don't get a Speaker until the next Congress,’ predicted one Republican lawmaker who asked to not be identified.”

 On Rubio’s missed Senate votes

 Two days into Jeb Bush and his campaign leaning heavily into Rubio missed Senate votes, we can say the scrutiny can gotten under Rubio’s skin a bit. And if anything, Team Bush is trying to make the case that Rubio is a man in a hurry -- without any real governing accomplishments. But will the missed Senate votes themselves be a major long-term problem for Rubio? We have our doubts. After all, Rubio has already announced he’s leaving the Senate no matter what come 2016 (he’s not running for re-election).

 Click here to sign up for First Read emails. Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone. Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @carrienbcnews |||||

– Hillary Clinton on Wednesday came out against a major trade deal supported by the White House known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, even though she supported it in its early stages as secretary of state and later praised it in a memoir. An honest change of heart? An NBC political analysis has a much different take: "This flip-flop isn't believable at all." It's all about "protecting her left flank" against Bernie Sanders and gaining favor with organized labor. Clinton says she made her decision based on new details about the TPP, but the NBC post says her newfound "opposition is so unbelievable, it feeds every negative stereotype about her—despite the short-term political benefits." One of those stereotypes? That she puts polls ahead of policy. At Vox, Ezra Klein writes that Clinton has provided critics with plenty of fodder on that front over the years. In this case, "knowing Clinton's record, her advisers, and her past comments about the deal, it's hard to believe Clinton really opposes the TPP deal." So, yes, she might gain ground with the left, but these types of "convenient policy changes" undermine her greatest strength: "that she's an extraordinary policy mind who understands these issues better than her challengers, and so can be trusted to make better decisions on them." Click for the full NBC post, or for Klein's full post.)


Article:

Tweet with a location

 You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| By contrast, local members of the Texas Legislature (whom fourth-graders learn about) got a perfect score, as did Barbara Jordan, Sam Houston, Stephen F. Austin and Henry B. González. President Donald Trump isn't included in the list by name, but students are required to learn about Texans who have been president, governor and mayor.

 Earlier this year, the work group split up and each subgroup took a set of figures to grade using the rubric, said the two teachers, who both said they wanted to keep politics out of the decisions.

 "There were hundreds of people" kids had to learn about, Misty Matthews, a teacher in Round Rock, told The News. "Our task was to simplify. ... We tried to make it as objective as possible."

 Jana Poth added that the work group did "not want to offend anyone" with its choices. "But there's too many [figures]," she said.

 Third-graders, for example, should learn about three dozen figures. Fourth-graders have 70 required or recommended historical figures to learn, and in eighth grade, when students take the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness social studies test, there are 50 people on the list.

 Neither Poth nor Matthews said she was in the small group that made the decisions about Clinton and Keller. In a note next to the deletion from the third-grade social studies curriculum in which Keller was included in a lesson about "the characteristics of good citizenship," the work group wrote, "Helen Keller does not best represent the concept of citizenship. Military and first responders are best represented."

 There was no comment next to the recommendation to remove Clinton. Students in that grade are still required to learn about former President Bill Clinton's impeachment.

 Slavery, eugenics and Alamo heroes: What made the cut?

 Each year, the board discusses and debates new classroom standards for Texas' 5.4 million schoolchildren. Its members, currently five Democrats and 10 Republicans, are elected to four-year terms and represent specific geographic areas.

 The board's process has always garnered attention — and often controversy. Five years ago, members clashed over whether science books should have to teach an alternative to evolution. In 2014, math standards were revised, drawing criticism from parents and teachers. And earlier this year, a new Mexican-American studies course was the subject of the latest culture war.

 Many of the work group's recommendations that were rejected by the board dealt with descriptions of the nation's "Judeo-Christian" heritage. Texas Values, a conservative Christian political advocacy group, sent representatives before the board this week to speak out against removing the descriptions. On Friday, they applauded the board's decision to keep them.

 "In Texas, you don't mess with the Alamo and you don't mess with our Christian heritage. We applaud the majority of the State Board of Education for doing the right thing by restoring our foundational rights and history," Texas Values President Jonathan Saenz said in a statement. "We are prepared to fight to protect these standards all the way to the end."

 Others criticized the board's vote. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Chris Turner urged boadmembers to add Clinton and Keller back into the curriculum.

 "If Helen Keller was an important historical figure when I was in school (and she was), then she still is today," tweeted Turner, D-Grand Prairie. "Clinton is the 1st and only woman to be the presidential nominee of a major party in U.S. history. Enough said."

 Here are some of the changes the board approved Friday:

 Replace San Jacinto Day with Constitution Day in a section on "the origins of customs, holidays, and celebrations of the community, state, and nation" (the Battle of San Jacinto is taught in fourth-grade social studies and high school U.S. history).

 Remove Helen Keller from section on "citizenship." |||||
What is a summary?

– The Texas Board of Education says it's trying to "streamline" the social studies curriculum in its public schools, and one way it plans on doing so is by getting rid of two big names from the required learning plan. The Dallas Morning News reports that on Friday, the board held a preliminary vote and decided to nix Hillary Clinton from high school history class. As the first woman to nab a major political party's presidential nomination, Clinton appeared alongside Thurgood Marshall and Sandra Day O'Connor, among others, in a "citizenship" section of the curriculum in which students were tasked to "evaluate the contributions of significant political and social leaders in the United States." A work group made its recommendations to the board based on a rubric it created on how "essential" it was to learn about certain historical figures. Also cut, but from the elementary school curriculum: Helen Keller. "Helen Keller does not best represent the concept of citizenship," the group wrote. "Military and first responders are best represented." By the group's gauge, Clinton received just 5 points out of 20; Keller got 7. Some wonder how much time will really be saved by nixing these notable figures. "It won't take that long to teach about either woman. they happen to be part of history," tweeted pundit Greta Van Susteren. The work group estimates cutting Clinton will save about 30 minutes of teaching time, while yanking Keller will free up 40. What the BOE voted to keep in the state curriculum: references to "Judeo-Christian values" and "a requirement that students explain how the 'Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to ongoing conflict' in the Middle East," per the Morning News. These decisions aren't set in stone: There's still a chance for the BOE to make changes before a final November vote.


– North and South Korea will compete together under one unified flag at next month's Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, in what will be the first such arrangement since 2006. South Korea previously announced North Korea would send officials, athletes, and a cheer squad to the Olympics following talks between the two countries. It has now revealed North Korea's intention to send a 550-member delegation. Among those arriving in South Korea beginning on Jan. 25 will be female ice hockey players joining a team of South Korean athletes (they'll compete under a flag showing the Korean Peninsula in blue on a white background), as well as 230 cheerleaders, 140 orchestra members, and 30 people who will take part in a taekwondo demonstration, report Sky News and CNN. Ahead of the Olympics, skiers from both countries will also train together in North Korea, per CNN. The thawing of relations between the North and South has drawn praise from some. But others, like Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, fear Kim Jong Un only hopes to ease international pressure while continuing to develop a nuclear weapons arsenal. "It is not the time to ease pressure, or to reward North Korea," Kono said Tuesday in Vancouver, Canada, where 20 countries met and agreed to consider tougher sanctions on the North, per Reuters. Warning countries not to be fooled by its "charm offensive," Kono added, "The fact that North Korea is engaging in dialogue could be interpreted as proof that the sanctions are working." China avoided the meeting, saying it showed a "Cold War mentality."

Expand this summary.

Seoul (CNN) North and South Korean athletes will march together at the Winter Olympics opening ceremony under a unified flag, the South said Wednesday, in a diplomatic breakthrough following days of talks between the two countries.

 The nations have also agreed to form a joint North and South Korean women's ice hockey team for the Games in Pyeongchang, which begin early next month, South Korea's unification ministry said.

 The unification ministry announced a range of joint activities between the countries for the Games, following talks Wednesday at the demilitarized zone (DMZ).

 North and South Korean skiers will train together at a resort in North Korea before the Olympics start, and performers from the two countries will also hold a joint cultural event at Mount Kumgang.

 North Korea will also send around 230 supporters to cheer on its athletes. A smaller delegation of North Korean athletes and supporters will attend the Paralympics, the ministry said.

 The Korean Unification Flag features a blue silhouette of the peninsula and outlying islands. The two countries have marched under the flag before, in rare shows of unity, first at the 1991 World Table Tennis Championships, and at a number of sporting events since. It was most recently used at the 2006 Winter Games in Turin, Italy

 The International Olympics Committee (IOC) would need to approve the countries' agreements, and those that affect competition, such as the joint hockey team, could be more complicated than the ceremonial proposals.

 The committee said Wednesday it had received a number of "interesting proposals" that it would discuss with delegates from both countries in Switzerland on Saturday.

 "We are sure that the two Korean delegations will present their ideas and proposals at the meeting on Saturday in Lausanne. This will then enable the IOC to carefully evaluate the consequences and the potential impact on the Olympic Games and the Olympic competitions," it said in a statement.

 Diplomatic thaw

 Wednesday's announcement is the latest breakthrough since talks began between the two Koreas earlier this month, after years of broken communications.

 While the two sides have earned praise for ratcheting down military tensions in recent weeks, some of Seoul's allies voiced concern Wednesday that Pyongyang may be using the talks to buy time to pursue its weapons program.

 The US military has moved more firepower to the region and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned of complacency at a Tuesday summit in Vancouver where the top diplomats from the United States, Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom were in town to discuss North Korea.

 Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono called on the international community to be clear-eyed about North Korea's motivations for participating in the talks, which have been hailed by some as the most significant thaw in ties in years.

 "I believe that North Korea wants to buy some time to continue their nuclear and missile programs," Kono said at the meeting. "It's not the time to ease pressure towards North Korea."

 China denounced the Vancouver talks, and the United Nations Command, under whose framework they are being held, as demonstrating "Cold War mentality."

 "(Such thinking) will only lead to split in the international community and harm the joint efforts that could properly solve the nuclear issue on Korea peninsula," Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said Wednesday.

 JUST WATCHED Talks keep N. Korean skaters' dream alive Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Talks keep N. Korean skaters' dream alive 02:41

 Limited progress

 It remains to be seen how much progress achieved before the Olympics will be retained after the games are over, or if tensions will again worsen.

 John Park, director of the Korea Working Group at the Harvard Kennedy School, warned against viewing the talks as a major breakthrough.

 "Both Koreas are primarily utilizing the talks for a limited objective -- arranging the participation of a North Korean delegation in the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics," Park said.

 South Korea's Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha said the talks were a "significant step" but acknowledged the serious challenges ahead: "Despite these overtures to improve relations with the South, North Korea has yet to show any intention to fulfill its international obligations regarding denuclearization."

 North Korea has remained adamant throughout this month's thaw in relations with South Korea that its nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles are here to stay.

 Joint US-South Korea military drills -- which always infuriate Pyongyang and raise tensions on the peninsula -- have been suspended for the duration of the upcoming Olympics as a show of good faith, but they are likely resume following the competition. ||||| SEOUL (Reuters) - The two Koreas will field a combined women’s ice hockey team and march together under one flag at next month’s Winter Olympics in the South, Seoul said on Wednesday, after a new round of talks amid a thaw in cross-border ties.

 North and South Korea have been talking since last week - for the first time in more than two years - about the Olympics, offering a respite from a months-long standoff over Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs, although Japan urged caution over the North’s “charm offensive”.

 The two Koreas will compete as a unified team in the Olympics for the first time, though they have joined forces at other international sports events before.

 North Korea will send a delegation of more than 400, including 230 cheerleaders, 140 artists and 30 Taekwondo players for a demonstration, a joint press statement released by Seoul’s Unification Ministry said, adding the precise number of athletes will be hammered out after discussions with the IOC scheduled for later this week.

 Prior to the Games, the sides will carry out joint training for skiers at the North’s Masik Pass resort and a cultural event at the Mount Kumgang resort, for which Seoul officials plan to visit the sites next week.

 “Under the circumstances where inter-Korean (relations) are extremely strained, in fact just some 20 days ago we weren’t expecting North Korea would participate in the Olympics”, said Chun Hae-sung, the South’s chief negotiator and vice unification minister.

 “It would have a significant meaning if the South and North show reconciliation and unity, for example through a joint march”.

 The North Korean delegation will begin arriving in South Korea on Jan. 25, according to the joint statement.

 The North will separately send a 150-strong delegation to the Paralympics, Chun said.

 ‘IT’S NOT THE TIME’

 Twenty nations meeting in the Canadian city of Vancouver agreed on Tuesday to consider tougher sanctions to press North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons and U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned the North it could trigger a military response if it did not choose dialogue.

 Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono said the world should not be naive about North Korea’s “charm offensive” over the Olympics.

 “It is not the time to ease pressure, or to reward North Korea”, Kono said. “The fact that North Korea is engaging in dialogue could be interpreted as proof that the sanctions are working.”

 North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has refused to give up development of nuclear missiles capable of hitting the United States in spite of increasingly severe U.N. sanctions, raising fears of a new war on the Korean peninsula. The North has fired test-fired missiles over Japan.

 Earlier on Wednesday, state media warned the U.S. of “meddling” in inter-Korean issues at a time when it had to “mind its own destiny rushing headlong into self-destruction”.

 South Korea's Jong Ah Park and Quinnipiac University's Melissa Samoskevich reach for the puck during an Olympic preparation, women's ice hockey game for South Korea in Hamden, Connecticut, U.S., December 28, 2017. Picture taken December 28, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

 “The U.S. is miscalculating,” the North’s Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary. “Although the U.S. makes desperate efforts to disturb peace while wielding a nuclear stick, it can not provoke us as long as we have the strong nuclear deterrent”.

 ICY RECEPTION

 Seoul has proposed a joint ice hockey team, which triggered an angry response from athletes in the South suddenly being told they may have to play alongside total strangers.

 “I don’t know if it will happen, but a joint team will be a good opportunity for ice hockey to shed its sorrow as a less-preferred sport as many Koreans will take interest,” South Korean President Moon Jae-in told players during a visit to a training center.

 The number of petitions to the presidential Blue House’s website opposing a unified team shot up to more than 100 this week, with the most popular one garnering more than 17,000 votes.

 “This isn’t the same as gluing a broken plate together,” said one of the signers.

 The prospect of a combined team had long been unsettling for the South Korean players. As in most other winter sports, the South is much stronger than the North.

 “Our players were really nervous,” Sarah Murray, South Korean women’s hockey head coach, told Reuters last month during the team’s training swing through the United States.

 “We can only take 23 players to the Olympics, and they thought these North Koreans are going to come in and take our spots”, Murray said.

 Chun, the South’s lead delegate, said the decision on a united ice hockey team is not yet finalised, as it requires the consent of the IOC and related international body.

 “We’re well aware of the people’s concerns and interests about this”, he told a news conference.

 “But I would like you to see the other side that it could make a positive contribution to peace of the Korean Peninsula and improving inter-Korean relations”.

 On Tuesday, the North said a 140-person orchestra would perform in South Korea during the Games. Pyongyang is also planning to send a large delegation in addition to the athletes and orchestra.

 Paik Hak-soon, the director of the Center for North Korean studies at Sejong Institute in South Korea, said North Korea was using the cheering squad to draw attention to its apparent cooperative spirit.

 “Seeing good results in competitions thanks to the cheering squad would enable the North Koreans to say they contributed to a successful Olympics and the South Korean government would likely agree,” said Paik.

 Slideshow (5 Images)

 “In the end, they are using this old tactic to get to Washington through Seoul.”

 Reclusive North Korea and the rich, democratic South are technically still at war because their 1950-53 conflict ended in a truce, not a peace treaty. The North regularly threatens to destroy the South, Japan and their major ally, the United States.

 China, which did not attend the Vancouver meeting, said on Wednesday the gathering showed a Cold War mentality and would only undermine a settlement of the North Korea problem. ||||| North and South Korea will march under one flag as their first joint Olympic team competes in the winter games next month.

 At the opening ceremony in Pyeongchang, the teams will march together under the Unification Flag, which features the entire peninsula and surrounding islands in blue on a white background.

 It was last used in 2006 at the Winter Olympics in Italy.

 It comes as the countries announced they will field a joint women's ice hockey team at the Winter Olympics in February.

 North Korea will send a 550-member delegation to the games, which includes 230 cheerleaders, 140 artists and 30 taekwondo players for a demonstration.

 They will begin arriving in South Korea on 25 January.

 Image: The teams march under one flag at the East Asian Games in 2005

 Officials have also agreed that a 140-piece orchestra from North Korea will perform in the South during the Olympics.

 North and South Korea are still technically at war with each other, as the 1950-53 conflict between the two states ended in a truce, not peace.

 Representatives from both countries have been talking with each other since last week, after more than two years of silence.

 Image: North Koreans (red shirts) cheer as South Koreans (yellow shirts) wave unified Korean peninsula flags in 2003

 The move also follows heightened tensions over the North's missile tests, nuclear weapons programme and its regular threats to destroy its neighbours.

 Despite a slight thawing of tensions, Japan has warned that the world should not be naive about the North's "charm offensive".

 "It is not the time to ease pressure or to reward North Korea," foreign minister Taro Kono said.

 "The fact that North Korea is engaging in dialogue could be interpreted as proof that the sanctions are working."

 Reaction to news of a joint Olympic team has been mixed in North Korea, with some athletes not happy about competing with their neighbours.

 More than 100 petitions have been sent to South Korea's presidential Blue House website opposing a joint Olympics team.

 Image: North Korean Jon Jong Su crosses the border to attend talks at the truce village of Panmunjom

 The most popular has more than 11,000 signatures, with one person writing: "This isn't the same as gluing a broken plate together".

 North Korea's Rodong Sinmun newspaper said the relationship between the North and the South was "going towards detente".

 But it criticised Japan's leader for refusing to ease the pressure on Pyongyang without the latter taking steps towards de-nuclearisation.

 It said: "The detente on the Korean peninsula is unfavourable for the (Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo) Abe group whose ultimate goal is to convert Japan into a war state.

 "That is why they persist in their policy to stifle the DPRK (North Korea)." |||||


Article:

Police patrol through a neighborhood in Watertown, Mass., while searching for Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. All residents of Boston were ordered to stay in their homes Friday morning as the search for the surviving suspect in the marathon bombings continued after a long night of violence that left another suspect dead.

 April 19, 2013 Police patrol through a neighborhood in Watertown, Mass., while searching for Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. All residents of Boston were ordered to stay in their homes Friday morning as the search for the surviving suspect in the marathon bombings continued after a long night of violence that left another suspect dead. Charles Krupa/AP

 Following a massive search that shut down the city of Boston and its environs, authorities late Friday apprehended Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the marathon bombings who had been missing since early in the day, when he had escaped from a shootout that had left his brother,and fellow suspect, dead.

 Authorities shot and killed one suspect in Monday’s Boston Marathon bombings, and police were searching for a second suspect who was on the loose in Watertown, Mass., Friday after a chaotic night that left one police officer dead and another critically wounded in the Boston suburbs.

 Authorities shot and killed one suspect in Monday’s Boston Marathon bombings, and police were searching for a second suspect who was on the loose in Watertown, Mass., Friday after a chaotic night that left one police officer dead and another critically wounded in the Boston suburbs.

 WATERTOWN, Mass.— Police said they had taken the second suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings into custody here Friday night, after a day of intense searching that shut down daily life across a large swath of greater Boston.

 Shortly after 8 p.m., police surrounded a boat stored behind a home in East Watertown, a short distance away from where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, had been last seen. Authorities said they believed Tsarnaev was inside the boat, which had been covered in a tarp. He was thought to be wounded but alive: television crews reported that they could hear police calling his name, attempting to induce his surrender.

 The other suspect in the bombings, Tsarnaev’s 26-year-old brother, Tamerlan, was killed early Friday morning after a shootout with police in another section of Watertown.

 Also Friday, a report from Russian television cited the men’s mother as saying her older son had previously been interviewed by the FBI because of his interest in radical Islamic teachings. The FBI confirmed that agents in Boston had interviewed the elder Tsarnaev in 2011, on behalf of an unspecified foreign government that suspected he had ties to a terrorist organization. But the FBI found nothing warranting further investigation.

 The standoff with the younger Tsarnaev began just minutes after a press conference in which authorities had conceded that a daylong search for Tsarnaev had come up empty. They had said they did not know where the fugitive was, but would still lift a “shelter in place” order anyway.

 “You can get back out, as long as you are vigilant,” said Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D).

 As night fell again here, the Tsarnaevs had become a new lesson in the awful magnifying power of terrorism. Two unremarkable brothers, armed with low-tech bombs and no apparent escape plan, had allegedly killed four people, injured more than 170, and then held one of America’s great cities in terror for a full day. And counting.

 While law enforcement officers continued to look for Tsarnaev, investigators in Washington and elsewhere began seeking to understand what had turned them to violence.

 The Tsarnaev brothers are of Chechen heritage. Both were born in the Caucusus region, a cauldron fought over by Chechen separatists, Russian security forces, Islamic extremists and organized crime. They had emigrated legally, and lived for years in the Boston area, where their father, Anzor, was an auto mechanic.

 In the past, both men had embraced American passions, according to friends and neighbors. Tamerlan, 26, was an accomplished boxer, with a wife and child. Dzhokhar was a wrestler at Cambridge’s public high school, who went on to attend the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth.

 On Thursday evening, authorities released photos of two men spotted carrying backpacks near the Marathon’s finish line. These were apparently the Tsarnaevs, though authorities did not say that at the time--and, perhaps, did not know it at all.

 Their targets, it turned out, had not fled the city or the country. A few hours later, they began a violent spree just across the Charles River in Cambridge.

 At about 10:30 p.m., authorities said, the two shot and killed MIT Police officer Sean Collier, 26, as Collier sat in his cruiser. It was unclear what triggered that shooting: authorities said surveillance video appears to show the two approaching Collier and killing him without warning.

 After that, the men allegedly carjacked a Mercedes sport utility vehicle, and took the driver with them. At least one brother told the carjacked driver that they were the marathon bombers. They forced the driver to stop at several bank machines, and took $800 that he withdrew. After a few minutes, the man was left behind at a gas station, unharmed. It was unclear if he escaped, or was let go.

 From there, the brothers drove about three miles, throwing explosives out the window at police. In Watertown, they engaged in a shootout with police, in which at least 200 rounds were fired.

 Authorities said that Tamarlan Tsarnaev left the car at one point, and attempted to throw an explosive at officers. The device, however, went off in his hand. Police then tackled the wounded suspect in the street. Then, authorities said, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev--still behind the wheel of a car, swerved at the officers in an effort to hit them.

 The officers dodged. Tamerlan did not. He was dragged under the car, and later died at a Boston hospital. In the same confrontation, a Boston Transit police officer was also shot and wounded. {{Officials later identified the officer as Richard H. Donahue, 33, who was treated at Mt. Auburn Hospital and released.

 Dzhokhar Tsarnaev escaped. Police later conceded that there were not enough officers to establish a perimeter. The teenager is believed to have fled on foot: police found a small blood trail, indicating he was injured.

 Then he vanished.

 Starting after midnight Friday, an army of police officers and federal investigators began fanning out to look for him. SWAT teams from as far away as Cape Cod and New Hampshire rolled through the streets in armored cars, as police carefully searched house to house in Watertown.

 While they looked, authorities issued a massive order to stay at home. It covered the entire city of Boston, plus the suburban towns of Belmont, Brookline, Cambridge, Newton, Waltham and Watertown.

 “This situation is grave. We are here to protect public safety,” Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said in the morning, as the extraordinary lockdown was put in place. “We believe this to be a terrorist. We believe this to be a man here to kill people.”

 As the afternoon wore on, authorities closed down the suspects’ street, and searched their home. President Obama was briefed. The Tsarnaev brothers’ relatives appeared one after another on cable TV, with one uncle denouncing the two as “losers.”

 In Boston, a few people began to defy orders, and come out in the streets. As night fell, the governor said that everyone could do that--but with the frightening knowledge that an alleged killer and bomb-maker was out there, too.

 “We can return to living our lives,” Patrick said.

 While authorities looked for Tsarnaev, another phase of the investigation was already underway. In Washington and elsewhere, investigators interviewed family members, and searched for travel records, financial documents and for the brothers’ traces on Internet.

 For now, the brothers’ alleged motive remains unknown. The Tsarnaevs, like many ethnic Chechens, are Muslim. In the last several months, Tamerlan Tsarnaev had posted videos to YouTube indicating his interest in radical Muslim ideologies.

 Another question: did the men have help, either from within the U.S. or abroad? While militant Chechen groups have been blamed for terror attacks in the past, their target has usually been Russia, a bitter foe from Caucusus wars.

 On Friday, U.S. authorities said they had no proof that anybody beyond the two Tsarnaev brothers was involved in the marathon attacks. But they were not done looking. ||||| The memorial at Boylston and Berkeley streets has been moved to the sidewalk, in front of Bank of America. (Chris Allen-Black)

 As we near the one-week point after the attacks, the investigation continues.

 Boylston Street around the scene of the crime remains closed, city officials said at a recently ended news conference. Police Commissioner Ed Davis said the scene could be reopened in "a couple of days . . . but don't hold me to that. "

 Also: |||||
What is a summary?

– Authorities say one of two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing is dead and a massive manhunt is under way for the other, who has been identified as 19-year-old Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev. Boston is effectively shut down in the meantime: Residents of Boston, Watertown, Newton, Waltham, Belmont, Cambridge, and the Allston-Brighton neighborhoods of Boston were told to remain in their homes; mass transit has been halted; businesses were asked not to open; and the Boston Globe reports that at least 16 area colleges have canceled classes. What we know of what happened overnight, per the AP and the Washington Post: The Middlesex district attorney says the two men are suspected of killing an MIT police officer at the college last night after the officer responded to a disturbance, then stealing a car at gunpoint and later releasing its driver unharmed. (All just hours after police released photos of the bombing suspects.) Authorities say the suspects threw explosives from the car as police followed it into Watertown; witnesses reported hearing multiple gunshots and explosions at about 1am. A transit police officer was critically wounded. The suspects and police exchanged gunfire and one of the suspects was critically injured and later died at a hospital while the other escaped. Doctors at Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center say they treated a man with a possible blast injury and multiple gunshot wounds. They wouldn't confirm that the patient, who came in with police, was the suspect in the black hat from marathon surveillance footage. Police say the suspect on loose is a "terrorist" who "came here to kill people." Governor Deval Patrick held a press conference with police this morning extending the shelter-in-place warning to all of Boston. "There is a massive manhunt underway," he assured reporters. "We've got every asset that we can possibly muster on the ground right now." Authorities have identified the MIT officer who was killed as 26-year-old Sean Collier of Somerville, according to the Boston Globe. The MBTA police officer who was injured has been identified as Richard H. Donohue.


News article:

Author Contributions C. A. Thorstenson and A. D. Pazda developed the study concept and contributed to the study design. Testing and data collection were performed by C. A. Thorstenson and A. D. Pazda. C. A. Thorstenson and A. D. Pazda performed the data analysis and interpretation under the supervision of A. J. Elliot. C. A. Thorstenson drafted the manuscript, and A. D. Pazda and A. J. Elliot provided substantive revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

 Abstract

 Past research has shown that emotion can influence low-level visual processes, including color perception, that may play a role in higher-order vision. Moreover, the prevalence of linguistic pairings between emotions and color words suggests that emotional experience and color perception may be linked. The purpose of the present research was to test whether emotion influences color perception. We did this by experimentally manipulating emotion with video clips in two experiments (specifically, sadness and amusement in Experiment 1, and sadness and neutral emotion in Experiment 2) and measuring color perception (specifically, accuracy in identifying desaturated colors). The results of both experiments showed that sadness impaired color perception along the blue-yellow color axis but not along the red-green color axis. ||||| TIME Health For more, visit TIME Health

 The world seems dreary, gloomy and gray when you’re feeling blue. In fact, being down in the dumps might even affect how you perceive the color blue.

 A recent study published in the journal Psychological Science shows a direct connection between a person’s ability to perceive color and their emotions.

 “Color is such an important part of our experience,” says lead author Christopher Thorstenson, a psychologist at the University of Rochester. There’s a reason, he says, that common descriptive phrases of the world include “colorless,” “gray,” and “feeling blue” by sad people, and “bright” and “colorful” by happier folks.

 MORE: This May Be Why You’re Seeing The Dress As White and Gold

 Psychologists have long known that emotions have a direct influence on what is called “low-level visual processes,” or simple perceptions of space and form. That’s because your visual processes require some chemical input from your brain that might affect how you process what you see. Sadness decreases arousal, for example, which in turn limits the amount of light entering the retina and reduces your visual acumen. A gloomy mood lowers dopamine, which may impair neutrotransmitters in the retina. And depression has been linked to a deficit in the ability to differentiate colors, meaning the world might be viewed as a fuzzier, less vivid place for some people feeling sad.

 In the experiment, the researchers randomly assigned people to one of two groups. Those who were assigned “sadness” watched a sad film clip: a particularly heart-wrenching scene from The Lion King. Those in the “amusement” group were shown a standup skit. Everyone was then asked to look at red, yellow, green and blue patches that had been desaturated of color and muted to gray. “Some of the patches are pretty difficult [to discern],” Thorstenson admits, saying that it often takes a bit of intent staring to figure out their shade. People were scored on how accurate their color perception was, and they then completed an emotional evaluation. Another part of the study had people watch a neutral desktop screensaver and perform the same tasks.

 The result: sad people had a hard time differentiating between shades along the blue-yellow color axis. Intriguingly, however, people who were sad did not have problems seeing colors in the red-green spectrum—possibly because of an evolutionary need to see red as an anger response, Thorstenson speculates. (“Seeing red”, therefore, might also be a more literal phrase than we once thought.)

 The fact that Thorstenson and his team only saw differences in color perception along the blue-yellow axis means that this isn’t just a fluke, he explains. Had sadness simply reduced chemical arousal or engagement, the results would probably have indicated that color perception across all spectrums were affected, but that wasn’t the case. It also highlights the possible importance of dopamine in sight, something researchers are hoping to focus on more in the future. “We know dopamine is important in mood disorders like depression and ADHD, but there might be something going on with how dopamine affects how we see colors, too,” Thorstenson says.

 “How we feel can really influence how we see the world around us,” he says. ||||| “Feeling blue” might be more than just a metaphor.

 Indeed, how we feel about the world can play a huge role in how we see it, according to a new study in the journal Psychological Science. Feeling sad can keep us from seeing in certain colors, as though we live in Dorothy’s Kansas. But a good mood can bring those colors back into the world, just like a tornado trip to Oz.

 “We were already deeply familiar with how often people use color terms to describe common phenomena, like mood, even when these concepts seem unrelated,” the study’s lead author Christopher Thorstenson said in a statement for the Association for Psychological Science. “We thought that maybe a reason these metaphors emerge was because there really was a connection between mood and perceiving colors in a different way.”

 Thorstenson was right. All it took was a clip from a cartoon to make people start seeing differently.

 Participants in the study, which took place at the University of Rochester in New York, were invited to watch the two-minute scene from “The Lion King” in which Mufasa is killed. To the mournful strains of Elton John’s score, they watched Simba’s eyes widen and fill with tears as he nuzzled against his fallen father. The clip, which apparently is often used in psychology studies, is scientifically proven to induce irresistible sadness at the plight of the orphaned lion cub.

 Others participants were shown a clip from a stand-up comedy routine or a neutral screen saver.

 Once they felt sufficiently gloomy, cheerful or completely unmoved, depending on which clip they saw, the participants were put to the test. Each was presented with a series of washed-out color swatches, so de-saturated they were nearly gray, and asked to identify what color they were.

 While the amused and neutral groups’ ability to discern colors remained unaffected, the Disney-watching crowd had trouble distinguishing swatches on the blue-yellow axis. (The eye’s color encoding matrix ranks light on two axes — from red to green and from blue to yellow — and then sorts it into what we recognize as color.)

 The image on the left show normal color saturation. The image on the right has been altered by de-saturating the yellow and blue colors in the image. (iStock)

 That only blue-yellow perception was affected, and only among the sad group, is significant.

 Psychologists believe that perception along the blue-yellow axis is linked to the neurotransmitter dopamine, Thorstenson told the Association for Psychological Science. Dopamine is the chemical signal that transmits information from neuron to neuron, stimulating the pleasure and reward centers of the brain. It’s responsible for the flush of excitement an addict feels at the sight of a drug and the thrill of an explorer ascending a mountain for the first time, and its absence is associated with apathy, lack of motivation and hopelessness.

 Thorstenson’s study suggests that sadness affects dopamine’s other tasks — among them, transmitting visual information about blue and yellow light. A similar phenomenon has been found in patients with ADHD, who have low dopamine levels and sometimes struggle to perceive the color blue.

 But the study’s findings go beyond color.

 They’re a reminder that our experience of the world is not as immediate and objective as we’d like to believe. It’s easy to assume that cognition — what we think and feel — is a rational response to perception, that we intake information from our senses, process it, and then draw conclusions from that data.

 But some psychologists believe that our understanding of the world happens “top-down” as much as “bottom-up.” In other words, higher-level cognition can determine what and how we perceive. Rather than seeing the world as it really is, our perceptions are colored — literally — by emotions and expectations.

 But this notion is debated — a recent study from Yale argued that many studies purporting to show a “top-down” effect are flawed.

 “The possibility of top-down effects on perception is tremendously exciting,” the study’s author’s wrote. “Accordingly, though, the bar for a suitably compelling top-down effect should be high. Until this high bar is met, it will remain eminently plausible that there are no top-down effects of cognition on perception.”

 Still, findings like Thorstenson’s pop up a lot, and in his conversation with the Association for Psychological Science he was convinced.

 “Our results show that mood and emotion can affect how we see the world around us,” he said. ||||| Are you feeling blue or do you have a case of the mean reds? A new University of Rochester study suggests our ability to perceive color may indeed be flavored by our moods. In two experiments, people who felt sad performed worse on a color accuracy test than those who felt either amused or neutral.

 "Data are beginning to emerge supporting the conventional wisdom that people’s emotions influence how colorful the world looks to them," wrote the researchers in their conclusion.

 If recent data is to be believed, color may influence cognition and behavior, say the researchers. Experiments have shown "exposure to the color red can subsequently impair performance on challenging cognitive tasks, elevate the perceived attractiveness and health of faces, and reduce food intake," they wrote. Exploring in a similar vein, this team of University of Rochester researchers performed two distinct experiments.

 The first began with 129 college students, 83 female, watching either a sad or amusing film clip. After watching the clips, participants were tested for how they were feeling. As expected, those who had watched the sad clip reported more sad feelings, while those who had watched the funny clip experienced greater amusement. Next, the research team tested the participants on color perception accuracy.

 Here, the participants viewed 24 separate color patches created in Adobe Photoshop on a computer screen. For each patch, participants indicated whether the color patch was red, yellow, green, or blue. Participants saw each color patch twice, for a total of 48 random trials.

 The results from this first experiment indicated sad participants performed worse on a color-perception task than amused participants, yet this was only true for colors along the blue-yellow axis. Along the red-green axis, the tested mood states of participants didn't influence perception accuracy.

 Color wheel Michael Hernandez, CC by 2.0

 Because the results could not indicate whether sadness impaired color perception (or whether amusement enhanced it), the researchers decided to run a second experiment. This time, they roughly followed the guidelines of the first experiment, except instead of half the participants seeing an amusing film clip, they watched a neutral clip. Importantly, the researchers converted all the film clips to gray scale "to control for any possible color-fatigue effect that might have been caused by the films' own colors," they noted.

 Following the clips, the participants were tested on both emotional state and color perception. Compared to those who’d watched the neutral clip, sad participants were less accurate in perceiving color along the blue-yellow axis, though equally accurate along the red-green axis.

 "We are speculating that dopamine deficiency might influence [perception of blue-yellow] colors, because past research has shown that perception of these colors is affected in clinical disorders in which dopamine plays a role," Dr. Christopher A. Thorstenson, department of clinical and social sciences in psychology, told Medical Daily in an email. "It is very important to note that we did not measure dopamine, and so cannot say if this is the case."

 Source: Thorstenson CA, Pazda AD, Elliot AJ. Sadness Impairs Color Perception. Psychological Science. 2015. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Got the blues? You probably aren't seeing blues clearly. That's the takeaway from a new study that finds how a person views the color blue may actually depend on mood, reports Medical Daily. Not all colors were affected in the same way. Researchers at the University of Rochester asked 129 college students to watch either a stand-up comedy clip or the scene from The Lion King in which Mufasa dies, then recorded the participants' moods, per the Washington Post. Next, participants took a color accuracy test in which they had to look at 48 color patches that had been desaturated to look nearly gray, then identify whether each was red, yellow, green, or blue. People who were feeling down in the dumps performed worse than those who were amused. In other words, the data supports "the conventional wisdom that people's emotions influence how colorful the world looks to them," the researchers say. However, the sad group performed poorly only when quizzed about colors on what researchers call the blue-yellow axis. They could identify colors on the red-green axis just as well as others—perhaps due to the evolutionary need to see red as a sign of anger, reports Time. The results are "a reminder that our experience of the world is not as immediate and objective as we’d like to believe," observes the Post. Researchers suggest a sad mood messes up the ability of the neuron transmitter dopamine to process information about blue-yellow colors. (This woman sees 100 times more colors than you.)