marriage can change

Marriage can change couples personalities, study reveals

ByJustpaste.in

Marriage is often described as a situation where “those who marry regret it and those who do not marry regret that too.” Now, scientists have revealed a surprising effect that marriage can have on couples.

According to researchers, the first two years of marriage can bring significant changes to the personalities of newly married couples. A joint study by the University of Georgia and the University of California found that personality changes during the first two years of marriage can have important long-term effects on marital relationships.

According to the study, newlyweds experience noticeable changes in their personalities and these changes can influence their satisfaction with their relationship with their spouse.

The research found that during the first 18 months of marriage, husbands tend to become more dependent on their wives and increasingly focus their attention on their wives rather than the outside world.

The study also found that wives experienced reductions in anxiety, depression, feelings of inferiority, restlessness and stress. These positive personality changes were observed among couples of different age groups.

However, researchers also noted one negative development: compatibility between husbands and wives tended to decrease.

The researchers said that, overall, the findings show that men and women undergo significant personality changes soon after marriage and these changes can be important for developing a healthy long-term relationship. The findings of the study were published in the journal Developmental Psychology.

Spousal support and stress

Earlier, a study conducted by Binghamton University in the United States in April 2024 found that feeling a lack of support from a spouse can increase physical stress. This feeling can raise levels of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress.

Cortisol works with parts of the brain involved in regulating mood, motivation and behaviour. Researchers said that people’s perceptions of their spouse’s support become stronger over time allowing them to predict how their partner is likely to behave in different situations.

They further noted that support from a spouse is more important than people may expect.

Similar Posts

  • |

    Writers are embracing flaws to fight AI prose

    ByJustpaste.in

    In an era where generative artificial intelligence can generate essays in seconds, the digital world is quietly witnessing a linguistic backlash. Readers are increasingly attuned to the invisible fingerprint of large language models. Perfectly balanced sentences, predictable three-item lists, flawless grammar and fondness for the em dash. In response, a movement of novelists, journalists, essayists, and even corporate creators are opting an anti-AI literary counterculture. These writers are actively reintroducing human idiosyncrasies ranging from unorthodox metaphors to intentional typos to declare that a human is behind the keyboard. The hallmark of standard AI-generated text is not necessarily bad grammar. In fact, it is often too clean. Text-generation algorithms default to statistically probable phrasing. It’s resulting in a distinctively smooth, neutral tone that rarely takes stylistic risks. Over the past few years, certain visual and structural patterns have become clear red flags for readers. Excessive dependence on em dashes. Relying on clinical or dramatic transitions like “In conclusion,” “Delve,” or “Navigating the landscape of…” Prose that seems lacking the natural rhythm, pauses, and unpredictable detours of spontaneous speech. To break free from these algorithmic habits, authors are adopting techniques anchored in absolute negation. Novelist Laura Brooke Robson, author of Love Is an Algorithm, noted that she actively altered her sentence structures to avoid robotic cadence. Instead of relying on conventional metaphors, she intentionally sought out unexpected punctuation. For creators, avoiding the default traps of language models has surprisingly made their writing more original and lively. This counterculture goes beyond simply avoiding specific punctuation marks. Writers are cultivating a distinct aesthetic centered on authenticity, vulnerability, and friction. After years of detached or objective styles, creators are leaning back into intimate first-person storytelling. Specific personal experiences, odd sensory details, and messy real-life observations serve as proof of lived experience. They prove to be something synthetic text generators cannot genuinely claim. Minor human flaws, casual slang and even subtle typos are being viewed as authentic signatures. Some digital platforms and creators have even experimented with tools that preserve raw keystrokes to signal genuine human origin. Instead of smoothing out every transition, writers are introducing erratic pacing, quirky similes, and inventive vocabulary. Authors create an experience that keeps the reader engaged. Deliberately reassuring them that the text wasn’t produced by an automated model. Can Artificial Intelligence Just Copy It? Skeptics of this trend point out an obvious paradox! If large language models are capable of processing complex prompts, they can just as easily be instructed to “write with typos,” “use casual grammar,” or “tell a quirky story in the first person.” From a purely technical perspective, intentional mistakes does not make prose impossible for a machine to imitate. However, proponents of the movement emphasize that outsmarting algorithms was never the primary goal. Instead, the anti-AI counterculture is an artistic statement about human craft and intention. Writing is fundamentally an act of personal communication between two minds. When readers engage with text, they are seeking the author’s unique perspective, effort, and creative voice. Ultimately, this movement signals how society values written communication. As machine-generated text becomes ubiquitous, hyper-polished prose is losing its premium status. What readers increasingly crave is not frictionless perfection, but the warmth and oddity of a human voice.  

  • Fake it till you break it: inside the deepfake era

    ByJustpaste.in

    Previously, I believed that if one could see something, it could be trusted because seeing is believing. A video was proof. A voice recording was evidence. That belief is gone, and I don’t think we have fully sat with the implications. There is an abnormal shift happening. AI-generated images, voice cloning, face-swapping apps, and similar tools were supposed to expand how people express themselves, but instead they have slowly chipped away at what matters most: the belief that people can express themselves through their images and their words. I attended a workshop under the project titled “Digital Trust and Free Expression in the AI Era” at Department of Media and Development Communication, University of the Punjab, supported by the U.S. Mission to Pakistan in partnership with the Pakistan-U.S. Alumni Network (PUAN) last week. During the discussions on digital trust. I took part in the discussion and shared my thoughts that we are now in a time where we must take this out of the realm of fun tech novelty and place it in the realm of a structural issue in how societies operate. Everyone says deepfakes are a “misinformation” issue, but this is not an adequate way to describe it. Misinformation is something that’s a false statement that can, in theory, be fact-checked. Deepfakes strike at the heart of video and audio credibility which have always been treated as vivid reality. When people realize that any clip can be fabricated, they stop trusting all clips, even real ones. This is what concerns me most. Fake things are believed and real things become deniable. Consider the implications of journalism, courts, political accountability, etc. If a politician is recorded saying something damaging, they can simply claim that it’s a “deepfake” and, depending on how much trust citizen have lost, people may believe them. We are creating a society in which it is possible to negotiate authenticity and in which negotiable authenticity is a gift for those who wish to avoid consequences. I also face a conflict here: I strongly believe in free speech, satire, parody, art and provocation even with synthetic media. The same technology behind de-aged actors, resurrected voices, dubbing, and experimental AI is extremely creative, yet it is all connected to malicious deepfakes. There is no way to ‘clean’ a tool of its worst use-case. A hammer can break windows or build houses. I do not think banning synthetic media is the answer, nor do I support pre-emptive censorship. That path harms legitimate satire, journalism and art under the pretense of ‘preserving truth’. History does not look kindly on institutions that decide what is a “fair” fake. Freedom of expression has never been of consequence or friction, and right now, deepfakes have almost no friction. The reality is there is no cost, disclosure, and accountability in using this technology deceptively. The issue is the imbalance. I believe the solution is not reducing synthetic tools but improving provenance. We need a digital watermarking, which cannot be “easily removed”: cryptographic signatures embedded into cameras, microphones and generative tools at the point of creation, so that the “unverified” label appears by default, not as an afterthought. Not to prohibit any content but to allow people to know what they are seeing before deciding whether to trust it. Platforms have been allowed to operate without responsibility for too long. Convincing fakes can reach millions before correction and corrections never travel as far. This asymmetry is not natural; it is a design choice. Platforms can mark, rate or tag synthetic content at the time of dissemination. Most simply haven’t had to! But, beyond platforms, we must change our own instincts as individuals. The old saying was “pics or it didn’t happen.” The new rule should be: “Who gains from believing this and can I verify it myself? A society that believes everything or worse, believes nothing is in danger. The deepfake age is not the age of AI; it is the consequences of a world where the cost of faking reality is near zero and the cost of establishing truth remains high. Freedom of expression should protect the most challenging and profound exchange of ideas, not the production of fake consent, fake evidence, or fake people. We can have creative freedom and still expect honesty about sources. These are not competing prioritie These are not different objectives/priorities. However, if we pretend it’s a content-moderation footnote, we must make sure we are not waking up in a world where “fake it till you make it” has become ‘fake it till you break it” and by that time, it won’t be just one video or one lie that will break. It will be our fundamental ability to reach a shared understanding of reality. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Mission to Pakistan or USEFP/PUAN. The writer, Mahnoor Ashraf Wattoo, is a student of Media and Development Communication at University of the Punjab, Lahore 

  • | |

    Ada Lovelace, the tech woman

    ByJustpaste.in

    Long before the dawn of modern computers, a twelve-year-old girl named Ada Lovelace set her heart on how to fly. Rather than merely dreaming about the skies, she treated the challenge as a practical engineering problem. Beginning in early 1828, she meticulously studied avian anatomy and tested potential wing materials. Her experiments ranged from light paper and smooth silk to natural feathers. Lovelace even documented her findings in an illustrated manuscript she titled Flyology. Her pursuit only halted when her mother put an end to the project. A traditional mother who insisting that such whimsical ideas were a distraction from proper academic training. This tension between wild imagination and strict logic defined Lovelace’s upbringing.  Mother Annabella Byron was an intensely practical woman whose mathematical tendencies led her estranged husband, the tempestuous Romantic poet Lord Byron, to nickname her the Princess of Parallelograms. Shortly after Ada was born, Annabella separated from Byron. She further  separated the infant from her father’s chaotic influence. Lady Byron made it her mission to raise her daughter on a rigid diet of arithmetic, French and music. By doing so, the mother explicitly aimed to suppress any artistic interest she believed Ada might inherit from Byron. When Byron inquired about his young daughter, Annabella noted Ada applied her imagination strictly to mechanical problem-solving. Yet, despite her mother’s best efforts to extinguish her creative potential, Lovelace refused to treat reason and imagination as opposing forces. Instead, she fused them into a single approach to understanding the world. In early 1841, she pondered the true nature of imagination while identifying two distinct powers. First, she defined it as a combining faculty: the rare ability to find meaningful connections between entirely unrelated subjects. Second, more profoundly, she recognized imagination as a discovering faculty: the equipment that pierces the invisible world to reveal the hidden mechanics of science.   This hybrid worldview that Lovelace would later call poetic science is precisely what enabled her to look at Charles Babbage’s early mechanical calculating engines and see far past their raw math. While others saw mere gear-driven counting machines, Ada envisioned a future where machines could manipulate symbols, compose music, and run complex sequences of instructions. By bridging the emotional depth of her father’s romanticism with the rigorous structure of her mother’s mathematics, Ada Lovelace did not just become the world’s first computer programmer; she proved that groundbreaking technical innovation requires equal parts calculation and visionary artistry.

  • | |

    Analysing Pakistan’s system collapse through Orwell’s 1984

    ByJustpaste.in

    Pakistan’s Interior Minister, Mohsin Naqvi, publicly conceded that the nation’s existing governance structure has collapsed. The minister admitted that the administrative machinery can no longer resolve the country’s compounding socio-economic crises. The phrase strategically slipped through while addressing the Pakistan Economic Summit in Islamabad. He warned that adhering to the status quo would drag the nation into the same stagnant cycle  ten years from now. Amidst, he called upon political parties to set aside differences, decentralize power, and establish new administrative units to avert total destabilization. Yet, this public declaration does not occur in a vacuum. It arrives amidst mounting public resentment, economic desperation, and an escalating crackdown on political dissent, particularly in regions like Azad Jammu & Kashmir and urban political centers where mass protests against state austerity and police overreach have intensified. On the surface, the minister’s statement sounds like a candid plea for political reform and democratic unity. Beneath it, lies a far more insidious dynamic. One that mirrors the political theology of George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel, 1984. Big Brother and the Permanent State In Orwell’s 1984, the state of Oceania is governed by a dual reality. On the visible surface sits the Outer Party and its administrative ministries: the Ministry of Peace (which wages war), the Ministry of Plenty (which manages scarcity), and the Ministry of Truth (which manufactures lies). But behind these facade institutions resides the true, unquestionable entity: the Party itself, epitomized by the omnipotent figure of Big Brother. The purpose of the ministers, bureaucrats, and politicians is not to serve the citizenry, but to safeguard the survival of the core entity at all costs. When applied to the political landscape of Pakistan, the Interior Minister’s declaration functions as a quintessential display of Orwellian doublethink. The ability to hold two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accept both of them. The visible civilians admit powerlessness, yet the hidden apparatus of establishment and the deep-state continues to wield absolute authority. The state apparatus operates under an unwritten constitutional clause: individual rights, democratic mandates, and administrative cohesion may be sacrificed, so long as the core, permanent security apparatus remains untouched and supreme. Echoes From 1971 to Kashmir This pattern of preserving an unseen core entity while allowing civilian institutions to decay is not a novel phenomenon. Rather, it is the recurring motif of the region’s post-colonial history. During the 1971 crisis in East Pakistan, the political leadership and the military high command operated under the illusion that they were protecting the sacred unity of the state. In reality, the democratic mandate of the majority population in Bengal was suppressed to protect the ideological and structural hegemony of the West Pakistani establishment—the ruling entity. The state prioritized the preservation of its central ruling elite over the actual people, ultimately leading to the violent birth of Bangladesh. Similarly, in the context of Kashmir, both regional state apparatuses have historically treated the territory not as a community of citizens with self-determination, but as a hyper-militarized buffer zone. The rights of the local population are routinely suspended under emergency clauses, security regulations, and administrative crackdowns. Kashmir becomes a national security theater where the state justifies its authoritarian measures by pointing to a existential enemy, much like Oceania’s perpetual, shifting wars with Eurasia and Eastasia. The System Has Collapsed Minister Naqvi cautions that the system is broken and warns against civil unrest. The message carries an implicit subtext: the civilian government is simply the expendable skin of the state. The real state must be shielded from public wrath. Public dissent erupts over inflation, human rights abuses, or rigged mandates. However, the state’s reaction is not to adapt to the popular will, but to enforce compliance through force. The plea for political parties to sit together is less about democratic reconciliation and more an invitation to absorb the blame for a crisis created by the underlying apparatus. Ultimately, Orwell’s warning in 1984 was not merely about surveillance or censorship. Instead it was about the total erasure of individual agency in service of an unaccountable entity.  The region remains bound to protecting a shadowy establishment at the expense of its people.  

  • |

    New lizard species “Syrax” discovered in Thailand

    ByJustpaste.in

    A new species of lizard has been discovered in Thailand. According to foreign media reports, the new species was discovered in western Thailand and has been given a name inspired by the popular series “House of the Dragon.” The lizard has been named “Syrax” after the dragon ridden by Queen Rhaenyra Targaryen in the series. Details about the discovery of the new lizard were published last month in the journal ZooKeys. The study found that the lizard belongs to a group known as mountain horned dragons and was discovered in the forests of the high-altitude areas of Mae Wong. Researchers explained that the name was chosen based on the lizard’s yellowish coloration, small size and large clutch size. Mountain horned dragons are known for the spiny projections on their necks and backs. The study also stated that further research is needed to fully understand the distribution of lizard species. Researchers also need to explore nearby mountain ranges to discover other hidden or previously undocumented species in the northern and western mountainous regions.

  • Why our brain repeats old choices

    ByJustpaste.in

    Have you ever noticed that many people eat the same food for breakfast every day?  Even when they have many other options they often stick to what they already know. Scientists have been trying to understand why people repeat the same choices again and again.  A new study from TU Dresden University in Germany may have found the answer. Researchers analyzed data from more than 700 people from earlier studies.  They found that our past choices strongly influence the decisions we make later. According to the researchers when we choose something repeatedly it slowly becomes a habit.  Once it becomes familiar our brain tends to choose it again even when a better option is available. This habit of repeating past choices can affect many parts of daily life including shopping eating habits and everyday routines. The study suggests that many of our decisions are not completely new. Instead our brain often relies on what worked for us before and simply repeats the same choice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *