a paradox that baffles scientists

It is one of the cruelest paradoxes of modern neurology: women are diagnosed with the Alzheimer’s disease almost twice as many times as men. And the question in this case was obligatory: why? The first theories They pointed to brain agingpointing out that women’s brains deteriorate faster. But now, everything has changed radically. A published study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Not only does it disprove this hypothesis, but it reveals just the opposite: the brains of healthy men seem to age and shrink faster. But even so, the expected effect is not what we see in the prevalence of the disease. Until now, studies on sex differences in brain aging have produced conflicting results. While some suggested a greater loss of gray matter in men, others pointed to a more pronounced deterioration. The method. To clarify this picture, an international team of scientists has carried out one of the largest analyzes to date. To do this, they analyzed 12,638 longitudinal brain MRIs of 4,726 cognitively healthy participants (2,181 men and 2,545 women). The participants, in this case, aged between 17 and 95, underwent at least two brain scans at an average interval of 3.3 years. This allowed the researchers to observe not a still photo, but actual structural changes in the brain over time, controlling for factors such as head size. Further deterioration. The results, after adjustments, were surprisingly clear: Men experienced greater volume and thickness reduction in more brain regions than women. Men showed a more pronounced decrease in cortical thickness in regions such as the cuneus, lingual gyrus, and parahippocampal. They also showed a greater reduction in surface area in the fusiform and postcentral cortex. For example, the postcentral cortex, responsible for processing sensations such as touch and pain, decreased at an annual rate of 0.20% in men compared to 0.12% in women. Furthermore, in older adults it was seen that men also showed greater contraction in key subcortical structures such as the caudate, putamen and nucleus accumbens. In contrast, women only showed greater surface area reduction in the superior temporal sulcus and greater ventricular expansion in old age. The conclusion. The study’s main conclusion is as compelling as it is puzzling: sex differences in age-related brain decline are “unlikely” to explain why women have a higher prevalence of Alzheimer’s diagnoses. Amy Brodtmann, a researcher at Monash University, agrees, adding that if these changes were responsible for Alzheimer’s, we would expect to see greater deterioration in women in areas crucial for memory, such as the hippocampus, something the study did not find in its main analyses. This forces the scientific community to look for other explanations. The results suggest that the higher prevalence of Alzheimer’s in women is likely due to factors other than brain atrophy due to age. There are nuances. The authors of the study themselves recognize that the disease is a complex phenomenon. One of the limitations of the study is that the sample of participants had higher educational levels than the general population, a known protective factor against Alzheimer’s, which may not be fully representative. Furthermore, the study introduces a fascinating nuance. When the researchers adjusted the data not for chronological age, but for remaining life expectancy, several of the differences disappeared. In this scenario, women even showed a greater decline in hippocampal volume. This could indicate that terminal, near-death brain changes play an important role, but more research is needed to confirm this. Images | Natasha Connell In Xataka | You don’t need more hours in the day. All you need is to understand how the brain works to work better with less.

The industrial paradox that has put worldwide trade to the limit

In Europe, steel costs less than a bottle of water. In the United States, it costs almost double if it comes from abroad. And in China, it produces so much that the world no longer knows what to do with it. According to estimates by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), The excess world capacity will reach 721 million tons within two years. And no one is willing to stop. Steel that is left over. The steel industry lives a perfect storm: global overproduction, state subsidies, fall in internal demand in China and protectionist policies. In a report for the New York Times They have explained it through the Tata Steel plant in Ijmuiden (Netherlands), one of the most advanced in Europe. It manufactures steel on commission for high precision applications. Even so, the company announced 1,600 layoffs this spring, while 18,000 jobs were cut throughout the European Union and nine million tons of capacity were closed in 2024. The background reason, As explained by the same mediumis the avalanche of cheap steel from China, which manufactures more than the rest of the combined world. This overproduction, fueled by government support and lower environmental standards, has flooded global markets, forcing traditionally non -exporting countries such as South Korea and Japan to seek buyers desperately. A scale problem. Steel is much more than an industrial product. As He remembered for the New York environment Atlantic Council researcher Elisabeth Braw, steel is one of the few goods that every country wishes to have “in any circumstance.” Its use ranges from food cans and forks to war tanks and combat planes. However, there is another aspect to take into account: steel pollutes. As We have already explained in Xatakaeach ton produced emits two tons of CO₂, which is equivalent to 7% of global emissions. This makes steel an obstacle to achieving climatic objectives. The paradox is clear: the world needs less steel, but nobody wants to be the first to close ovens. The industry is too big to abandon it, but too inefficient to sustain it as it is. This generates a vicious circle between price drop, minimum margins, lack of investment in clean technologies and greater pollution. The King of Steel. China is not only the largest world producer of steel, but also exerts a disproportionate influence on the global market. It produces more than the rest of the combined planet, largely thanks to a more lax state and environmental regulations system than in the West. According to data from the National Statistics Office cited by BloombergChinese production registered in June the greatest fall in ten months, due to adjustments in the capacity and government pressure to contain internal competition. Even so, more than 60 % of Chinese gatherings are already profitable, a notable leap compared to 30 % of just a year ago, driven by the rebound in demand in sectors such as automotive, machinery and, above all, exports. These exports have continued to grow despite international tariffs and commercial tensions, flooding markets in Europe, Asia and Africa with steel at dumping prices. This dynamic has reduced the margins of Western steel and left them without sufficient resources to invest in low carbon technologies, a problem that the OECD considers a critical obstacle to achieve the climatic objectives. With an still weak internal consumption for the real estate crisis, Beijing seems to bet more and more to export its excess steel as an economic influence tool, which multiplies clashes with the United States and Europe. Another power wants to face. The United States also wants to regain control of its industry. In January 2025, then President Joe Biden blocked the purchase of Us Steel by the Japanese Nippon Steel, claiming national security motifs. The decision, backed even by Donald Trump and by the unions in the sector, generated diplomatic discomfort in Tokyo and tensed the relationship with one of its main strategic allies. Six months later, that same logic translates into terrain conversions. In an article for The Washington Post They have detailed as in Weircon (Western Virginia), a city forged by the steel, the company Form Energy has occupied part of the vacuum left by the closure of the local steelter, hiring more than 400 workers – many of them extrabajadores of the steel – to manufacture energy storage batteries. Although initially driven by federal subsidies, the initiative has even survived the cuts of the Trump administration, and represents an attempt to reindustrialize without fully renouncing the steel legacy. The message is clear: the United States does not want to let your steel, your industrial narrative, fall into foreign hands. And Europe is trapped. In all this triangle, Europe loses ground, trapped Between the Chinese dumping and Tariff hostility of his Atlantic ally. And now, in addition, committed to buying massive amounts of fossil fuels to avoid major sanctions. Being more concrete, Europe has some of the most advanced gaits in the world, such as the Tata Steel plant in Ijmuiden, the Netherlands, which manufactures specialized steel for batteries and high -end cars. However, he is facing a perfect storm: high energy costs, strict environmental standards, unfair competition and political pressure. Despite attempts to modernize – like Tata’s plan to go to hydrogen – the necessary investment is counted in billions. In addition, American tariffs have hindered European exports, just when block countries need income to finance ecological transition. As for the United Kingdom, the government has had to intervene high ovens and subsidize plants to avoid massive closures. And in Germany, European industrial bastion, the approaches face the largest decline in decades, with a 11.6 % drop in production during the first half of 2025, According to The New York Times. Where does steel go? The steel faces a crossroads: between the industrialization of the twentieth century and the ecological demands of the 21st century. The only sustainable output seems to be green steel. Companies such as Swedish SSAB have already begun to produce it through … Read more

We thought to choose among more options would make us freer. The “choice paradox” has made us more unhappy

White or blue shirt, coffee or tea, peach jam or raspberry, car or public transport, meat or fish, cinema or afternoon on a terrace, wine or beer, potato tortilla with or without onion. A study He estimated that we take Between 10,000 and 40,000 decisions a daybut our brain prefers not to make it too complicated. The paradox of the choice is its personal revenge that makes, The more options You have to choose, less satisfactory is the choice. When choosing becomes a problem Currently making decisions has become a Unexpected stress source and discontent. The funny thing is that this phenomenon is produced by having Too many options available to choose. The choice paradox explains why, despite having more alternatives than ever, those decisions are less satisfactory for those who perform them and experience greater anxiety after deciding. This phenomenon, studied and popularized By psychologist Barry Schwartz, he reveals that the abundance of options can be a psychological trap. As he says, “instead of becoming happier, an abundance of options tends to block, frustrate and cause the persistent feeling that it could have chosen better.” This paradox affects all aspects, both in personal life with everyday purchases, and Important decisions in the professional or work environment. A study Of the psychologists Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper showed that consumers were less likely to buy when they had to choose between 24 jam flavors than when they only had 6 flavors. Alternative overload not only complicates the decision, it also reduces satisfaction with the chosen. A study jointly carried out between different US researchers revealed that, although the variety in the election tends to be considered as a positive option, the excess options actually has negative connotations Emotional since it takes the brain to two states. The first state is a Excessive comparison effort of elements that generates a greater mental burden at the time of making the decision, and then moving to a state of anxiety and dissatisfaction at the doubt of whether the most accurate decision has been made. Something that people of success like Jeff Bezos They have had to learn To make your decisions. Maximizers and satisfiers: two styles of deciding A Psychological study Posted in American Psychological Association revealed that people They face decision making with two differentiated styles: maximizers and satisfiers. Maximizers always seek the best possible option, exhaustively comparing all alternatives before deciding. This group tends to experience more dissatisfaction, doubts and repentance, since “the process of looking for the perfect option can be endless and exhausting.” They are easy prey for analysis by analysis: Have so many options to choose from that they are unable to opt for one. On the other hand, the satisfiers are made up of an option that, although not fit in all requirements, meets certain criteria of sufficiency No need to analyze all possibilities. It is simply an option good enough As if to be the right, regardless of whether it is the “perfect.” The Research in this regard They have shown that satisfiers are usually happier and less anxious after making a decision, since they do not become obsessed with what they could have chosen and focus on enjoying their choice, while maximizing “tend to experience less satisfaction and more regret,” the authors of those investigations point out. Strategies to choose better The directors of large corporations, whose decisions depends on the future of thousands of employees and the money of their investors, must take into account this paradox when making their decisions. To avoid falling into the choice paradox trap, there are some strategies recommended by psychology experts. One of the most effective is to limit the number of options to considerfocusing only on those that really meet our personal needs or values. For example, it is one of the reasons that led Mark Zuckerberg to reduce the choice of your costumeslimited to a gray shirt and blue roofs. As Barry Schwartz points out, “by reducing options and focusing on what really matters, we can make more satisfactory decisions and live with less anxiety. “ Another useful strategy is to accept that it is not always possible to find the perfect option and that, in many cases, “good enough” is more than enough. Adopt a satisfactory mentality allows you to take most agile decisions and enjoy more about the result. This strategy is especially relevant in the business world, since dedicating too much time to make a decision It can lead to stop the company’s progress and let the competition take advantage. He world of technology And video games are full of examples of such decisions in which the decision has been made to launch a product that is already good enough, even if it is not perfect. The iPhone, without going any further, is one of them. In Xataka | Studying from memory seems good idea until you forget it. The Feynman method appeals to your understanding not to your memory Image | Unspash (Vladislav Babieko, Holigil 27, Victoriano Izquierdo)

The paradox that 150,000 million euros will try to solve

Europe has announced An investment of 150,000 million euros in AI for the next five years, in an attempt not to be left behind the United States and China. The plan, the EU AI Champions Initiativeit is fixed to five years and is behind twenty investors. The announcement comes In the middle of AI in Pariswhere European leaders are showing a radical change in their speech on the regulation of the sector. The unexpected turn. The EU, pioneer to regulate the AI ​​with its Law of AI almost a year agonow it seems to regret having been too restrictive. President Macron has gone from Adalid of the regulation to defender of a more competitive European AI, criticizing the “punitive” norms that could stop the development of the sector. The advance of Mistralmacron countryman, it can be a good reason for this change of posture. France will invest additional 109,000 million euros. Between the lines. The European paradox in AI is quite evident: According to EU startupsnine of the ten most used open source AI models are European … … But no European company is among the giants of the sector, almost monopolized by the United States. Millionaire investment seeks to monetize that talent before it is late. That is, this is a macroinversion that does not only prolong development, but also monetize the existing one, build commercial and profitable products for the models already launched. The context. The pressure increases on several fronts: China has surprised the world and punch on the table with Deepseekdemonstrating that you can compete with less resources, and very well. The great American technology have approached the horizon of the AGI to one or two years seen. European regulation It could be born obsolete In a world that changes a lot from one quarter to another. Deepen. The European Plan represents a paradigm shift: from leader in regulation to actor that seeks not to be left behind. The question is if 150,000 million and a spin in the speech will be enough to compete in a race where others have been advantage for years. And there is another risk: that Europe, in its hurry to recover lost time, ends up abandoning the ethical principles that have characterized it so far, without achieving the objective of creating technological giants capable of competing with the United States and China. That is: lose your identity in bucket. In Xataka | You are likely to trust the AI ​​of the future than the current ones. The reason: they are showing us how they think Outstanding image | Ledingus with Midjourney

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.