Just this week, after an excruciatingly lengthly day I flipped on my TV, little did I know that MTV would pop up. The scene that appeared was laden with f-bombs(bleeped out) and other vulgarities, I changed the channel so fast I can hardly remember what the TV show was and what the individuals were actually doing. What I do remember clearly is how shocked I was after turning on the TV, all I wanted to do was watch the news or maybe a lighthearted movie. This got me thinking, how many times have children been in this same scenario after a parent or older family member didn’t change the channel? Numerous studies have found correlations between aggressive behavior and violence witnessed on the TV screen, so how could a parent not put on parental controls or take measures to avoid their children’s exposure to this material? Well, according to a study released just two days ago in the Pediatrics Journal, parents have become desensitized to what they see on TV.

My initial thought was, of course this had to be the answer to why children come into contact with material meant for adults, but as always further examination was needed before jumping to such conclusions. The study, conducted on 1,000 parents with children 6 to 18, had the participants successively watch various movie scenes that included violence and sex, according to Variety. As the participants watched more and more scenes they became more and more “desensitized.” The results found came about from asking parents how they would rate a movie after each clip,“after the first movie clip, respondents thought the minimum age to see a movie with that kind of violent content should be 16.9 years old on average and 17.2 years old for sexual content. After watching the sixth and final scene, parents grew more lenient, deeming 13.9 years acceptable for violent films and 14 years old for sexual ones.” The results stated above clearly show a disparity in age requirements after successive watching of scenes.

Courtesy of: http://www.topics-mag.com/edition02/tv-violence-yuko.htm

I see the results of this study as very credible, the sample size was large, bias within the study seems non existent, and it was completed in a timetable appropriate for such research. The study itself claims none of the authors had potential conflicts of interest or financial stake within the study. It is also imperative to note reverse causation can be ruled out, there is a clear cause and effect, not a correlation in the study. Due to chance I can’t definitively say that parents desensitization contributes to children’s access to disturbing material, but it surely looks like a possibility.

Sources:

http://www.apa.org/pi/prevent-violence/resources/tv-violence.aspx

https://www.apa.org/pi/prevent-violence/resources/violence-youth.pdf

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/10/20/study-parents-are-desensitized-to-sex-and-violence-in-film/

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/parents-desensitized-to-sex-and-violence-in-movies-study-finds-1201333956/

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/10/15/peds.2014-2803.full.pdf+html

1- http://variety.com/2014/film/news/parents-desensitized-to-sex-and-violence-in-movies-study-finds-1201333956/

In sixth grade my English teacher would hand out gum before each quiz we took, and tell us that it would help us focus. I believed her considering she was older and smarter, and ever since 6^th grade English I have chewed a piece of mint gum during almost every quiz, test or exam I’ve taken, but does gum actually help you focus?

In a study done at St. Lawrence University in 2011, by a team of psychologist, they took 159 students and split them into 3 groups.  Sugar free gum chewers, sugar added gum chewers, and non-gum chewers.  They then put the students through a series of 6 cognitive tests and the results found that chewing gum lead to better performance in 5 of the 6 tests (WIRED.com).  The sixth test was a verbal fluency test in which the subjects were asked to name as many animals as they could.   Also concluded from the results was that sugar had no effect on how the subjects preformed.

However it was found that this advantage while chewing gum only lasts around 15 to 20 minutes and then it disappears.  Researchers attributed the success to arousal caused by the gum, which increases heart rate, blood pressure, and cerebral blood flow (NBC News).  However the exact cause is truly unknown and is still up in the air.  It will require more studies in order to determine an exact cause.

This experiment run at St. Lawrence however does seem to have flaws such as the control of outside factors, such as the students amount of sleep the night before or whether they ate before the experiment.  These outside factors could have played a role in the results.  We also cannot rule out chance.  But looking at the experiments results I believe we can assume until further tested that gum did have an effect, and a good one, even if only for a short period of time.

So with the semester about halfway done, and exams plentiful, purchase a pack of your favorite gum and get chewing during your next exam.  The 20 minutes of focus can only better impact your grade plus gum tastes good!  I know I will be keeping my tradition of chewing minty gum for each exam going and I believe it helps and will continue to believe this until experiments prove me otherwise.

Work Cited:

Lehrer, Jonah. “The Cognitive Benefits Of Chewing Gum | WIRED.”Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 27 Nov. 0011. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

Onyper, Serge. “Commentary: Chewing Gum May Improve Test Scores – NBC News.” NBC News. NBC, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2014

Have you ever had that moment when you see another person, and your heart starts to immediately beat faster, your hands become clammy, your throat suddenly can not form words, or even breathe for that matter? It’s the feeling of love at first sight. You feel it from the tip of your body all the way to your toes, but most importantly, in your heart. Or do you?

The feeling of love is not exactly an act of the heart. Although, it definitely seems like it to most people, especially when it involves having your “heart broken” by love. Even on holidays honoring love, there are hearts involved. However, the brain is the major organ at use when the feeling of love is endured.  According to “The Science of Love”, there are three different stages of love, and all include major actions from the brain.

The first stage of love is lust. Lust is defined as a very strong sexual yearning for someone. This feeling is the cause of sex hormones such as testosterone and estrogen being released. The brain recognizes this strong sexual desire, and releases these specific hormones so that the feeling can actually be recognized and felt.

The next stage of love is attraction. Attraction, being similar to lust, performs similar actions. Neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin are released, and cling onto the synaptic cleft. The release of these neurotransmitters creates a feeling of temporary exuberance and insanity. Love, can quite possibly be described as just that; happiness with a touch of insanity.

Finally, attachment is the final stage of love. Important in this stage are two hormones that are released by the nervous system called oxytocin and vasopressin. Oxytocin is released by both partners sex organs while in orgasm. This creates a strong type of bond between partners. Vasopressin also has been proven to play a major role in the feeling of long term commitment.

All in all, the next time you fall in love; thank your brain, and not your heart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotransmitter

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

Everyone is scared of something. For me, I am terrified of spiders. I was always fearful of spiders as a young girl, but the fearfulness has only been getting stronger over the past several years. I have officially diagnosed myself with arachnophobia. The good thing about arachnophobia is it is one of the most common phobias around the world. So, why exactly are we afraid of spiders? And is there a way to control the fear of spiders?

By the way, I basically cried while thinking and posting pictures of spiders on this blog.

According to the American Psychiatric Association,  phobias in general influence more than one in ten people in the United States. Approximately 40 percent of the phobias reported are related to bugs, spiders, mice, and bats. Chris Buddle states, “Psychologists believe that one reason why people fear spiders is because of some direct experience with the arachnids instilled that fear in them.”

Graham Davey conducted a study in 1991 to further understand our deep fear of spiders. He took 18 undergraduate students and ask them about their fear of spiders. 75 percent of the students who were interviewed said that they were at least a little bit terrified, if not severely scared of spiders. Of the people asked, most of the individuals who were scared of spiders were females. Researchers have been trying to find a genetic link to the fear of spiders involved in families, but no such strong links have been made between this theory. However, Davey declared that the actual physical appearance of spiders may be the scariest thing to human beings rather than actually being bitten: “Animal fears may represent a functionally distinct set of adaptive responses which have been selected for during the evolutionary history of the human species.”

Numerous other scientists criticized Davey’s work because a “spider-trauma” event could have happened to someone during childhood, and these memories tend to never really vanish. Peter Muris conducted a study in 1997 at the University of Maastricht. He gave a list to a number of students that had many things that adolescents are terrified of. Most kids checked off things like getting hit by a vehicle, bombs, or fires. However, when the kids were given the option to write down what their biggest fear was, both boys and girls reported their biggest fear was spiders. Contrasting to Davey’s work, Muris discovered that children who were most fearful of spiders was due to a particular event that involved spiders.

To ensure that conditioning is the primary reason for the fear of spiders, scientists conducted another study to make sure genetic factors did not play a role. John Hettema at the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics conducted a study in 2003. Hettema conducted twin studies to ensure genetics were not a factor in why we are so afraid of spiders. Hettema recorded responses to of twins to pictures of spiders/snakes compared pictures of shapes (circles and triangles). The results showed that genetic affects are “substantial”, meaning the fear of spiders is hereditary. In conclusion, this study showed that you do not have to experience a specific spider-related incident to actually become afraid of spiders.

So, is there anything to do to lessen this fear? A 2013 study was conducted by Paul Siegel from the State University of New York. They conducted an experiment in which they divided the people into “phobic” and “non-phobic” groups determined by results from arachnophobia tests.  The tests included pictures of spiders and flowers, but each person was exposed to these images for a short time. The results displayed that the images had an impact on them subconsciously. When the spider tests were experimented on both of the groups for a second time, those who had once feared spiders were less afraid. There have been no other significant studies in reducing the severity of arachnophobia, so for now, scientists have stuck to the notion that sharing images of spiders could potentially help reduce the fear of spiders.

Overall, I believe that both Davey’s and Hettema’s studies have truth in them. I believe that you will be more scared of spiders if you experience an incident that involved spiders as an adolescent. For example, I had an incident where a giant hairy spider jumped onto my head when I was walking with some of my friends. I will never forget this event and because it is still engraved in my mind, I am that more scared of spiders. I also believe that genetics have a role in arachnophobia as well. If your parent has a severe fear of spiders, I think there is a greater likelihood of you developing a fear of spiders because you are in an environment centered around this particular fear.

Sources:

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/why-are-we-afraid-spiders

http://phobias.about.com/od/introductiontophobias/a/arachnophobia.htm

There are a lot of myths involving playing music while working. Some say it helps, others say its hurts, while still others think that classical music helps developing brains. For a kid in college, what is the best way to go about listening to music while doing work?

A 2010 study from Applied Cognitive Pyschology sought an answer to this question. The study was fairly small with 25 undergraduate students ranging from 18-30 years old. They were asked whether they enjoyed heavy metal music, and if they did they were not asked to be subjects in the test. This is because there were five categories of music or sound that the subjects had to listen to while attempting to memorize a list in five minutes then recall it in a 20 second span. The five categories were quiet, changing-state speech (random numbers from 1-9), steady-state speech (repetition of the number ‘3’), likable music (which the subjects provided for themselves), and dislikable music (a heavy metal song, same one for each subject). The accuracy of memory was measured based on how well the people in the study could recall the lists they had looked at for five minutes.

The study found that the subjects, based on how they rated working with each of the five categories of sound, preferred the music they chose to work with. However, the results from the study proved that a quiet setting is the most productive for the best results on the memory game, and the liked music had as poor results as the disliked heavy metal music. Therefore, even though the subject wanted to listen to the music they requested, it actually did not help them in the study. This suggests that listening to music is less productive than working in quiet settings. However, the study was very small and the age range of 18-30 probably cannot be generalized for all age groups.

What about the good effects of music? What about the Mozart effect that suggests classical music improves certain functions of the brain? This article from the Journal of the Royal Society on Medicine explains that in the past there was one controversial study in 1993 that after listening to Mozart for 10 minutes on the piano subjects’ IQs rose by an average of 8-9 points for a duration of 10-15 minutes. However, these unprecedented results still caused other scientists to try to refute this conclusion. Jenkins, the author of this article, looks at other researchers to discover a few, but not all who have attempted, came up with the same results. The music does have an effect on the spatial recognition of the brain, but the heightened intelligence does not have permanent effects but instead only works for 12 minutes on average. Therefore, listening to Mozart while doing math homework may or may not help.

These two pieces I have reviewed both seem to suggest that since the topic is still so up in the air about the benefits (whether from a small study or inconclusive results on the Mozart effect), I would suggest working in silence in order to prevent distractions.

Do you find you ever find yourself distracted by Facebook while you should be doing your school work? How many hours do you think you end up spending on Facebook a day? 30 minutes? 2 hours? Afraid to know? Many people, especially college students, use Facebook as a way to communicate with friends and keep others updated about their lives. However, Facebook is doing a lot more than helping us keep in touch with an old friend.

According to Time Magazine, the average college student spends 106 minutes on Facebook a day! However, something more disturbing is what that time correlates with.  A recent study has found that for every additional 1.5 hours spent above the average 106 minutes on the site, your GPA will drop .12 points.  One theory the study suggests is that Facebook distracts us from the school work that we have to do, leading to poorer grades.  However, some scientists disagree with the explanation. For example, Charlie Osburn argues that students who use Facebook more frequently might already be part of a lower GPA group.

Although there is a negative relationship between GPA and extensive use of Facebook, the study does not prove that one causes the other.  This is a perfect example of the fact that correlation does not always equal causation.  I have come up with my own theory after reading the study thoroughly.  I believe that if we weren’t using Facebook to distract us from our school work, we would be using something else to distract us.  Therefore, I think it is us using Facebook as a distraction, not so much as Facebook distracting us.

The more I thought about this study, the more I realized there could be a third variable: Facebook’s affect on our intelligence. Could it be that the more we use Facebook, the less intelligence we become; hence, our GPA decreases?  The results surprised me.  According to a study conducted by Dr. Tracy Alloway, a psychologist from the University of Stirling in Scotland, Facebook use actually increases intelligence.  Tracy has spent a immense amount of time throughout her scientific career studying the working memory.  She explains that the working memory allows people to retain and use information, which is “a far more significant measure of the well-being and intelligence of humanity than, say, IQ”.  Her study found that Facebook, unlike many other social media sites, enhances the working memory.  This is due to the fact that Facebook users have to keep up with all of the friends they have on the site.

So, it can be concluded that Facebook isn’t all that bad for us.  Although it may lower our GPA for unknown reasons, it will increase our intelligence! I am excited to follow up on this in the future to see if more studies have been conducted, but for now, I’ll stick with my own theory of why Facebook lowers GPA.

Kristen Robertson

Resources:

http://www.cnet.com/news/psychologist-facebook-makes-you-smarter-twitter-makes-you-dumber/

http://tracyalloway.com/journal-articles/

Number of the Day: 0.12

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/facebook-use-lowers-gpa-over-prolonged-sessions/13577

There’s no doubt about it, Penn State students love squirrels. The energetic little creatures are our dogs and cats of the university. Every day as I walk across Old Main I can’t help but notice that the squirrels at PSU are very, very different from the ones at my house. Now I live in the middle of Nowhere, Pennsylvania on about 12 acres of land so I have seen my fair share of squirrels. The second they see you they run away. However, our furry friends here at PSU do the complete opposite, sometimes even coming closer instead of backing away. I was so intrigued by this I decided to find out, why are Penn State squirrels so friendly?

Bill Bateman, an ecologist at Curtin University in Australia, also wondered the same thing when his family visited New York. Bateman was intrigued because even though the squirrels, the gray squirrel in this case, lived in the city they still tried their best to avoid people. He said every time he went to New York, he found himself watching and observing the squirrels’ interaction with people. He noticed that squirrels would ignore people walking by, but would run from dogs, toddlers, and other things that appeared threatening. As a result, he decided to test the idea.

The hypothesis for his experiment was that squirrels use detailed cues from people to know when to run and when to keep eating. Bateman believes that squirrels know what behaviors are normal for people and what behaviors are not normal. He believed that a squirrel would only be likely to run when a person broke the pattern or when someone would look at the squirrel.

To conduct the experiment, Bateman would spend each morning looking for squirrels. Once he saw one, he had four different ways of approaching the squirrel. The first was on the sidewalk, but not looking directly at the squirrel, the second was on the sidewalk but staring at the squirrel, the third was leaving the sidewalk but not looking at the squirrel, and the fourth was leaving the sidewalk and looking directly at the squirrel. Every time Bateman approached the squirrel he kept a slow walking pace and to measure how close he got he would drop colored pen lids. When he was done, he could measure the path the caps marked. He also had a timer running to see how long it would take before the squirrel ran.

Bateman published his results in the Journal of Zoology and found that squirrels can tell if a human is looking at them or behaves in an unusual way. He said squirrels were 40 percent more likely to run if he focused his attention on them and 90 percent of the time the squirrels ran away if he left the sidewalk and stared as he moved across the grass. He concluded that the squirrels don’t get scared by humans all the time, but they always pay very close attention to people’s movements.

While Bateman’s tests were conclusive and appear to be pretty accurate to what I witness on a daily basis, there are multiple problems with his tests. The first is he only tested in on squirrels in Manhattan and only on the gray squirrel. Another problem is the issue of a confounding variable. The squirrels could have been running away because of Bateman dropping the caps and creating an unusual noise. Which also leads to the issue of the caps bouncing around when dropped which could create a problem with the measurements. Overall, Bateman’s tests were conducted poorly, despite his positive results.

Our furry friends here at Penn State do tend to run when we start to get too close or begin behaving differently. Could it be because they know our every day actions? Why not test it yourself and play squirrel tag someday or leave a comment if you’ve noticed the same thing!

Sources:

https://student.societyforscience.org/blog/eureka-lab/stalking-squirrels-science

Recently in class I have noticed that something kept popping up. The topic of sugar and the negative effects that it tends to have. For example, in  class there was a discussion on whether or not high sugar filled soft drinks cause weight gain. It was such a hot topic that government officials were pushing to ban extra large soft drinks from being put on sale in an effort to decrease obesity.  Essentially in the end we found out that the more sugary drinks consumed the greater chance there was of weight gain. Our discussion on high amounts of sugar didn’t stop there for it came up again on Test 2 when Dr.Bidwell conducted a study showcasing the effects working out had on the negative effects of consuming the sugary soda.

As all things in life with the negatives come some positives. There are always two sides. In this case I would like to present the idea that some things that are sugary can have a  positive effect on certain people. Believe it or not eating something high in sugar such as chocolate can actually have a positive effect. To some eating a chocolate bar is unhealthy and shunned upon amongst many. But I recently learned that this sugary food product actually does have a positive affect.

While on an online medical journal by NYU, I came across a study that proved my point even more. ” A controlled study of 20 males with mild hypertension compared the effects of 100 g daily of a flavonol-rich dark chocolate as compared to a flavonol-free white chocolate. Results appeared to indicate that the dark chocolate produced improvements in blood pressure. A subsequent study of similar design, this one enrolling 44 people with mild hypertension, found that a much lower dose of dark chocolate (6.3 g daily), also significantly reduced blood pressure levels.<http://www.med.nyu.edu/content?ChunkIID=144581#ref8>. Going along with the commonly known bias we have with sugar, chocolate also contains a fat by the name of stearic acid. While we usually think saturated fats are bad for us, this acid has cardiovascular-preventive benefits.

In some cases some may view my blog and still believe that sugar is no good for you  and you must stay away from it. That is not always necessarily the case. While I will agree abundant amounts of sugar is unhealthy I must also say that it all has to do with using it in moderation. While chocolate is good for the heart if you eat 76 bars a day you might see an increase in your BMI. We have to get away from the stereotype of all sugars being bad.

We all know the notion of “eat your fruits and veggies.” Did you know that the fruits such as pineapples are high in sugar as well(I am also aware that these are natural sugars,but none the less they are sugars.)

Branching off a bit far now I can think of another instance when sugar isn’t that bad of thing. Running sugar back in high school my track coach would always give the athletes these gatorade chews that were high in sugar to enhance our performance to give us a sugar high. While when it comes to healthy the post crash might’ve not been beneficial but our overall athletic performance was enhanced. Times of the athletes approved allowing some to qualify for the state competition , all due to the little “infamous” sugar high.

In the comments, it would be cool to see how you guys view sugar in your everyday lives.

http://www.med.nyu.edu/content?ChunkIID=144581#ref8

http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/truth-about-sugar

Is sugar bad? Why I say NO!

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmicalc.htm

I’ve always been amused with eye color and how some people eyes are so blue or dark brown etc. In biology you probably learned that it’s because of either having one dominant trait or two recessive traits from your parents. It actually turns out that there are dozen of genes that control eye color which leads to the question of how are there just blue, green, brown and hazel eyes. Your eye color is determined by two factors how much dark pigment you have in your iris and the actual structural make up of your iris. Therefore, if you have a lot of melanin (the dark pigment), your eyes will be dark brown or black. However, for blue eyes the story is completely different. There isn’t one pigment of blue in someone with blue eyes meanings there’s no melatonin in the front part of your iris. It’s just how light is scattered just like the sky isn’t actually blue, it just appears that way because of how light is scattered from the Sun.

Brown eyes are the most common eye color while blue and green are the least common with surprisingly only 2% of the population having them.

Another question that is asked quite often is how your eyes change color after birth. The answer to this is based on the same way you get your initial eye color. As your eyes develop your melatonin levels become more level, your eye color is going to change with them. Similarly, as your body goes through changes such as puberty or pregnancy, your eyes can also change color  because of structural changes in the iris (which is the other factor of eye color).

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/26/1953782_how-do-genes-pick-eye-color.html?rh=1

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask29

Today, we use social media for many purposes. To get news and information, keep up with old and new friends, and get a sense of culture through a personalization of your profile. However, can we use social media and its patterns in useful ways, to get a sense of what our social community is about? Thanks to a team of University of Pennsylvania scientists, we have begun to tackle this issue. Using Twitter, the scientists(led by psychological scientist Johannes Eichstaedt and information scientist Hansen Schwartz) questioned if a large amount of tweets could be valuable public information, specifically in the area of heart disease. The scientists at Penn used the new field of digital epidemiology, which is using social media to see the psychological traits(and therefore, health risks) of large communities. They took tweets that used key-words of emotion, both positive and negative(such as aggression, fatigue, hope and opportunity), and then found a correlation between these tweets and the tweets’ United States counties of origin. What they found is that negative emotions found in tweets correlated to heart disease significantly, and Twitter was a better indicator of heart disease mortality than other risk factors, like smoking and high blood pressure. It is truly a new type of way to measure a community’s’ health by measuring the emotional state of people using Twitter. Twitter is generally a place for people to vent frustration, but at the same time celebrate accomplishment. Using the balance of these two to find an emotional center of peoples’ origins can be now used to find actual physical diseases. If this process can be perfected, there is a chance for a cheaper and easier method to detect diseases such as heart disease, saving the medical world an obscene amount of money. This money can be spent in other ways, such as learning cures for diseases we don’t have yet. It is a tremendous process, all stemming from somebody picking up the phone and tweeting.

Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wray-herbert/troubled-hearts—-in-140_b_6016860.html?utm_hp_ref=science

     We have all seen movies or been in a situation where a girl starts to cry and a guy awkwardly tries to console her, but is there more to the story than the guy just not knowing how to handle the situation? According to many studies, guys a sexually turned off when girls cry. In the double blind experiment, males either smelled women’s fresh tears or saline. The scientists found that neither liquid had a discernible odor to men. After smelling the liquid, the men were then shown images of woman not involved in the study.

What was found was that men who had smelled the real tears of women were less sexually aroused than men who only smelled the saline. The scientists based how aroused the men were by their body temperature, heart levels, testosterone levels, ect. The men who smelled the real woman tears also said that they felt less aroused then the men who smelled saline. It was also found that men who smelled the real tears had less brain activity in the section of the brain linked to sexual arousal.

What really surprised me about this study was that it was the smell of tears that caused the men to be turned off sexually. I never would have thought that the smell of tears is what cause men to go in to such a panic. I thought men didn’t like girls crying because they didn’t know what to do to make her feel better, not being they were sexually turned off because of the smell. I also thought maybe they didn’t like girls crying because it made them look unattractive. These could also be other facts that could be further explored in future studies. Overall, I think the study was conducted very well but I think the details of the studies could have been given with more details (ex: how many guys were tested, what age group, etc.).

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/01/110106-womens-tears-sex-drive-turn-off-sexual-health-arousal-men-science/

Would it be different if a woman smelt a guys tears?

     For anyone who has watched soccer at all, you have probably seen an amazing goal where the ball looked like it was going to the bottom left corner of the goal but then all of a sudden changes and scores in the top right hand corner. As a soccer player, I found myself wondering if the soccer ball itself has anything to do with this . In my research, I found that how many panels the soccer ball has on it plays a larger role in how the ball glides through the air than we think. Something else that also plays a part in where the soccer ball goes is whether it was glued or stitched together.

Soccer balls used to have 32 panels stitched together, but the soccer balls that were used in the World Cup this summer in Brazil only had 6 panels and were glued together. Since this new soccer balls are getting increasingly smoother, it increases the drag causing it to dip and curve less often at high speeds. The ball is also designed with little nubs to help cut down on the “knuckling effect.”

The effects of the direction of the soccer ball were different though depending on whether it was kicked on the soccer field in Brazil or in a wind tunnel. In a study done by Sungchan Hong and his colleagues at the University of Tsukuba, they found that a soccer ball traveling through a wind tunnel was unaffected by how many panels it had or whether it was stitched or glued together. What effected the ball more was whether or not it was smooth. Soccer balls that were smooth flew more unpredictably through the air than soccer balls with nubs.

As pointed out earlier in my blog, there is a large difference between a soccer ball getting kicked in a wind tunnel and on an actual soccer field and I think this is the largest flaw in this study. Conditions out on a soccer field are constantly changing, unlike in a wind tunnel where they are kept at a constant humidity, speed, ect. It seems to me that their study was too controlled. Constant changes on the soccer field change how accurate the ball is while in the air. So when you watch a pass or shot on goal in soccer, it is hard to tell whether it was the wind blowing or how the soccer ball was constructed. But what also is not taken in to account in this study was how the soccer player kicked the ball. Some soccer players just have the amazing ability to spin the ball in ways people cant even imagine, and no kick is ever the same. So there is no way this experiment could have taken this variable in to account causing the results to be inconclusive.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140529-world-cup-soccer-brazuca-physics-jabulani-sports/

“It’s a bit like walking down a long dark corridor never knowing when the light will go on.” -Neil Lennon

“Depression is a prison where you are both the suffering prisoner and the cruel jailer.” -Dorothy Rowe

There are few diseases that suck the soul out of a person like depression. It is a mood disorder which causes a lack of emotion and a loss of interest in life. Depression is not a sign of a “weak” personality, and it is not something one can simply “snap out” of. People with depression have trouble finding the motivation to do many day-to-day activities, and often feel like life is not worth living. In its most extreme form, depression can drive one to commit suicide.

The reason for this post is articles like this one, which describes depression as the new “trendy illness.” If you have not seen this article before, I suggest standing near a wall while reading, so you can hit your head against it. The article goes on to describe how the middle-class women saying they are depressed should “get a grip,” and that the poor never suffer from it. It also states that it is a relatively new condition, and that her “mother’s generation never dealt with it.” There is a lot of misinformation and confusion surrounding this mental disorder, and it has caused a great deal of harm to those who actually suffer from it.

Depression has been one of the toughest illnesses to subdue. Only one-third of people with major depression will be cured after a single round of treatment. For the majority of people, medicine still does not work. Currently, the best cure is a regular exercise program, which can cure people with mild depression and help improve those with moderate or severe depression. The biggest problem with this method is that those who are depressed have trouble finding the motivation to do much of anything, including exercise. Maintaining a regular exercise program is nearly impossible for most with depression.

For those of you who think you have depression, help is near, and people want to help you. Learning more about your disease is a great first step towards recovery, as well as understanding that depression can affect anybody, regardless of age or socioeconomic status. Therapy, medicine, diet, and exercise can always be a great help when trying to cure depression.

If you believe a friend or family member has depression, remind them that you are there for them. In addition, point them in the direction of additional helpful resources, such as therapists and doctors. Once again, depression is not a weakness and there is nothing wrong with seeking help for it. My grandfather suffered from depression and has since recovered, and my sister is currently suffering from it. It is a very real disease that is one of the most difficult to overcome.

Suicide Hotline: 1-800-784-2433

Texting: Text ANSWER to 839863

The first thing that comes to my mind when I see a friend or a relative upset is to embrace them and give them a hug. I never really thought why that’s my immediate instinct or as to why my intuition leads me to do it. That made me begin to wonder if hugs actually make the person feel better and give them happiness..

“Happiness” is  known to come from the neurotransmitter serotonin. Serotonin can be found in the central nervous systems, the gastrointestinal tract, and platelets of animals and humans. It is known to be the main contributor of feelings of well-being; therefore, it acquired the name “the happiness hormone.” People diagnosed with depression are known to have less levels of serotonin. My question is, do hugs really increase a person’s level of serotonin? Based on research, yes, hugging does increase one’s levels of serotonin.

A study found one-third of people receive no hugs on a daily basis and that 75% wanted more hugs. Many studies have been conducted that hugging increases self-esteem, enhances relationships, and decreases loneliness. So in conclusion, based on studies hugging can make you an all around better person; however, I believe there are many third variables in these studies that would change the overall outcome. Was the person being hugged a significant other, family member, close friend, acquaintance, or stranger to the hugger? I know personally that if a significant other, family member, or close friend would hug me when I wasn’t having a good day it would most definitely make me feel a little bit better at least for a few seconds, but if the person was an acquaintance or stranger I probably wouldn’t feel any better, but most likely a little freaked out. Therefore, many third variables come into play with the conclusion that hugs makes everyone feel better, but this will not stop me from hugging a family member or friend when they’re having a bad day.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/02/06/hugging.aspx

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Serotonin.html

http://happinessweekly.org/2013/01/19/fun-facts-about-hugging/

When I am walking to and from class every day, I often get irritated by the number of people who choose to drag themselves down the sidewalk at a snail’s pace. Now, I can take comfort in knowing that they will potentially face health consequences for it in the future.

Walking is the most popular form of physical activity in America, with 62% of the population taking at least one 10-minute walk per week. It is one of the most basic forms of exercise, and something almost everyone does in some form during their day. However, some people are getting more benefits out of it than others. A study done by Paul Williams of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory showed that there is a correlation between the speed that people walk and how early they die. Walking with a brisk pace has significant health benefits and can extend longevity over those who walk at a relaxed pace. This study also shows that slower walkers are at higher risk of heart disease and dementia later in life.

Another study from the University of Pittsburgh confirmed these results, stating that there is a correlation between how fast people walk and how long they live. The researchers found that each increase in gait speed of .1 meters/second correlated with a 12% decrease in the risk of death. The reason behind this is that walking speed reflects vitality, as it involves so many different organs and systems of the body.

With many different studies confirming the same result, it is difficult to remain skeptical as to whether walking fast is that much healthier than walking slow. However, as soon as that question is answered, another rises– walking or running?

Different studies will give different answers. The Daily Mail states that walking is as good for you as running, and will equally reduce the risk of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes. They re-confirmed the importance of walking at a brisk pace, and state that the total energy used is more important than the intensity of the workout.

On the other hand, the New York Times prefers running to walking, as runners are much more likely to maintain a healthy weight, even if energy expenditure is around the same. This is due to runners being more able to control their appetite and eat healthier diets, for reasons that are still unclear.

My theory is that people who start walking are typically unhealthier than those who start running, and the NY Times has skewed data because of it. Reverse causation comes into play here, as people who are unhealthy are more likely to walk, rather than the other way round. Not many severely obese people will start jogging as soon as they start exercising.

In the debate of walking at a normal pace against walking at a brisk pace, we have a clear winner. Walking quickly has numerous health benefits that can be obviously seen and have been studied repeatedly. However, the debate between walking and running continues, as both sides have convincing data to back them. At the end of the day, both are fantastic for the body, and the benefits of one over the other are minimal.

It’s a common phrase, “cats always land on their feet.” It always seems that if a cat falls or is dropped, they perfectly correct themselves midair to land on their feet and be unscathed by the fall. I’ve been very curious since I was younger why this happens and how they’re able to do it. Have they mastered defying physics or are they just magical creatures?

I’ve grown up with multiple cats and have never seen one, no matter when falling or dropped, to correct themselves in the air and land on their feet. Animal Planet says that cats’ bodies reflexively corrects itself so its feet hit the ground first. So how are their bodies able to do this while other species can’t?

Animal Planet attributes this to their body mechanics. Cats’ bodies recognize where their feet are and adjust accordingly, using their heads as the anchor that starts the adjustment. The amazing thing about cats that allow their body to adjust midair are their spines. Without their spines being able to do what they do, cats would not be able to adjust in the air and land on their feet.

The backbones of cats are very flexible, allowing them to create extra movement when correcting midair. They also have 30 vertebrae, which allows their spines to be more flexible and make their bodies more nimble. Compare that to humans who have just 24 vertebrae in their spines. Their spines physically allow them to correct themselves when falling, but is it a natural inborn skill or is it taught to them? Animal Planet says its an inborn skill with cats being able to correct their falls by the age of 6 weeks old.

Cats are amazing animals and it seems like they are both defying physics and in a way magical.

Sources:

http://www.animalplanet.com/pets/why-do-cats-land-on-their-feet.htm

When I go into a restaurant and I see that the calories and nutrition facts are posted on the menu, it makes me think twice about what I order. But, if those facts are not there it usually will not cross my mind. I have never looked up nutrition facts about a restaurant online, even though they are required to post them. With obesity becoming such a huge problem, calorie intake and nutritional facts are definitely something that people should be considering when making choices about what to eat. Christina A. Roberto, MS, Henry Agnew, and Kelly D. Brownell, PhD did an observational study on this.

The study included four chain restaurants: Starbucks, McDonald’s, Burger King, and Au Bon Pain. These four places were required to provide nutrition facts somehow in their restaurant and the scientists would observe how many actually looked at the facts and used them to make a decision about what to order. The scientists said, “We hypothesized that a negligible percentage of consumers would access this information” (Agnew, Brownell, Roberto). They would observe everyone who came into the restaurant (besides children who didn’t apply) during 1.5 hour intervals and mark down anyone who looked at the nutrition facts. They observed 2 different locations for each restaurant in both an urban and suburban area.

In McDonald’s and Burger King the facts were put on a wall poster that people had to turn and look at. Starbucks provided nutrition pamphlets, and one of the McDonalds did as well. The facts at Au Bon Pain were on a computer in the restaurant that customers had to touch the screen to see. Customers were marks down if they turned to read the posters, if they picked up a pamphlet, or if they touched the computer screen. A total of 45 intervals were observed with 4,311 customers. This was a blind experiment because the customers did not know they were being observed.

The results showed that out of 1,501 customers in McDonald’s, 1 woman and 1 man accessed the nutrition facts before ordering, and 1 woman and 1 man accessed the facts after ordering. In Burger King, out of 482 customers, 1 woman an 2 men looked at the poster. Out of 1,671 customers in Au Bon Pain 1 woman accessed the information. In Starbucks, not one of the 657 people observed looked at the information. The scientists concluded that if nutrition facts are provided, they must be easily visible and accessible such as on a big menu board that people are already looking at.

Since this study was observational, we cannot definitively rule out the options of third variables and chance, but with only 6 people out of 4,311, it seems very likely that the information would be correct. The results are consistent with the hypothesis and the people who did look at the nutrition facts seemed to be the anecdotes. Posting the nutrition facts did not cause the customers to look at them. The customers could have already looked up the nutrition facts online and did not need to see them again, but there is no way to tell that. Most of the time people are not extremely concerned with nutrition facts in a fast food restaurant because they already know it’s unhealthy. Either it is a once in a while type thing, they are on a tight budget, or they just do not care. With that being said, it is still better to know what you are putting into your body. In conclusion, if people are going to look at nutrition facts they need to be visibly accessible to them in an easy manner.

Sources:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667851/

First things first: this is not a blog arguing that girls are smarter than boys. That’s just not true. Researchers have not found that either gender has better overall cognitive abilities. This blog has to do with gender differences in study habits, and is not a “girls rule, boys drool” argument at all. Okay, now that we’re back on track: At Andrew’s review session for Test 2, there were about 10-12 girls there and no guys. I remembered the picture of the first review session also only had girls. Someone commented on this and Andrew said that this was usually how it went: girls went to the review sessions more often, while guys tended to procrastinate more on the blogs and on test preparation. I wondered if this was just a coincidence or if there was any scientific validity to this study habit trend. Here’s what I found:

In “Problem-Solving Appraisal, Self-Reported Study Habits…,” (*PSA: this is the Google Scholar link, there isn’t a direct hyperlink to the study. It automatically downloads when you click on links from the search*) the researchers used the PSI survey to assess problem-solving abilities of college students, and the SSHA survey to determine their study habits. Though both are self-reporting methods, they’re considered credible. Researchers then used these results, students’ ACT scores, and their current GPA to create a composite score. First, the study found that study habits have a high correlation to academic performance. But second and more interesting, it found that female students had a higher mean score (meaning better study habits and grades) than males. With p-values less than 0.007, the study found that gender was significantly related to the grade a student received in a class, accounting for 11% of variance in scores. 11% acknowledges that there are certainly other factors in grades, but gender does play a role.

To make sure this wasn’t an outlier study, I searched more and found two other studies. Both “A Survey of Student Study Habits…” and “Relationship between Study Habits and Academic Achievement…”  noted that #1 there was a significant positive relationship between study habits and grades, and #2 that females tended to have better study habits. All of these studies considered test scores, concentration levels, note taking, time management, reading comprehension, and memory when determining what “good study habits” look like. So if in general girls tend to have better study habits, my next question is why?

Part could be gender differences in cognitive development and characteristics. Female brains tend to mature about 1-2 years faster than male brains, with the biggest differences during teen years. This matters for the prefrontal cortex (frontal lobe or PFC). The PFC is the executive functions section of the brain, dealing with decision-making, planning, problem solving, judgment, impulse control, and more–integral functions for the study habits mentioned. Since female brains (and PFCs) mature faster than male brains, that could explain some differences. But still, that 1-2 year gap is made up quickly and can’t explain everything.

According to a 2001 Harvard study, female frontal lobes (even after body height/weight adjustments were accounted for) were larger than male frontal lobes. Additionally, female brains have more “white matter” than male brains. White matter consists of the parts of the brain that make neuronal connections; like this article says, it’s kind of like the brain’s subway system to the different grey matter areas. This means that in general women can make faster neurological connections.

Even if the brain component explains part of it, here’s another part to consider: society. This article discusses like many others how girls tend to outperform boys in reading and writing subjects at many different age stages. Some of this could be due to a cognitive predisposition, but another part could be that young boys are encouraged by society to be more physically active, and tend to read less. This aversion to reading can stick with boys long term. When school becomes more about reading, writing, and critical thinking (as college often does), this could explain why men are being accepted to and graduating from universities and colleges at lower rates than women.

More experiments could be done to figure out why there’s a difference in study habits by measuring PFC related abilities, gauging social attitudes, and observing study habits on a given project/test. I also acknowledge there are other things going on here like gender priming. This article and this study do a good job of explaining and examining  gender priming. Still, even with gender priming in STEM fields, women go to/graduate from universities more, and with higher grades.

Take home message: study habits are important and are linked to gender. This doesn’t mean boys can’t study well or perform well in college. Regardless of gender, if you are disinclined to studying, that could catch up with you. And for guys, maybe go to Andrew’s review sessions.

A new strain of avian influenza has recently been found in Southeast Asia. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned that this new strain could be harmful to animal and human health. The virus is known as A(H5N6) and has been detected in the poultry in China. Thebird flu virus is very contagious. It can be spread between chickens, geese, and other poultry. The virus spreads quickly and deaths in the poultry can occur within just three days. Also, the FAO’s Chief Veterinary Officer reports that the virus has been detected in various places that are very far from one another, indicated just how quickly it spreads.

Although only one case of death has been reported from a human after being in contact with the poultry, the issue is still very worrisome. The big concern arises because many people all around the world consume the meat from these animals as a part of their everyday diets. The virus affects animal health because it can effect and spread so quickly, and can possibly be passed to humans through consumption. The good news is that there has only been one human death reported so this may suggest that the virus does not easily pass from poultry to humans. Although the virus is isolated to China, for know, Americans should always practice healthy and safe habits when handling/eating meat. Those who produce and trade poultry must make sure they detect and report the virus in the animals as closely as they can, and those who consume the meat should take all precautions while handling the meat such as washing hands, utensils, etc. Also they should be especially sure not to undercook meats. All who handle or come in contact should be careful until tactics can be found to slow, or eliminate the spread of the virus.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48771#.VCRjGmRdWRk

For those of you who are not familiar with the movie, She’s out of My League, staring Jay Bruchel and Alice Eve, it follows the life of an average man as he sets out to win the love of a gorgeous girl named Molly. Kirk, played by Jay Bruchel, struggles with a lack of confidence. Despite the fact that Kirk and Molly, played by Alice Eve, appear to share a mutual attraction for each other, he struggles with his “number”. The movie revolves around Kirks inability to see himself as the right person for Molly, considering his inferior looks. When discussing his relationship with Molly, Kirks friend, Stainer, explains to him that as a “five”, Kirk cannot have a relationship with Molly, “this Molly is a hard ten. And that five point disparity, that’s a chasm. Chasm? Chasm. You can’t jump more than two point”.

After having watched and adored the movie, it leaves me wondering, “Can you jump more than two points”? Do points really exist or matter?

According to Jean Lawrence, a journalist for WebMD, there are 6 elements of attraction:

1. Physical attractiveness
   

   Hugh Hefner (age 88) and his wife, Crystal Harris (age 28)

2. Money
3. Desire for children
4. Religion
5. Class
6. Education

Considering the many factors that can affect relationships it is hard to pinpoint the sole reason behind why someone may date individuals who are “out of their league”.

A recent survey, commissioned by Medicis Aesthetics, gathered over 1,000 men and women. Researchers questioned the participants about the role that physical attraction plays in their long- term relationships. According to Huffington Post journalist, and Psychologist, Vivian Diller, people were asked the following questions:

• “How satisfied are you with your partner’s physical appearance?”
• “How satisfied do you think your partner is with yours?”
• “Would you be happier if their partners paid more attention to their physical appearance, and if so, which features mattered to them most?”

The researchers examined the differences between couples that have been married or living together for 1-7 years, 8-14 years and 15-20 years. According to the data collected by the researchers, 78% of the men and women involved in the study felt that physical attraction mattered. The scientists found that looks matter the most “in the first seven years of a relationship”. After seven years as a couple, researchers found that “physical attraction may be increasingly influenced by other emotional factors—like goof communication and shared interests—which probably help sustain attraction even if looks change”. The study also found that men are more likely than women to focus on physical attraction. If fact, 62% of men say a women’s face is very important, while 53% say the same for her body. Despite the fact that the study may have been conducted correctly it is possible that chance affected the researchers findings. It is important to remember that only 1,000 people where involved in the study and perhaps a larger number of subjects could have altered the findings. Considering the many factors that can explain the reason behind why people form relationships scientist struggle with the Texas sharp shooter problem. A large amount of relationship factors are often studied at once and given all of the overlapping data, pinpointing a single factor, such as appearance, can be difficult.

Hugh Jackman (age 46) and his wife, Deborra-Lee Furness (age 58)

Good news for people like Kirk, looks may only be important during the first 7 years of a relationship. So the next time you and your friends begin calculating your “number”, remember that looks only last so long!

Sources:

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/do-opposites-attract

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivian-diller-phd/physical-attraction-is-love-blind_b_1302550.html