Monthly Archives: September 2012

Procrastination Fascination

Procrastination. Typical part of a college kid’s lifestyle. Why do you think the blog gets backed up with posts so close to the deadline? We think we have all this time to get things done, yet the deadlines seem to creep up on us quicker than we think.

procrastinationdemotivator.jpg

            According to Psychology Today, procrastination is a serious problem, which can be avoided. Home life and parenting styles can have a significant effect on a child’s procrastination level. Controlling parents often keep children from regulating themselves. This leads to procrastination because they don’t manage themselves without their parents constantly pushing them to do so. The journal also says procrastination leads to alcohol consumption, procrastinators lie to themselves, and they fear failure. It does clearly state WHY some people procrastinate.

1.     “Thrill Seekers”- look for an overwhelming rush at the last minute

2.     “Avoiders”- fear failure or even success. These procrastinators are very concerned with what others think of them.

3.     “Decisional”- can’t make a decision

As a final warning, the article says procrastination could even cause health problems. College kids seem to have problems with the flu and colds because of over procrastinating. Even psychological problems could occur because procrastination uses a lot of “psychic energy”.

Okay, procrastination is bad and all but this is a little extreme. All procrastinators aren’t alcoholics with controlling parents who constantly have the flu.

             Another site sees the issue from completely different perspective… structured procrastination. John Perry writes an article about the positives of procrastination. He basically says, important tasks are put off, but smaller tasks get taken care of easily. In the mind of a procrastinator, the most important projects and chores are set aside until easier things get done. He recognizes that procrastinators often have a problem with “self deception”. They have a hard time determining which tasks are extremely important and should be done first, hence the reason they put them off.

 So, is there a happy medium of procrastination? 

What is Love?

a-night-at-the-roxbury.jpg

What is love? 


a-night-at-the-roxbury.jpg

Just like the epic Haddaway song in A Night at the Roxbury, I also am curious. Is it a real, definable reaction, or just an abstract idea? How is it possible that it can control, change, and drive people if it is just an untouchable concept? There must be some sort of scientific explanation behind this life-altering phenomenon. I’m going to do my best to explain the unexplainable.


 

First off, love is defined as a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. However, there is a biological basis of love. This is a relatively new field being explored in the science world. Bianca Acvedo is a new york based Neuroscientist, and is among researchers who explain how there are 4 tiny areas of the brain that form what is referred to as a circuit of love (read here). These areas are the ventral tegmental area (VTA), the nucleus accumbens, the ventral pallidum, and raphe nucleus.

 

Studies have been conducted where newly in love persons are attached to a magnetic resonance imaging machine and shown pictures of their undoubtedly precious one and only. When this happens, the machine noted that the VTA area lit up. This remained the same for brains that had been in love for over 20 years. People who have been in love for this duration also lit up at the ventral pallidum and the raphe nucleus.

 

The first of these areas, the ventral pallidum, is a reward area of the brain. It also is an area of wanting and liking. It is needed for normal reward, and its neurons can encode incentive, motivation, and reward to gain external rewards. Because of this it is associated with attachment hormones. The raphe nucleus is responsible for pumping out serotonin, that then in turn creates a sense of calm in the person.

the-reward-circuit-nucleus-accumbens-ventral-pallidum-ventral-tegmental-area-and-amygdala.jpgimage source 

As previously stated, the VTA is a reward system in the brain. Researcher and Professor at Rutgers University Helen Fisher explain that life’s greatest prize is a mate. That is why this area becomes activated- so it may send the dopamine to the different brain regions. There for love works chemically in the brain, almost like a drug addiction.

 

There are two major chemicals that cement love. The first is oxytocin, which deepens feelings of attachment and closeness. It is released during childbirth to ground the mother child relationship, and post orgasm. In studies where these receptors were blocked in female prairie voles, the animals did not bond. In another study where the receptors were blocked in sheep and rats, the animals rejected their own young.

 

The next is vasopressin. This was tested with Prairie voles, which form fairly stable pair bonds, and have a lot of sex.  They were given a drug to suppress their vasopressin levels and immediately failed to protect their partner from new mate and completely lost their devotion. 

That is why those in love are so controlled by it. It is a chemically definable thing that literally controls your brain. So, it is not the heart that creates an untouchable thing, but the head that is taken over by chemical processes. Good luck stopping that.

 

 

What is Love?

What is love? 


a-night-at-the-roxbury.jpg

Just like the epic Haddaway song in A Night at the Roxbury, I also am curious. Is it a real, definable reaction, or just an abstract idea? How is it possible that it can control, change, and drive people if it is just an untouchable concept? There must be some sort of scientific explanation behind this life-altering phenomenon. I’m going to do my best to explain the unexplainable.


 

First off, love is defined as a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. However, there is a biological basis of love. This is a relatively new field being explored in the science world. Bianca Acvedo is a new york based Neuroscientist, and is among researchers who explain how there are 4 tiny areas of the brain that form what is referred to as a circuit of love (read here). These areas are the ventral tegmental area (VTA), the nucleus accumbens, the ventral pallidum, and raphe nucleus.

 

Studies have been conducted where newly in love persons are attached to a magnetic resonance imaging machine and shown pictures of their undoubtedly precious one and only. When this happens, the machine noted that the VTA area lit up. This remained the same for brains that had been in love for over 20 years. People who have been in love for this duration also lit up at the ventral pallidum and the raphe nucleus.

 

The first of these areas, the ventral pallidum, is a reward area of the brain. It also is an area of wanting and liking. It is needed for normal reward, and its neurons can encode incentive, motivation, and reward to gain external rewards. Because of this it is associated with attachment hormones. The raphe nucleus is responsible for pumping out serotonin, that then in turn creates a sense of calm in the person.

the-reward-circuit-nucleus-accumbens-ventral-pallidum-ventral-tegmental-area-and-amygdala.jpgimage source 

As previously stated, the VTA is a reward system in the brain. Researcher and Professor at Rutgers University Helen Fisher explain that life’s greatest prize is a mate. That is why this area becomes activated- so it may send the dopamine to the different brain regions. There for love works chemically in the brain, almost like a drug addiction.

 

There are two major chemicals that cement love. The first is oxytocin, which deepens feelings of attachment and closeness. It is released during childbirth to ground the mother child relationship, and post orgasm. In studies where these receptors were blocked in female prairie voles, the animals did not bond. In another study where the receptors were blocked in sheep and rats, the animals rejected their own young.

 

The next is vasopressin. This was tested with Prairie voles, which form fairly stable pair bonds, and have a lot of sex.  They were given a drug to suppress their vasopressin levels and immediately failed to protect their partner from new mate and completely lost their devotion. 

That is why those in love are so controlled by it. It is a chemically definable thing that literally controls your brain. So, it is not the heart that creates an untouchable thing, but the head that is taken over by chemical processes. Good luck stopping that.

 

 

What is love? 


a-night-at-the-roxbury.jpg

Just like the epic Haddaway song in A Night at the Roxbury, I also am curious. Is it a real, definable reaction, or just an abstract idea? How is it possible that it can control, change, and drive people if it is just an untouchable concept? There must be some sort of scientific explanation behind this life-altering phenomenon. I’m going to do my best to explain the unexplainable.


 

First off, love is defined as a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. However, there is a biological basis of love. This is a relatively new field being explored in the science world. Bianca Acvedo is a new york based Neuroscientist, and is among researchers who explain how there are 4 tiny areas of the brain that form what is referred to as a circuit of love (read here). These areas are the ventral tegmental area (VTA), the nucleus accumbens, the ventral pallidum, and raphe nucleus.

 

Studies have been conducted where newly in love persons are attached to a magnetic resonance imaging machine and shown pictures of their undoubtedly precious one and only. When this happens, the machine noted that the VTA area lit up. This remained the same for brains that had been in love for over 20 years. People who have been in love for this duration also lit up at the ventral pallidum and the raphe nucleus.

 

The first of these areas, the ventral pallidum, is a reward area of the brain. It also is an area of wanting and liking. It is needed for normal reward, and its neurons can encode incentive, motivation, and reward to gain external rewards. Because of this it is associated with attachment hormones. The raphe nucleus is responsible for pumping out serotonin, that then in turn creates a sense of calm in the person.

the-reward-circuit-nucleus-accumbens-ventral-pallidum-ventral-tegmental-area-and-amygdala.jpgimage source 

As previously stated, the VTA is a reward system in the brain. Researcher and Professor at Rutgers University Helen Fisher explain that life’s greatest prize is a mate. That is why this area becomes activated- so it may send the dopamine to the different brain regions. There for love works chemically in the brain, almost like a drug addiction.

 

There are two major chemicals that cement love. The first is oxytocin, which deepens feelings of attachment and closeness. It is released during childbirth to ground the mother child relationship, and post orgasm. In studies where these receptors were blocked in female prairie voles, the animals did not bond. In another study where the receptors were blocked in sheep and rats, the animals rejected their own young.

 

The next is vasopressin. This was tested with Prairie voles, which form fairly stable pair bonds, and have a lot of sex.  They were given a drug to suppress their vasopressin levels and immediately failed to protect their partner from new mate and completely lost their devotion. 

That is why those in love are so controlled by it. It is a chemically definable thing that literally controls your brain. So, it is not the heart that creates an untouchable thing, but the head that is taken over by chemical processes. Good luck stopping that.

 

 

Babies Crying in The Womb?

ultrasound2.jpg 

This was a topic i always wanted to know. So i thought why not research and find out if this was true or not. Did babies only cried when they was birth? Well according to Fox News babies may have begun crying in the womb early such a 28 weeks. I guess it only makes sense for babies to be able to cry while they were still in their mothers stomach. They are able to move and react to outside surroundings so why not be able to cry?

In fact researchers used the outside to find out if this question was true. Fetuses responded to a low decibel noise. Just as if they were birth in the world they begun to open they mouth and make sudden body movements as if they were crying. Heres a video from youtube that shows a reaction from fetus responding to the sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi-01eITZaU

Nature vs. Nurture

To some extent, we’re all bound by labels. We place a great deal of importance in who we were, why we choose to do certain things, to act certain ways, and we strive to not all be mindless clones of one another. But do our personality traits have to do with the way we were raised, or the way we were born?

According to Nick Collins of The Telegraph, the nature vs. nurture phenomenon mainly depends on where you’re from. In the UK, 60% of kids from different households took on more of their parents personalities, yet in London, it was more common for kids personalities to vary due to their environment. They took on more of their neighborhood friends’ personalities rather than how their parents raised them to act.

So can you really convince your kids to act a certain way? While it’s difficult to tell what is genetically passed down versus what is ingrained in kids’ heads, many studies prove that not everything is due to nurture. David Reimer was living proof. Born as a male, his parents were persuaded to raise him as a girl after a circumcision operation went wrong. Even before Reimer was sexually mature, he knew something was off, and would often get ridiculed for trying to go into male restrooms. At age 3 Reimer (who was renamed Brenda) would refuse to play with dolls and stole his brother’s toy cars instead. He often threatened suicide, and readily refused to meet with Dr. Money, the doctor assigned to his case. After the truth of the gender reassignment came out, David’s brother and David both committed suicide. He always had an inkling that something was wrong, even as everyone around him tried to ingrain female behavior into him.

In another study, a set of twins–Paula Bernstein and Elyse Schein–were adopted by two separate families, and didn’t meet until they were 35 years old. Only then were they informed that they were part of a nature vs. nurture study. Bernstein claims that even though she’d never met her twin before, she felt like she was talking to someone with the exact same personality, who’d shared the same taste in books and movies. Although they hadn’t shared the same background, their genetic basis was enough to feel a connection. 2 points nature, 0 nurture.

Do you think you would be different if you were raised by other parents? Or were we destined to act the way we do? 

Sources:
http://altereddimensions.net/people/BoyRaisedAsAGirlDavidReimer.aspx
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15629096

Whole Milk vs. 2% Milk

           

imgres.jpeg

 I have grown up drinking whole milk all my life. I would only sometimes drink 2% when I stayed over my best friend’s house because that’s what she drank. From a person that drinks whole milk, 2% milk to me taste like water. I guess the general consensus is that 2% milk is better for you. That might be so but when it comes to babies my family is a firm believer that whole milk is the way to go because its gives the baby more nutrients and helps them grow. This topic is of interest to be because I really want to know if there is a difference and if there is, is it even significant.

            imgres-2.jpegI found out that whole milk and 2% have the generally the same amount of nutrients just the whole milk has all the fat. As a baby it is healthier to feed them whole milk but as the baby gets older in like the 2-3 range its okay to start feeding them 2% milk because they don’t need the extra fat anymore. Though, that only counts if the toddler is eating regularly and can get the fat from elsewhere. If the toddler is a picking eater or doesn’t like to eat much then sticking with whole milk for longer is encouraged.


           


imgres-1.jpeg

I am interested to know what kind of milk you drink and why? What did you drink as a baby and has it changed from then to now?

 

 

 

 

Men vs. Women: Seeing Things Differently (literally)

The debate over the difference between men and women and their differences apparently has a whole new twist. We all know that men and women often “see things differently”, in the metaphorical sense of the term. However, in an article on National Geographic, a new study  conducted by Brooklyn College psychology professor Israel Abramov reveals that men and women literally do see things differently.

The results of the study show that women are better than men at picking apart the different shades and hues of colors while men are better at picking up fast-moving objects and picking up details of an object from far distances.
Men tend to have trouble distinguishing colors from the middle of the color spectrum (blues, greens, and yellows). To put that into perspective, men will actually see a slightly different shade of a tree for example. It may appear more yellow than it would for a woman. However, on the other hand, men tend to be better at identifying objects moving at high speeds from far distances. The article states, “Since males are flush with with testosterone, in particular, they’re born with 25 percent more neurons in the brain region than females.”
The post-analysis of this study leads scientists to cite the “hunter-gatherer hypothesis” as a reason for this development, or even evolution, amongst men and women. Hundreds and thousands of years ago when men were required to hunt for food, the ability to detect animals from far distances was mandatory whereas women were expected to search for more detailed objects such as wild berries. When looking at the big picture it seems as though this may not just be coincidence, rather another support example for the theory of evolution.
Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/09/120907-men-women-see-differently-science-health-vision-sex/

Men vs. Women: Seeing Things Differently (literally)

The debate over the difference between men and women and their differences apparently has a whole new twist. We all know that men and women often “see things differently”, in the metaphorical sense of the term. However, in an article on National Geographic, a new study  conducted by Brooklyn College psychology professor Israel Abramov reveals that men and women literally do see things differently.

The results of the study show that women are better than men at picking apart the different shades and hues of colors while men are better at picking up fast-moving objects and picking up details of an object from far distances.
Men tend to have trouble distinguishing colors from the middle of the color spectrum (blues, greens, and yellows). To put that into perspective, men will actually see a slightly different shade of a tree for example. It may appear more yellow than it would for a woman. However, on the other hand, men tend to be better at identifying objects moving at high speeds from far distances. The article states, “Since males are flush with with testosterone, in particular, they’re born with 25 percent more neurons in the brain region than females.”
The post-analysis of this study leads scientists to cite the “hunter-gatherer hypothesis” as a reason for this development, or even evolution, amongst men and women. Hundreds and thousands of years ago when men were required to hunt for food, the ability to detect animals from far distances was mandatory whereas women were expected to search for more detailed objects such as wild berries. When looking at the big picture it seems as though this may not just be coincidence, rather another support example for the theory of evolution.
Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/09/120907-men-women-see-differently-science-health-vision-sex/

Men vs. Women: Seeing Things Differently (literally)

The debate over the difference between men and women and their differences apparently has a whole new twist. We all know that men and women often “see things differently”, in the metaphorical sense of the term. However, in an article on National Geographic, a new study  conducted by Brooklyn College psychology professor Israel Abramov reveals that men and women literally do see things differently.

The results of the study show that women are better than men at picking apart the different shades and hues of colors while men are better at picking up fast-moving objects and picking up details of an object from far distances.
Men tend to have trouble distinguishing colors from the middle of the color spectrum (blues, greens, and yellows). To put that into perspective, men will actually see a slightly different shade of a tree for example. It may appear more yellow than it would for a woman. However, on the other hand, men tend to be better at identifying objects moving at high speeds from far distances. The article states, “Since males are flush with with testosterone, in particular, they’re born with 25 percent more neurons in the brain region than females.”
The post-analysis of this study leads scientists to cite the “hunter-gatherer hypothesis” as a reason for this development, or even evolution, amongst men and women. Hundreds and thousands of years ago when men were required to hunt for food, the ability to detect animals from far distances was mandatory whereas women were expected to search for more detailed objects such as wild berries. When looking at the big picture it seems as though this may not just be coincidence, rather another support example for the theory of evolution.
Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/09/120907-men-women-see-differently-science-health-vision-sex/