It is said that many people believe that babies aren’t truly born good or evil, but they are just blank slates and become good or evil by their experiences growing up. One study however, at the Yale University Infant Cognition Center, has been sweeping the internet, as researchers have found that babies are actually born with some sort of moral code.

According to CNN, The Baby Lab has “been studying the minds and behaviors of babies for decades” (CNN). Researchers such as Karen Wynn have run different tests on infants under 24 months old to see their reactions to good or bad behaviors. One study presented the babies with a puppet show, where one puppet demonstrates good behavior in a certain situation, and then when the situation is repeated, a different puppet exhibits bad behavior. When presented with the two puppets, “more than 80% of the babies showed their preference for the good [puppet]” (CNN). A psychology professor at Yale and spouse of Wynn, Paul Bloom, reported, “even before babies could speak or walk, they judge good and bad in the actions of others because they are born with a rudimentary sense of justice” (CNN). This means that according to research done by Wynn and Bloom, babies are born with “an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don’t create one” (CNN).

The Baby Lab at Yale University also hit other websites, as Online Athens actually published an interview done with Paul Bloom about babies moral code. Throughout the interview, Bloom was asked a series of questions about the morality of babies, the first of the questions being “what light do you shed on the ‘moral sense’ of babies?” (OnlineAthens). From the first question and throughout the entire interview, Bloom answers the questions with “I think” and “I believe”. All of his answers as well are theory based on his opinions. This demonstrates that the research he has concluded may be heavily swayed by his opinions that babies are born with some sort of moral code that cannot be changed, which means that his findings may be biased. The only time that Bloom refers to the findings is when he states that, “what we find in our research is all sorts of moral capacities on the part of the babies” (OnlineAthens). Bloom does not elaborate on the actual statistics of his work, which means that the study may have not been conducted very well and the information potentially could be biased towards his opinions.

Also, another source, New York Post, reports the Yale study, and decribes the one trial done in the lab, with the good puppet and the bad puppet, and the finding that the babies preferred they good puppet. This study could not have been very in depth or not repeated enough trials, as the New York Post also describes a study done by psychologist Kiley Hamlin at the University of British Columbia’s Centre for Infant Cognition who conducted a similar trial, with puppets who rewarded for good behavior, or punished for bad behavior. Surprisingly, Hamlin found that “the experiment suggests we’re born with knowing more than right from wrong- we’re also born with a sense of justice. Or at least vengeance” (nypost) as a majority of babies favored the puppet that punished for bad acts.

With these results in mind, and the media hype for the Wynn and Bloom findings, this study could be suffering the file drawer problem, as the one study seems to be the only study currently reporting that babies are born with a moral code, and the Hamlin study being the only one to find that they are also born with a sense of justice. These findings could have been due to chance, and the other studies conducted coming up inconclusive, with a null hypothesis, and then never reported. Also the studies could have been executed poorly, and not conducted thoroughly or had enough trials, as the researchers may have wanted the study to demonstrate what they want to believe, that babies are born with a sense of right or wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/

http://onlineathens.com/features/2013-11-16/born-way-book-says-babies-are-both-good-bad

http://nypost.com/2013/10/26/do-babies-know-good-from-evil/

In our world today everything is getting skinnier. The supermodels, the lattes, the technology, and yes, even what we wear. Obviously we know by now that somethings just shouldn’t get too skinny because it can be very risky. Skinny Jeans are one of these trends, along with tight clothing as well. Although for women, jeans, especially on this campus, are being replaced by yoga pants and leggings now a days, it is still bad to wear tight clothing, especially consistently.

Studies have shown that wearing jeans that are too tight can cause meralgia parenthetica, a disorder that occurs when there is too much compression of the nerves in the thigh, reports ABC 2 News. “The problem can be made even worse if your jeans are too tight, and you’re wearing high heels”. This disorder can cause your leg to have the sensation of “falling asleep”, as it goes numb and makes it harder to walk on. Usually the feeling will go away after awhile, but if it occurs to much (like it can from wearing tight jeans) then it can cause serious nerve damage.

Also, CBS News says that men should also be especially wary about putting on tight skinny jeans. When conducting a study on the effects of skinny jean on 2,000 men “half of those men said that they had problems with their groin, while over a quarter of them had bladder trouble. One in five had a twisted testicle” (CBS News). This can be a serious health risk to men, because if they are being squeezed to tightly in certain places then they are at risk for serious health problems.

Why are people still wearing tight clothing if its bad for them and painful? Both sources reported that people liked the way they looked in them, and said that it makes them look better. The media’s impact on our wardrobe choices and determining what is stylish has led to causing serious health risks, especially with tight clothing such as skinny jeans.

http://www.abc2news.com/news/health/wearing-skinny-jeans-too-tight-can-cause-health-problems

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/warning-tight-pants-skinny-jeans-and-spanx-may-be-hazardous-to-your-health/

For some kids Halloween is there favorite holiday of the year. They get to dress up in their favorite costume, stay up late with their friends, walk around their entire neighborhood, and see how creative there neighbors are in the “trick” part of Halloween. But of course lets not forget the mountain load of candy packed into each kids pillow case, pumpkin shaped bowl, or Halloween themed bag that their parents handed them as they ran out the door. Although this holiday is certainly fun for not just kids, but everyone in general, is it good for our health?

According to Livestrong, eating candy on the regular can be detrimental to someone’s overall health. Lots of candy’s contain saturated fats, which can lead to high cholesterol. “High cholesterol can lead to high blood pressure, heart disease, and stroke” (Livestrong). Also, according to the American Diabetes Association, it has been found to be a myth that diabetes is caused by sugar, people and kids especially shouldn’t be eating sugary foods, like candy given out on Halloween, instead of food rich in nutrients because “too much sugar of any type in your diet can lead to dental cavities, weight gain, and overall poor nutrition” (Livestrong).

CNN Health also studied up on their candy facts. They found that binge eating candy every Halloween, even if it is just once a year, “may lead to an altered taste sensitivity, which can lead to cravings for other things” such as soda (CNN Health). This means that if kids are eating a mass amount of candy, just on Halloween night, there taste buds may end up being altered to actually craving more sugary substances. “Sugar addiction has also been shown to activate the same parts of the brain as cocaine addiction” (CNN Health). In other words, the more children eat sugary foods, they may develop addictive qualities the same way that people become addicted to cocaine.

With all this being said, should we really give up on Halloween and candy in general? In my opinion, as long as candy is eaten in moderation kids will be fine. Halloween isn’t just about the candy but it is also about the atmosphere of the night, and no kid should miss out on Halloween fun, especially trick-or-treating because it is now a part of our culture. As long as parents are informed that they shouldn’t let their kids go crazy with the candy, Halloween should be fun for everyone, even our health. However, a good study to be done to see if one night really effects kids health in the long term, is to set up two groups of kids, one of kids who eat all their Halloween candy in one night, versus another group who spaces out their candy over an extended period of time, and then compare the two groups. Also, there could be a control group of kids who don’t eat any candy.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/509860-why-is-candy-bad-for-your-health/, 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/health/burhenne-candy/

All throughout the class Andrew has said that we don’t know much about the human body and we are still making discoveries today. Everyone has heard the rumor that human’s only use 10% of their brains. If your like me, and I believed that it was true, you’re probably a little surprised to find that it has actually been supposedly found to be a myth. We believe what we hear, especially if we hear it when we are little, or if we hear the same thing more than once, then as human nature we are more likely to believe it. That may be the reason why this is such a widespread myth.

According to Scientific America, and neurologist Barry Gordon, it is true that “at certain moments in anyone’s life, such as when we are simply at rest or thinking, we may be using only 10 percent of our brains” (Gordon). This means that at certain times of the day human’s are only using 10 percent of their brain in order to function. However, it does not necessarily mean that humans only use up to 10 percent of brains. Gordon found that human’s actually do use every part of their brain, for different things such as cognitive or motor function skills, and that most of the brain is active most of the time. Another neurologist named John Henley says that with the use of imaging technology studies have found that 100 percent of the brain is used throughout the day, although not all parts may be used at once.

Where did this myth originate from then? According to About Education the myth came from the works of William James, a philosopher and psychologist who published the myth in his book “The Energies of Men” in 1908. About Education also says that the myth “may have been influenced by people misunderstanding or misinterpreting neurological research” (About Education). In other words, because humans, and especially at that time, did not know much about the human brains so they assumed that it only used about 10%, or about as much as we know.

Why is it that people have believed in this myth for so long if it has now been proven otherwise? In my personal opinion, it is because of the influence of the media. Recently, a movie was released earlier this year called Lucy. In this film, Scarlet Johansson stars as a Lucy, who is able to use 100 percent of her brain power, versus the “normal” 10 percent that human’s use. It is media influence and popularization like this that spreads the myth around social media today. Although we are told not to believe what we read on the internet, or what we see in movies, lets face it; a lot of people do.

IFL Science also contributed to the study. Neurologists are still trying to learn a lot more about how the human brain functions. right now we know 10% of the cells in our brains are neuron cells, and the other 90% are glial cells, also called astrocytes. Although we know a lot about neuron cells, scientist still only know very minimal about glial cells, other than that they are used to connect neurons together. However according to IFL Science, “recent research indicates they may be even more functionally important, particularly in forming memories” (IFL Science). So with saying all of this, it has been studied that we can use 10% at one time, but that we use 100% of the brain entirely, and more than 10% can be used at once. Do you think 10% is still a myth?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-people-only-use-10-percent-of-their-brains/

http://psychology.about.com/od/biopsychology/a/10-percent-of-brain-myth.htm

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872732/

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/do-we-really-only-use-10-our-brain

We’ve all stared up into the sky as kids (and even now), mouth wide open. moving our heads around here and there trying to catch as many snowflakes as possible on our tongues. Whenever I look at snow the first word that comes to mind (besides white) is definitely clean (followed closely by cold). This is far from the truth however. Eating excessive amounts of snow can actually be very bad for our health.

Living Green Magazine says that snow’s nuclei is formed around airborne bacteria.”Snow develops around airborne particles…which provide a core…for flakes” (Living Green Magazine). That sounds pretty scary. along with this it can also develop around other airborne particles such as dust. It’s okay if you’ve eaten snow though. A few flurries definitely won’t kill anybody, but it is suggested not to be eating large amounts of snow, especially if its over a day old, as it can collect more gross and bacterial particles.

Also, Eco Child’s Play found that falling snowflakes actually attract toxins in the air on their way down to your mouth. Don’t freak out if you’ve eaten a lot of snow though, it most likely won’t kill you or cause you any damage. If you live closer towards a city or in an area with high concentrations of air pollution, try to avoid eating too much snow, as that probably has more toxins and bacteria attached to it than if you’re out in the countryside.

http://ecochildsplay.com/2008/11/22/is-it-safe-to-eat-snow/

http://livinggreenmag.com/2013/12/11/mother-nature/what-to-know-before-eating-snow/

Violent video games. I’m sure a lot of you who don’t play violent video games would say that people who do overtime become more aggressive, which studies show to be true. I’m also sure that a lot of you who do play violent video games would say that it has no effect on whether a person is more aggressive or not. Studies also show that this is true as well.

According to Fox News, a controversial study done in Singapore suggests that video games do make children and adolescents more violent and aggressive over time. The study was done with kids ages 8 to 17, and the results show that the children who played more violent video games became more aggressive over time. Those children “had an increase in aggressive thoughts” (Fox News) and became more hostile towards others. To me this makes sense, because the children are surrounded by violence and are always thinking more so about violent techniques and thoughts in general, so the video game world will drip into their reality, and those kids will be more violent.

Other studies however, such as the one through the American Psychological Association, found that video games in general, including violent ones, actually improve children’s health, learning, and social skills. The study also found that specifically people who play violent games “improved a players capacity to think about objects in three dimension, just as well as academic courses to enhance these same skills” (American Psychological Association). To me, this study also makes sense because video games do enhance a different and deeper level of thinking, which could help boost academic performance, as well as stimulating the brain with constant thinking and strategizing. Video games can also help increase reaction time.

Another upside to video games, is now a lot of them are other forms of communication and social interaction through technology which is beneficial to players, but it is also does not help increase personal social skills. So what do you think? Are video games good or bad for players? Personally, I think they do have their ups and downs, but the skills gained through video games can also be gained in different and more productive ways outside of the gaming world.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/11/video-games.aspx

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/03/25/do-violent-games-boost-aggression/

Everyone who has worn a new pair of stunning 5 inch heels knows the pain is real. As uncomfortable as stylish heels look, women are still wearing heels, and they are even bigger and better today. We all know that the pain you feel in the ball of your foot, and eventually all over and up your ankle is just a normal pain of breaking in new heels, or even wearing a pair that are almost too tall. I also think it is safe to assume that everyone realizes that the pain probably isn’t a good thing. But are heels impacting other parts of our bodies in ways just as bad?

Women’s Health Magazine says that the most pain is felt in the ball of the foot because when wearing a heel, the body’s weight is no longer spread out among the entire foot, but is all pressured on to the ball and big toe of the foot. Also, when wearing heels it forces the person to walk differently, which can cause large blisters and in grown toe nails. Furthermore the knees are taking in much more stress which can eventually lead to knee problems. In addition to the feet and knees, a persons back is also negatively impacted because it has to be upright in an unnatural position that can lead to severe lower back pain.

Also, The Washington Post posted that a human is supposed to walk heel to toe, but when a person is wearing heels they are altering the natural way they are supposed to walk, which can lead to serious foot and ankle problems. The skinnier and the higher the heels are, the more likely someone is to sprain their ankle or tear ligaments in the side of the ankle because they may roll their ankles more. Also, the achilles tendon is tightened up when wearing heels, and going from being scrunched up to stretching out after taking off a pair of heels at the end of the day can lead to problems with the achilles tendon, like achilles tendonitis. Lastly, wearing heels for too long can cause tissue on the bottom of the foot to swell, and it can get very bad to the point of needing to go through aggressive treatments, and cause severe pain.

Does this mean that we have to stop wearing our favorite type of dress shoe? Nope! Although avoiding wearing heels, and other shoes without arch support, would be the best thing for feet, there are easy ways to avoid getting problems with feet from heels. Although there is no fool proof method, it is suggested to avoid wearing heels for an extended amount of time (just on special occasions) and to wear heels with shorter and/or chunkier heels,in order to keep pressure spread out and less centralized on the big toe and ball of the foot.

This leads to further questioning of why women actually wear heels, if they are so bad and painful on their bodies. Alternet has a theory: The type of heel signifies class. The theorist says that women of a higher class have the money to spend on these high heels, and the resources as well, because they will wear them to nice dinners, where they are sitting down, a few exceptions to work (where they are probably sitting down), and valet parking is a lot less of a distance to walk in the painfully tall heels than is taking the bus to a party. Although this is only a theory, in my opinion, a good type of experiment for this could be to take a sample of women from the upper, middle, and lower classes, and split into these groups, and send all the women into a shoe store and tell them that they must buy 3 pairs of shoes. Next, after all the women are done shopping, see what type of shoes the women have bought in each of the three groups. (What type of shoe, the heel size, the expense of the shoe, ect.)

 http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/high-heels

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/high-heeled-shoes-may-look-good-but-theyre-bad-for-your-feet/2013/06/17/54945c14-c22d-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_story.html

http://www.alternet.org/high-heels-hurt-hell-do-women-wear-them-signify-class-and-status

I would be surprised if one of you hasn’t heard that eventually humans aren’t going to have the fifth, and smallest toe, the pinky toe. Humans, just like other organisms, evolve as well. No one knows the future before it happens though, so how do scientists know we are going to lose our pinky toes?

The answer is they don’t! Its just a prediction based on walking patterns, and how we now use our feet, versus how they were used before. According to Popular Science, humans used to use there feet for grabbing things, like primates do, and for climbing trees and hoping around. (Think about the Disney character Tarzan). As Dr. Anish Kadakia says, obviously we aren’t climbing and swinging from trees on normal basis, or picking stuff up by our feet regularly. This means that we no longer use our toes as much as humans used to, so we don’t necessarily need our pinky toe. Popular Science also said that humans rely on the metatarsals and the heel of the foot for balance in a tripod form, so that the toes, and especially the pinky toe, is not used for balance.

Also, Natural History  finds that humans used walk and balance more on the midline of their feet, but now we have gradually transferred to balancing more toward the side of our big toe, and studies show that our center of balance is still shifting inward. This means that humans used to rely on their pinky toes for balance, but now they do not rely on them as much, and if this trend keeps up they will no longer need their pinky toes.

Shapiro (with Natural History) also reported that humans seem to be trending to have less and less hair, as that European men are now growing balder by the time they are 30, and that age is getting younger. This means that eventually, if these trends of evolution keep on going, humans will only have 4 toes AND will also have no hair!

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/fyi-do-i-really-need-my-pinky-toe

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/picks-from-the-past/151691/man-500000-years-from-now?page=5

Everyone has asked at least once if they are actually seeing the colors the people around them are seeing. Not just the green-red color blindness, but all the colors? When we look at an apple, we call the color of the apple “red”. But is the actually color I am seeing, which I call red, the same color you are seeing, which you also call red?

UCSB ScienceLine asks the same question. They found that each color has its own wavelengths, and colors like red or orange being longer than that of blue. But some people can be more sensitive to various colors than others, so they will see a different shade of red at a certain wavelength, then those around them. So my color “red” could actually be your color “orange”!

Also, according to live science, animals, such as fish, relate certain colors to certain emotions. For humans, blue and green are more of a calming color, or “cool” colors, while “warm” colors, such as red and yellow can make us more alert and are commonly associated with strong emotions such as anger and love. Live science also found that people associate short wavelength colors with calming sensations, which is why we sleep at night, and during the day when the sun is out so are the long wave length colors that are associated with alertness, so we are awake in the day.

Live science also reported a study done with monkeys, who can only see certain colors. The injected the monkeys with a virus which affected some of their cone cells (controls the color which we see). The monkeys were then able to see the color red, along with the color green (the cone cells the virus had infected), this study has raised questions as to whether it is possible to cure red-green color blindness in humans.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=719

http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html

Obviously, humans have hundreds of different languages spoken all over the world. Are we the only ones though? The Washington Post  released an article about a study done with macaques (a type of monkey) where they took babies from one regions macaques and switched them with another regions. They found that the macaques didn’t learn they customs or cultures in the new settings, even when being raised by a different regions macaques parents. This lead to the conclusion that an animals ability to communicate is completely within its genes, and is not able to adapt and learn a different “language” so to speak. (University of Pennsylvania psychologists and biologists findings).

Although the macaques communication abilities were in their genes, other species of animals abilities differ. Whales, songbirds, bats, and dolphins were all found to be able to “speak” in a certain dialect or accent in accordance to where they are from, but are able to understand accents from other parts of the world. Although they can understand this different language, it is hard for them to learn to actually speak it.

Even though most animals are like the macaques and have language set in their genes, animals are still able to communicate with each other, despite a language barrier in most species. Just like humans, there are many different types of communications. from noises, to gestures, to symbols, language barriers have not kept people from communicating from each other, like it has not kept animals from communicating with each other.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/do-animals-from-geographically-distant-areas-speak-the-same-language/2012/06/25/gJQARLYJ2V_story.html

Lately, a lot of colleges and universities, including Harvard Medical School, Yale Law School, and Indiana University have all turned to dogs, and pets in general, to help control the stress of their students, according to USA Today. Personally, as a dog lover, I would love to be able to go and play with puppies all day to let go of some stress after a long week of class. But now other school are actually renting out pets to their students? Does playing with dogs really relieve stress?

According to Animalsmart.org, researchers found that people who own pets and have high blood pressure problems have an easier time keeping their blood pressure lower, which helps reduce stress. Studies also found that heart attack survivors have increased chances in surviving if they own a dog. If dogs are healthy for us, then can Penn State turn towards animals for students to relieve their stress? I think we would all love that.

Also, Harvard Health Publications says that people who own dogs have healthier hearts because dogs allow them to be physically active, and are helpful in keeping humans healthy, not only mentally but physically as well, and more so then cats do. The healthier blood pressure someone has, the more likely they are to be less stressed (Harvard Health Publications infers).

With all this being researched, then it would be beneficial for our students (and even faculty members who are stressed) to be able to have dogs (and other animals) in the dorms and on campus, or even just available by the school for students to go and spend time with the dogs, so that our students will be physically healthier, have another method to relieving stress, and in general happier. Who doesn’t love animals?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-05-13/dogs-stress-relief-on-campus/54921444/1

http://animalsmart.org/species/dogs/dogs-help-reduce-stress

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/a-dog-could-be-your-hearts-best-friend-201305226291

Everyone loves it when they can take that hour or two out of there day, and just go back to sleep. Sometimes they can be hard to wake up from though, and we begin to question if they are really good for our health. Lucky for all of us, studies show that they are indeed beneficial to our “brains, including improvements to create problem solving, verbal memory, perceptual learning, object learning, and statistical learning” states George Dvorsky to the Daily Explainer. He also finds that naps help improve our moods and are good for our heart, blood pressure, and stress level.

A power nap is a 10 to 30 minute nap, that can provide a “quick boost of alertness” (Dvorsky). Anytime over 30 minutes, however, the napper may feel sleep inertia, or the tired and groggy sense when waking up. Although a normal sleep cycle is 90 minutes long, the first part of the cycle is the one in which we have slower brain waves, which is what helps with increase recognition and memory. This occurs within the first 60 minutes of the cycle. The last 30 minutes of the cycle is the REM phase (rapid eye movement period) which helps stimulate creativity and emotional memory.

Napping can also have other benefits besides brain development, such as reducing stress and helping manage blood pressure. Sleep can “confer heart-related benefits by accelerating cardiovascular recovery after bouts of psychological stress” (Dvorsky). Also, napping to rest and gain energy is a healthier alternative to drinking caffeine. Naps “improve free recall memory” (Dvorsky) while instead caffeine can “impair motor sequence learning and declarative verbal memory”, although caffeine is more efficient than taking a longer nap.

Although studies like Dr. Max Gomez’s report on CBS New York show that people who nap more have an “increased risk of dying” (Gomez), but later reports that the “nap itself is not bad” (Gomez), but that “sleepiness may be a sign of an underlying disease or problem that leads to premature death” (Gomez). This means that the reason a person is sleepy and could need or want a nap could be caused by a disease that causes death, but napping itself is not unhealthy.

http://io9.com/the-science-behind-power-naps-and-why-theyre-so-damne-1401366016

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/04/14/study-suggests-naps-could-be-hazardous-to-your-health/