(Picture)

Walking through the dining halls on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday morning, you will surely see a large proportion of students who look like they have seen better days. If it is the weekend, it generally safe to assume that these students were a party the previous night, and are suffering from the achilles heel of all college students. The hangover. However not all people get hangovers, no matter how much they drink. These people have been gifted with the magical ability to shake off their previous night, and hit the ground running the next morning. How is it that some people feel like they were hit by a bus the morning after drinking, yet there are others who all it takes is a little sleep and then they are ready to go again?

(Picture)

Sadly for all the hangover people out there, the problem may be in your genes. A study conducted on twins in Austraila, found that genetic varients may partially account for the reason some people get hangovers. The study also went on to note that those with the genetic variation also reported going out and drinking more than those who did not have the gene. The study was conducted by having 4,000 Australian twins answer a phone survey on their drinking habits for the past year. Knowing that I can barely remember how many meals I ate last week, this set up is not ideal, but the vast number of participants were used to counteract any false reporting. The results were that “The researchers found a strong correlation between identical twins in reports of hangover frequency as well as hangover resistance, suggesting that the genetic similarities of some twins played a part in their hangover susceptibility.” According to doctor Wendy Slutske who is a professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia, identifying a “hangover gene” could be the next step in figuring out why some people are susceptible to alcoholism.

According to a Korean study, there may be another compound involved in the equation too. Their study pointed at cytokines as begin the culprit behind hangovers. Their study, which involved taking blood from 20 sober men, then taking blood again 13 hours after drinking, found an increased level cytokines. The results showed that although cytokines were linked to hangovers, some participants had lower levels than others. Those who had lower level reported having less extreme hangovers, than the participants who had high levels. Interestingly enough the cytokines, which are commonly found in an immune response, can actually be used to form an artificial hangover. If you inject enough of them into a healthy subject, then you can give someone the symptoms of a hangover without the drinking.

However it may not actually be better to be hangover free. First off, those who do not feel the effects of the hangover have no reason not to go out. This can commonly lead to over drinking because people feel they are “immune to alcohol”. Also those who are hangover free may be processing alcohol faster than those who don’t get hangovers. This may free them of the short term effects, but it makes them more susceptible to the long term problems that come with alcohol. At the end of the day, you may think that your buddy is lucky because he is hangover free, but in the long run, it may be those who have it worst who come out the best.

As a kid in any sport or any activity, all you have to do is show up to be a “winner”. In today’s politically correct, hurt no feelings society, anyone who shows up gets a prize and gets glory. However if everyone’s a winner, then is anyone really a winner? Recently the participation trophy has come under scrutiny because ever since James Harrison, the linebacker for the Pittsburg Steelers, posted about throwing out his children’s participation trophies. Since I was once a child who knew the pain of the participation trophy, this has caused me to wonder if there is actually something behind the participation trophy, or the whole idea is purely anecdotal.

(Photo)

Alternative Hypothesis: The rise in participation trophies has directly caused a decline in inhibitions and leading to a rise in narcissism among children.

Null Hypothesis: The rise in participation trophies is not has no relation to a decline in inhibitions and leading to a rise in narcissism among children.

The idea behind the participation trophy stems from the notion that no child should be left out or feel like a failure at a young age. In theory this would appear to be well thought out, because no child should be discouraged from trying something new. However it has recently morphed into a society where people put up less effort, because they know they don’t need to try in order to “win”. According to a study done in 2014, the participation trophy may be causing narcissism and lowered inhibitions in children.The study was composed of 565 children from the Netherlands who were ages 7-11. The children were given a questionnaire to test for narcissism, and subsequently their parents were given a test on the amount of “blind praise” they give their children. The results were that “parental overvaluation predicted child narcissism over time, but not vice versa.” Parental over evaluation has often been linked with participation trophies, but it is also important to note that reverse causation has been ruled out in the study.

Conclusion: There seems to be enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis, and subsequently conclude that participation trophies are lowering inhibitions and leading to a rise in narcissism.

So what does this all mean? According to a recent Time article, the effects last way longer than on the playing field as kids. The problem with these trophies, is that 40% of millennials now believe that “they should be promoted every two years, regardless of performance.” This phenomenon has been evident in the rention rate of millennials entering the workforce. In addition, those who are entering the workforce are no longer striving towards being in charge. They are settling for assistant type positions because they already know of their own “greatness.”

I Need Somebody To Love

When many students come to college, they are filled with the ideals that they will find their perfect match. It seems that everyone here is looking for some sort of love, and people always seem happier when they have found it. However is it possible that there are actually physical benefits to being in love? According to recent studies, the answer would be yes.

It should come as no surprise that people who experience love feel better. Anyone who has ever been in any sort of relationship has experienced what I am talking about. However there is now physical evidence that proves the health benefits that people have known for years. In a study published in 2003 a group of researchers tested whether or not “warm partner contact” impacted stress. Null Hypothesis: The act of warm partner contact will have no effect on the levels of stress of the subjects. Alternative Hypothesis: The act of warm partner contact will have a positive effect on the levels of stress of the subjects. The experiment was blocked based on gender (74 women and 109 men) as well as ethnicity (66 African American and 117 caucasian). This division was crucial in order to account for possible 3rd variables in the test results, such as if men respond differently to women. Before having blood pressure and heart rate recorded while public speaking. “In response to a public speaking task, individuals receiving prestress partner contact demonstrated lower systolic BP diastolic BP, and heart rate increases compared with the no contact group.” In the conclusion of the test, the researchers concluded that in both male and female subjects, there was a reduction of stress in the warm partner contact group compared to the control group. In addition the level of stress reduction was actually higher in African Americans than it was in Caucasians.

It turns out that being in love can do more than help you prevent diseases too, it can also help you heal injuries as well. According to a study done at The Ohio State University in 2005, couples who argue less and love more tend to have injuries heal quicker. The experiment was conducted by having 42 married couples discuss a “supportive topic” such as how the other could change for the better on their first visit. On the second visit the couple was forced to discuss an emotionally charged topic, which could be considered as hostile. The subjects then had their blood tested and their wounds reviewed by a doctor to evaluate their progress. The mechanism behind their conclusion came from the idea that a lower stress level leads to a shorter recovery time, and a higher stress level leads to a longer recovery time.

In conclusion it appears that there is a mountain of evidence to back up the fact that love can help you live longer. Not only can a warm loving touch reduce stress levels, and subsequently reduce your risk of heart problems; but it can also help someone recover from injuries. If I had the opportunity to perform my own study on the topic, I would choose to map out the health of 1000 randomly selected individuals over the course of 20-30 years. I would be testing the hypothesis that in the long run, a love filled life will lead to a longer one. If a study like this were to be completed, then we would have even more concrete proof that love really can make you live longer.

As the blog period begins to wrap up, many SC200 students, myself included, are beginning the long process of trying to find blogs who are worthy of our comments. However as I sifted through the endless streams of blog posts covering everything from dogs wagging, to the theory of evolution, I found myself drawn to the shorter ones. That is not to say that the longer ones were worse, but subconsciously I seemed to be skipping right over them in favor of their shorter competitors. This got me thinking am I the only one who does this, or is their actually a phenomenon that I am completely unaware of?

When I began to do research on this topic I found myself doing the exact same thing to the articles I was visiting. I would scan the shorter ones and bounce right off of the longer ones. According to Farhad Manjoo, a writer for Slate.com, “For every 161 people who landed on this page, about 61 of you—38 percent—are already gone” after two sentence. As a writer, the first few sentences seem to be the most important. Infact it seems that people begin to formulate their comments after only the introduction. Readers will not even get to the “nut paragraph” before firing off their own opinions.

(Graph)

In a study done by a group of researchers in 2008, they found what everyone in the writing world already knew. No one stays for long. They found that “10,163 pageviews (17%) that lasted less than 4 seconds. In such brief “visits,” users clearly bounced right out without truly “using” the page.” The rest of the users averaged almost 4.5 seconds per 100 words typed. Since an average adult can only read at “300 wpm” or words per minute. This means that the more you write, the less people seem to read. Infact people only “read about 20% of the text on the average page.”

(Graph)

However all is not lost. There are a few simple things that you can do to get more traffic on your blogs. First off use graphs. Breaking up your articles can help keep the interest of readers up, and give the readers a break. Also use shorter paragraphs. Shorter paragraphs seem to keep readers more engaged. “A story packed with too many long paragraphs looks thick and off-putting. In fact, readers are likely to skip even a single lengthy paragraph.”

In conclusion it seems that I am not alone in my “speed reading.” Most readers on the internet don’t take the time to actually read the content, and only sift in order to find the information they want. This also reinforces the point that the first paragraph is crucial to a writer’s success. So for those who have actually made it to the end of my post, I would like to congratulate you. For those who skipped directly to the end, long story short is keep your posts as short as possible. This will not only attract more readers, but will allow you get your information across to a larger audience.

Take a look at anyones smart phone, and there will be a few apps that are common to all. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat have become the social norms of social media. Everywhere you look people will be checking their phones to check their number of likes, their retweets, and their friend requests. But I often wonder why it is that people seem to be so addicted to their social media, and why it plays such a crucial role in their lives.

The short answer is that we want to be wanted. We as social creatures, thrive on the feeling that other people want to know what we are doing at all times. According to a recent study done by a Harvard research team, the pleasure we get from social media is the “same pleasure that we get from eating food, getting money or having even having sex.” In our minds, having people “like” what we are doing gives the same biological response that we get from real life rewards.

The experiments were conducted by asking the subject a series of questions about themselves and others, while the researcher monitored their results on an MRI. By the end of the experiment it was clear that whenever people were able to share their activities to others, they experienced a level of reward. However whenever people’s statuses or pictures were liked by others, the level of reward went up significantly.

The culprit behind this addiction appears to be dopamine. The magical compound, which is crucial to the feeling of reward, was first discovered by Arvid Carlson in 1958. However according to recent research, dopamine does not actually cause you to feel the reward. “Dopamine causes you to want, desire, seek out, and search. It increases your general level of arousal and your goal-directed behavior.” Prior to the invention of social media, this release of dopamine was controlled and happened seldomly. However, through social media we as a society have become addicted to the instant gratification that comes along with it. This process leads to what is called a dopamine loop where “ Dopamine starts you seeking, then you get rewarded for the seeking which makes you seek more. It becomes harder and harder to stop looking at email, stop texting, or stop checking your cell phone to see if you have a message or a new text.”

In the modern era where everything comes instantly, it appears that now we want our rewards that way too. This explains the constant need to check, post, and repost everything we do in our daily lives. There have been many times where I have seen people post and then delete something because the response was not large enough for them. The dopamine loops that we have fallen in to have led to an addiction that seems to have no cure in sight.

Ever since a young age it seems that we are told that we should feel bad when we do things that society would frown upon. The idea to play by the book is engrained in our minds, yet it seems that by the time people get to highschool or college they do a complete reversal and live by a “ends justify the means” way of thinking. To quote a popular pop song by David Guetta, “Why does it feel so good to be bad?”

The answer for most people comes in two parts. The initial feeling of doing something wrong can cause someone to feel nervous, however after they get away with it there seems to be a sort of high. A study conducted by researchers at the University of Washington, the London Business School, Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, concluded that “individuals who cheat on different problem-solving tasks consistently experience more positive affect than those who do not.” The idea of this high that one gets after cheating is apparently not a new one. In one of their experiments, subjects were forced to complete an online math test, but there was a button on the side that would show them the answer. They were told not to use it, since it was considered cheating, but since it was there about 68% of the participants took use of it. Scott Wiltermuth, an associate professor at the University of Southern California, noted that “Showing people feeling positively after committing a moral transgression is pretty novel.” But why is it that we have turned into a society of cheaters, who choose to take every shortcut they can find?

According to Professor Wiltermuth it is because we have “many ways to cheat anonymously, especially via the Web”. Due to the internet, we as a society now cross ethical lines at an alarming rate because we can do them anonymously. The clinical term for this trend is “Online Disinhibition Effect”, and it states that when we are online we act different because we know it will not affect our actual lives. The idea that someone can cheat on a test or a spouse completely anonymously, has given people a false sense of security. Then people get a “high” because they think they are more clever than the rest of the world.

The second half of the problem is that many people often attempt to rationalize their cheating by thinking “if no one gets hurt, is it even wrong?” According to Robert Weiss, a renowned therapist, the “belief that what they are doing is victimless, coupled with their ability to repeatedly get away with it, allows them to experience the cheater’s high.” 

In our fast paced society, all that seems to matter is instant gratification. We want our phones to be faster, our food to be faster, and apparently we want the feeling of pleasure faster as well. This has lead to a generation of young adults who view now feel good while doing bad. If this trend continues, there is no telling where it will take us as a society.

Go to the weight room in the Intramural building at any point in the day and you will see a room filled with mostly guys, and a few girls, attempting to get ripped this school year. If you take a closer look around you will notice that many of those who are working out are also drinking some form of pre-workout or workout supplement. However even though these drinks may promote short term gains, they can actually be detrimental to long term health.

Now before there can be a discussion on how preworkout may be killing you, we first need to clear up what is actually in there. Pre Workout is typically made up of “Caffeine, Creatine, Arginine., Ephedrine, β-Alanine, 1,3-Dimethylamylamine.” Most of the things that are listed above have been proven to be failry safe, (there are some negitive side effects of caffeine but it is so common that no one really cares) except for the last one. 1,3-Dimethylamylamine was originally a “nasal decongestant”, but it has since been marketed towards the exercise crowd.The drug works as a stimulant which increases your heart rate and blood pressure. This can lead to “increased chance of heart attack and stroke”, according to WebMD. In fact just a few years ago, the preworkout Jack3d was challenged because an army private died from a heart attack while on a run after taking the supplements. Since then, all products with 1,3-Dimethylamylamine have been banned from all military bases.

The largest problem with pre workout is the fact that for the most part it is not regulated by the FDA. All foods and drugs have to be approved by the FDA, but preworkout seems to slide through the cracks in the system. Those who market the products will say that there are no negative health effects, but in reality the science has not had a chance to catch up to every new drug that comes out. Similar to the problem that was presented when people began to challenge smoking, if there is a health detriment from pre workout it will come years after the fact. This long time delay presents a unique problem for those who wish to test it. However with the little amount of testing that has been done, most are fairly confident that consistent use of pre workout can lead to “dehydration, kidney problems and high blood pressure.”

In the end the choice falls on those who use the product. They must decide if short term gains in muscle mass are worth the possible health concerns later in life. I am sure that in the coming years there will be more studies regarding the health benefits versus the consequences, but until then it seems to be a major grey area.

If you go to any of the many libraries on the Penn State campus, all that can be seen are countless students with headphones in, hard at work. To be fair that may be an exaggeration, but the majority of students are always plugged in while doing their work. As someone who loves to have music on while doing certain types of homework, this seems natural to me. However after a few minutes I began to wonder if listening to music actually helps you get work done.

The answer is that it depends. There have been many studies that point to something called the “Mozart Effect”. In short the Mozart effect says that by listening to Mozart before doing work, the music seems to improve the ability to focus and remember. Then in 1997 a group of researchers wondered if music could help in the long term. Their study, which focused on children aged 3-4, forced a group of kids to go through 6 months of piano lessons. At the end of the study the kids were given a test and they performed “30% better than that of children of similar age given either computer lessons for 6 months or no special training.”

Now let us flash forward almost 20 years, and it would seem safe to say that very few students are listening to Mozart of Bach while they study. According to Dr. Emma Gray who practices at the British CBT and Counselling Service in London, “listening to songs by Miley Cyrus or Justin Timberlake — or other pop songs with 50 to 80 beats per minute — allows the brain to learn and remember new facts more easily.” However the fast beat may not be the only thing that makes studying easier. A group of researchers did a study in 2014 and found that listening to music that you actually like, versus typical study music like Mozart or Bach, is crucial. They found that when you listen to music of your choosing, “alters the connectivity between auditory brain areas and the hippocampus, a region responsible for memory and social emotion consolidation.”

It seems that at the end of the day those who listen to music have an easier time to memorizing and remembering crucial information, than those who don’t. But as I previously stated before, the answer to this question is not black and white. There is too much that depends on personal preference, and study habits to prove this 100 percent. Personally, I have found that while doing something creative such as writing or working on a presentation, music is crucial. But when I do something analytical such as math or science, white noise is the way to go for me.

(Picture)

From online transactions to electric cars to going to space, there is never a dull day in the life of billionaire Elon Musk. It seems that the 44 year old South African is always in the news, and is always attempting to change the world we live in. Musk is now back in the headlines again, but this time for something even crazier than before. He wants to launch a nuclear weapon at mars.

In a recent interview  with new Late Night Show host, Stephen Colbert, Musk “dropped the bomb” that he was in fact looking into terraforming mars by way of nuclear weapon. It should come as no surprise that this idea caught the attention of many, and now scientists on both sides are coming forth to give their piece on why it would or would not work.

The basic idea behind Musk’s plan is to make use of the major polar ice cap at the southern end of the red planet. According to NASA, the southern ice cap is made up of almost exclusively of dry ice, which is the solid form of carbon dioxide. If this area of solid CO2 could be hit with many thermonuclear devices, it is feasible that there would be enough force to vaporize the CO2. The hope is that once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, it will begin to trap heat by way of the greenhouse gas. If this were to happen, then there could be a chain reaction where more heat would vaporize more CO2, which would trap more heat and so on. The goal would be to eventually have a self sustaining cycle which would one day allow humans to live on mars.

However the vast increase in CO2 is next problem that humans would have to overcome. According to Brian Toon, the professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder, the amount of carbon dioxide on mars is already too high, so adding more would create a planet where only plant life is possible. Toon finished by saying that it could be thousands of years before the level of oxygen would be acceptable for humans. One possible idea would be to send rockets full of bacteria after the bombs to begin the process of changing CO2 into O2. This idea is not completely out of the round of feasibility, as there are bacteria on earth that are capable of turning CO2 into O2 , but no one can say for certain if this could even work.

(Picture)

Musk’s arguments have also lead many scientists to a series of ethical problems. First off, scientists are not 100% sure that there is nothing living on mars. Now we pretty much know that there are no “little green men” running around the planet, but as renowned author Greg Bear put it “If there’s life there, it’s evolved over the last several billion years, it’s got incredible solutions to incredible problems. If we just go there and willy-nilly ramp it up or tamp it down or try to remold it somehow, we’re going to lose that information.” It seems clear that at this point we still do not know enough information, and sending mass amounts of explosives would be a poor choice.

It seems that at the current time, it is not feasible for Musk to carry out his plan. Both the science and the ethics behind his idea have proved to be major barriers, but if history is any marker, we will one day be on mars.

Hello fellow Science 200 people, my is Alex Rosencrance. I am a freshman from Grand Rapids, Michigan (yes, I do know thats a long ways away). I came to Penn State to get away from Michigan and because of family ties to the university. Also the fact that Penn State has a solid business school sealed the deal.

Now for the though question why did I take this class? To be honest I actually enjoy science, but I am incredibly tired of the daily routine of learning vocab, diagrams, and formulas and the reciting them on the test. The idea that this class would look at different and controversial topics sounded very interesting to me. The reason I don’t want to be a science major is because I want to enjoy life – this is why I am a business student. But I also know that my passion is in the board room and not in the laboratory.

Over the summer I got a new puppy, attached is a picture of said puppy. If you want more puppy action, check out the video.