Yes, I am referring to the everyday OTC drug that over 1/3 of American adults take regularly.

Most of us recognize Aspirin as a widely accessible over-the-counter drug that markets itself for helping daily pains such as a common cold or a headache. However, the accredited Agency For HealthCare Research and Quality published a decision analysis that linked the usage of Aspirin to the prevention of the fatal cardiovascular disease as well as colorectal cancer. Both cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer adverse one another, which prompted me to look into if there is a connection between one and the other because of the potential linkage in the beneficiaries of Aspirin.

Miranda Hitti put out an extensive comparative article that expounds the notion behind both diseases intertwining with one another. Hitti explains that coronary arteries pump blood to the heart, which entails the heart to function adequately. If the arteries fail to do their job ,this would lead to a heart attack, therefore evoking heart disease, aka cardiovascular disease. Hitti’s findings are derived from a Hong Kong study (mentioned in her article) which initially exploited the linkage between the two. My meta-analysis on that will come later in the post. For now, back to the initial decision analysis mentioned beforehand.

The study first had to target a precise demographic in order to test its hypothesis, which presumably is that aspirin has an effect on the prevention of the aforementioned diseases. Notably, the null hypothesis would be that Aspirin has no effect. The demographic for this study included individuals between the ages of 40-79 with a 10 year cardiovascular risk subpar of 20%, no history of cardiovascular disease or cerebral hemorrhage  . I thought the process of selecting a wide age gap amongst the demographic was imperative to the solidity of this study, as it allowed for results to be based off of an extensive range of ages, rather than focus on just one particular population set. The manipulative variable was the daily dose of Aspirin intake, which was never higher than 100mg per day, per individual. The time horizon was measured in 10 year, 20 year, and lifetime increments. The results of the experimental study were that benefits are predicted to exceed harms in taking aspirin for those in the previously mentioned age demographic who take aspirin solely for disease prevention over the course of their lifetime, without prior extensive bleeding risk. However, taking aspirin over the course of a smaller 10-20 year span show a drastic declination in benefits. Why is it that a longer usage of an OTC drug like Aspirin is more beneficial than short term usage? Let’s consider the demographic that this study conjuncts with. Those between 40-79 are of older age, which means that they process medication differently than lets say millennials. If taken daily for an extended period of time, pain medications  can result in higher tolerance for those who take them as opposed to irregular scheduled intervals of taking the drug throughout a shorter time frame. Keyword, daily. Thus, the premises of the hypothesis shall be deemed correct or a false positive in regards to the final outcome. Nevertheless, other factors are still in play. Third variables such as inherently susceptible traits to the diseases could play a factor, as well as any other substances being taken throughout the study that were not mentioned.  Reverse causation can be seemingly eliminated from a study such as this that contains large gaps of lackadaisical supporting detail to backup the findings. Thus, the rational person should not take Aspirin as a lifesaving drug based off of this study.

Back to Hitti’s post and kind of working backwards here, the Hong Kong based study connected heart disease and colon cancer together, in which the results would have prompted the previous study to have analyzed both collectively in relation to Aspirin.

The study was conducted by colleagues from the University of Hong Kong who gathered 706 native adult participants with an average age of 60 (which correlates almost verbatim in the above decision analysis, which contained a median age of 59.5). All of the participants qualified for one of three categories: those who have heart disease, those who do not have heart disease, and those who haven’t been screened for heart disease, which means they may have or have not qualified for the previous two categories had they been tested. Nobody had been taking Aspirin prior to the study either. The Hong Kong team ran tests on those with heart disease and found that 4% of them had colorectal cancer which resulted from heart disease, while the other two categories tested 2%> for heart disease. On a side note, those with a greater risk heart disease were those who are smokers, so all of this plays out to a domino effect, with the smokers setting off the chain reaction which leads to heart disease which leads to potential colorectal cancer.

In conclusion, the take away message from all of this can amount to a couple of things. First, the initial study did not prove that Aspirin is a cure for such diseases, although it did correlate with the hypothesis of the test. Secondly, it can also be said that smoking comes at a risk. Smoking can lead to cancer, which causes death, which makes smoking extremely hazardous. Smoking, however, is a personal choice, which makes it a low exposure. Any thoughts, suggestions, or anything of that nature? Please comment below!

Halloween is coming up in a few short weeks, and while most of us are past the age of going trick-or-treating , this means that we stay home and pass out candy all night. When a cute little kid rings the doorbell and asks for a piece of candy, we gladly oblige, no questions asked. But what happens when a little guy like this gazes up at us, begging to be a part of the chocolaty filled action?

My dog

 Answer: We don’t acknowledge him. In fact, we don’t acknowledge any dog that wants chocolate. Chocolate KILLS, and here is why:

 What Makes Chocolate Fatal:

Chocolate contains theobromine , which is essentially a chemical found in the cacao plant that is used to derive cocoa beans used for making chocolate. Theobromine often draws comparisons to caffeine, and although while similar, theobromine works to a lesser extent in that regard. So enough with that. We want to know what makes chocolate so dangerous right? So here’s the answer: Like caffeine, theobromine stimulates the central nervous system as well as the cardiovascular system, all of which lead to a slightly higher level of blood pressure. Such effects are much more severe in dogs because they don’t metabolize theobromine as quickly, as the potential side effects of theobromine at toxic levels include but are not limited to diarrhea, vomiting, excessed panting, dehydration, rapid heart rate, and ultimately, death.

The Alternative:

Carob is be-knowingly a healthy substitute for chocolate and nearly as tasty. Carob is gleaned from the carob tree, and thanks to its Mediterranean disposition, Carob is ripe with sweet pulps that are synonymous to chocolate flavoring. Carob is free of theobromines, which make it a safe replacement that can be used to happily feed dogs without having to worry about any potential dangers.

Future Outlook:

Although there haven’t been many studies directly comparing Chocolate and Carob in regards to health benefits, I firmly believe that health-wise carob is the better choice than chocolate not only for dogs (obviously), but for humans as well. That would be my hypothesis, and to study this I would do a double blind placebo trial where the experimental and control groups would eat the same portion of each after a meal. Thanks to lousy intuition by medical conformation biases made evident from cigarette studies all the way to cancer tests, we know that such a trial is ethical because of the lack of accuracy predicted that results in any harm. Third variables are posed everywhere; from each person’s digestive system to the rate of metabolism to the prior meal eaten before the snack is consumed. Another key factor is while chocolate is loaded with caffeine which leads to increased blood pressure, caffeine is also known to be a quick resolution for headaches.

All in all, it is understood why chocolate is terrible for dogs and what the harmful effects could pose. However, after this blog post I’d really like to learn what it is called when something both positively and negatively affects a study (such as the pros and cons of caffeine mentioned above). I think this would be an intriguing concept to learn in class and to apply to future blog posts as well.

Luck, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, is the following:

The things that happen to a person because of chance; the accidental way things happen without being planned.

Is luck real? Is luck due to inordinately high amounts of chance? Or is luck just a mind game that we perceive with our own positive/negative attitude?

OR, what if I told you that you make your own luck?

Makes sense right? Imagine this: You’re an independent author who is looking to be the next big thing. You’ve written what could potentially be the next Harry Potter, but you don’t have that connection. That niche. You need to find a big publishing company to distribute your books and make your name a prevalent force in the book industry. You go out to a bar one night, and since you’re an extrovert who doesn’t shy away from conversation, you strike up a convo with a gentleman sitting next to you. As the night goes on, you explain your book fiasco to him and how badly you need a publishing company to assist you. After your spiel, the gentleman smiles, hands you his business card and tells you to give him a call so he can look over your book. The business card gives the gentleman’s address, phone number, and indicates that he is a Scholastic representative.

THAT is creating your own luck. Extroverts- people who socialize and put their name out, get lucky. They make their own luck that way. Introverts- those who stay to themselves, could essentially find it harder to make their own luck. They aren’t necessarily as proactive in doing so.

But what about superstition? According to social psychologist Lysann Damisch and fellow colleagues Barbara Stoberock and Thomas Mussweiler, superstition is what helps make luck.

 Damisch, who reportedly is an avid sports fan, was inspired by the fact that many athletes have unique superstitious behavior before they suit up for action. This prompted her and her team to set up four experiments to test out good-luck superstition. Each of the four experiments in her study included 28-51 collegiate students who were obviously in an experimental based study. Although each test varied, they all ultimately set out to determine the likelihood of superstition.

The fourth experiment is the most imperative to the connection between luck and superstition. In experiment #4, 31 university students (4 males, 27 females) were randomly assigned a lucky charm while the rest did not have a lucky charm. The participants had to complete an anagram task in which the results would supposedly parallel with the good luck charms. The dependent measure of performance was how many of the words were spelled correctly. In agreement with the other three studies, the results remained the same: those in presence of the lucky charm performed better.

Although Damisch’s study comes across as fair practice for a superstition such as a lucky charm to cause luck, her study also provides a great incentive for scientific analysis. Third variables clearly could have loomed amongst the study, such as a closer look at the particular good luck charm each individual possessed. The participants could bring their own individualized charm, but the “luck” factor in each one could have varied. Personally I would have graphed the results from the study in relation to each good luck charm and see which charm induced the best performance. This could have really answered the “luck” question, and how each charm is a factor of luck to a certain degree. This study was preformed at a high level and conducted well, thus eliminating reverse causation. The experiments did not measure individualized skill level before each test, however. Of course, the results of this study could be due to chance as well.

From the conclusion of this study, we can see that their is direct causation between luck and superstition. Luck is made evident in performance, which means that NBA swingman Jason Terry can continue doing all of the weird things that he like to do.

Pat Wolfe, who earned her prestigious doctorate in education, explains that the critical period for children to begin learning the basic fundamentals of reading skills manifests at the kindergarten level and then continues to progress throughout elementary school. Furthermore, the perpetually contentious debate about public school vs. private school will ultimately never be solved in regarded to which of the two is the beneficiary, but that didn’t stop a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) study from assessing 4th grade reading test scores from private and public schools around the nation to determine a proper victor. For the 4th grade assessment, over 6,900 public schools and over 530 private schools took the examination. The study took into deep consideration the demographics from each school, which most notably include any disabilities or those who identified as an English language learner. Hierarchal Linear Models were used to properly facilitate variables and accommodate the cluster of kids spread out through the schools. This essentially paved the way for an adequate study, which can be contextually analyzed through various concepts learned in class.

The X Variable: This would clearly be the test scores. The X is casual, and is what is being measured in the study.

The Y Variable: The Y variable is dependent, so this would be the type of school. Whether public or private, each of whom account for the test scores.

Type of Study: Observational. Nothing is being maneuvered whatsoever. The scores are being reported as taken, as this is totally up to student performance and not examiner manipulation.

Could Reverse Causation Be a Factor?:  Hard to say. While the type of school may be casual in regards to test scores, the opposite is extremely difficult to measure as we simply do not know if some of the private schools had an acceptance rate to prerequisite test scores.

The Results: The analysis displayed that amongst the schools tested, the fourth grade reading results indicated that by a fairly smaller margin, the private school kids scored higher.

The same standards were also applied to test 4th grade math, 8th grade math, and 8th grade reading- all which accumulated the same results. On paper, it can be said that private schools are better than public schools. However, this study failed to take into consideration some of the most important aspects of childhood and adolescence, which include cultural differences,  self individualization, and socialization. These are all learned from personal experience, not a textbook. To really determine which of the schools is “better” while incorporating data from the previous study analyzed above, I have a study in mind that can analyze moral development and be juxtaposed to the results of the study above.

Lawrence Kohlberg was a 20th century psychologist who is widely recognized for developing the stages of moral development, which was inspired by the late Jean Piaget and his work on cognitive theory. Kohlberg’s stages of moral development can be seen below, or by clicking here, which offers extensive analysis behind each stage.

These stages, which continue to be a vital factor in psychology today, were once a tool for Kohlberg to measure moral development amongst children. In doing so, he developed the Heinz Dilemma , which gives a particular scenario for children to provide answers to that placed emphasis on critical thinking skills that can be learned from more than just a classroom standpoint (the full set of questions that Kohlberg asked children can be found by clicking the link above). By using the results of his study, Kohlberg then categorized each child into one of his moral development categories. An excerpt from the Heinz Dilemma can be found in the interactive YouTube video below.

If this study, or one such as, were to be implemented in the same way that NAEP examinations are employed, than a graph could be made that measures the NAEP test performance based on private or public school, and collocated with the results from Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, which can be found based off of the results of this particular Heinz test. This would allow for a deeper analysis of which school is “better”, as this measures not only what is learned in the classroom, but what is learned outside of the classroom. Kohlberg’s theory derives from moral reasoning and ethical behavior, which is essentially learned from environment. Many of the differences between a private and public school are evident in the surroundings and psychographics, both of which are not adequately measured by standardized tests such as the NAEP, but are done effectively so by Kohlberg’s theory and a moral dilemma such as this one. If such criteria were to be evaluated and analyzed, than an extensive fulfillment of this perpetual schooling comparison could be further studied more effectively.

First off, cryotherapy is the use of low temperatures in medical therapy, such as applying ice to a swollen injury. This practice has been implemented all throughout athletic play, no matter the level. As universally accepted as this practice is, can it be a reliable and effective way to heal an injury, and is there even a possible secondary factor that plays a vital role in the injury process that seems to go under the radar? Let’s find out.

A widely prevalent 2006 study analyzed the results from a double blind trial which measured the effects of cryotherapy protocol and the frequency of applying ice to a soft tissue injury (such as an ankle sprain). To further understand the basis of this study, lets apply it within the context of this class.

Hypothesis: intermittent (sporadic) cryotherapy application is the most effective way to treat a soft tissue injury. This is clearly stated in the beginning of the study (generally where most hypothesis can be found in any study) and ultimately is what the premises of the study is centered around.

The Y Variable: I know that it is much more common to identify the X variable first, but if some are struggling with this aspect of class, consider this: the Y variable is always, ALWAYS, the response. It DEPENDS on X. So ask yourself, what part of this study is dependent? That would be the swelling levels after the ice is applied.

The X Variable: Now that the Y variable has been identified, this makes the X variable so much more easier to find. The X variable is what is being measured and what is casual. This would be the frequency of ice applied.

Type of Study: Experimental. Subjects were placed into two different groups, standard ice application and intermittent ice application, and a double blind trial was in play. The study was experimental because the researchers manipulated the frequency of ice applied.

Now PAUSE! If you are finding yourself reading through this study and trying to find out the results, stop because that will only be a waste of time for what is to come (well, you can still look but you’ll probably just find out what you already suspected). For the athletes in the class, especially basketball players, have you noticed that every single time that you are withering on the sidelines in pain due to an ankle injury that you are given an ice pack and it does very little good? Would you like to know another possible factor as to why ice really isn’t going to do you any good? Well look no further than your feet-literally.

A study done by Birmingham Young University essentially measured the effects of a low top sneaker versus a high top sneaker, and the results are what a coherent athlete may presume: those who wear low top sneakers are more susceptible to an ankle sprain than those who wear a high top sneaker.

NBA star Kevin Durant missed most of last season with a foot injury and is expected to return to action once the 2015-2016 season gets underway. However, above is the last 3 installments of his sneaker line, all which are clearly low top. Although when he suffered his injury during that game he was constantly switching shoes on the sideline, it should be noted that in the 27 games he played in before his injury last season, he only wore the KD 6 (the latest installment of his sneaker line at that time) for one quarter in a game against the Dallas Mavericks earlier that year. When he did suffer the injury, he was seen wearing a model of the shoes you see below, which are also part of a branch in his sneaker line:

Surely we can say Durant’s injury isn’t bound to happen to all of us who wear low top sneakers, heck I own the floral colored sneakers above myself for casual wear, but it should be said that while playing sports, the first step is to stop the injury before it happens rather than while it happens. Our intuition is undoubtedly lousy, and the practice of confirming our biases of ice healing an ankle injury can be avoided to a lesser extent with the proper care of WHAT leads to an injury, and not what temporarily helps ankle pain DURING the injury.

UPDATE: 10/22/15:

How ironic. I was just at the gym tonight playing basketball in my HIGH TOP shoes and rolled my ankle pretty badly. The medical staff at the gym checked up on me and the first thing they did was give me a bag of useless ice that hasn’t been helping much at all. Maybe my intuition about the uses of high top sneakers was lousy instead…

As another day of SC200 was drawing to a close and 3:45 loomed around the corner, I noticed a recurring noise that seems to reiterate itself on the eve of class letting out every single Tuesday and Thursday. When the semester first started. this noise didn’t bother me as much. But now, nearly a month into the semester. this sound drives me CRAZY. What is this sound that I am speaking of? This sound is the CLUTTERING of supplies, the SQUEAKING of chairs, and the ZIPPING of backpacks as students try to leave before class is officially dismissed. The sound as a conglomerate is loud, ugly, and awkward; Andrew comes across as a fairly laid back guy, and it’s pretty obvious he’s trying his absolute best to not lose his temper when people pack up early to get out of class a measly 2-3 minutes before 3:45. My built up annoyance to this issue led to me doing a little bit of research on why it is so loud when people pack up, and if the issue is the students, or the design of the Forum itself. But first, to get a back understanding of how sound works, this nifty video below should satisfy any initial questions. Check it out:

Sounds have to travel through a medium. This means that sound has to travel by virtue of something, and in this case it is air. The sound travels through the room (by air) which is how we hear it. Sound is extremely contagious, and when air particles vibrate and spread, this is the result of a sound wave. So when students all pack up at once in a room the size of ours, you can imagine how quickly and noisily the sound travels.

Source: Andrew’s Instructor Blog

Think of sound in the same context as the heart rhythm monitors relating to Antiarrhythmics that we studied in class today (9/17). The heart monitors and how we measure sound are comparable to ocean waves. The highest part of a sound wave is the crest, and between each wave is what we call troughs. The highest part of a heart monitor indicates the fluctuation of a heart beat. The more sound we make, the higher the length of a sound wave, thus making it louder.

Sound waves lose energy as they travel further. All 300+ of us are compacted into one room, meaning that the sound has nowhere to escape. This explains the higher intensity of the cluttering, squeaking, and zipping.

To wrap things up, the size of the room doesn’t exactly help the problem of sound, but neither does all of the unnecessary noise at the end of class!

If I were to show you this:

Then this (don’t worry it’s clean):

Does one bore you to death over the other? Would you consider that if one appealed to you over the other, it could correlate with how well you preformed on the SATs?

Virgil Griffith, a self proclaimed disruptive technologist who is infamous for creating the WikiScanner, conducted a study back in 2009 that compared the average SAT scores from 1.352 college institutions to a representation of that particular school’s favorite artist or band. A Facebook poll surveyed the students from each school and the artist or band that got the most likes on the poll represented that school. Griffith took the results from his poll, used College Board to determine each institution’s average SAT score, and put together a chart that looks a little something like this.

Although he makes it very clear in bolded letters on the study link above that he understands the notion of correlation does not equal causation, together as a class I think that it is imperative to analyze the context of this study.

Beethoven and Lil Wayne are in fact on opposite ends of the spectrum in regards to this study. The study is clearly observational- nothing is being manipulated or experimented with- and of course this study is simply correlation. Let us analyze the variables to furthermore breakdown Griffith’s findings.

The X variable would be music preference because it stands alone, and does not depend on any other factor. The Y variable would be the SAT scores because it is a result of the X variable. Hence, dependence. The study was done correctly, and based on the premises of Griffith’s findings, reverse causation would be non-existent here. Also, third variables could have played a significant role as well. If you can think of any, feel free to comment below! This is what contributes to the concluded findings of this study.

All in all, based on the surface of this study, music preference DOES NOT directly reflect SAT scores.

Before we begin exploring this universal generalization, lets make sure that we set the record straight for a couple of key terms in the context of analysis…

We will define the following as:

Kids: Anyone from 12-17 years old.

Violent Behavior: Violence, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is the use of physical force to harm someone or to damage property.

What if I told you that you could take the role of an undercover agent, enter through a Russian airport, and then massacre hundreds of innocent Russian civilians? In November 2009, Call of Duty released the latest installment of their series, titled: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which brought home a jaw dropping $550 million in sales in just the first week, and has earned more than $1 billion in total revenue in just the first year alone.  The controversial scene, which is deemed, “No Russian,” sparked public outrage when the game first hit the shelves. Take a look below, as this would be your viewpoint had you played this mission.

But now what if I told you that this scene, and many other violent video game scenes, does not cause violence in children?

Well, according to this recent study, that statement holds true.

According to the researchers from this study, violent video games do not cause violence. Researchers looked at 217 teens; 110 males and 107 females, and examined their personalities as well as their video game habits. Their personalities were measured by their various teachers.

But, there is a catch. The very same study suggested that, if, IF anything, the children who play video games longer are more prone to being hyperactive and getting involved in a fight.

13 percent of the boys had never played video games, while a little more than half of the girls had never played video games. 16 percent of the boys who play video games admitted to playing for over 3 hours a day, as compared to 3% of the girls. The 16% of the boys=18 people, while the 3% of the girls=4. So, 22 of the 217 teens in this study play video games for over 3 hours a day. That’s roughly 10%.

According to the study, those 22 kids were more likely to have behavioral problems, show signs of hyperactivity, and struggle academically. The kids who played video games for an hour or less a day were LESS likely to have run-ins with their teachers or fight with their peers. All in all, the study concludes by saying that video games are fine but only in moderation.

Now, the fun part. We all just recently took a test in here, and the results were mediocre. We are now going to analyze this study in the same context that we took the test. Consider this the Brendan Feifer review session 101.

Let’s identify:

The X variable: Otherwise known as the independent variable, this is also regarded as the casual variable. It stands alone and doesn’t change. In this instance, X would be the amount of times kids spend playing video games daily.

The Y variable: Aka the dependent variable, this can also be called the response variable. Simply put, it relies on the Independent variable, just as the name suggests. In this study, Y would be the behavioral change in children.

Type of Study: Observational. Nothing was manipulated; the researchers simply surveyed the teens. Pretty simple.

Could a 3rd confounding variable be in play?: Absolutely. The personalities were measured by their teachers. That’s petty subjective if you ask me. Also, video games aren’t the only reason for kids to be violent. They may have problems at home, get picked on by an older sibling, etc.

So, based on this study, do violent video games make kids more violent?: No. Confounding variables and the lack of evidence don’t show a direct causation between violence in kids and the violence in video games.

Agree? Disagree? Any thoughts? Comment below; all input and suggestions are certainly welcome.

The majority of students can weakly infer that studying longer will cause higher test scores. The two factors may correlate with one another, but certainly one does not cause the other. In fact, it is the exact opposite.  A UCLA study  came to the conclusion that if you find yourself aggressively cramming for a test, such a pulling an all-nighter, the results are actually counterproductive. The fact is, you need your sleep, and without it your learning will be deprived. So the million dollar question is this: How can I study for a shorter amount of time and still get the grades that I desire? Please observe the Brendan Feifer (me) process on how to study and reap the benefits of TIME MANAGEMENT!

 Step 1: Buy a Planner:

As corny as it sounds, this is how you will begin the process of reducing study time. I’m a freshman, but I was here for summer classes. Buying a planner allows me to budget my time and take things day by day, which is pivotal in keeping my stress levels from going through the roof. You don’t have to write down every little detail of your day in a planner; simply just write down what you need to get done for that particular day. A planner, which can be found pretty much anywhere on campus, is the first step towards studying success.

Step 2: Actually Write IN the Textbook:

We buy our overpriced textbooks to learn from, so we might as well us them for reasons other than to gather dust on our desk. When taking notes, it is imperative to highlight and mark our textbooks up.  Writing in our textbooks allows us to critically think for ourselves and serves as the basis for originality. Just think about it. The clothes we wear, the buildings we see, Beaver Stadium; what do these all have in common? They stem from drawings and writings. They are original because they are handwritten. Sure computers are neat and serve as a multipurpose, but they’re distracting and don’t pave the way for cognitive originality. UCLA professor Patricia Greenfield analyzed over 50 studies on the correlation between technology and critical thinking and based off of her findings, she concluded that students when given internet access don’t essentially focus as well than kids without internet access. The results carry over to studying as well. If you use textbooks to their fullest potential, you will not only eliminate the alluring temptation of social media, but you can highlight key information so that when it is time to study, you don’t have to reread the whole chapter again.

Step 3: If You can Teach it, then You know It 

If you’re studying for an exam and bored out of your mind, two things could be happening. One, the content you are studying very well may put anyone to sleep. Two, you are not studying correctly. Get up! Get active! Try explaining to your roommate what you need to know, assuming he or she has no prior recollection of the material that you are trying to explain. During my time here over the summer, I took a mass media class that was filled with endless vocabulary words. Rather than apply brute memorization to try and memorize the words, I explained to some of my friends (no I’m not lame for this) what the vocab words meant in context! Thus, I applied each word to a particular memory I could easily recall during test time. Not only did it make the process of learning the words easier, it made the time go by quicker in which it took to learn the words all by having fun at the same time.

Does anybody have any study tips that they use for themselves, or any that could be prevalent to this class? Comment below!

You are in the car, aux cord in hand, ready to exemplify all out millennial ignorance by rolling your windows down and blasting the latest Fetty Wap song. The beat drops, and you immediately belt out the lyrics with heartfelt exuberance and pride. Every lyric flows smoothly and naturally comes to ease while reiterating. As you arrive back home, you suddenly come to the realization that you have to memorize a list of inventors for your history class. Stammering and stuttering along the way, you struggle to memorize a simple list for class. but so easily were able to recite the lyrics in your car moments ago. Why does this frustratingly happen to so many us? The answer is simple: earworms, and the two p’s: pitch and practice.

Pitch:

Whether it be Lil Wayne’s high pitched raps, or Drake’s nonchalant flow over a steady beat, we more readily memorize those lyrics as opposed to a list of vocab words or a lecture from a professor. It should be said that pitch correlates with memory, but certainly doesn’t resemble the factor of causation. Pitch doesn’t directly result in mass memorization, and reversely memory doesn’t equate to pitch. A recent study concluded that infrequent pitches result in higher auditory cognition when compared to pitches of the same frequency. Essentially, those results provide a much more clearer understanding of why musical lyrics, rich in the plethora of auditory components, are much more easier to memorize than a monotone lecture that perpetually drags on.

Practice:

Practice? We’re talking about Practice?!

Repetition is the simple formula for how to adequately memorize anything, whether it be song lyrics or vocabulary words. Just simply asserting that repetition constitutes memorization is almost as weakly inferred as the class power points we studied on some of the early 20th century reports by tobacco companies that just because doctors smoked meant that it was good for you. If we like a song, chances are we’ll listen to it again and again, forcing our brains mechanisms to recall the information from a song to process cohesive thought. Therefore, if a song is constantly on repeat, the brain will retrieve any information associated with the song from our memory, which results in memorization. Recollection of information pertaining to a song equals memorization, and this time, those earworms as mentioned beforehand don’t make kids stupid.

What’s up everyone, my name is Brendan Feifer and I am a freshman here, just like the majority of this class. I’m a broadcast journalism major, and I love sports.

To be quite honest, I took this class for the sole reason of not being a science major. Don’t get me wrong, I am immensely astounded by science and the deep roots to burning questions, but my intrinsic wondering for a deeper meaning was never fulfilled in high school.  That is why I am not planning to be a science major, and my interests followed another road instead.

Today’s lecture made me more than excited for the course, and after looking through the semester schedule it appears that we’ll be learning things that are unique only to this specific class. Never in another class would I imagine that we’d eventually discuss the morbid possibility of an existing zombie virus, so in 12 weeks when we cover that I’ll be anxiously waiting. When the semester is over, that could very well be the reason that I look back and say why I stuck with and took this course.

For sports fans such as myself, if you are unfamiliar with ESPN’s John Brenkus and his “Sports Science” segments on SportsCenter, I would definitely recommend checking it out here.