brain candy

Women who are more "emotionally intelligent" get greater pleasure from sex, research on twins suggests.

Wed, 13 May 2009 17:35:56 -0400

Women who are more "emotionally intelligent" get greater pleasure from sex, research on twins suggests.:

psychotherapy:

Well, this just might get some discussion going around here! I’d love to hear what you think about this recent article from the BBC:

According to a recent study of more than 2,000 female twins, those with greater emotional intelligence had larger numbers of orgasms.

Lead author Andrea Burri said: “Emotional intelligence seems to have a direct impact on women’s sexual functioning by influencing her ability to communicate her sexual expectations and desires to her partner.”

She added that there was a possible connection with a woman’s ability to fantasise during sex or her feeling of control over the act.

Paula Hall, a sexual psychotherapist for Relate, said: “Emotional intelligence is most important in terms of overcoming problems.

“Most women, and men for that matter, will have this problem at some stage in their life. It’s often situational - you are tired or stressed or having relationship problems, for example.

“It’s not just about technique and the environment being right.

“If you are aware of your own emotions and can identify the issues and communicate them, you are more likely to be able to resolve the difficulty.”

(The complete study/findings appear here, via The Journal of Sexual Medicine. The study is also mentioned in a far less subtly titled article “Bad luck bimbos: Intelligent women have better sex, study reveals” from The Daily Mail)

I feel like, while “emotional intelligence” would definitely have a large effect on a woman’s sexual enjoyment, I think it affects all of us (regardless of gender) more than we realize. The last sentance really sums it up for me:

“If you are aware of your own emotions and can identify the issues and communicate them, you are more likely to be able to resolve the difficulty.”

What Makes Us Happy?

Tue, 12 May 2009 12:58:14 -0400

What Makes Us Happy?:

zackgilbert:

Is there a formula—some mix of love, work, and psychological adaptation—for a good life? For 72 years, researchers at Harvard have been examining this question, following 268 men who entered college in the late 1930s through war, career, marriage and divorce, parenthood and grandparenthood, and old age. Here, for the first time, a journalist gains access to the archive of one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies in history. Its contents, as much literature as science, offer profound insight into the human condition—and into the brilliant, complex mind of the study’s longtime director, George Vaillant.

For future reading… it’s kinda long and I should be working.

The Female Brain

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:47:47 -0400

The Female Brain:

“…the simple act of talking triggers a flood of brain chemicals which give women a rush similar to that felt by heroin addicts when they get a high.”

“There are, however, advantages to being the strong, silent type. Dr Brizendine explains that testosterone also reduces the size of the section of the brain involved in hearing - allowing men to become “deaf” to the most logical of arguments put forward by their wives and girlfriends.”

Sadly, this is what it’s coming down to for me. I find working with an overwhelming majority of women is finally taking its toll. Sometimes by the end of the day, I feel ready to have myself committed; then just an hour of peace & quiet and I’m right as rain.

"It was assumed that a person without any emotions would be a better thinker, since their “cortical..."

Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:40:34 -0400

“It was assumed that a person without any emotions would be a better thinker, since their “cortical computer” could process information without the hindrance of emotion. Damasio’s research challenged the assumption by showing that people who have suffered brain injuries which prevent them from perceiving their own feelings, are ineffective decision-makers. Most would spend hours deliberating over irrelevant details, such as where to eat lunch. Damasio’s research, among many other studies, is revealing that emotion is what enables us to make up our minds. It is pure reason- not feeling- that is the true hindrance to decision making.”

- http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/12/vulcans-nixed-y.html (via em-dash)

The Addictive Personality

Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:35:01 -0400

kristinmick:

A major misconception involving addiction is the idea that certain substances are, all by themselves, addicting. That a drug can captivate an unwary victim is an idea popularized in the 1936 film Reefer Madness. In that movie, it took just a few puffs of marijuana to turn a gentleman into a slobbering dope fiend; his health shattered; his life ruined. While such heavy-handed propaganda might be met with less credulity today, the fact remains that most Americans still believe the basic message - Just Say No or you’ll wind up hooked. What makes this truly odd is that, according to numerous national surveys, most Americans have tried marijuana and didn’t become dope fiends. Indeed, several years ago, a group of US congressmen attempted to come forward, admit their prior pot use and put an end to a draconian system that confiscates property and puts people in prison for years. But the electorate clearly wasn’t ready for any such reappraisal of the drug laws and the movement quickly died.

But how is it, you ask, that all those congressmen that were candid about their drug use didn’t get hooked Reefer Madness style? The reason is because addiction depends, first and foremost, upon having an addictive personality. Such people, estimated at perhaps 10%-15% of the population, simply don’t know when to stop. Do you enjoy a glass or two of wine with dinner? If so, why not have ten or twenty? Did you ever buy a lottery ticket on your birthday? If so, why not sell your house and buy 100,000? How about going to church on Sunday? Does it make you feel good? If so, why not go every day twice a day? The point here is simple: Too much of a good thing can be bad. And yet people with addictive personalities will get hooked on alcohol and gambling and religion. Believe it or not, being addicted is nothing more than an out-of-control habit. The difference between that 10%-15% and everyone else is the difference between using and abusing.

During the Vietnam War, drug use was endemic among troops serving in Southeast Asia. And yet, returning veterans suffered addiction rates that were no higher than those found in the general population. It would be difficult to think of a more perfectly designed experiment to show, once and for all, that dependence is mostly a matter of personality. And yet, when it comes to winning hearts and minds, the War in Vietnam was as nothing when compared to the War on Drugs. Although this second battle has completely failed in reducing illegal drug use, it has succeeded brilliantly in convincing Americans that they need to be saved from themselves. It’s a belief that was sold so well that hardly anyone noticed that Drug Czar Bill Bennett was an addictive personality hooked on both food and gambling.

Look At It This Way

The problem with the War on Drugs is that it creates far more harm than it eliminates. If drugs can’t be kept out of prisons, how can you possibly keep them out of a mostly free society? The “War” won’t go away because by now it’s become a major industry. It creates jobs on one side of the law and provides the opportunity for huge financial rewards on the other. But, like Prohibition before, making a law that can’t be enforced does little more than erode the public’s respect for the law. When alcohol was illegal, the upper classes had theirs imported while the common folk drank it from bathtubs. No one so inclined went without. And nothing has changed. Bush turned (supposedly) from drugs and alcohol to religion, thus substituting one addiction for another. Clinton told us, with a straight face, that he never inhaled. So here’s a simple question: Would either of these gentlemen be better off today if they had been sentenced to long prison terms? If so, why not provide them with a belated opportunity to serve time? If not, then why should the kid down the street be put away for doing the same thing?

Asking such simple questions should make it plain to anyone with any common sense that the truth regarding drugs and addiction is concealed behind so many layers of ignorance and emotion, deception and special interests that it will remain a major problem for a long time to come.

VIA

Dan Ariely: Why we think it’s OK to cheat and steal...

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:10:13 -0400

Dan Ariely: Why we think it’s OK to cheat and steal (sometimes)

Babies Know: A Little Dirt Is Good for You

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:25:35 -0400

Babies Know: A Little Dirt Is Good for You:

aberjona:

givemesomethingtoread:

The hygiene hypothesis suggests that organisms that enter the body along with “dirt” spur the development of a healthy immune system.

Finally getting around to reading this. Summary: as my Glaswegian grandmother would say, “Ye gotta eat a speck o’ dirt before ye die.”

March Madness for Geeks Create your own - here

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:40:55 -0400

March Madness for Geeks

Create your own - here

Our world may be a giant hologram (NewScientist)

Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:23:38 -0500

Our world may be a giant hologram (NewScientist):

carolinemartin:

If you can get through the first few paragraphs, there’s an explanation that will blow your holographic mind.

The Oldest English Words

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:13:54 -0500

jennifermorris:

nerdology:

The oldest English words have been discovered by researchers at, I kid you not, Reading University in the UK. What are the oldest words in the English language you ask? They believe them to be ”I,” “who,” and “we” which go back as far as 40,000 years.

I’m a big fan of words, putting them together to make strings of sentences dance before you. I edit my own speech mid sentence if I come up with a better formation, or complementation of words. But the people at Reading University, go beyond my mild fascination.

“We have lists of words that linguists have produced for us that tell us if two words in related languages actually derive from a common ancestral word… We have descriptions of the ways we think words change and their ability to change into other words, and those descriptions can be turned into a mathematical language.” - Professor Pagel

They can figure out which words won’t be around in the next thousand years, based on the number of other words we have to say the same thing. Spoiler alert “push,” “turn,” “wipe” and “stab” probably won’t be around next millennia.

So how did the wordsmiths over at Reading University figure out which words were the oldest? They based part of it on usage. These guys figured out that the most commonly used words were the ones that changed less frequently. Think about how often you say “I” or “we” on a daily basis. You could see then how unlikely it would be for something like that to change in our vocabulary.

[BBC]

Manifesto

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:37:37 -0500

emilyi:

The OBEY sticker campaign can be explained as an experiment in Phenomenology. Heidegger describes Phenomenology as “the process of letting things manifest themselves.” Phenomenology attempts to enable people to see clearly something that is right before their eyes but obscured; things that are so taken for granted that they are muted by abstract observation.

The FIRST AIM OF PHENOMENOLOGY is to reawaken a sense of wonder about one’s environment. The OBEY sticker attempts to stimulate curiosity and bring people to question both the sticker and their relationship with their surroundings. Because people are not used to seeing advertisements or propaganda for which the product or motive is not obvious, frequent and novel encounters with the sticker provoke thought and possible frustration, nevertheless revitalizing the viewer’s perception and attention to detail. The sticker has no meaning but exists only to cause people to react, to contemplate and search for meaning in the sticker. Because OBEY has no actual meaning, the various reactions and interpretations of those who view it reflect their personality and the nature of their sensibilities.

Many people who are familiar with the sticker find the image itself amusing, recognizing it as nonsensical, and are able to derive straightforward visual pleasure without burdening themselves with an explanation. The PARANOID OR CONSERVATIVE VIEWER however may be confused by the sticker’s persistent presence and condemn it as an underground cult with subversive intentions. Many stickers have been peeled down by people who were annoyed by them, considering them an eye sore and an act of petty vandalism, which is ironic considering the number of commercial graphic images everyone in American society is assaulted with daily.

Another phenomenon the sticker has brought to light is the trendy and CONSPICUOUSLY CONSUMPTIVE nature of many members of society. For those who have been surrounded by the sticker, its familiarity and cultural resonance is comforting and owning a sticker provides a souvenir or keepsake, a memento. People have often demanded the sticker merely because they have seen it everywhere and possessing a sticker provides a sense of belonging. The Giant sticker seems mostly to be embraced by those who are (or at least want to seem to be) rebellious. Even though these people may not know the meaning of the sticker, they enjoy its slightly disruptive underground quality and wish to contribute to the furthering of its humorous and absurd presence which seems to somehow be antiestablishment/societal convention. Giant stickers are both embraced and rejected, the reason behind which, upon examination reflects the psyche of the viewer. Whether the reaction be positive or negative, the stickers existence is worthy as long as it causes people to consider the details and meanings of their surroundings. In the name of fun and observation.

Shepard Fairey, 1990

Humor as social bargaining...

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:02:51 -0500

Humor as social bargaining...:

emilyi:

psychotherapy:

Gruner offers an account of how humor might have arisen, which argues strongly for superiority theory. He posits that whereas our ancestors might normally have resorted to violence in order to assert their status within a social hierarchy, those who instead employed derisive humor would have garnered a significant evolutionary advantage. Since high social status generally entails greater access to resources, it would have been adaptive to be attracted to potential mates who are socially dominant. Sexual selection, in turn, would then have favored men who noisily asserted this dominance through humor.

This is a pretty interesting read.

How Your Brain Works (Slideshow)

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:55:06 -0500

How Your Brain Works (Slideshow)

cuddleblog: What Do Women Want? - Discovering What Ignites...

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:41:19 -0500

cuddleblog:

What Do Women Want? - Discovering What Ignites Female Desire - NYTimes.com

kml: suyhnc: via tristanjay7: The Languages of Europe (via...

Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:57:46 -0500

kml:

suyhnc:

via tristanjay7:
The Languages of Europe (via gospelofmoll)

Baader-Meinhof phenomenon

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:25:20 -0500

msbadkittie:

The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon occurs when a person, after having learned some (usually obscure) fact, word, phrase, or other item for the first time, encounters that item again, perhaps several times, shortly after having learned it. This is a specialised version of the effect of serendipity. (via Wikipedia)

mogadonia:talksmalltalk:allthiscanbeyours:shiningstar:randyhaddock:

cube24: the one…are we ready?

Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:26:30 -0500

cube24:

the one…are we ready?

So Much for the Information Age

Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:25:44 -0500

So Much for the Information Age

How the city hurts your brain - Boston.com

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:38:05 -0500

How the city hurts your brain - Boston.com:

pufferfish:

A very interesting look at the pro’s and con’s of living in a city.

Blondes really do have more fun, study shows | ZME Science

Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:09:22 -0500

Blondes really do have more fun, study shows | ZME Science