A Quote
The study, by Johns Hopkins University psychologists, suggests that the ability to understand math is linked to an inborn “number sense,” also known as “approximate number system,” that’s inherent in all animals, including humans. You use number sense to do things like instantly estimate how many people are in a room or how many empty seats there are in a movie theater. Animals use it to do things like determine where the most food is.
The study measured the number sense of preschoolers and linked it to their performance on various tests of math ability. Preschoolers were used because they hadn’t yet received any formal math education, which is an important distinction because researchers believe number sense is universal while math ability is taught and is highly influenced by culture and language and takes years to learn.
The preschoolers were given two sets of tests. The first set involved number sense tests in which the preschoolers viewed groups of blue and yellow dots on a computer screen and estimated which color had more dots. The second set involved math ability tests in which the same preschoolers were measured on numbering skills (verbally counting items on a page), numerical literacy (reading numbers), calculation skills (addition and subtraction), and other abilities.
The researchers found that the preschoolers who did better at estimating dots also did better when it came to the math ability tests. General intelligence tests were also administered to rule out those who simply performed well on all the tests.
A Quote
IN THE next few weeks, a new name will appear in the periodic table when the element with atomic number 112 receives a new name - sealing its place in the family of chemical elements. Known till now by the provisional name ununbium, element 112 will be named by its discoverers, a group led by Sigurd Hofmann at the Centre for Heavy Ion Research (GSI) in Darmstadt, Germany. The naming of the new element will be the culmination of a long, fraught journey involving fierce competition, dashed hopes, clever detective work and even a brush with scientific misconduct. With a nucleus containing 112 protons - 20 more than uranium, the heaviest of the naturally occurring elements - it will be the weightiest atom whose existence has been confirmed so far. “The aim is to find the end of the periodic table,” says Hofmann.
A Link to Depression's Evolutionary Roots
Depression seems to pose an evolutionary paradox. Research in the US and other countries estimates that between 30 to 50 percent of people have met current psychiatric diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder sometime in their lives. But the brain plays crucial roles in promoting survival and reproduction, so the pressures of evolution should have left our brains resistant to such high rates of malfunction. Mental disorders should generally be rare — why isn’t depression?
This paradox could be resolved if depression were a problem of growing old. The functioning of all body systems and organs, including the brain, tends to deteriorate with age. This is not a satisfactory explanation for depression, however, as people are most likely to experience their first bout in adolescence and young adulthood.
Or, perhaps, depression might be like obesity — a problem that arises because modern conditions are so different from those in which we evolved. Homo sapiens did not evolve with cookies and soda at the fingertips. Yet this is not a satisfactory explanation either. The symptoms of depression have been found in every culture which has been carefully examined, including small-scale societies, such as the Ache of Paraguay and the !Kung of southern Africa — societies where people are thought to live in environments similar to those that prevailed in our evolutionary past.
There is another possibility: that, in most instances, depression should not be thought of as a disorder at all. In an article recently published in Psychological Review, we argue that depression is in fact an adaptation, a state of mind which brings real costs, but also brings real benefits.
One reason to suspect that depression is an adaptation, not a malfunction, comes from research into a molecule in the brain known as the 5HT1A receptor. The 5HT1A receptor binds to serotonin, another brain molecule that is highly implicated in depression and is the target of most current antidepressant medications. Rodents lacking this receptor show fewer depressive symptoms in response to stress, which suggests that it is somehow involved in promoting depression. (Pharmaceutical companies, in fact, are designing the next generation of antidepressant medications to target this receptor.) When scientists have compared the composition of the functional part rat 5HT1A receptor to that of humans, it is 99 percent similar, which suggests that it is so important that natural selection has preserved it. The ability to “turn on” depression would seem to be important, then, not an accident.
This is not to say that depression is not a problem. Depressed people often have trouble performing everyday activities, they can’t concentrate on their work, they tend to socially isolate themselves, they are lethargic, and they often lose the ability to take pleasure from such activities such as eating and sex. Some can plunge into severe, lengthy, and even life-threatening bouts of depression.
So what could be so useful about depression? Depressed people often think intensely about their problems. These thoughts are called ruminations; they are persistent and depressed people have difficulty thinking about anything else. Numerous studies have also shown that this thinking style is often highly analytical. They dwell on a complex problem, breaking it down into smaller components, which are considered one at a time.
This analytical style of thought, of course, can be very productive. Each component is not as difficult, so the problem becomes more tractable. Indeed, when you are faced with a difficult problem, such as a math problem, feeling depressed is often a useful response that may help you analyze and solve it. For instance, in some of our research, we have found evidence that people who get more depressed while they are working on complex problems in an intelligence test tend to score higher on the test.
Analysis requires a lot of uninterrupted thought, and depression coordinates many changes in the body to help people analyze their problems without getting distracted. In a region of the brain known as the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC), neurons must fire continuously for people to avoid being distracted. But this is very energetically demanding for VLPFC neurons, just as a car’s engine eats up fuel when going up a mountain road. Moreover, continuous firing can cause neurons to break down, just as the car’s engine is more likely to break down when stressed. Studies of depression in rats show that the 5HT1A receptor is involved in supplying neurons with the fuel they need to fire, as well as preventing them from breaking down. These important processes allow depressive rumination to continue uninterrupted with minimal neuronal damage, which may explain why the 5HT1A receptor is so evolutionarily important.
Many other symptoms of depression make sense in light of the idea that analysis must be uninterrupted. The desire for social isolation, for instance, helps the depressed person avoid situations that would require thinking about other things. Similarly, the inability to derive pleasure from sex or other activities prevents the depressed person from engaging in activities that could distract him or her from the problem. Even the loss of appetite often seen in depression could be viewed as promoting analysis because chewing and other oral activity interferes with the brain’s ability to process information.
But is there any evidence that depression is useful in analyzing complex problems? For one thing, if depressive rumination were harmful, as most clinicians and researchers assume, then bouts of depression should be slower to resolve when people are given interventions that encourage rumination, such as having them write about their strongest thoughts and feelings. However, the opposite appears to be true. Several studies have found that expressive writing promotes quicker resolution of depression, and they suggest that this is because depressed people gain insight into their problems.
There is another suggestive line of evidence. Various studies have found that people in depressed mood states are better at solving social dilemmas. Yet these would seem to have been precisely the kind of problems difficult enough to require analysis and important enough to drive the evolution of such a costly emotion. Consider a woman with young children who discovers her husband is having an affair. Is the wife’s best strategy to ignore it, or force him to choose between her and the other woman, and risk abandonment? Laboratory experiments indicate that depressed people are better at solving social dilemmas by better analysis of the costs and benefits of the different options that they might take.
Sometimes people are reluctant to disclose the reason for their depression because it is embarrassing or sensitive, they find it painful, they believe they must soldier on and ignore them, or they have difficulty putting their complex internal struggles into words.
But depression is nature’s way of telling you that you’ve got complex social problems that the mind is intent on solving. Therapies should try to encourage depressive rumination rather than try to stop it, and they should focus on trying to help people solve the problems that trigger their bouts of depression. (There are several effective therapies that focus on just this.) It is also essential, in instances where there is resistance to discussing ruminations, that the therapist try to identify and dismantle those barriers.
When one considers all the evidence, depression seems less like a disorder where the brain is operating in a haphazard way, or malfunctioning. Instead, depression seems more like the vertebrate eye—an intricate, highly organized piece of machinery that performs a specific function.
Loading...
A Quote
FOR the female half of the population, it may bring a satisfied smile. Scientists have found that evolution is driving women to become ever more beautiful, while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors.
The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern.
Over generations, the scientists argue, this has led to women becoming steadily more aesthetically pleasing, a “beauty race” that is still on. The findings have emerged from a series of studies of physical attractiveness and its links to reproductive success in humans.
In a study released last week, Markus Jokela, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, found beautiful women had up to 16% more children than their plainer counterparts. He used data gathered in America, in which 1,244 women and 997 men were followed through four decades of life. Their attractiveness was assessed from photographs taken during the study, which also collected data on the number of children they had.
This builds on previous work by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, who found that good-looking parents were far more likely to conceive daughters. He suggested this was an evolutionary strategy subtly programmed into human DNA.
He cited two findings from the Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a US government-backed study that is monitoring more than 15,000 Americans. The measurements include objective assessments of physical attractiveness.
One finding was that women were generally regarded by both sexes as more aesthetically appealing than men. The other was that the most attractive parents were 26% less likely to have sons.
Kanazawa said: “Physical attractiveness is a highly heritable trait, which disproportionately increases the reproductive success of daughters much more than that of sons.
“If more attractive parents have more daughters and if physical attractiveness is heritable, it logically follows that women over many generations gradually become more physically attractive on average than men.”
In men, by contrast, good looks appear to count for little, with handsome men being no more successful than others in terms of numbers of children. This means there has been little pressure for men’s appearance to evolve.
The findings coincide with the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution first described the forces that shape all species.
Even he, however, might have been surprised by the subtlety of the effects now being detected by researchers looking into human mating.
The heritability of attractiveness is widely accepted. When Elizabeth Jagger became a model, her mother, the former model Jerry Hall, said: “It’s in her genes.”
Women may take consolation in the finding that men are subject to other types of evolutionary pressure.
Gayle Brewer, a psychology lecturer at the University of Central Lancashire, said: “Men and women seek different things in their partners.
“For women, looks are much less important in a man than his ability to look after her when she is pregnant and nursing, periods when women are vulnerable to predators. Historically this has meant rich men tend to have more wives and many children. So the pressure is on men to be successful.”
A Link to Психология предрассудка: стигматизация-страх подтверждения-неуспех
В конце 40-х годов социальные психологи Кенне Кларк и Мэйми Кларк (Clark, Clark, 1947) провели ставший классическим экперимент, в результате которого обнаружили, что негритянские дети уже в возрасте 3-х лет знали, что чёрным быть в этой стране плохо. В эксперименте детям на выбор предлагали играть с чёрной или белой куклой. Большинство детей не захотели играть с чёрной куклой; они «думали», что белая кукла симпатичней и в целом лучше чёрной.
Понижение самооценки наблюдается не только у чернокожих, но и у других подавляемых в обществе групп. Так, Филип Голдберг (Goldberg, 1968) продемонстрировал, что не только афроамериканцы, но и женщины-американки с детства привыкают считать себя ннтеллектуально ниже мужчины. В своём эксперименте Голдберг попросил девушек-студенток колледжа прочесть несколько научных статей и оценит их компетенцию и стиль. Одним студенткам дали статьи, подписанные мужскими именами («Джон Т. Маккей»), а другим – те же самые статьи, но с женской подписью (например, «Джоан Т. Маккей»). Девушки-студентки оценивали статьи намного выше, когда видели, что автор – мужчина, чем статьи с женским именем и фамилией на титуле. Другими словами, эти женщины знали своё место; они считали, что всё, созданное женщинами, будет обязательно хуже того, что сделано мужчинами. Это естественное следствие жизни в обществе с предрассудками.
[…]
Нет необходимости говорить о том, что эти представления, направленные на самопоражение, не возникают в вакууме. На них влияют установки нашего общества в целом, и наиболее значительное влияние оказывают на девочку те люди, которые наиболее важны для неё – её родители. В этой области Дженис Джакобс и Жаклин Экклз исследовали влияние гендерных стереотипов убеждений матери на восприятие способностей их детей 11-12 летнего возраста. Джакобс и Экклз впоследствии проверили, как точка зрения родителей повлиял на восприятие детьми собственных способностей. Как и следовало ожидат, те матери, у кого гендерные предубеждения были выражены наиболее ярко, считали, что их дочери не отличаются склонностью к математике, а зато сыновья, думали они, обладают хорошими математическими способностями. Матери, не разделявшие стереотипных мнений, не думали, что у их дочерей способности меньше, чем у сыновей. Мнения родителей оказали сильное влияние на детей, о которых шла речь. Дочерям женщин с сильными гендерными стереотипами казалось, что они неспособны к математике (Jakobs, Eссles, 1992). У дочерей тех женщин которые не придерживались ярко выраженных гендерных стереотипов, не наблюдалось подобных саморазрушительных тенденций. Этот случай – интересный вариант самореализующихся прогнозов.
Loading...
A Link to Трудолюбивые бездельники
Интересное исследование провела доктор Anna Dornhaus из университета Аризоны. Она нанесла уникальные разноцветные метки на 1200 муравьев. Затем записали более 300 часов видео, на котором фиксировали поведение колонии помеченных муравьев, и изучили движения каждого из них.
Миф о повальном трудолюбии муравьёв был развенчан. Оказалось, что значительная часть муравейника не участвует ни в чем продуктивном. Самые быстрые из подопечных тратят от одной до пяти минут на выполнение своей задачи (в основном это заготовление пищи). Другим, боле медленным, потребуется до двух часов на ту же работу. Удивительно, что оставшаяся половина муравейника ничего не делает.
Чем объясняется такое поведение? По словам доктора Dornhaus, муравьи могут быть неактивны, резервируя силы для чрезвычайных ситуаций, или накапливают биохимические вещества, которые защищают гнездо. Конечно, могут существовать и другие теории.
Loading...
A Link to Beware the perils of caffeine withdrawal
Susan Todd loves her daily coffee fix. “I can drink four or five cups, easily, comfortably,” said Todd, 59, of Clinton Township, Michigan.
Skeet Spillane (right) got severe headaches when he quit caffeine. His wife said he was cranky most of the time.
But if she skips her regular dose of caffeine, Todd warned, watch out.
“I feel lousy all over. It’s not that anything hurts,” she explained. “I just feel sluggish, and a cup of caffeine will cure that.”
Todd is among the estimated 80 to 90 percent of North American adults and children who consume caffeine products every day. Experts estimate about half that number will experience headaches and other symptoms from caffeine withdrawal syndrome.
There are a number of reasons why someone might need to reduce or stop their daily caffeine intake. Experts tell pregnant women not to consume more than 200 milligrams of caffeine a day (about one 12-ounce cup of coffee). Caffeinated products are not recommended for people who are prone to panic attacks or those who suffer from anxiety. Some surgical patients may also experience the symptoms of caffeine withdrawal syndrome on the day of surgery, because they are told not to eat or drink anything.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, recognized the condition as a disorder five years ago after reviewing decades of studies. They concluded the higher the caffeine intake, the more likely a patient was to suffer from severe withdrawal symptoms when denied the ingredient.
Researchers also reported that some caffeine users considered themselves addicted to caffeine because they were unable to quit or cut down on their usage.
Michael Kuhar, chief of the division of neuroscience at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, prefers to use the word “dependent” rather than “addicted.” Even though he called caffeine a drug, Kuhar wouldn’t go so far as saying it has reached the status of cocaine or heroin.
According to Kuhar, caffeine is a mild stimulant. “If you take a cup of caffeine you’re likely to feel good and energized,” he said.
Miss that cup of “Joe” or can of cola and don’t be surprised if you start feeling funny, Kuhar warned. He said some people complain of “headache, fatigue, sleepiness, inability to focus and concentrate.” Others report experiencing flu- like symptoms, irritability, depression and anxiety after skipping as little as one cup of coffee a day.
Kuhar explained that caffeine blocks receptors in the brain that can dilate blood vessels causing headaches. “Withdrawal symptoms can start from 12 to 20 hours after your last cup of coffee and peak about two days later and can last about as long as a week,” Kuhar added.
It is not just coffee that can lead to caffeine withdrawal. While a 6-ounce cup of brewed coffee contains about 100 milligrams of caffeine, tea and cola have about 40 milligrams each, a bar of milk chocolate has about 10 milligrams and hot chocolate has about 7 milligrams.
Kuhar said that means adults as well as children may be suffering daily physiological and personality effects of caffeine withdrawal.
He recommended that people who are motivated to give up caffeine, or cut back on consumption, do so very carefully. “The thing to do is what we do with so many drugs — basically you wean yourself off slowly,” Kuhar suggested. “That doesn’t mean it is going to be easy at every step, but it should be easier than going cold turkey.”
Johns Hopkins researchers also endorsed a stepped approach to quitting caffeine. They instruct patients to gradually substitute decaffeinated products or noncaffeinated products over time in order to reduce the likelihood of experiencing withdrawal symptoms.
Kuhar suggested the process also can begin with reducing caffeine consumption by a half to a whole cup a day.
Technology consultant Skeet Spillane, 42, of St. Petersburg, Florida, started a step-down program after years of consuming up to three cups of coffee each day. He felt he was “drinking way too much caffeine.”
Spillane said he knew right away that he was suffering from caffeine withdrawal when he started getting severe headaches. His wife told him he was cranky most of the time.
He now drinks tea instead, and occasionally sneaks a cup of coffee. Looking back, Spillane admitted going through withdrawal was “tough for a while,” but he’s feeling better these days and he’s glad he’s not so dependent on caffeine.
A Link to Old age begins at 27: Scientists reveal new research into ageing
Old age is often blamed for causing us to misplace car keys, forget a word or lose our train of thought.
But new research shows that many well-known effects of ageing may start decades before our twilight years.
According to scientists, our mental abilities begin to decline from the age of 27 after reaching a peak at 22.
The researchers studied 2,000 men and women aged 18 to 60 over seven years. The people involved – who were mostly in good health and well-educated – had to solve visual puzzles, recall words and story details and spot patterns in letters and symbols.
Similar tests are often used to diagnose mental disabilities and declines, including dementia.
The research at the University of Virginia, reported in the academic journal Neurobiology Of Aging, found that in nine out of 12 tests the average age at which the top performance was achieved was 22.
The first age at which performance was significantly lower than the peak scores was 27 – for three tests of reasoning, speed of thought and spatial visualisation. Memory was shown to decline from the average age of 37. In the other tests, poorer results were shown by the age of 42. […]
A Link to Lower air pollution equals longer life
A new study by the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has found a strong link between air quality and life expectancy.
A piece in the NIEHS Environmental Factor discusses the results of a study performed by NIEHS and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The researchers looked at air pollution, deaths and census data for 51 metropolitan areas between 1978 and 2001.
The researchers also looked at factors like socio economic status and demographic characteristics of the areas studied. What they found was a direct correlation between improving air quality and extending life expectancy; people lived about 2.72 years longer over that time span and at least 15 percent of that increased life expectancy was from a decrease in air pollution.
A decrease in air pollution amounting to 10 micrograms per cubic meter of of particulates in the air led to an additional .61 years of life. Reducing particulate matter generated by factories, vehicles and power plants led to longer lives for the people living in those areas.
Following California’s effort to get people to switch from fossil fuel powered cars to hybrids or electric cars cuts not only cuts down on global warming but also adds to your life span. Cleaning up coal fired power plants and adding scrubbers to factory smoke stakes are also necessary for cleaning up the air quality of major cities and counties.
It’s hard to get worked up over studies talk about the effect global warming will have on the planet in 2100 or 2500. More than likely most of us won’t be alive by the time the dire predictions come to pass. However, when you know that switching the kind of car you drive, insisting on cleaner energy and cleaner factory emissions will add years to your life and your children’s lives, it is hard to not to be proactive.
Everyone should be lobbying for stricter air quality standards. Your life and the lives of those you love, depend on it.
