trust your gut

From ScienceDaily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090208133221.htm

This study shows a "lucky guess" might be a lot less about luck and a lot less of a guess than we think.

Researchers at Northwestern University, led by psych professor Ken Paller, showed participants a variety of pictures: half they could pay their full attention to, the other half they were supposed to be listening and memorizing a number. And... "Remarkably, people were more accurate in selecting the old image when they had been distracted than when they had paid full attention. They also were more accurate when they claimed to be guessing than when they registered some familiarity for the image," Paller says. Even though splitting attention is supposed to worsen memory, the "visual system" was working as normal.

"The study suggests that we shouldn't rely only on conscious memory, Paller concludes. 'It suggests that we also need to develop our intuitive nature and creativity. Intuition may have an important role in finding answers to all sorts of problems in everyday life -- including big ones such as our ailing economy.'" Paller also talks about the need to further recognize and develop many types of intelligence.

This makes a lot of sense to me... I tend to remember things better when I'm not totally focused on one thing. That's why I like to doodle during lectures. (Also because otherwise I end up either daydreaming or trying not to fall asleep. Oh well.)

too many babies

From BBC News: Population: The elephant in the room

From Dr. John Feeney comes an editorial about how our unchecked population growth will lead to a Malthusian catastrophe, and how environmentalists don't really like to talk about overpopulation and its control. I totally agree. It is an issue, and it is affecting our environment. Somewhere around 100 species go extinct every day, because we're converting biomass to human-mass (I stole that from Daniel Quinn, I'll admit). People are starving all over the plant, and they keeps getting food and more land gets converted, but they're still starving.

I think the taboo on the subject comes from a lot of things. First, of course, is that birth control is still a touchy subject, mostly because certain religious groups try to block access to it, especially to those who most need it, the poor. In the US, when the pill came out back in the '50s and then got really popular in the '60s, minority groups accused the government and Margaret Sanger (a birth control advocate who helped bring everything together in its creation) of eugenics and racism. On the part of Sanger, this is, unfortunately, true. But those who don't really have the means to support children probably shouldn't be having them. I don't know if we can erase poverty, but I can't imagine growing up in it will help break the cycle.

However, I also don't think rich people should be having a ton of kids just because they can, though I admit "a ton" is relative (some say one should be the limit, some say two, some say more). I've heard people give Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt a hard time because they have something of a brood now, but I mean, they only had three; the other three are adopted. Nothing wrong with adopting. On the other hand, there is that woman in California who just had octuplets when she already had six kids because of some crazy fertility treatment; or that couple in Arkansas with 18 kids. I don't see how they can raise that many. My mother just had three, and even when she was a stay-at-home when we were young it seemed pretty stressful.

However, moving on. I think there's also an issue because the cultural meme is that women should be having children, preferably more than one. Women who don't want to have children get a lot of shit, as do women with only one. I feel like women who aren't sure if they want them or now feel like it's better to in case they regret it.

Last is that for a lot of women, especially in developing and third world countries (though definitely in developed, too!), it's not an issue of consensual sex. Where women are raped, or are given away in marriage forcefully or too young to really understand. I don't feel like in those cases it's a birth control access issue, or just that, it's a women's rights issue. It seems like women's rights is still somewhat controversial: in the US while Bush was in office, in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and I'm sure many other places around the world. I don't know how much birth control can help women who never really have any choice in the sex.

I don't know what the solution is. I mean, in a lot of ways, having children around is nice. I mean, we're wired to like babies. I have a niece, and she's adorable, and my sister makes an excellent mother; at this point, though, I'm not sure if I'll be having children. I'm 25, so I've got time to really decide. Part of me wants to; the other part of me realizes I have trouble taking care of plants. That part of me also thinks I shouldn't be contributing to the problem, and leave it to people like my sister who will actually do it well.

too much gaming=not enough time for other things? really?

From ScienceDaily: Video Games Linked to Poor Relationships With Friends, Family

There's apparently a "modest" association between spending a lot of time playing video games and not-so-good relationships with friends and family. This made me laugh a little: "the student co-author expresses disappointment at his own findings." It's not really surprising, though. As much as I love gaming, doing it a lot (and it can be super-addictive!) can interfere with other parts of your life. I mean, you need to have a fairly balanced life, right? Doing work and/or school, taking care of yourself and your surroundings, socializing, and hobbies. Gaming is a hobby, and playing like 10 hours a day (more than very rarely, I'll say) can really cut into everything else.

science is a hardcore gamer

From ScienceDaily: Video Game Players Love the Game, Not the Gore

Hey guys! Most of us gamers really aren't sociopathic and blood-thirsty. We just like the challenge. Well, there are some people, but they were more aggressive anyway. Science is on our side. It loves us. Science is a gamer.

game theory the agony aunt

From ScienceDaily: Game Theory Explains Why You Can't Hurry Love

Mathematics, Dear Abby, and my mother agree: it's better to wait to commit in a relationship. Apparently waiting out the honeymoon phase is a solid mathematical principal, now. Randall Munroe at XKCD must be thrilled.

not a path, a field

From Salon: Since You Asked: I'm wandering the halls of life on a visitor's pass

I have a weakness for advice columns. I think Cary Tennis is a bit hit-or-miss, but I really liked this one from 1/15/09. The letter writer says she feels aimless. She doesn't know what to do with her life. She has been trying to be "pragmatic" and find her path, but it's not working.

Cary says:

Of course this "approach" doesn't "work." That's not how the universe is structured, my friend. We don't "work" it. It isn't something we control and manage. That's a view of reality based in the industrial world, and the world is not industrial. It is in fact magical and mysterious and if you don't do something soon it is all going to be over and none of this will have mattered and you will have run around trying to fix something that can't be fixed and trying to control something that can't be controlled and create some kind of world that can't be created because you, my friend, are not in control of these things, and all these people you see around you who seem to have it together have no better idea than you do how to actually live a meaningful life, but what they do have is some prior operant conditioning that took well, and the good luck to have fallen onto this mottled surface more or less shaped according to the slots currently existing for them, which is fine if you want comfort and a good slot to fit in. But otherwise what good are they going to do? What are they going to discover, what are they going to create, and why are they going to go through their whole lives having never glimpsed the existential terror that you, my courageous voyager into the heart of the beautiful and terrifying and meaningless, have made yourself contentedly comfortable with (as comfortable as one can be with the screamingly terrifying and chaotic knowledge of the void)?

Most people don't know what they're doing.

one for the other

From ScienceDaily: Mothers Pass On Disease Clues To Offspring

Apparently in many species, when females are pregnant and they might get ill, they produce less aggressive male offspring with a better immune system, and "[t]he results of this new study support the existence of a ‘trade off’ between social dominance and disease resistance."

Ha! So see, my desire for a less aggressive mate makes sense. Better disease resistance to pass down. Fuck social dominance, those assholes.

teenagers aren't complete mindless walking hormones

From ScienceDaily: Fears of Promiscuity Pose Barrier To Cervical Cancer Vaccinations

Do most people really think that teenagers are just barely keeping themselves from humping each other randomly because of the fear of cancer? There are a lot more road blocks than that. For instance, one must find someone who actually wants to have sex with you. And someone you want to have sex with. This is actually much more difficult than adults remember. There are teenagers having sex, yes, but I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be a huge increase in teens having sex by giving them this vaccine. I don't think most teens worry about STDs. When I was that age, I was definitely more worried about getting pregnant than catching something (not that I had very much sex in high school; I was pretty awkward). The teens that would have sex after vaccine are probably the same ones that do it anyway. (Can you imagine: "Oh baby, you know you love me, let's do it. You won't die a horrible death of cervical cancer anyway.")

confident AND modest?

From EurekAlert: Women who are perceived as confident in job interviews are also seen as lacking in social skills

And we have to be hot, too.

So when I finish school and start applying for jobs, I must be competent and intelligent and talk about how awesome I am to show how great I would be at the job, but appear friendly and modest and nurturing so I don't seem like I randomly castrate men. And show my boobs. Great.

Via Jezebel, originally published in Psychology of Women Quarterly.

overspend to mate?

From Live Science: Ooga Ooga! Men Overspend to Attract Mates

A double-whammy of "what-guys-do-to-get-laid-scientific-style." As with the previous study, where guys act aggressive to attract mates, I understand the underlying why but not the over-arcing why. In this study, scientists find that men who live beyond their means get laid a lot more. But, and forgive any sexism towards both men and women that will probably follow, I just get images of expensive meat-market clubs where women paint themselves deeper and men buy them expensive drinks to have sex with them. Women who want a man to buy them expensive things and take them expensive places. Men who do so, and complain that women only want their money. The cattiest kind of women, and the assholiest kind of men.

It's quality over quantity, guys. And gals.

I'm not just saying the quality of the relationship, or at least I don't mean casual sex is horrible and it's best if everybody tries to be in relationships. I just feel like the type of women who tries to get through life on her looks only, and the type of man who drives himself into debt to get pointless hot girls can be very good friends or companions or dates or lovers or spouses.

Like I wrote upwards, I'm probably just stereotyping this whole thing. I've never been much of a clubber or bar-goer (at least to pick people up) myself. I guess it's just this whole consumerism thing that pisses me off. I like buying new toys for myself, and I like new pretty clothes, but spending shit tons of money on clothes disgusts me, and the fun I would have playing an XBox360 on a big HD TV would not cover up the sinking feeling of being inescapably in debt when I can barely support myself.

Plus, I think guys who live happily within their means are pretty sexy. And I totally love that Not So Big House thing.

be aggressive to mate?

From Science Daily: Why Do People Make 'A Mountain Out of a Molehill?' Aggression, Status and Sex

I understand the whole "acting like a big man" thing from an evolutionary standpoint. Don't take shit from anyone, prove you're stronger, make others back down. But seriously, I can't stand guys like that. It's like, "Dude, you're an asshole." I mean, there is definitely being too passive, too, but I think that's true for women, too. I think part of this whole white-matter-high-reasoning thing is picking your battles. Jeez.