"Everything Old Was Once New

and until explored unfamiliar and dangerous..."
(Sir Terry Pratchett)



Cheeky & Geeky Se Moi;

Vision, Faith & Attitude!

Nie Hao, Gaat ie, Fawakka?


DISCLAIMER: I do not own the photos published here, unless stated.

photos

kqedscience:

New species discovered in Suriname 

An armored catfish, a Pac-Man frog and a cowboy frog were some of the 1,300 species documented during a scientific survey conducted by Conservation International in southwest Suriname in 2010. Their finds included 46 potentially new species.

According to a press release, Conservation International’s Rapid Assessment Program traveled to three locations along the Kutari and Sipaliwini Rivers “in an effort to document the region’s poorly known biodiversity and help develop sustainable ecotourism opportunities for the local indigenous people.”

The findings from the expedition were published in the RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment series, “A Rapid Biological Assessment of the Kwamalasamatu region, Southwestern Suriname.”

More species were discovered around the world this month, including the world’s tiniest vertebrate, found in New Guinea. Off the eastern coast of Australia, scientists encountered the world’s first hybrid shark.

Check out photos and a video of the new and observed species discovered by the Rapid Assessment Program below (Captions courtesy of Conservation International):

photo

New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist

Science has already established that people with right leaning political ideology are more apt to be prejudiced and that people with low education tend to be prejudiced, but now they’ve also shown that low IQs and conservative beliefs are linked to prejudice.
Cue the screaming poutrage of the Right.
Stephanie Pappas reported for Yahoo:


There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.
The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.
“Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood,” he said.

And you wondered why conservatives don’t believe in science. If science told you that your beliefs were ignorant and a sign of a low IQ, you would (assuming you had a low IQ) do what any low IQ animal would do. You’d react with anger and perhaps verbal violence to stop the inevitable pain that results from cognitive dissonance among those who can’t handle it. Who can’t handle cognitive dissonance? People with lower IQs.
Now before we get all puffed up and start gloating toward our racist acquaintances, we of the superior intellect need to realize that gloating in the face of an angry, confused person with a low IQ will do nothing but give short term satisfaction.
As other scientists note later in the article, the challenge is how to get through to people whose intellect can’t handle being challenged with alternative realities. We can’t argue our way through to them; we have to find a way to appeal to their feelings. And yet, it seems compassion is lacking so we can’t put any stake in using compassion or empathy to appeal.
The ability to appeal to base emotions is exemplified in many of the has-been Republican candidates from Cain to Perry, but nobody does it like Newt. After all, it takes an unfathomable loss of ethics and integrity to knowingly and with malice exploit racism and fear for personal gain. It takes someone with no soul to be willing to destroy the unity of this country for their personal gain.
We see how well Newt Gingrich is using the Palin technique of exploiting the confusion and fear of lower IQ individuals by appealing to their racism, their fear of the “other” and their religious beliefs. Their alleged religious beliefs are based in the same fears – these are not New Testament love your neighbor type of Christians; these are the Christians who pray for President Obama to die and leave his wife a widow and his children fatherless (see Psalm 109).
These prayers of vengeance are called “imprecatory prayers” and they’ve been political public knowledge since the Palin prayer warriors engaged in them during 2008. In 2011, a sergeant was suspended for leaving imprecatory prayers against the President in a stack of bibles meant for inmates of the prison where he worked (inciting violence much?) and Alan Colmes got a pastor to admit on the radio that he was indeed praying for President Obama to die:

“Are you praying for his death?” Colmes asked.“Yes,” Drake replied.“So you’re praying for the death of the president of the United States?”“Yes.”“If he does not turn to God and does not turn his life around, I am asking God to enforce imprecatory prayers that are throughout the Scripture that would cause him death, that’s correct…..”

These folks are the result of cruel, ugly machines of hate for political gain and deception. These are dangerous forces, and sadly, the lower the IQ the more dangerous they are. Imagine them as a wounded animal in the wild who’s been misled to believe that everyone who is not the same color as he is a vulture come to prey upon him.
They see everyone else as their enemy. This is typical in a simplistic mindset. And then the real vultures come to prey upon these folks, pointing the finger outward at Democrats, liberals and President Obama as “the problem,” sometimes using language meant to imply that the danger we pose is imminent.

If we are to have any hope of overcoming this ugly ploy, we must stop trying to use intellectual arguments to get through to these voters because that isn’t working.
We must find a way to appeal emotionally to people whose world views offend us. Perhaps we can start by realizing that even though they sound mean and low, they know not what they do. They are being used and manipulated by a master right now, but certainly the modern day Republican Party is no slouch at their Southern Strategy.
Newt Gingrich is a lot of things but dumb he isn’t, unlike the cunning but rather ignorant Palin to whom he is wrongly compared. Sarah Palin is as much a victim of her own ignorance as her followers are, though she is an obvious exploiter of others – the alpha ignorant, if you will. But Newt knows better and still chooses this path.
In response to the study, a scientist observed that perhaps simple and extreme ideologies attract dumb people. They gave the example of far left ideology believing that everyone is wonderful, though there was no data to prove this hypothesis. I consider myself pretty far left if the Republican Party represents the new middle Right, but I have seen evil on this earth and I know it exists and must be fought by any means necessary (Hitler, as an example).
However, I disagree that assuming the best in human nature is dumb or a sign of low IQ (I would hypothesize the opposite, actually, that anti-war ideology might be found in more evolved people, for example, so long as that ideal was an acknowledged impracticality and not a dogma) but I would agree that overly extreme ideology tends to attract people who don’t like complexities inherent in balancing human nature as it is versus human nature as we would like it to be. Extremes generate emotional responses that too often overwhelm intellectual engagement.
What we do know right now is that far right ideals attract people who are racist and have low IQs. The whys are up for grabs. We also know that the Republican Party is exploiting this in a dangerous, destructive manner that is bad for our country, and that they are being aided and abetted in this mission by too many religious leaders and corporations (including our mainstream media) for the purpose of enacting policies that benefit the 1%.
(via New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist)

New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist


Science has already established that people with right leaning political ideology are more apt to be prejudiced and that people with low education tend to be prejudiced, but now they’ve also shown that low IQs and conservative beliefs are linked to prejudice.

Cue the screaming poutrage of the Right.

Stephanie Pappas reported for Yahoo:

There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

“Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood,” he said.

And you wondered why conservatives don’t believe in science. If science told you that your beliefs were ignorant and a sign of a low IQ, you would (assuming you had a low IQ) do what any low IQ animal would do. You’d react with anger and perhaps verbal violence to stop the inevitable pain that results from cognitive dissonance among those who can’t handle it. Who can’t handle cognitive dissonance? People with lower IQs.

Now before we get all puffed up and start gloating toward our racist acquaintances, we of the superior intellect need to realize that gloating in the face of an angry, confused person with a low IQ will do nothing but give short term satisfaction.

As other scientists note later in the article, the challenge is how to get through to people whose intellect can’t handle being challenged with alternative realities. We can’t argue our way through to them; we have to find a way to appeal to their feelings. And yet, it seems compassion is lacking so we can’t put any stake in using compassion or empathy to appeal.

The ability to appeal to base emotions is exemplified in many of the has-been Republican candidates from Cain to Perry, but nobody does it like Newt. After all, it takes an unfathomable loss of ethics and integrity to knowingly and with malice exploit racism and fear for personal gain. It takes someone with no soul to be willing to destroy the unity of this country for their personal gain.

We see how well Newt Gingrich is using the Palin technique of exploiting the confusion and fear of lower IQ individuals by appealing to their racism, their fear of the “other” and their religious beliefs. Their alleged religious beliefs are based in the same fears – these are not New Testament love your neighbor type of Christians; these are the Christians who pray for President Obama to die and leave his wife a widow and his children fatherless (see Psalm 109).

These prayers of vengeance are called “imprecatory prayers” and they’ve been political public knowledge since the Palin prayer warriors engaged in them during 2008. In 2011, a sergeant was suspended for leaving imprecatory prayers against the President in a stack of bibles meant for inmates of the prison where he worked (inciting violence much?) and Alan Colmes got a pastor to admit on the radio that he was indeed praying for President Obama to die:

“Are you praying for his death?” Colmes asked.
“Yes,” Drake replied.
“So you’re praying for the death of the president of the United States?”
“Yes.”
“If he does not turn to God and does not turn his life around, I am asking God to enforce imprecatory prayers that are throughout the Scripture that would cause him death, that’s correct…..”

These folks are the result of cruel, ugly machines of hate for political gain and deception. These are dangerous forces, and sadly, the lower the IQ the more dangerous they are. Imagine them as a wounded animal in the wild who’s been misled to believe that everyone who is not the same color as he is a vulture come to prey upon him.

They see everyone else as their enemy. This is typical in a simplistic mindset. And then the real vultures come to prey upon these folks, pointing the finger outward at Democrats, liberals and President Obama as “the problem,” sometimes using language meant to imply that the danger we pose is imminent.

If we are to have any hope of overcoming this ugly ploy, we must stop trying to use intellectual arguments to get through to these voters because that isn’t working.

We must find a way to appeal emotionally to people whose world views offend us. Perhaps we can start by realizing that even though they sound mean and low, they know not what they do. They are being used and manipulated by a master right now, but certainly the modern day Republican Party is no slouch at their Southern Strategy.

Newt Gingrich is a lot of things but dumb he isn’t, unlike the cunning but rather ignorant Palin to whom he is wrongly compared. Sarah Palin is as much a victim of her own ignorance as her followers are, though she is an obvious exploiter of others – the alpha ignorant, if you will. But Newt knows better and still chooses this path.

In response to the study, a scientist observed that perhaps simple and extreme ideologies attract dumb people. They gave the example of far left ideology believing that everyone is wonderful, though there was no data to prove this hypothesis. I consider myself pretty far left if the Republican Party represents the new middle Right, but I have seen evil on this earth and I know it exists and must be fought by any means necessary (Hitler, as an example).

However, I disagree that assuming the best in human nature is dumb or a sign of low IQ (I would hypothesize the opposite, actually, that anti-war ideology might be found in more evolved people, for example, so long as that ideal was an acknowledged impracticality and not a dogma) but I would agree that overly extreme ideology tends to attract people who don’t like complexities inherent in balancing human nature as it is versus human nature as we would like it to be. Extremes generate emotional responses that too often overwhelm intellectual engagement.

What we do know right now is that far right ideals attract people who are racist and have low IQs. The whys are up for grabs. We also know that the Republican Party is exploiting this in a dangerous, destructive manner that is bad for our country, and that they are being aided and abetted in this mission by too many religious leaders and corporations (including our mainstream media) for the purpose of enacting policies that benefit the 1%.

(via New Study Reveals That Stupidity Can Make You Conservative And Racist)

photo

darwinmclovin:

DOGS PROBABLY FEEL SORRY FOR US
Dogs appear to empathize with us, to the point that some therapy dogs even seem to take on the emotions of their sick or distressed human charges, according to a new paper in the latest issue of Biology Letters.

(Image: badrobot)
The matter is more complicated than you might think, because researchers need to tease apart true empathy from a phenomenon known as “emotional contagion.”
Emotional contagion is more of a knee-jerk reaction to various behaviors and other cues. For example, if you yawn, others near you, including dogs, might start to yawn too. They’re not necessarily empathizing with you, although areas of the brain tied to empathy are involved. In fact, the mimicry is primarily triggered at a subconscious level. No one is certain why this happens. Some scientists suspect it has to do with communicating levels of alertness and coordinating sleep schedules.

(Image: karpati)
But dogs do more than just copy us, according to the study’s authors Karine Silva and Liliana Sousa of the Abel Salazar Biomedical Sciences Institute.
“Indeed, a study showing that pets, namely dogs, behave as ‘upset’ as children when exposed to familiar people faking distress, strongly suggests ‘sympathetic concern,’” Silva and Sousa write. “Also it has been reported that untrained dogs may be sensitive to human emergencies and may act appropriately to summon help, which, if true, suggests empathic perspective taking.”
In experiments, dog owners feigned a heart attack or pretended to experience an accident in which a bookcase fell on them and pinned them to the floor. The dogs in these studies just looked confused and didn’t do much, but the scientists think canines need to also smell and hear signals tied to actual stress in order to respond. In other words, you probably can’t easily fool a dog when it comes to emergencies.
Another study found that therapy dogs are both emotionally and physically affected by their work, “needing massages and calming measures after the sessions,” according to the authors.
Silva and Sousa argue that dogs have the capacity to empathize with humans for three main reasons:
Dogs originated from wolves, which are highly social animals that engage in cooperative activities and are believed to have some ability to empathize with their fellow wolves.
Biological changes produced during the domestication of dogs may have allowed them to synchronize their wolf-inherited empathic capacities with those of humans.
Breed diversification and selection for canine intelligence may have increased the dog ability to empathize.
The scientists say further research is needed, with many questions remaining. If dogs do empathize with us, are some better able to do this than others? If so, is that ability at times tied to certain breeds more than others? If the ability is connected to genetics, are some dogs and people just born more empathetic than others? Can you train a dog or a person to be more understanding?
As the researchers point out, all of these related issues “should have considerable implications for education and society as a whole.”
(via Dogs Probably Feel Sorry For Us : Discovery News)

darwinmclovin:

DOGS PROBABLY FEEL SORRY FOR US

Dogs appear to empathize with us, to the point that some therapy dogs even seem to take on the emotions of their sick or distressed human charges, according to a new paper in the latest issue of Biology Letters.

IMG_00872

(Image: badrobot)

The matter is more complicated than you might think, because researchers need to tease apart true empathy from a phenomenon known as “emotional contagion.”

Emotional contagion is more of a knee-jerk reaction to various behaviors and other cues. For example, if you yawn, others near you, including dogs, might start to yawn too. They’re not necessarily empathizing with you, although areas of the brain tied to empathy are involved. In fact, the mimicry is primarily triggered at a subconscious level. No one is certain why this happens. Some scientists suspect it has to do with communicating levels of alertness and coordinating sleep schedules.

Nógrád 027-02

(Image: karpati)

But dogs do more than just copy us, according to the study’s authors Karine Silva and Liliana Sousa of the Abel Salazar Biomedical Sciences Institute.

“Indeed, a study showing that pets, namely dogs, behave as ‘upset’ as children when exposed to familiar people faking distress, strongly suggests ‘sympathetic concern,’” Silva and Sousa write. “Also it has been reported that untrained dogs may be sensitive to human emergencies and may act appropriately to summon help, which, if true, suggests empathic perspective taking.”

In experiments, dog owners feigned a heart attack or pretended to experience an accident in which a bookcase fell on them and pinned them to the floor. The dogs in these studies just looked confused and didn’t do much, but the scientists think canines need to also smell and hear signals tied to actual stress in order to respond. In other words, you probably can’t easily fool a dog when it comes to emergencies.

Another study found that therapy dogs are both emotionally and physically affected by their work, “needing massages and calming measures after the sessions,” according to the authors.

Silva and Sousa argue that dogs have the capacity to empathize with humans for three main reasons:

  1. Dogs originated from wolves, which are highly social animals that engage in cooperative activities and are believed to have some ability to empathize with their fellow wolves.
  2. Biological changes produced during the domestication of dogs may have allowed them to synchronize their wolf-inherited empathic capacities with those of humans.
  3. Breed diversification and selection for canine intelligence may have increased the dog ability to empathize.

The scientists say further research is needed, with many questions remaining. If dogs do empathize with us, are some better able to do this than others? If so, is that ability at times tied to certain breeds more than others? If the ability is connected to genetics, are some dogs and people just born more empathetic than others? Can you train a dog or a person to be more understanding?

As the researchers point out, all of these related issues “should have considerable implications for education and society as a whole.”

(via Dogs Probably Feel Sorry For Us : Discovery News)

photo

Why do Western and Asian foods taste different? Study reveals they it’s all down to chemistry

-Researchers analysed 381 ingredients, 1021 ‘tastes’ and 56,498 recipes
-Western food seeks out ‘food pairs’ with matching taste chemicals
-Asian foods take opposite approach and avoid ‘pairing’ ingredients that share flavours
It doesn’t take a food expert to say that Western and Asian foods taste different. But it does take an expert to explain why.
The idea of ‘food pairing’ isn’t new - chemically analysing foods to see which flavour compounds they share has led restaurants to pair unlikely foods such as white chocolate and caviar.
But new research - analysing 381 ingredients, 1021 flavour compounds and 56,498 recipes - has found that east Asian food takes an entirely different approach. It actually avoids foods that match.


Pork chops with apple wedges and raisins: Thirteen ingredients - including pork - appear in 74.4 per cent of western cooking

Beef and vegetable stir fry: While east Asian cuisine does have ‘defining’ flavours such as garlic and soy sauce, its approach to pairing foods is different




'Flavour pairing' has led to some of the most exciting cooking of the past few years.
But it seems that ‘pairing’ foods isn’t a hard and fast rule - and Western and Asian foods ‘pair’ flavours in completely different ways. 
'Western cuisines tend to use 'pairs' that share many flavours,' say the researchers in a paper published in Nature. 'But east Asian cuisines tend to avoid ingredients that share them. This investigation opens new avenues towards understanding culinary practices.'

Enlarge  
The thickness of the ‘cords’ connecting the flavours here shows how many flavours they share - Western cuisine is more likely to pair foods that share lots of flavours, whereas east Asian cuisine avoids obvious ‘pairs’

This crucial difference in approach explains why food from different sides of the globe tastes so radically different. 

Researchers including Sebastian Ahnert from the University of Cambridge analysed 381 ingredients used around the world, and 1021 flavour compounds found in those ingredients - networking them to show how many ‘flavours’ each ingredient shared.
 They then compared the information with 56,498 recipes from Epicurious.com and Allrecipes.com, plus a Korean recipe site menupan.com to see which of five cultures - north American, western European, southern European, Latin and East Asian - paired flavour compounds that ‘matched’ each other most frequently.


Two recipes analysed: Distinctly ‘western’ pairings - such as tomato and parmesan cheese - tend to ‘pair’ foods that have a lot of matching flavour compounds. Eastern matches - such as garlic and sesame oil, don’t share as many flavour compounds


'Western cuisines tend to use 'pairs' that share many flavours. But east Asian cuisines tend to avoid ingredients that share them. This opens new avenues towards understanding food,' say the researchers

The results were surprising. North American and western European recipes tend to pair flavours that ‘match’. Both southern European and east Asian recipes tend to avoid recipes where the ingredients share flavours.The contrast with east Asian recipes was particularly marked, the researchers found.
The more flavours two ingredients share, the less likely they are to be used together in east Asian cuisine - whereas 13 key ingredients, including butter, milk and egg, appear in 74.4 per cent of dishes in north America.

There are flavours that ‘define’ a cuisine - for instance basil in south European food, or soy sauce in east Asian - but the classic pairings of each cuisine, such as parmesan cheese and tomato (which share lots of flavours), and garlic and sesame oil (which share very few) show that ‘food pairing’ is a distinctly western idea. 

The ‘flavour pairs’ that define western and east Asian food take a totally different approach - while Western food is built on similar pairs such as butter and milk, Asian food seeks ‘clashing’ pairings such as sesame oil and garlic


The idea that the difference in approach is so different is all new. 
It also turns the whole idea of ‘food pairing’ cuisine on its head. If east Asian food tastes good by avoiding food pairs - rather than simply identifying, then pairing them - then perhaps this research paves the way for new avenues of experimental cooking. 

Why do Western and Asian foods taste different? Study reveals they it’s all down to chemistry

  • -Researchers analysed 381 ingredients, 1021 ‘tastes’ and 56,498 recipes
  • -Western food seeks out ‘food pairs’ with matching taste chemicals
  • -Asian foods take opposite approach and avoid ‘pairing’ ingredients that share flavours

It doesn’t take a food expert to say that Western and Asian foods taste different. But it does take an expert to explain why.

The idea of ‘food pairing’ isn’t new - chemically analysing foods to see which flavour compounds they share has led restaurants to pair unlikely foods such as white chocolate and caviar.

But new research - analysing 381 ingredients, 1021 flavour compounds and 56,498 recipes - has found that east Asian food takes an entirely different approach. It actually avoids foods that match.


Researchers from the University of Cambridge analysed 381 ingredients, 1021 flavours and 56,000 recipes - and found that east Asian cooking takes an entirely different approach to Western food.

Pork chops with apple wedges and raisins: Thirteen ingredients - including pork - appear in 74.4 per cent of western cooking

Beef and vegetable stir fry: While east Asian cuisine does have 'defining' flavours such as garlic and soy sauce, its approach to pairing foods is different

Beef and vegetable stir fry: While east Asian cuisine does have ‘defining’ flavours such as garlic and soy sauce, its approach to pairing foods is different


'Flavour pairing' has led to some of the most exciting cooking of the past few years.

But it seems that ‘pairing’ foods isn’t a hard and fast rule - and Western and Asian foods ‘pair’ flavours in completely different ways. 

'Western cuisines tend to use 'pairs' that share many flavours,' say the researchers in a paper published in Nature. 'But east Asian cuisines tend to avoid ingredients that share them. This investigation opens new avenues towards understanding culinary practices.'

Enlarge  The thickness of the 'cords' connecting the flavours here shows how many flavours they share - Western cuisine is more likely to pair foods that share lots of flavours, whereas east Asian cuisine avoids obvious 'pairs'

The thickness of the ‘cords’ connecting the flavours here shows how many flavours they share - Western cuisine is more likely to pair foods that share lots of flavours, whereas east Asian cuisine avoids obvious ‘pairs’

This crucial difference in approach explains why food from different sides of the globe tastes so radically different. 

Researchers including Sebastian Ahnert from the University of Cambridge analysed 381 ingredients used around the world, and 1021 flavour compounds found in those ingredients - networking them to show how many ‘flavours’ each ingredient shared.



 They then compared the information with 56,498 recipes from Epicurious.com and Allrecipes.com, plus a Korean recipe site menupan.com to see which of five cultures - north American, western European, southern European, Latin and East Asian - paired flavour compounds that ‘matched’ each other most frequently.

Distinctly 'western' pairings - such as tomato and parmesan cheese - tend to 'pair' foods that have a lot of matching flavour compounds. Eastern matches - such as garlic and sesame oil, don't share as many flavour compounds

Two recipes analysed: Distinctly ‘western’ pairings - such as tomato and parmesan cheese - tend to ‘pair’ foods that have a lot of matching flavour compounds. Eastern matches - such as garlic and sesame oil, don’t share as many flavour compounds

'Western cuisines tend to use 'pairs' that share many flavours. But east Asian cuisines tend to avoid ingredients that share them. This opens new avenues towards understanding food,' say the researchers

The results were surprising. North American and western European recipes tend to pair flavours that ‘match’. Both southern European and east Asian recipes tend to avoid recipes where the ingredients share flavours.The contrast with east Asian recipes was particularly marked, the researchers found.

The more flavours two ingredients share, the less likely they are to be used together in east Asian cuisine - whereas 13 key ingredients, including butter, milk and egg, appear in 74.4 per cent of dishes in north America.

There are flavours that ‘define’ a cuisine - for instance basil in south European food, or soy sauce in east Asian - but the classic pairings of each cuisine, such as parmesan cheese and tomato (which share lots of flavours), and garlic and sesame oil (which share very few) show that ‘food pairing’ is a distinctly western idea. 

The 'flavour pairs' that define western and east Asian food take a totally different approach - while Western food is built on similar pairs such as butter and milk, Asian food seeks 'clashing' pairings such as sesame oil and garlic

The ‘flavour pairs’ that define western and east Asian food take a totally different approach - while Western food is built on similar pairs such as butter and milk, Asian food seeks ‘clashing’ pairings such as sesame oil and garlic

The idea that the difference in approach is so different is all new. 

It also turns the whole idea of ‘food pairing’ cuisine on its head. If east Asian food tastes good by avoiding food pairs - rather than simply identifying, then pairing them - then perhaps this research paves the way for new avenues of experimental cooking. 





photos

This is Harry Moseley. He was an 11 year old boy with an inoperable brain tumor. He raised money for brain cancer research and made bracelets, and did public speaking to raise awareness and funds for his illness.

Harry is one of the bravest boys I’ve ever heard of, and many people had the honor of meeting him before his passing.

Harry passed away at 11.10pm on the 8th October 2011.

He was an inspiration to many, and still will be in the future. He was a shining star in everyone’s sky and still will be for me. He was a brave, brave boy and I hope he’s comfortable where he is now. 

RIP Harry, and everyone please remember to Help Harry Help Others <3

(via inthelifeofachocolateman)

photo


Female Orgasm Remains an Evolutionary Mystery

After baffling biologists for decades, the female orgasm has resisted yet another attempt to explain its elusive evolutionary origins.
A survey of orgasmic function in thousands of twins found none of the statistical patterns expected if female orgasm is just a coincidental byproduct of natural selection on its male counterpart, as has been suggested.
“The evolutionary basis of human female orgasm has been subject to furious scientific debate, which has recently intensified,” wrote University of Queensland geneticist Brendan Zietsch and Pekka Santtila of Finland’s Abo Akedemi University in a Sept. 3 Animal Behavior article. “These results challenge the byproduct theory of female orgasm.”
 
While the male orgasm is, in evolutionary and practical terms, a fairly straightforward thing — it makes men want to have sex more often, thus continuing their lineage, and is achieved with ease — the female orgasm is a far trickier beast.
Unlike male orgasm, which is found across the primate spectrum, female orgasm has skipped some species. (Lady gibbons, for example, are out of luck.) In humans, men are far more likely to experience orgasm than women, of whom one in 10 don’t ever experience it.
That imbalance runs contrary to traditional explanations of female orgasm: that it strengthens bonds between mates and thus improves the care received by their children, or that the ability to elicit orgasm indicates a male’s virility, or that underlying physiological processes somehow improve reproductive success.

After all, if female orgasms are an important evolutionary adaptation, they should be easier to attain. Also perplexing is that many women require clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm, not penetrative action. If female orgasms were meant to encourage sex, the opposite ought to be true.
All this has led to an alternative explanation, popularized in Elisabeth Lloyd’s popular 2005 book The Case of the Female Orgasm: That there’s no adaptive purpose. Women simply happen to share biology with men, for whom orgasm is important. It’s an accidental byproduct, like men’s nonlactating nipples.
But while this idea is plausible, it hasn’t yet been rigorously explored. So Zietsch and Santtila devised a test. They surveyed 1,803 pairs of opposite-sex twins and 2,287 pairs of same-sex twins, asking them how often and how easily they reached orgasm. If female orgasm is evolutionarily connected to male, opposite-sex twins should have similar orgasmic function.
But that’s not what they found. Instead, while orgasmic function was genetically shared in same-sex twins — brother tended to share function with brother, or sister with sister — the relationship vanished in opposite-sex twins, though both share the same amount of genetic material. The underlying genetics, and thus the underlying evolutionary pressures, thus appear to differ.
“This does not support the hypothesis that female orgasm is maintained only as a byproduct of selection on the male orgasm,” wrote Zietsch and Santtila.
However, the researchers warn that their findings aren’t yet definitive. Self-reported surveys aren’t methodologically airtight, and a recent Journal of Sexual Medicine study by Zietsch “found near-zero correlations between women’s orgasm rates and 19 other evolutionarily relevant traits.”
Those findings contradict the latest study, and suggest female orgasm might be a byproduct after all. It might also have been evolutionarily important to humanity’s ancestors, but irrelevant now.
“The evolutionary basis of female orgasm is both important and unknown,” wrote Zietsch and Santtila. “Much more work needs to be done.”

Female Orgasm Remains an Evolutionary Mystery

After baffling biologists for decades, the female orgasm has resisted yet another attempt to explain its elusive evolutionary origins.

A survey of orgasmic function in thousands of twins found none of the statistical patterns expected if female orgasm is just a coincidental byproduct of natural selection on its male counterpart, as has been suggested.

“The evolutionary basis of human female orgasm has been subject to furious scientific debate, which has recently intensified,” wrote University of Queensland geneticist Brendan Zietsch and Pekka Santtila of Finland’s Abo Akedemi University in a Sept. 3 Animal Behavior article. “These results challenge the byproduct theory of female orgasm.”

 

While the male orgasm is, in evolutionary and practical terms, a fairly straightforward thing — it makes men want to have sex more often, thus continuing their lineage, and is achieved with ease — the female orgasm is a far trickier beast.

Unlike male orgasm, which is found across the primate spectrum, female orgasm has skipped some species. (Lady gibbons, for example, are out of luck.) In humans, men are far more likely to experience orgasm than women, of whom one in 10 don’t ever experience it.

That imbalance runs contrary to traditional explanations of female orgasm: that it strengthens bonds between mates and thus improves the care received by their children, or that the ability to elicit orgasm indicates a male’s virility, or that underlying physiological processes somehow improve reproductive success.

After all, if female orgasms are an important evolutionary adaptation, they should be easier to attain. Also perplexing is that many women require clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm, not penetrative action. If female orgasms were meant to encourage sex, the opposite ought to be true.

All this has led to an alternative explanation, popularized in Elisabeth Lloyd’s popular 2005 book The Case of the Female Orgasm: That there’s no adaptive purpose. Women simply happen to share biology with men, for whom orgasm is important. It’s an accidental byproduct, like men’s nonlactating nipples.

But while this idea is plausible, it hasn’t yet been rigorously explored. So Zietsch and Santtila devised a test. They surveyed 1,803 pairs of opposite-sex twins and 2,287 pairs of same-sex twins, asking them how often and how easily they reached orgasm. If female orgasm is evolutionarily connected to male, opposite-sex twins should have similar orgasmic function.

But that’s not what they found. Instead, while orgasmic function was genetically shared in same-sex twins — brother tended to share function with brother, or sister with sister — the relationship vanished in opposite-sex twins, though both share the same amount of genetic material. The underlying genetics, and thus the underlying evolutionary pressures, thus appear to differ.

“This does not support the hypothesis that female orgasm is maintained only as a byproduct of selection on the male orgasm,” wrote Zietsch and Santtila.

However, the researchers warn that their findings aren’t yet definitive. Self-reported surveys aren’t methodologically airtight, and a recent Journal of Sexual Medicine study by Zietsch “found near-zero correlations between women’s orgasm rates and 19 other evolutionarily relevant traits.”

Those findings contradict the latest study, and suggest female orgasm might be a byproduct after all. It might also have been evolutionarily important to humanity’s ancestors, but irrelevant now.

“The evolutionary basis of female orgasm is both important and unknown,” wrote Zietsch and Santtila. “Much more work needs to be done.”