Stories tagged psychology
Marijuana skin: I guess this explains the thumb sucking.
There's actually not enough there to...: Oh, whatever. Have at it.
Courtesy CayusaMothers! Quick! Smack yer little babies’ thumbs out of their mouths and replace them with something a little more legal, like cigarettes! Now! It’s for their own good!
See, apparently our skin is constantly producing “endocannaboids,” substances not unlike the active ingredients in marijuana.
“Wait,” you say. “My skin is covered in the dank? I need… I need… a carrot peeler!”
No! Chill out! That would be super gross, and I can’t believe you even thought of that! If anything, what you need is a hole-cutting drill bit and a melon baller, because it’s your brain that produces the most endocannaboids.
A new study examines the function of endocannaboids in the skin, and how that might be linked to their presence in the brain.
The skin seems to produce these marijuana-like chemicals as a response to environmental stresses like wind and sun. Endocannaboids help glands in the skin produce the oily substances that protect us from the elements, and which also contribute to pimples and hair loss.
The brain produces similar chemicals in response to stressors and rewards, and they make us feel anxious, or pleased, or whatever. Psychological stress, however, may prompt the skin—as well as the brain—to start producing these chemicals, which lends credence to the thought that stress can cause acne and influence baldness.
As far as getting high from licking your arm goes…well it’s theoretically possible that endocannaboids could do the trick, but even if you were to, say, eat your whole arm, there wouldn’t be enough there to give you any psychological effect. Except whatever psychological effect would come from eating your own arm, I suppose.
Tags : Forget this cubicle, I’m becoming a drug dealer. Of babies.
Low-grade baby: but she seems to be enjoying it.
Courtesy ocadotonyI hope I don’t look like a chump. Because I’m no chump. I’m no chump, and I’m leaving this chump job. Goodbye, Chump Inc. Goodbye, Chumville. I’m starting an exciting new life, effective immediately, as a drug dealer.
And what poison will I peddle? What do I plan to sling on street corners and playgrounds? The worst and most deadly drug: pure, uncut baby.
Trust me; it’s the next big thing. I accept that my baby dealing operation will probably start out small (baby manufacturing is notoriously time-consuming), but before you know it gossip pages will be swimming in photos of starlets with babies peaking out of their handbags, or smeared on their upper lips. Why?
Because babies get you hiiigghhh!
Or at least they get mothers high, and that’s a market somewhat neglected by dealers. Cha-ching!
Research has shown that mothers, when shown pictures of their babies, experience strong brain activity in regions associated with reward and addiction—a natural high.
The strength of a mother’s reaction seems to depend partly on her baby’s expression. A crying baby, for instance, evokes a reaction little different from a mother seeing a stranger’s baby (ha!), whereas a smiling baby is like a spoonful of hot heroin. Relatively speaking.
That’s something I’ll have to factor into my operation—happy babies are the most potent, and I surely want to offer a high quality product. How do you make babies happy? It’s never really been my thing. Like…rattles, maybe? Cigarettes? I have the feeling that it’ll be a trial and error sort of thing.
Aside from inspiring a whole new career path for me, the research promises to be valuable in understanding some of the most basic elements of mother-child bonding, and why, in some cases, this bonding fails to occur. Neglect and abuse sometimes arises from such cases, and so, as a baby dealer, I think I would only be helping society by fixing up moms already jonesing for some baby, and encouraging the habit in others.
Watch out for cars with bumper stickers. A social psychologist in Colorado has found that the more bumper stickers a car has, the more aggressive the driver will be, and the more likely to succumb to road rage.
All I’m sayin’ is “Forget about world peace – visualize using your turn signal.”
Do you remember us?: "I'm Ringo." "I'm Paul." "I'm George." "And I'm John, and we're the Beatles."
Courtesy biggeststarsScientific studies, for the most part, aren’t all that much fun, right? We get poked and prodded by high tech equipment, injected with foreign substances and shaken or stirred about
But how about recalling your favorite memories related to Beatles music? Yes, there is such a study going on right now and you can get involved at absolutely no cost.
More precisely, the Magical Memory Tour wants to analyze the dynamics of human memory using Beatles songs, movies, concerts and news clips as the focal point. By visiting the research project website, you can include your own specific Beatles memories, read and rate other peoples memories and learn about human memory works.
The researchers will be analyzing which types of experiences evoked from Beatles moments create the most intense memories. More specifically, they want to see how experiences from our lives can be associated with music, personality and public perception of the Beatles.
FYI: Here is a list of the top 10 topic areas of memories associated with the Beatles that the project has amassed through the website so far:
1. John Lennon - in memoriam
2. Help!
3. Television appearances
4. Yellow Submarine
5. The White Album
6. Revolver
7. Magical Mystery Tour
8. Yesterday
9. The Beatles Songbook
10. Octopuses Garden
And of course, you’re always welcome to share your favorite Beatles memories here with other Science Buzz readers.
Best. Research. Ever.
in Chemical Reactions, Scientific Inquiry, Forces of Nature, and Human Organism
Why, I’m feeling improved cognition and creativity already!: Now we have scientific proof -- looking at scantily-clad young women makes men smarter. And hungrier, somehow.
Courtesy Roro Fernandez
So, what’s the opposite of “the dismal science”?
A new study published in the Journal of Consumer Research finds that men, after receiving a sexual stimulus – touching lingerie or even just seeing a woman in a bikini – seek immediate gratification.
Why can’t I ever get chosen for research like this?
(The lingerie, the report is quick to point out, was “not being worn during the test.” Still – dude – awesome methodology!)
Now, what’s all this about “immediate gratification”? I mean, we’ve all seen There’s Something About Mary, right? Well, get your minds out of the gutter, people. What they mean is, aroused men are more likely to try to satisfy any appetite – food, alcohol, money, whatever is at hand. So to speak.
To which men everywhere are saying “You paid how much to figure that out?”
It all has to do with the appetite centers in the brain. Seems it’s all one big giant Id. Once it’s aroused by some stimulus, the man seeks to satisfy it any way he can.
To which women everywhere are saying, “No duh.”
Apparently, the smell of fresh baked bread has the same effect, which would explain why you see so many pie shops right next door to strip clubs.
A group of test subjects tragically misinterprets the research findings: All in the name of science, I'm sure.
Courtesy avlxyz
But, most interesting of all, we find, buried in the article, never explained, never elaborated upon, this little gem:
It wasn't that the men were simply distracted by their sexual arousal, which caused them to choose more impulsively. On the contrary, they exhibited improved cognition and creativity after exposure to sexy stimuli.
While this does not comport with the stupid pick-up lines one hears in bars every night of the week, nevertheless, there it is. I mean, this is science, right? Looking at pretty girls actually makes men smarter! Therefore, we should view beer commercials and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, not as crass attempts to move product by appealing to hard-wired neurological instincts, but rather as a public service, a selfless effort to increase intellectual activity and creative achievement by stimulating men’s brains.
But no. That’s not what the liberal media wants you to hear. Men bad. Men can’t control urges. Men barely better than animals. So what we get are prurient headlines, lascivious photos, and sly innuendo like “seek immediate gratification,” wink wink. Why, it’s enough to…
Gutter. Out. Now!
Um... if you say so: Well, no, not even then.
Courtesy echovein.comRemember how you said that grapes are good in pasta salad, and I said, no, they’re not, it’s like eating soggy little cat eyeballs?
I was right about that. You were wrong. Grapes in pasta salad are gross. You just like pasta salad so much that you can’t tell that you’re eating something like cold, swollen lymph nodes and bloated, dead wood ticks. Deal with it.
And you know how you’re all about Natalie Portman? Well you’re wrong about her too. You saw her in Star Wars, and you’ve got a weird space fetish thing brewing, and that’s cool, but don’t be telling me that this passably attractive actress is Venus on Earth (or whatever planet). No, I’m right, and you’re wrong on this one buddy.
Oh, also, the rest of the world and I had a talk, and we think you should shut up about Dane Cook. And we don’t want to see the superfinger anymore. It’s clear that you like him, yes, but you’re the only one now, and if you put that album on in the car again, I’m afraid that the citizens of earth and I will have to throw you into a volcano. We’re very sorry, it’s not that we don’t like you (you’re great!), it’s just that he isn’t funny at all.
How can I be so sure of all this? Why is it that I’m so frighteningly accurate here, while you’re shredding your fingernails as you scramble for a grip on reality? Simple—because I don’t like these things, I’m able to use a little power I like to call objectivity. Because you’re all about this garbage, you are unable to recognize the many inherent flaws in the things you like. Not only that, but you think that we should like them too.
Oh? Home Improvement reruns are on? Sure, we can watch that. Do you have any liquor?
Remember the time your dog chewed up one of my mittens? You said she was just playing, and that it was cute. As it happens, it wasn’t cute, and you have an awful dog. An awful, bad dog. I needed two mittens. Two hands, two mittens. Easy. Even a dog should be able to figure that out—well, a good dog should.
At the time, I was surprised that you didn’t realize that about your dog (what a horrible, horrible creature she is). But that was my fault. Thankfully, science—as it tends to do—has done me a favor by removing the surprise from such situations. A new study in the Journal of Consumer Research has shown that when a person likes a thing, even just some small part of it, they are unable to recognize its faults, and are likely to think most other people will like it as well. On the other hand, when a person dislikes something, they are able to look at the thing more objectively, and predict much more accurately both who might like or dislike said thing.
Now this might all seem a little obvious—anecdotal evidence has suggested as much for as long as there have been both people and things people might like. But, then again, if it’s so obvious, why did you keep wearing that Hooters shirt. What? No, actually, it’s not ironic. It’s obnoxious.
A recent study shows that the happiest people are those who spend money—on other people. People who hoard their money or spend it on themselves reported lower levels of happiness.
Sometimes it’s best to just let the door close.: Keeping your options open entails some very real costs--sometimes more than the option is worth.
Courtesy George Karamanis
“Keep your options open.” Sounds like good advice, right? Turns out, it has hidden costs.
Professors Dan Ariely and Jiwoong Shin at MIT ran an experiment to test rational behavior. Test subjects played a computer game. On the screen were three doors. If they clicked on a door, it opened. Click on it a second time, and a number would appear, and they would earn that much money. Click on a different door and it opens, but the first door closes. Some doors had higher average payoffs than others. The object of the game is to get as much money as you can in 100 total clicks. (You can play the game—without the money, sorry—here.)
Obviously, the winning strategy is to find the door that pays the best, and then keep clicking on it. But then the evil professors threw a curve. They presented a second version of the game, where the doors shrank and eventually disappeared if you didn’t click on them. Subjects would waste clicks keeping the lower-paying doors from disappearing. On average, they earned 15% less for the privilege of keeping their options open.
Ariely and Shin hypothesize that players kept the less-valuable doors open, even though it cost them money, to avoid the pain of losing the door forever. We all hate to lose things. But sometimes the cost of keeping them around is more than they are worth. The game is a good lesson in the value of just letting things go.
Sweet idea: We like kisses, but why? Science has some answers
Courtesy Bob.FornalWhat do you get when you cross Scientific American and Cosmopolitan magazines?
You get the most comprehensive article I’ve ever seen on the science at play when we kiss.
So if you’re still looking for that new twist to your Valentine’s Day plans, pull up a computer screen together with your honey and find out what makes a kiss so special. The full, deep story is available here for your enjoyment. If you’re looking for less commitment, below are some quick pecks of information.
• Evolutionary roots: Cheap romance novels may take about the hunger for a kiss, but biologists think that there are strong evolutionary roots to the process of kissing. They trace it back to actions we still see in chimps, where mothers will pre-chew food for their young and pass them on to the little ones lip-to-lip. In humans over time, pressing lips together may have become a way to comfort troubled children and eventually express love and affection.
• Kissing chemistry: It’s still being debated if humans react to pheromones, which are silent chemical communication devices that animals produce. But if we do, kissing would be a highly efficient way to pass pheromones from one person to another. What’s still not known is if we have pheromone receptors in our nose or mouth area.
Match making: One study says that a first kiss can play a big role on if a relationship leads to life-long love.
Courtesy WTL photos• More chemistry: Our lips have the thinnest layer of skin of any part of our body. Along with that, they are packed with more neurons than any other part of our body. That combination makes for a very sensitive area for shooting feelings back and forth to our brains. Also, kissing activates chemicals in our brains associated with pleasure, euphoria and connection. Researchers have seen spikes in brain activity while monitoring people electronically while viewing images of people they love.
• Mate selection: A first kiss can be a make-or-break encounter. In a recent Gallup Poll, around 60 percent of men and women report losing attraction to someone of the opposite sex after a non-satisfactory first kiss. The study went on to say that females will use a kiss to judge the level of commitment from a male, is he someone who will help them raise any young ones they may conceive.
• Kissing trivia: A German researcher found that couples are twice as likely to tilt their heads to the right, rather than left, when kissing. He chalks it up the predominance of right-handedness.
Ten percent of the human cultures on Earth do not kiss.
The scientific term for kissing is osculation.
So, what I really want to know is what kind of lab situations to they have to test out all these kissing theories and how can I get a job there?
Send in the clowns: Evidently, this is no laughing matter.
Courtesy bunchofpantsI admit it: clowns scare me. They have ever since I was a small boy. One of my earliest memories is waking up in a cold sweat from a very lucid ear-ache-induced nightmare where I had been crammed inside a cigar-reeking Volkswagen with about 17 of the flop-collared, oogah horn-honking weirdos.
Even when adults insisted they were funny and existed only for my amusement, deep inside I sensed there was something very sinister about a ball-nosed freak dressed up in enormous shoes, gaudy make-up, and a fright wig, bouncing around the room like a deranged lab monkey.
Sure, it was hilarious when someone else got sprayed in the face by a lapel flower, or down the pants with a seltzer bottle but that’s what they get for trusting a clown.
Personally, I’ve distrusted clowns from the get-go, and avoided contact with them at all costs. This skittish doubt subsequently caused much public humiliation for my poor parents and myself when I wouldn’t participate like everyone else in the “fun” party activities at Roger Gunderson’s 7th birthday party. My folks’ silent exasperation during the ride home was enough to suppress any skepticism I still had left.
Well, it looks like I’ve finally been vindicated.
New shocking evidence coming out of the University of Sheffield in England shows that all children think clowns are scary. And they’re not just talking about John Wayne Gacy-type clowns.
When researchers were studying how to improve the décor of hospital children’s wards, they polled 250 children ages 4-16 and discovered that every single one of them hated clowns. The results have been published in Nursing Standard magazine.
"As adults we make assumptions about what works for children," said Penny Curtis, a senior research lecturer at Sheffield.
"We found that clowns are universally disliked by children. Some found them quite frightening and unknowable."
Ha ha. Now that’s funny.
SOURCE
msnbc story
Science Buzz and all related activities
Add a new comment