Regressando aos pouquinhos

Quero primeiro, agradecer todos os carinhos,aqui deixados para a minha recuperação.

Amigos assim, é maravilhoso. Nunca imaginei, que pudesse cativar tantas pessoas.
Talvez seja, pelo grande amor que tenho dentro de mim e a minha sincera gratidão.
Acredito que, quando as pessoas são verdadeiras, as amizades também são reciprocas.
Tudo aqui é feito com muito amor, só para você.
Utilizo este canal de comunicação, da maneira mais sincera e verdadeira possível.
Talvez seja por este motivo que consegue, cativar cada um de vocês.
Meu amor por Você é muito grande, meu amigo virtual.
Aqui encontrei outra maneira de fazer e receber, novas amizades.
se que todos esses amigos que conquistei, são muitos verdadeiros,
do contrário jamais voltariam a me visitar.
Talvez, não poderei responder a todos em função da cirurgia, pois meu pé terei que deixar para cima. Mas graças a DEUS, tudo foi bem. Embora estivesse com o coração na Mão.
Tenho muito medo de anestesias, mas, deu tudo certo. Estamos aqui de novo.
Ma uma vez agradeço seus carinhos por mim.

ESTAS ESTRELAS, SÃO PARA VOCÊ MEU GRANDE AMIGO VIRTUAL.
VOCÊ É A ESTRELA DESSE BLOG.

Of Carts and Horses

Last week, I wrote about a paper finding that the mosquito repellent chemical, DEET, inhibits an important enzyme, cholinesterase. If DEET were toxic to humans, this finding might explain why.
But it isn't - tens of millions of people use DEET safely every year, and there's no reason to think that it is dangerous unless it's used completely inappropriately. That didn't stop this laboratory finding being widely reported as a cause for concern about the safety of DEET.

This is putting the cart before the horse. If you know that something happens, then it's appropriate to search for an explanation for it. If you have a phenemonon, then there must be a mechanism by which it occurs.

But this doesn't work in reverse: just because you have a plausible mechanism by which something could happen, doesn't mean that it does in fact happen. This is because there are always other mechanisms at work which you may not know about. And the effect of your mechanism may be trivial by comparison.

Caffeine can damage DNA under some conditions. Other things which damage DNA, like radiation, can cause cancer. But the clinical evidence is that, if anything, drinking coffee may protect against some kinds of cancer (previous post). There's a plausible mechanism by which coffee could cause cancer, but it doesn't.

Medicine has learned the hard way that while understanding mechanisms is important, it's no substitute for clinical trials. The whole philosophy of evidence-based medicine is that treatments should only be used when there is clinical evidence that they do in fact work.

Unfortunately, in other fields, the horse routinely finds itself behind the cart. An awful lot - perhaps most - of political debate consists of saying that if you do X, Y will happen, through some mechanism. If you legalize heroin, people will take more of it, because it'll be more available and cheaper. If you privatize public services, they'll improve, because competition will ensure that only the most efficient services survive. If you topple this dictator, the country will become a peaceful democracy, because people like peace and democracy. And so on.

These kinds of arguments sound good. And they invite opponents to respond in kind: actually, legalizing heroin is a good idea, because it will make taking it much safer by eliminating impurities and infections... And so the debate becomes a case of fantasizing about things that might happen, with the winner being the person whose fantasy sounds best.

If you want to know what will happen when you implement some policy, the only way of knowing is to look at other countries or other places which have already done it. If no-one else has ever done it, you are making a leap into the unknown. This is not necessarily a bad thing - there's a first time for everything. But it means that "We don't know" should be heard much more often in politics.

Of Carts and Horses

Last week, I wrote about a paper finding that the mosquito repellent chemical, DEET, inhibits an important enzyme, cholinesterase. If DEET were toxic to humans, this finding might explain why.
But it isn't - tens of millions of people use DEET safely every year, and there's no reason to think that it is dangerous unless it's used completely inappropriately. That didn't stop this laboratory finding being widely reported as a cause for concern about the safety of DEET.

This is putting the cart before the horse. If you know that something happens, then it's appropriate to search for an explanation for it. If you have a phenemonon, then there must be a mechanism by which it occurs.

But this doesn't work in reverse: just because you have a plausible mechanism by which something could happen, doesn't mean that it does in fact happen. This is because there are always other mechanisms at work which you may not know about. And the effect of your mechanism may be trivial by comparison.

Caffeine can damage DNA under some conditions. Other things which damage DNA, like radiation, can cause cancer. But the clinical evidence is that, if anything, drinking coffee may protect against some kinds of cancer (previous post). There's a plausible mechanism by which coffee could cause cancer, but it doesn't.

Medicine has learned the hard way that while understanding mechanisms is important, it's no substitute for clinical trials. The whole philosophy of evidence-based medicine is that treatments should only be used when there is clinical evidence that they do in fact work.

Unfortunately, in other fields, the horse routinely finds itself behind the cart. An awful lot - perhaps most - of political debate consists of saying that if you do X, Y will happen, through some mechanism. If you legalize heroin, people will take more of it, because it'll be more available and cheaper. If you privatize public services, they'll improve, because competition will ensure that only the most efficient services survive. If you topple this dictator, the country will become a peaceful democracy, because people like peace and democracy. And so on.

These kinds of arguments sound good. And they invite opponents to respond in kind: actually, legalizing heroin is a good idea, because it will make taking it much safer by eliminating impurities and infections... And so the debate becomes a case of fantasizing about things that might happen, with the winner being the person whose fantasy sounds best.

If you want to know what will happen when you implement some policy, the only way of knowing is to look at other countries or other places which have already done it. If no-one else has ever done it, you are making a leap into the unknown. This is not necessarily a bad thing - there's a first time for everything. But it means that "We don't know" should be heard much more often in politics.

CIRURGIA...

ESTOU INDO ME INTERNAR.
HOJE A TARDE, FAREI UMA CIRURGIA DE RETIRADA DOS PINOS,
QUE ESTÃO EM MEU PÉ.
DEIXO UM ABRAÇO MUITO CARINHO PARA TODOS.
UM BOM FINAL DE SEMANA. ATÉ A SEMANA QUE VEM.
FIQUEM TODOS COM DEUS MEUS GRANDES AMIGOS.

Emotions are Still Universal

Are facial expressions of emotion culturally specific, or universal? For decades, the dominant view has been that they are universal, at least when it comes to a set of "basic" emotions: fear, happiness, sadness, surprise, anger, and disgust.

Darwin was an early proponent of the idea that all humans (and indeed other mammals) display emotions in certain ways; his book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals is still a very interesting read.

More recently, the universalist view has been closely associated with the psychologist Paul Ekman. In the 1960s Ekman reported that people from diverse cultures, including isolated tribespeople from Papua New Guinea, make similar faces in response to similar situations.

Now, a new paper claims that Cultural Confusions Show that Facial Expressions Are Not Universal. This article has got a lot of media and blog attention, not surprisingly, since at least judging by the title, this is a major upset.

But the paper's findings are rather modest. The authors, Jack et al, took 13 white British and 13 East Asian subjects. The Asians, who were mostly from China, had only been in Britain for about a week, and all subjects reported that they had never lived in, or even visited an "other race" country, dated interracialy, etc.

Subjects were shown pictures of faces and had to pick the appropriate "basic emotion" - anger, disgust, fear, happy, neutral, surprise, and sadness. The faces were of actors posing the emotions, in accordance with Ekman's "FACS" system.

The result was that Western subjects did well on all emotions, but the Asians did less well on fear and digust, as they tended to confuse these two emotions. The authors also used eye-tracking technology to see where the subjects were looking, and found that the East Asians tended to focus on the eyes more while examining the faces, which may explain their differing performance.

This is quite interesting, especially the eye-tracking data (which goes into a lot of detail). But does it justify the conclusion that:

Our data demonstrate genuine perceptual differences between Western and East Asian observers and show that FACS-coded facial expressions are not universal signals of human emotion. From here on, examining how the different facets of cultural ideologies and concepts have diversified these basic social skills will elevate knowledge of human emotion processing from a reductionist to a more authentic representation. Otherwise, when it comes to communicating emotions across cultures, Easterners and Westerners will continue to find themselves lost in translation.

Well, sort of, but the differences found in this study were really rather small. Statistically, the Asians successfully recognized fear and disgust less often than the Westerners. But they still got them right 58% and 71% of the time, respectively, even when the faces were Western; they did better when the faces were Asian. Given that there were 7 options, had they been picking randomly they would only have got 14% right. 58% is still pretty good. The Asians were actually (non-significantly) better at recognizing neutral, surprised, and sad faces.

And the differences notwithstanding, the whole task relies upon the fact that the subjects know the meaning of "happy", "fear", and so forth, and associate them with certain face expressions. The fact that the experiment worked at all shows - as Ekman would predict - that both Westerners and East Asians share an emotional understanding. There appear to be some cultural quirks, but the essential universality of facial emotion still stands.

Jack, R., Blais, C., Scheepers, C., Schyns, P., & Caldara, R. (2009). Cultural Confusions Show that Facial Expressions Are Not Universal Current Biology DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.051

Emotions are Still Universal

Are facial expressions of emotion culturally specific, or universal? For decades, the dominant view has been that they are universal, at least when it comes to a set of "basic" emotions: fear, happiness, sadness, surprise, anger, and disgust.

Darwin was an early proponent of the idea that all humans (and indeed other mammals) display emotions in certain ways; his book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals is still a very interesting read.

More recently, the universalist view has been closely associated with the psychologist Paul Ekman. In the 1960s Ekman reported that people from diverse cultures, including isolated tribespeople from Papua New Guinea, make similar faces in response to similar situations.

Now, a new paper claims that Cultural Confusions Show that Facial Expressions Are Not Universal. This article has got a lot of media and blog attention, not surprisingly, since at least judging by the title, this is a major upset.

But the paper's findings are rather modest. The authors, Jack et al, took 13 white British and 13 East Asian subjects. The Asians, who were mostly from China, had only been in Britain for about a week, and all subjects reported that they had never lived in, or even visited an "other race" country, dated interracialy, etc.

Subjects were shown pictures of faces and had to pick the appropriate "basic emotion" - anger, disgust, fear, happy, neutral, surprise, and sadness. The faces were of actors posing the emotions, in accordance with Ekman's "FACS" system.

The result was that Western subjects did well on all emotions, but the Asians did less well on fear and digust, as they tended to confuse these two emotions. The authors also used eye-tracking technology to see where the subjects were looking, and found that the East Asians tended to focus on the eyes more while examining the faces, which may explain their differing performance.

This is quite interesting, especially the eye-tracking data (which goes into a lot of detail). But does it justify the conclusion that:

Our data demonstrate genuine perceptual differences between Western and East Asian observers and show that FACS-coded facial expressions are not universal signals of human emotion. From here on, examining how the different facets of cultural ideologies and concepts have diversified these basic social skills will elevate knowledge of human emotion processing from a reductionist to a more authentic representation. Otherwise, when it comes to communicating emotions across cultures, Easterners and Westerners will continue to find themselves lost in translation.

Well, sort of, but the differences found in this study were really rather small. Statistically, the Asians successfully recognized fear and disgust less often than the Westerners. But they still got them right 58% and 71% of the time, respectively, even when the faces were Western; they did better when the faces were Asian. Given that there were 7 options, had they been picking randomly they would only have got 14% right. 58% is still pretty good. The Asians were actually (non-significantly) better at recognizing neutral, surprised, and sad faces.

And the differences notwithstanding, the whole task relies upon the fact that the subjects know the meaning of "happy", "fear", and so forth, and associate them with certain face expressions. The fact that the experiment worked at all shows - as Ekman would predict - that both Westerners and East Asians share an emotional understanding. There appear to be some cultural quirks, but the essential universality of facial emotion still stands.

Jack, R., Blais, C., Scheepers, C., Schyns, P., & Caldara, R. (2009). Cultural Confusions Show that Facial Expressions Are Not Universal Current Biology DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.051

ALDEIA DE PENA

Portugal é linda. Tem belezas em tudo, até mesmo em suas Aldeias.

Ao visitar o Blog da Miuíka, encontrei essas lindas fotos. Solicitei a ela de presente. Pois aprendi a conhecer um pouco de Portugal, através o meu amigo João Menéres do blog http://grifoplanante.blogspot.com/, do qual, despertou um interesse muito grande em ir conhecer.
Participei da Aldeia de minha Vida, promovida pela Susan, DO bLOG http://aldeiadaminhavida.blogspot.com/que também reside por lá. Fiquei encantada pelas Belezas de Portugal, Porto, Lisboa, enfim,
tudo lá tem sua beleza ímpar.
Obrigada Miuíka pela oportunidade de desfrutar um pouco desse mundo virtual. Viajando através dos blogs dos amigos, aprendemos a conhecer um pouco mais das riquezas que esse Mundo de Deus nos proporciona.
Valeu amiga.

ENTÃO VAMOS VIAJAR UM POUCO....

Aldeia da Pena,uma das muitas aldeias do norte de Portugal.

Publicada por MIUÍKA

VENHA CONHECER ESTES DOIS CANTINHOS QUE FALAM DE AMOR:

Poetas-Um Vôo Livre

Sinal de Liberdade-uma expressão de sentimento