backundkochrezepte
brothersandsisters
cubicasa
petroros
ionicfilter
acne-facts
consciouslifestyle
hosieryassociation
analpornoizle
acbdp
polskie-dziwki
polskie-kurwy
agwi
dsl-service-dsl-providers
airss
stone-island
turbomagazin
ursi2011
godsheritageevangelical
hungerdialogue
vezetestechnika
achatina
never-fail
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Women Are Better Connected... Neurally
A new paper just out from Tomasi and Volkow (of cell-phones-affect-brain fame) offers, on the face of it, extremely strong evidence for a gender difference in the brain, not in structure but in function: Gender Differences in Brain Functional Connectivity Density.
Here's the headline pic:
They used resting-state "functional connectivity" (though see here for why this term may be misleading) fMRI in men and women. This essentially means that they put people in the MRI scanner, told them to just lie there and relax, and measured the degree to which activity in different parts of the brain was correlated to activity in every other part. They had a whopping 561 brains in total, though they didn't scan everyone themselves: they downloaded the data from here.
As you can see the results were highly consistent around the world. In both men and women, the main "connectivity hub" was an area called the ventral precuneus. This is interesting in itself although not a new finding as the precuneus has long been known to be involved in resting-state networks. However, the degree of connectivity was higher in women than in men 14% higher, in fact.
The method they used, which they've dubbed "Local Functional Connectivity Density Mapping", is apparantly a fast way of calculating the degree to which each part of the brain is functionally related to each other part.
You could do this by taking every single voxel and correlating it with every other voxel, for every single person, but this would take forever unless you had a supercomputer. LFCDM is, they say, a short-cut. I'm not really qualified to judge whether it's a valid one, but it looks solid.
Also, men's brains were on average bigger, but interestingly they show that women had, relative to brain size, more grey matter than men. Here's the data (I'm not sure about the color scheme...)
So what does the functional connectivity finding mean? It could mean anything, or nothing. You could interpret the highly interconnected female brain as an explanation for why women are more holistic, better at multi-tasking, and more in touch with their emotions than men with their fragmented faculties. Or whatever.
Or you could say, that that's sexist rubbish, and all this means is that men and women on average are thinking about different things when they lie in MRI scanners. We already know that resting-state functional connectivity centred on the precuneus is suppressed whenever your attention is directed towards an external "task".
That's not a fault of this research, which is excellent as far as it goes and certainly raises lots of interesting questions about functional connectivity. But we don't know what it means quite yet.
Tomasi D, & Volkow ND (2011). Gender differences in brain functional connectivity density. Human brain mapping PMID: 21425398
Women Are Better Connected... Neurally
A new paper just out from Tomasi and Volkow (of cell-phones-affect-brain fame) offers, on the face of it, extremely strong evidence for a gender difference in the brain, not in structure but in function: Gender Differences in Brain Functional Connectivity Density.
Here's the headline pic:
They used resting-state "functional connectivity" (though see here for why this term may be misleading) fMRI in men and women. This essentially means that they put people in the MRI scanner, told them to just lie there and relax, and measured the degree to which activity in different parts of the brain was correlated to activity in every other part. They had a whopping 561 brains in total, though they didn't scan everyone themselves: they downloaded the data from here.
As you can see the results were highly consistent around the world. In both men and women, the main "connectivity hub" was an area called the ventral precuneus. This is interesting in itself although not a new finding as the precuneus has long been known to be involved in resting-state networks. However, the degree of connectivity was higher in women than in men 14% higher, in fact.
The method they used, which they've dubbed "Local Functional Connectivity Density Mapping", is apparantly a fast way of calculating the degree to which each part of the brain is functionally related to each other part.
You could do this by taking every single voxel and correlating it with every other voxel, for every single person, but this would take forever unless you had a supercomputer. LFCDM is, they say, a short-cut. I'm not really qualified to judge whether it's a valid one, but it looks solid.
Also, men's brains were on average bigger, but interestingly they show that women had, relative to brain size, more grey matter than men. Here's the data (I'm not sure about the color scheme...)
So what does the functional connectivity finding mean? It could mean anything, or nothing. You could interpret the highly interconnected female brain as an explanation for why women are more holistic, better at multi-tasking, and more in touch with their emotions than men with their fragmented faculties. Or whatever.
Or you could say, that that's sexist rubbish, and all this means is that men and women on average are thinking about different things when they lie in MRI scanners. We already know that resting-state functional connectivity centred on the precuneus is suppressed whenever your attention is directed towards an external "task".
That's not a fault of this research, which is excellent as far as it goes and certainly raises lots of interesting questions about functional connectivity. But we don't know what it means quite yet.
Tomasi D, & Volkow ND (2011). Gender differences in brain functional connectivity density. Human brain mapping PMID: 21425398
Commemorating the Civil War
Recognized
Need to Grumble
Scholarly Base Maintenance Month
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
UM AGRADECECIMENTO
SEI QUE ANDO UM POUCO AFASTADA DO BLOG.
MAS ANDO MESMO SEM TEMPO. FAÇO FISIOTERAPIA NO FINAL DO DIA..
MEU MARIDO ESTÁ USANDO O PC PARA REALIZAR AS DECLARAÇÕES DE IMPOSTO DE RENDA.
E PARA COMPLETAR DE VEZ EM QUANDO FICO SEM A NET. ONTEM TENTEI CONECTAR E NÃO CONSEGUI. FORA DO AR...
TAMBÉM TENHO O MEU TRABALHO QUE, MUITAS VEZES VEM COMIGO PARA CASA. A ESCOLA ESTÁ COM MUITO SERVIÇO. MUITAS VEZES PRECISO TERMINAR EM CASA.
MAS AGRADEÇO O CARINHO DE TODOS.. A VISITA...A SUA AMIZADE... UM GRANDE ABRAÇO A TODOS. LOGO DAREI UM PULINHO NO SEU BLOG. UM FORTE ABRAÇO EM SEU CORAÇÃO...
AGRADEÇO A SUA COMPANHIA!!!
Republicans Are Such Great Comedians
The Mackinac Center, which describes itself as a nonpartisan research and educational institution and receives money from numerous conservative foundations, asked the three universities’ labor studies faculty members for any e-mails mentioning “Scott Walker,” “Madison,” “Wisconsin” or “Rachel Maddow,” the liberal talk show host on MSNBC.
Stephenie Meyer's Twilight: A Fantasy of Helplessness
I felt a spasm of panic as I stared at her wide, childlike eyes. How could I leave my loving, erratic, harebrained mother to fend for herself? Of course she had Phil now, so the bills would probably get paid, there would be food in the refrigerator, gas in her car, and someone to call when she got lost, but still . . .
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Neuroskeptic Irreverent and Sometimes Profane, Study Finds
Irreverent, sometimes profane, and can skirt the boundaries of good taste. Nonetheless, Neuroskeptic covers a rich mixture of important, engaging, or amusing topics focusing on the basic and clinical neurosciences, and does so in a data-driven, user-friendly, and comment-enabled format. Neuroskeptic is only one of a number of increasingly used web sites and blogs dedicated to promoting public education, rational discourse, and a healthy dose of skepticism around important issues in the neurosciences...No really: Scientific literacy and the media. They also list a small number of other neuroblogs, although they leave out many outstanding ones including the blog that most inspired this one, and that everyone confuses me with, The Neurocritic.
Anyway, the editorial goes on to note that:
Last April, a series of sensationalist stories reporting the “creation of life” and a newfound capability to “play God” appeared in the national media following the demonstration that synthetic DNA could transform a mycoplasma species from one to another subtype(ref). This represented a tour de force of DNA synthesis, but probably only a modest step forward for the science of genetic engineering.
In response, President Obama directed his Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to prepare a comprehensive advisory report to help frame policies about synthetic biology(ref).
The Commission noted that sensationalist headlines may attract readers to scientific topics but do a terrible disservice by promoting “claims that fail to convey accurately to the public the current state of the field, the implications of research results, and the limits of scientists' present knowledge and abilities.” The Presidential Commission recommended creating a well-funded, interactive website... to monitor claims about new scientific discoveries and technologies.
Ideally, such a site would be only part of a wider effort to promote scientific literacy and critical thinking across all segments of society... In the coming years, scientific innovation is certain to play an increasingly large role in the global economy... The public discourse on these and related matters needs to be rational, evidence-based, and accurate.
Hauser, S., & Johnston, S. (2011). Scientific literacy and the media Annals of Neurology, 69 (3) DOI: 10.1002/ana.22410
Neuroskeptic Irreverent and Sometimes Profane, Study Finds
Irreverent, sometimes profane, and can skirt the boundaries of good taste. Nonetheless, Neuroskeptic covers a rich mixture of important, engaging, or amusing topics focusing on the basic and clinical neurosciences, and does so in a data-driven, user-friendly, and comment-enabled format. Neuroskeptic is only one of a number of increasingly used web sites and blogs dedicated to promoting public education, rational discourse, and a healthy dose of skepticism around important issues in the neurosciences...No really: Scientific literacy and the media. They also list a small number of other neuroblogs, although they leave out many outstanding ones including the blog that most inspired this one, and that everyone confuses me with, The Neurocritic.
Anyway, the editorial goes on to note that:
Last April, a series of sensationalist stories reporting the “creation of life” and a newfound capability to “play God” appeared in the national media following the demonstration that synthetic DNA could transform a mycoplasma species from one to another subtype(ref). This represented a tour de force of DNA synthesis, but probably only a modest step forward for the science of genetic engineering.
In response, President Obama directed his Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to prepare a comprehensive advisory report to help frame policies about synthetic biology(ref).
The Commission noted that sensationalist headlines may attract readers to scientific topics but do a terrible disservice by promoting “claims that fail to convey accurately to the public the current state of the field, the implications of research results, and the limits of scientists' present knowledge and abilities.” The Presidential Commission recommended creating a well-funded, interactive website... to monitor claims about new scientific discoveries and technologies.
Ideally, such a site would be only part of a wider effort to promote scientific literacy and critical thinking across all segments of society... In the coming years, scientific innovation is certain to play an increasingly large role in the global economy... The public discourse on these and related matters needs to be rational, evidence-based, and accurate.
Hauser, S., & Johnston, S. (2011). Scientific literacy and the media Annals of Neurology, 69 (3) DOI: 10.1002/ana.22410
I Am Not Going Anywhere!
The Sign That I Really Like a Blog. . .
Keyboard Bag
They come in different colors, too.
What an absolute beauty, people. If you feel like you can afford this bag at this moment, here is the website. Make the nerdette in your life (whether she is you or somebody you care about) really happy.
I'm not being paid to promote the bags or anything. I just love them and want to share this beautiful dream with people, even though I can't buy one myself right now.
Being Ashamed of Illinois
I called the village of Downers Grove last year and was pleasantly surprised when I asked if it would be alright having a group of people say a prayer at the Village Hall. They turned me over to a very nice gentlemen ( I still have his name) and said I didn't need a permit. And asked if I was going to have over 50 people in case they were doing work at the time. I was really upset about national prayer day being cancelled. I also made a comment how nice it was to have the American flag all over town.
Religious fanaticism will be the downfall of this country.
Amazon Mom
Philosophy
Sempre acho que namoro, casamento, romance tem começo, meio e fim. Como tudo na vida. Detesto quando escuto aquela conversa:
- ‘Ah, terminei o namoro… ‘
- ‘Nossa, quanto tempo?’
- ‘Cinco anos… Mas não deu certo… Acabou’
- É, não deu…?
Claro que deu! Deu certo durante cinco anos, só que acabou.
E o bom da vida, é que você pode ter vários amores.
Não acredito em pessoas que se complementam. Acredito em pessoas que se somam.
Às vezes você não consegue nem dar cem por cento de você para você mesmo, como cobrar cem por cento do outro.
E não temos esta coisa completa.
Às vezes ele é fiel, mas não é bom de cama.
Às vezes ele é carinhoso, mas não é fiel.
Às vezes ele é atencioso, mas não é trabalhador.
Às vezes ela é malhada, mas não é sensível.
Tudo nós não temos.
Perceba qual o aspecto que é mais importante e invista nele.
Pele é um bicho traiçoeiro.
Quando você tem pele com alguém, pode ser o papai com mamãe mais básico que é uma delícia.
E as vezes você tem aquele sexo acrobata, mas que não te impressiona…
Acho que o beijo é importante…e se o beijo bate…se joga…senão bate…mais um Martini, por favor…e vá dar uma volta.
Se ele ou ela não te quer mais, não force a barra.
O outro tem o direito de não te querer.
Não lute, não ligue, não dê pití.
Se a pessoa tá com dúvida, problema dela, cabe a você esperar ou não.
Existe gente que precisa da ausência para querer a presença.
O ser humano não é absoluto. Ele titubeia, tem dúvidas e medos mas se a pessoa REALMENTE gostar, ela volta.
Nada de drama.
Que graça tem alguém do seu lado sob chantagem, gravidez, dinheiro, recessão de família?
O legal é alguém que está com você por você.
E vice versa.
Não fique com alguém por dó também.
Ou por medo da solidão.
Nascemos sós. Morremos sós. Nosso pensamento é nosso, não é compartilhado.
E quando você acorda, a primeira impressão é sempre sua, seu olhar, seu pensamento.
Tem gente que pula de um romance para o outro.
Que medo é este de se ver só, na sua própria companhia?
Gostar dói.
Você muitas vezes vai ter raiva, ciúmes, ódio, frustração.
Faz parte. Você namora um outro ser, um outro mundo e um outro universo.
E nem sempre as coisas saem como você quer…
A pior coisa é gente que tem medo de se envolver.
Se alguém vier com este papo, corra, afinal, você não é terapeuta.
Se não quer se envolver, namore uma planta. É mais previsível.
Na vida e no amor, não temos garantias.
E nem todo sexo bom é para namorar.
Nem toda pessoa que te convida para sair é para casar.
Nem todo beijo é para romancear.
Nem todo sexo bom é para descartar. Ou se apaixonar. Ou se culpar.
Enfim… Quem disse que ser adulto é fácil???
(Arnaldo Jabor)
Student Insights on Democracy
"He really likes it," students respond.
"What makes you think that?"
"He is in favor of people being ruled by a small minority, access to which is extremely limited. That's democracy," they respond completely seriously.
When I explained the etymology of the word "democracy" ("power of the people"), they were genuinely surprised.
Out of the mouths of babes, indeed. . .
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Lunella Ristorante in New York: A Review
When we asked the waiter why the restaurant was doing this, he became extremely aggressive. First, he insisted that this was a common practice in New York, which is a patent lie. Then, when we disagreed (very politely, I might add), he screeched, "I don't give a fuck!" and threw the bill at us. This wasn't a matter of money for us because we were going to leave a good tip initially but such attitude was simply shocking. The manager came up and refused to acknowledge that the conduct of the waiter who yells profanity at polite customers might not have been entirely appropriate. The waiter, in the meanwhile, was lurking in the background, banging food trays, and showing his discontent in every imaginable way. Since I left my country 12,5 years ago, I haven't witnessed such naked and unjustified displays of aggression from complete strangers. Even the criminal who mugged me several years ago was less scary than this waiter. Which is not that surprising, given that he is, in all probability, a compatriot of mine.
So my advice: whatever you do, avoid the horrible Lunella restaurant in New York at all costs.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Ukrainian National Pastime
Here is how the product looks when you buy it |
And this is how the contraption looks while you are using it |
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
"And He's Not Even a Marxist!": The Nation's Shabby Coverage of William Cronon's Persecution
Many faculty members call themselves “Marxists” or “socialists,” and some describe themselves as “anarchists” or “revolutionaries”—but Cronon doesn’t. He’s not Bill Ayres, the education professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago who happily defends his Weatherman past. Cronon describes himself as a “centrist.” He says he’s never belonged to the Democratic (or the Republican) party.
British Government Fails Maths, Economics
The government's cost projections assumed that the mean fee at English universities, and hence the mean size of their loans, would be £7,500 per year. Why, no-one seems to know. Sources are unanimous that this was what they assumed, but no-one links to any kind of report explaining why. Maybe they gazed into a magic crystal ball. Parliament, performing a separate analysis, also worked under the assumption of £7,500, and their reason was that
we have assumed that... this fee covers the 80% reduction in [central government funding]. The average fee... is assumed to be £7,500 per annum for an undergraduate degree.However, this is just silly. For averagefees to be £7,500, anyone charging some amount more than that, would have to be balanced out by someone charging the same amount less. That's what an average is.
However, no-one can afford to charge less, even if they wanted to, because they need to charge £7,500 to pay for their teaching and break even. £7,500 is the minimum not the average. But plenty will want to charge more. Oxford and Cambridge, for instance, were blatantly going to charge the top amount, because they're "top" universities. As a result, every other university which aspires to be elite will have to charge £9k, to keep up with Oxbridge.
Hence a domino effect goes down the line: every university will want to charge as much as the ones immediately ahead of them, so as not to look cheap. (The alternative, that they'd try to undercut them in price, makes no sense when you consider the amounts of money involved; the savings to the students would be minimal but the message - "we are cheap, therefore not very good" - would be loud and clear.)
I've whipped up a little plot showing all the universities which have currently announced their fees along with their position in the latest university rankings. A few small institutions are unranked and so don't appear.
The rankings go up to 115 so if the universities ranked over 58 charge over £7.5k, the others would have to charge less to cancel them out. I'll try to update this chart when fees are announced, but I think it's a forgone conclusion that this won't happen. Last updated 06/04/2011 10 am. See also here for a frequently-updated expert analysis.
The government is now seriously talking about having to cut what little direct university funding remains, in order to avoid losing money - from a policy which was supposed to save money. Yet this was always going to happen given what I said above. Indeed this policy, which was sold to the country as a cost-cutting measure, was always going to, at best, break even until the graduates repay their loans, and they won't even start doing that until the first batch graduate, in 2015 which is the next election year.
So there seem to be only two possible options. Maybe they knew it wouldn't save money, but in that case, why did they do it? It's not winning them any votes, so there must be a long-term plan, but what? The other possibility is that they genuinely thought it would save money. So it's a question of bungling incompetence vs. mysterious scheme. I'm not sure which is worse.
British Government Fails Maths, Economics
The government's cost projections assumed that the mean fee at English universities, and hence the mean size of their loans, would be £7,500 per year. Why, no-one seems to know. Sources are unanimous that this was what they assumed, but no-one links to any kind of report explaining why. Maybe they gazed into a magic crystal ball. Parliament, performing a separate analysis, also worked under the assumption of £7,500, and their reason was that
we have assumed that... this fee covers the 80% reduction in [central government funding]. The average fee... is assumed to be £7,500 per annum for an undergraduate degree.However, this is just silly. For averagefees to be £7,500, anyone charging some amount more than that, would have to be balanced out by someone charging the same amount less. That's what an average is.
However, no-one can afford to charge less, even if they wanted to, because they need to charge £7,500 to pay for their teaching and break even. £7,500 is the minimum not the average. But plenty will want to charge more. Oxford and Cambridge, for instance, were blatantly going to charge the top amount, because they're "top" universities. As a result, every other university which aspires to be elite will have to charge £9k, to keep up with Oxbridge.
Hence a domino effect goes down the line: every university will want to charge as much as the ones immediately ahead of them, so as not to look cheap. (The alternative, that they'd try to undercut them in price, makes no sense when you consider the amounts of money involved; the savings to the students would be minimal but the message - "we are cheap, therefore not very good" - would be loud and clear.)
I've whipped up a little plot showing all the universities which have currently announced their fees along with their position in the latest university rankings. A few small institutions are unranked and so don't appear.
The rankings go up to 115 so if the universities ranked over 58 charge over £7.5k, the others would have to charge less to cancel them out. I'll try to update this chart when fees are announced, but I think it's a forgone conclusion that this won't happen. Last updated 06/04/2011 10 am. See also here for a frequently-updated expert analysis.
The government is now seriously talking about having to cut what little direct university funding remains, in order to avoid losing money - from a policy which was supposed to save money. Yet this was always going to happen given what I said above. Indeed this policy, which was sold to the country as a cost-cutting measure, was always going to, at best, break even until the graduates repay their loans, and they won't even start doing that until the first batch graduate, in 2015 which is the next election year.
So there seem to be only two possible options. Maybe they knew it wouldn't save money, but in that case, why did they do it? It's not winning them any votes, so there must be a long-term plan, but what? The other possibility is that they genuinely thought it would save money. So it's a question of bungling incompetence vs. mysterious scheme. I'm not sure which is worse.
Passport Ownership by State
The article that accompanies this map explains that
States with more passport holders are also happier. There is a significant correlation (.55) between happiness (measured via Gallup surveys) and a state’s percentage of passport holders. Yet again, that correlation holds when we control for income.I wonder if we can use this data in the promotion of our university's Study Abroad program.
O que eu também não entendo - Jota Quest
Amar não é ter que ter