loving relationships

I for the most part believe this article is correct -- though to me, one can't compliment and say I love you enough. Also, I think the age difference is too emphasized -- it is nice to be able to grow and change with a person, and if one party is already set in their ways there really is little depth as a couple. People need a shared past, present and future in order to truly understand each other.

Revealed: The perfect formula for a happy marriage.. wife must be younger and brighter

Oct 27 2009 By Gayle Ritchie

SO much for candlelit dinners, romantic weekends away and showering your other half with compliments...

Scientists reckon the secret to a happy marriage is easy - the woman should be smarter than the man and at least five years younger.

They developed a distinctly unromantic formula to predict how compatible a couple are, based on their ages, education and relationship history.

Academics studied interviews of more than 1500 couples who were married or in a serious relationship. Five years later they followed up 1000 of the couples.

From this they were able to work out the factors that create a marriage made in heaven, and those that doom a relationship to failure.

They found if the wife is five or more years older than her husband, the couple are more than three times as likely to divorce than if they were the same age.

Where the husband is the elder by at least five years, the couples are less likely to part, according to the academics, including Dr Emmanuel Fragniere of the University of Bath.

The finding predicts a healthy future for pop star Beyonce Knowles, 28, and rapper husband Jay-Z, 39.

Jay-Z is older, but Beyonce has the better education, as her hubby failed to gain a diploma at high school.

The research might be less popular with actor Michael Douglas, 65, and his 40-year-old wife, Catherine Zeta Jones.

While they satisfy the age gap, they fail on another factor. The study found that a relationship is more likely to fail if one partner has a history of divorce - and this is Douglas' second marriage.

Here are some other theories which claim to form the basis of a happy marriage...

Couples should enjoy at least three cuddles a day. If you make the effort to hug, you'll reap the bonding benefits. Even a quick cuddle shows you care.

Whether a wee peck on the cheek or a full-on smooch, kisses are very important.To ensure a lasting marriage, the couple should enjoy at least four kisses a day.

Everyone needs to hear those little three words every once in a while. Saying "I love you" at least once a day ensures a durable match.

Couples should share two hobbies which they can enjoy on a regular basis.Whether mountain biking or going to the cinema, they should be equally passionate about the hobby.

Even if it means just fantasising about getting out to do those things together, being enthusiastic about something intensifies the bond.

Going out for two romantic meals a month will ensure a lasting liaison. The process of getting dressed up, picking out food and wine for one another and enjoying each other's company in a relaxed environment, allows you to focus on being happy. Just make sure the babysitter is free to look after the kids.

"Till death do us part couples" will often have met through friends and tied the knot after three and a half years. Having mutual friends increases the likelihood of having similar interests and staying with the same circle of people.

Happy husbands and wives keep in regular touch - even when they are at work - making at least three phone calls, text messages or emails a day. Maintaining contact shows you are thinking about the other person, regardless of how busy you are.

Couples should enjoy time out from each other, to pursue their own interests and bring something fresh back to the relationship.They should do this by enjoying at least two separate nights a month with friends.

It's important to keep an air of suspense about a relationship. The husband or wife should organise at least one surprise weekend away each year.

At least three nights a week should be spent snuggled up together watching TV or a film.This gives the couple a chance to get physically close and share.

Holidays are great for taking time out to relax, without the distraction of work and the daily routine. Try to get away for at least one holiday a year. Whether you're together in a cosy caravan or a plush hotel abroad, the experience is guaranteed to bring you closer.

Couples who look like each other are likely to stick together, according to a study by Professor David Perrett of the University of St Andrews. He reckons we're attracted to someone similar because they remind us of the faces we saw most in childhood - our parents.

It's important to make eye contact to attract a potential mate. Clear eyes show you're healthy and more likely to be fertile, say scientists.

They also believe we use smells to find a mate who has the right DNA combination to produce healthy kids. Studies reveal women give off a tell-tale body odour when they're at their most fertile, which is attractive to men. For women, the sweaty smell of a man boosts the blood flow to the part of the brain controlling sex.

fun projects and crafts; good friends

It's nice when good friends say wonderful things about you. Check out my dear friend Samantha's blog post about our mask party a few weeks ago in Durham. I thought my mask turned out pretty well and the boys tried so hard!



(I realize this isn't the greatest photo of me, but I was having fun!)

beauty and science

I was emailed the Journal article on the 30th -- it is saved in my email... posting a "social" (read: taken from College News) review of the paper.


Men and women both go for pretty faces…

....But there are differences in short and long-term relationships and male-female attractiveness

Kate Oczypok

So, when you’re out there looking for a mate, do you tend to go for a pretty face? Or more of a hot body? The Frisky recently reported that, in point of fact, men and women actually both go for the face over the body.

A new study said that men and women go for beautiful faces when they’re going for long-term relationships, but short-term ones are another story: women are more likely to go for nice faces over bodies but guys definitely wanted hot bodies over faces. The article quips, “gives a whole new meaning to the word phrase ‘butter face.’” How many of you have heard or used that term while in school?

The study, by Dr. Thomas E. Currie at the Royal Society University in London, assessed the relative importance of the face and body in judgments of human physical attractiveness, according to the Official Journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society. Basically, the results of the study suggest that faces and bodies signal different information about potential mates.

Touching further on the idea of the face, an article from psychcentral.com said that new research at the University of California Santa Barbara said that women pick up cues in men’s faces that show that they’re interested in children. They then use those to figure out if they’re attracted enough to have a long-term relationship with the guy.

So ladies, maybe next time you’re with a guy long-term, see if you subconsciously pick up on cues that you may be searching for his interest in having kids. Also, the more masculine a man’s face is, the more likely a woman is going to be attracted to them for a short-term relationship, according to Psych Central.

About this: My two best friends here are males and they always insist men choose women based on whether or not they have a pretty face. I used to not buy this but the more I think about it, the more I realize that maybe it’s true. The study is honestly what sold me. Girls like Megan Fox, or cougars perhaps, are boys’ things to have fun with for a bit. But in the long-term, if a guy wants to marry you, what actually matters is whether or not he thinks your face is attractive enough to stare at for 50-something years.

So what are your thoughts on face vs. body attractiveness?

10/1/09
http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?/dating/men_and_women_both_go_for_pretty_faces_10012009122323582/

happiness studies, traditionalism

looks like those traditional women are happier... probably because they are working for a larger purpose outside of the self [<--my goal] and providing ultimate care. (Or they are just ignorant and willfully oblivious...)
Conservatives Happier Than Liberals

By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer

posted: 07 May 2008 08:20 am ET


Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.

Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.

The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are."

To justify economic inequalities, a person could support the idea of meritocracy, in which people supposedly move up their economic status in society based on hard work and good performance. In that way, one's social class attainment, whether upper, middle or lower, would be perceived as totally fair and justified.

If your beliefs don't justify gaps in status, you could be left frustrated and disheartened, according to the researchers, Jaime Napier and John Jost of New York University. They conducted a U.S.-centric survey and a more internationally focused one to arrive at the findings.

"Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."

The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as "very happy," while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer.

The same rationalizing phenomena could apply to personal situations as well.

"There is no reason to think that the effects we have identified here are unique to economic forms of inequality," the researchers write. "Research suggests that highly egalitarian women are less happy in their marriages compared with their more traditional counterparts, apparently because they are more troubled by disparities in domestic labor."

The current study was funded by the National Science Foundation.


There are several issues with all of this though -- one being how each group defines "happy" or what makes up "happy". I certainly believe that happiness has various gradations for every person... we the Pew Participants just ticking boxes?

evolution, clues to human origins

Hello Ardi! Welcome to our evolutionary tree! I'm posting the discovery news article because its the simpliest and most concise of articles I've encountered so far.


This is a drawing of what Ardipithecus ramidus ("Ardi") likely looked like. The 4.4 million-year-old hominid opens up a new chapter on human evolution because, as the lead researcher says, "it is as close as we have ever come to finding the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans."
J.H. Matternes/Science/AAAS

'Ardi,' Oldest Human Ancestor, Unveiled

"Ardi" dates to 4.4. million years and may be the oldest human ancestor ever found.

By Jennifer Viegas

The world's oldest and most complete skeleton of a potential human ancestor -- named "Ardi," short for Ardipithecus ramidus -- has been unveiled by an international team of 47 researchers.

Their unprecedented, 17-year investigation of Ardi is detailed in a special issue of the journal Science.

The 4.4 million-year-old hominid opens up a new chapter on human evolution because "it is as close as we have ever come to finding the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans," project co-director Tim White told Discovery News.

"This is not an ordinary fossil," added White, a paleontologist in the University of California at Berkeley's Human Evolution Research Center. "It's not a chimp. It's not a human."

Instead, he said, "It shows us what we used to be."

Placement on the Human History Timeline

The actual last common ancestor of chimps and humans probably lived between five and 10 million years ago, based on genetic and other estimates, so Ardi falls somewhere between this still unknown species and "Lucy," the famous 3.2 million-year-old "ape-man" hominid, also found in Ethiopia, belonging to the genus Australopithecus.

"If you dig up in younger time horizons at the site where Ardipithecus was found you have Australopithecus, so we feel that we are in a position to say that Ardipithecus may have given rise to Australopithecus, which in turn gave rise to Homo (sapiens)," White said.

Ardi, who was a female, may or may not have had any direct descendants. Her species may have given rise to Lucy's species, Australopithecus.

Bones Reveal Appearance and Behavior

Gen Suwa, one of the project's paleoanthropologists, spotted the very first Ardipithecus fossil in 1992 while conducting a foot survey in the Afar Rift in northeastern Ethiopia. Since that time, a total of 110 specimens representing a minimum of 36 different individuals of Ardi's species have been found within a sediment layer at the site that was precisely dated using multiple established techniques.

Ardi is the most complete of these individuals, as the skeleton includes her skull, teeth, arms, hands, pelvis, legs and feet. Based on these findings, the researchers know that she and others in her species were both tree- and land-dwelling omnivores. They had a relatively small, chimp-sized brain, long arms and short legs.

The scientists suspect Ardi used simple tools, such as twigs and leaves, but no stone tools were found at the dig site.

"Believe me, we've looked for them," said White, who added that the earliest known stone tools date to 2.6 million years ago.

The First Key Differences Between Hominids and Apes

Ardi could climb trees, using lengthy fingers and big toes for grasping, but she could also walk on the ground on two feet. Detecting that latter ability was critical for the scientists, as it appears two key features distinguished the very first hominid from other apes: walking with two feet on the ground and a reduction in the size of the canine teeth.

Both of these characteristics provide clues as to what might have caused the last common ancestor to diverge from other apes.

The Making of Families, Not War

"We now believe that social, instead of environmental, change, led to the species division," White explained. "Natural selection involves reproductive success, so Professor Owen Lovejoy of the project suspects that Ardipithecus males were probably pair-bonded to specific females, and may have aided them by gathering and carrying foods."

Such provisioning by males would have favored those males who could best walk on two feet, according to the researchers, allowing them free hands for carrying food. Provisioned females could have "intensified their parenting" and carried their infants, which is easier to do in woodland environments when the forelimbs are free.

The reduction in canine teeth, which Lovejoy called "weapons of aggression," further suggests that Ardipithecus males were not as physically hostile with each other as larger-canined chimpanzees are today.

Myth Busted: Humans Never Evolved From Chimpanzees

Although chimpanzees remain our closest living primate relatives, there is now no evidence that Homo sapiens somehow evolved from chimpanzee-like individuals, losing chimp characteristics over time. Instead, after the chimp/hominid split, the two groups appear to have gone their separate evolutionary ways, developing the unique traits seen in each today.

Alan Walker, a professor of biological anthropology at Pennsylvania State University who did not work on the project, said that the Ardipithecus fossils "tell us that the anatomy of closely related living species cannot predict the anatomy of their ancestors very accurately."

Walker said, "It now seems, from the analyses carried out by the discoverers and their colleagues, that the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans was much less chimpanzee-like than previously thought."

He concluded that the unveiling of the new hominid "is certain to cause considerable rethinking of not only our evolutionary past, but also that of our living relatives the great apes."