Thursday, August 12, 2010
Flora de Bry
Floris imago fugax rapidi nos admonit aevi
The fleeting presence of a flower warns us of a rapid lifetime
Flos speculum vitae modo vernat et interat aura
The flower mirrors life; it blooms and perishes in the air
O flos sic vernans iuvenili aetate pudorem
Oh how you flourish shyly flower, the modesty of youth
Monday, August 9, 2010
nytimes
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
in the mood for one of my favorite youtube videos
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
animal intelligence (and sex toys!)
When It Comes to Sex, Chimps Need Help, Too
By JOHN TIERNEY
The deflating news was summarized by Ms. Goodall’s mentor, Louis Leakey: “Now we must redefine tool, redefine Man, or accept chimpanzees as human.”
So what have we actually done now that we’ve had a half-century to pout? In a 50th anniversary essay in the journal Science, the primatologist William C. McGrew begins by hailing the progression of chimpanzee studies from field notes to “theory-driven, hypothesis-testing ethnology.”
He tactfully waits until the third paragraph — journalists call this “burying the lead” — to deliver the most devastating blow yet to human self-esteem. After noting that chimpanzees’ “tool kits” are now known to include 20 items, Dr. McGrew casually mentions that they’re used for “various functions in daily life, including subsistence, sociality, sex, and self-maintenance.”
Sex? Chimpanzees have tools for sex? No way. If ever there was an intrinsically human behavior, it had to be the manufacture of sex toys.
Considering all that evolution had done to make sex second nature, or maybe first nature, I would have expected creatures without access to the Internet to leave well enough alone.
Only Homo sapiens seemed blessed with the idle prefrontal cortex and nimble prehensile thumbs necessary to invent erotic paraphernalia. Or perhaps Homo habilis, the famous Handy Man of two million years ago, if those ancestors got bored one day with their jobs in the rock-flaking industry:
“Flake, flake, flake.”
“There’s gotta be more to life.”
“Nobody ever died wishing he’d spent more time making sharp rocks.”
“What if you could make a tool for... something fun?”
I couldn’t imagine how chimps managed this evolutionary leap. But then, I couldn’t imagine what they were actually doing. Using blades of grass to tickle one another? Building heart-shaped beds of moss? Using stones for massages, or vines for bondage, or — well, I really had no idea, so I called Dr. McGrew, who is a professor at the University of Cambridge.
The tool for sex, he explained, is a leaf. Ideally a dead leaf, because that makes the most noise when the chimp clips it with his hand or his mouth.
“Males basically have to attract and maintain the attention of females,” Dr. McGrew said. “One way to do this is leaf clipping. It makes a rasping sound. Imagine tearing a piece of paper that’s brittle or dry. The sound is nothing spectacular, but it’s distinctive.”
O.K., a distinctive sound. Where does the sex come in?
“The male will pluck a leaf, or a set of leaves, and sit so the female can see him. He spreads his legs so the female sees the erection, and he tears the leaf bit by bit down the midvein of the leaf, dropping the pieces as he detaches them. Sometimes he’ll do half a dozen leaves until she notices.”
And then?
“Presumably she sees the erection and puts two and two together, and if she’s interested, she’ll typically approach and present her back side, and then they’ll mate.”
My first reaction, as a chauvinistic human, was to dismiss the technology as laughably primitive — too crude to even qualify as a proper sex tool. But Dr. McGrew said it met anthropologists’ definition of a tool: “He’s using a portable object to obtain a goal. In this case, the goal is not food but mating.”
Put that way, you might see this chimp as the equivalent of a human (wearing pants, one hopes) trying to attract women by driving around with a car thumping out 120-decibel music. But until researchers are able to find a woman who admits to being anything other than annoyed by guys in boom cars, these human tools must be considered evolutionary dead ends.
By contrast, the leaf-clipping chimps seem more advanced, practically debonair. But it would be fairer to compare the clipped leaf with the most popular human sex tool, which we can now identify thanks to the academic research described last year by my colleague Michael Winerip. The researchers found that the vibrator, considered taboo a few decades ago, had become one of the most common household appliances in the United States. Slightly more than half of all women, and almost half of men, reported having used one, and they weren’t giving each other platonic massages.
Leaf-clipping, meanwhile, has remained a local fetish among chimpanzees. The sexual strategy has been spotted at a colony in Tanzania but not in most other groups. There has been nothing comparable to the evolution observed in distributors of human sex tools: from XXX stores to chains of cutely named boutiques (Pleasure Chest, Good Vibrations) to mass merchants like CVS and Wal-Mart.
So let us, as Louis Leakey suggested, salvage some dignity by redefining humanity. We may not be the only tool-making species, but no one else possesses our genius for marketing. We reign supreme, indeed unrivaled, as the planet’s only tool-retailing species.
Now let’s see how long we hold on to that title.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
laughter article
Laughter Affects Body Like Exercise
posted: 26 April 2010 03:01 pm ET
Is laughter the new exercise?
Quite possibly. While toning thighs and building muscle mass still require a trip to the gym, other benefits associated with exercise — improved cholesterol and blood pressure, decreased stress hormones, a strengthened immune system and a healthy appetite — can be attained with regular guffaws, studies now suggest.
The latest mirth study, which focuses on the appetite effects of a good laugh, is being presented this week at the 2010 Experimental Biology conference in Anaheim, Calif.
Researchers measured the hormone levels of 14 volunteers before and after they watched a distressing or hilarious video clip. The researchers were particularly interested in two hormones known to regulate appetite: ghrelin, which spurs hunger, and leptin, which cues satiety.
The appetite hormones did not change significantly as people watched the upsetting video (the first 20 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan.")
But after the amusing video clip — either of stand-up comedians or a funny film — hormone levels changed as if the participant had engaged in moderate physical exercise. Specifically, ghrelin levels rose and leptin levels fell, indicating a possible increase in appetite. The lower leptin levels would mean the body isn't getting the "I'm full" message.
Overall, the finding adds to the understanding "that the body's response to repetitive laughter is similar to the effect of repetitive exercise," said study researcher Lee Berk of Loma Linda University in California in a press statement.
Although changes in appetite were not directly assessed, by, say, recording what people ate, the finding could help doctors treat patients who are suffering from loss of appetite but are too ill to exercise, explained Berk.
"It may indeed be true that laughter is good medicine," he said.
Friday, April 16, 2010
creativity article
i've been saving this for ten days
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
animal intelligence
Horses Never Forget Human Friends
Horses not only remember people who have treated them well, they also understand words better than expected, research shows.
THE GIST:
- Horses remain loyal to humans with which they have had past, positive encounters.
- The animals remember people even after long separation.
- Horses understand vocal commands better than expected.
Friday, March 5, 2010
happiness studies - in experiences
Study: Happiness Is Experiences, Not Stuff
If you're trying to buy happiness, you'd be better off putting your money toward a tropical island get-away than a new computer, a new study suggests.
The results show that people's satisfaction with their life-experience purchases — anything from seeing a movie to going on a vacation — tends to start out high and go up over time. On the other hand, although they might be initially happy with that shiny new iPhone or the latest in fashion, their satisfaction with these items wanes with time.
The findings, based on eight separate studies, agree with previous research showing that experience-related buys lead to more happiness for the consumer. But the current work provides some insight into why.
Among the reasons:
- People are more likely to mull over their material purchases than they are experiential ones, second-guessing themselves about whether they really made the best choice.
- We tend to think of experiences more on their own terms, rather than in comparison with other things.
- It's easier for us to decide on an experiential purchase than a material one.
- We're more upset if we learn that someone else got a better deal, or that a better option exists, for a material purchase than for an experience-related one.
Satisfaction with a purchase could also come down to mindset. When participants in one study thought of material purchases, such as a music CD, as an experience (many hours of enjoyable listening), they were more satisfied than those who viewed the purchase as just a material item.
In another study, 142 participants were asked to think about either a material or experience-related purchase they had made that cost at least $50. Then, they answered questions about: how difficult the decision was to make; how concerned they were that they made the right choice; and how satisfied they were with the purchase initially and at present.
The people who thought of a material purchase were significantly more likely to report feeling concerned about the buy and less satisfied with their choice at present than those who had recalled an experiential purchase.
A third study involved 164 participants who were asked how they felt about a hypothetical situation in which they had made a purchase, but later found out that other, superior choices existed. They imagined either buying a material good, such as a wristwatch, laptop, MP3 player or a pair of jeans, or an experience, including a meal at a restaurant, a movie viewing, a New York City show, or an island vacation.
Subjects who imagined a material purchase were more likely to be disturbed by the availability of better options, and in turn, reported diminished satisfaction with the buy, than those who imagined an experiential purchase.
And participants were more likely to be jealous of a rival's superior purchase if the item in question was a possession rather than an experience.
Since materials are more easily compared with other things than experiences are, material buys bring more concern and less happiness than experiential ones, the researchers from Cornell University say.
The results were published in the January issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
By Rachael Rettner, LiveScience Staff Writer
Monday, March 1, 2010
dalai lama quotes
We can live without religion and meditation, but we cannot survive without human affection.
If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.
-Dalai Lama
Friday, February 26, 2010
evolution, intelligence articles
(CNN) -- Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.
The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.
"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."
Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.
The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.
Kanazawa did not find that higher or lower intelligence predicted sexual exclusivity in women. This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a "new" preference.
For men, on the other hand, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates. Since women had to spend nine months being pregnant, and additional years caring for very young children, it made sense for them to want a steady mate to provide them resources.
Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.
"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.
Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said.
"Historically, anything that's new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence," he noted.
The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.
Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach -- looking out for the people around you first -- fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.
The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.
It also makes sense that "conservatism" as a worldview of keeping things stable would be a safer approach than venturing toward the unfamiliar, Bailey said.
Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is "a strong libertarian."
Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. This also fits into Bailey's idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence, and can also be a means of showing superiority.
None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said.
"More intelligent people don't have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen," he said.
Monday, February 22, 2010
human origins
Decoded DNA Reveals African Diversity
Some Africans living within walking distance of one another are more genetically diverse than a European and an Asian living a continent apart.
THE GIST:
- Decoded DNA of southern Africans has revealed unexpected genetic diversity.
- Two bushmen living within walking distance show more genetic variation than a European compared to an Asian.
- The study also found 1.3 million tiny variations that hadn't been observed before in any human DNA.
Scientists who decoded the DNA of some southern Africans have found striking new evidence of the genetic diversity on that continent, and uncovered a surprise about the ancestry of Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
They found, for example, that any two bushmen in their study who spoke different languages were more different genetically than a European compared to an Asian. That was true even if the bushmen lived within walking distance of each other.
"If we really want to understand human diversity, we need to go to (southern) Africa and we need to study those people," said Stephan Schuster of Pennsylvania State University. He's an author of the study, which appears in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
The study also found 1.3 million tiny variations that hadn't been observed before in any human DNA. That should help scientists sort out whether particular genes promote certain diseases or influence a person's response to medications. Findings like that could have payoffs both within Africa and elsewhere, experts said.
The genetic diversity of Africa's population is no surprise to scientists. Modern humans evolved on that continent about 200,000 years ago and have lived there longer than anyplace else. So that's where they've had the most time to develop genetic differences. The varied environments of Africa have also encouraged genetic differences.
Africa was the ancient source of modern humans worldwide, so "we're looking really back into the wellspring of our genetic origins here," said Richard Gibbs, a study author from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
The study focused on genomes, a person's complete collection of DNA. The researchers decoded genomes of a Kalahari Desert bushman and of Tutu, the 1984 Nobel Peace laureate and former head of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa. They also decoded partial genomes from three other bushmen.
Tutu was included to represent a Bantu ancestry, in contrast to bushmen. Bantu people have a tradition of farming, while bushmen are longtime hunter-gatherers who represent the oldest known lineage of modern humans.
But when researchers looked at Tutu's genome, they found surprising evidence that his mother's ancestry includes at least one bushman woman. It's not clear how many generations back that woman lived.
Tutu told The Associated Press that discovering he is related to "these wise people" made him feel "very privileged and blessed."
While the study found many previously unknown DNA variations in Tutu's genome and especially the bushman DNA, it's important to remember that overall, the genomes of any two people are virtually identical. The differences tracked in the new study lie in individual "letters" of the 3 billion-letter genetic sequence.
"We are all very, very similar to one another," Schuster said. Gibbs said the DNA differences discovered in the African subjects can't be used to support racist arguments. He noted that DNA diversity within a continent is greater than the differences between continents. The study found, in fact, that bushmen are as different from a previously studied Yoruba man in Nigeria as a European man is.
The new work "is a great start" toward more genome-decoding studies in Africa, said Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania.
More studies are needed to get a fuller picture of the continent's diversity, said Tishkoff, who studies that topic.
17 February 2010 | Nature 463, 857 (2010)
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
parami (perfections)
- May I be generous and helpful.
- May I be well-disciplined and refined in manners. May I be pure and clear in all my dealings. May my thoughts, words and deeds be pure.
- May I not be selfish and self-possessive but selfless and disinterested. May I be able to sacrifice my pleasure for the sake of others.
- May I be wise and be able to see things as they truly are. May I see the light of truth and lead others from darkness to light. May I be enlightened and be able to enlighten others.
- May I be energetic, vigorous and persevering.
- May I be ever patient. May I be able to bear and forbear the wrongs of others. May I ever be tolerant and see the good and beautiful in all.
- May I ever be truthful and honest. May I not hide the truth to be polite. May I never swerve from the path of truth.
- May I be firm and resolute and have an iron will. May I be soft as a flower and firm as a rock.
- May I ever be kind, friendly and compassionate.
- May I ever be calm, serene, unruffled and peaceful. May I gain a balanced mind. May I have perfect equanimity.
May I be perfect to serve.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
love
For Lisa Ellen Goldberg
Some things just shouldnt happen or, at least, shouldnt happen at a certain time. We should not be here today. This is not the way it was supposed to happen.
Some say that I have the gift of eloquence. Not today. I wish I had never used a superlative, that I had saved them all for today; but, even if I had saved every best word I know, they would not capture the wonder of our Lisa.
I thank God that for many of you my words are unnecessary. I wish I could read for you the hundreds of letters we have received two, three, four page letters describing in detail her impact professionally and personally. You got a glimpse but only a glimpse of that impact in what you heard earlier today.
Now, I will try to convey a sense of the complete Lisa the Lisa only I could know. Because only I was privileged (day in and day out for over thirty years) to witness the convergence of all the stories. And only I was blessed for all those years with the fullness of her constant love.
Thousands of times over these last three decades I have said: I am the luckiest and the happiest person in the world. Ive said it to many of you. The wellspring from which those words flowed was Lisa and the life she created for us for me, for Katie, for Jed, for our whole family and for our world of friends.
I am ten years older than Lisa. When we married, after a whirlwind two month courtship, I promised her I would live for at least 40 years. After we celebrated our thirtieth wedding anniversary, we began to talk optimistically to hope that we would reach 50 or 60 years together, and we began to visualize the wonder of that time. That all changed on January 21.
The opening words of Joan Didions recent book, The Year of Magical Thinking, ring tragically true: Life changes fast. Life changes in an instant. You sit down to dinner and life as you know it ends. For us, it happened before dinner.
Sunday, January 21, was like most of my days with Lisa lovingly comfortable. As usual, I was up early. Cyndi, Lisas college roommate and dear friend, had called to say she would like to visit. I awakened Lisa with a kiss, saying: It is a miracle you fell in love with me; the only explanation is that nobody could love you nearly as much as I. She smiled and said: I love you. And she smiled even more when I told her that Cyndi was coming.
Laughter filled the morning (she and Cyndi and I loved laughing together). And love filled the whole day. Early in the afternoon Katie text messaged from the Yale library: I love you mom. Thanks for another great week. A little later Jed and Dani called to talk about their new house; they and the three munchkins (as Lisa called them) ended the call: We love you.
I spent some of the day writing a talk to be given at Saint Johns University the following Thursday; it would focus in part on Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, their fierce denunciations of divinity and immortality and my conviction that they are wrong. A piece by an MIT astrophysicist named Max Tegmark on parallel universes had caught my attention because I had seen Tegmark making some very interesting comments about spirituality.
Lisa asked to see the Tegmark piece. It was the last thing she read. At 6:45, I went to our bedroom which really doubled as her office to ask if she wanted me to get dinner. She said: I am making some notes on Tegmark. Give me another half hour. I said: Fine. And, as I left the room, I said I love you. She said: I love you too, honey. Thank God we never left each other or hung up the phone without saying that. A half hour later she was gone. Life changes in an instant.
I take solace, in moments of usually tearful reflection, that we lived in the fullness and joy of constant love. So many wonderful days and memories. Every moment even the moments marked by the trials of illness or momentarily disrupted plans every moment brought a deeper, stronger, more meaningful union of our beings. I take solace that she never suffered what she feared most, a lessening of her capacities physical or mental, most importantly (for her) mental. I know that she would be happy that she died quickly and privately, that we were home, that only I found her, that it happened at the end of a day filled with thought, with inspired internet shopping, with friendship and love. I know that her last days, day and moments in this physical world were joyful. I take solace from all of that though I must confess that I am still brought up short by a wish for the days we dreamed of spending together.
I struggle now to comprehend fully how she remains with us, how she lives on not just a memory, but a reality.
If you knew us as a couple, you probably found some of our ways eccentric: We talked by phone several times a day, we left love notes on index cards and funny greeting cards for each other constantly. Some of you will remember my unilateral overnight rule, my pledge that I would not be away from her overnight (for the record, Lisa thought it was silly, though she was amused that I managed to observe it for the first several years of our marriage). Those who clerked with me at the Supreme Court will recall that, in her honor, I made certain that the number of footnotes in every opinion on which I worked was divisible by four (the number of letters in Lisa).
Such eccentricities were admittedly silly. Taken together, however, they meant a lot to us and over the years they amounted to something quite significant.
And there were other things that nobody but the two of us could know. Our joy in the conversations of long car rides (just the two of us) or in simply being at home in what she made sacred space. How she would listen to my endless chatter how sometimes, when I fell asleep briefly in mid-sentence during a late night story, I would awaken to her gentle voice reminding me where I was in the story.
She was the ultimate safe harbor, providing the security of unfathomable love to me, to Katie and Jed, and to so many others. She and I were as wonderfully intertwined as any I and Thou could be.
And I still feel the strength of the intertwining. That is the important point.
I struggle now to articulate exactly how she remains with me, with the rest of the family, and with many here today and remains in a way that transcends mere memory.
As a family, we have cared a lot over the years about what we call making memories. These memories are useful; they create a presence and a continuity, they spark smiles and feelings of love. But they are not enough. Indeed, even when her physical being was available to renew my thoughts and images of her, mere memory did not capture her reality for me: So many times, when I would see her after an absence (however short), I would say to her that she was even more beautiful than I remembered. So many times we would say to each other that the love we felt at the moment was greater than the love we remembered from the day before more than ever before, we would say. What we meant was that the mind and memory could not capture and retain the depth of what we felt.
In his wonderful book, A Grief Observed C. S. Lewis writes of marital love as a process that transcends memory, even as one grieves.
Let me read you a short passage he wrote after his wifes death:
I am tempted to say of our marriage It was too perfect to last. I mean the phrase positively. I hear God saying: This has reached its proper perfection; this has become what it was meant to be. I am pleased. And now you are ready to go on to the next stage. When you have learned to do quadratics and enjoy doing them, you should no longer do them. You should move on.
Lewis continues:
In a marriage, when one or the other dies, we are tempted to think of this as love cut short, like a dance stopped in the middle or a flower with its head unluckily snapped off something truncated and therefore, lacking its due shape. I wonder. If, as I cant help suspecting, the dead also feel the pains of separation, then for both lovers, and for all pairs of lovers without exception, bereavement is a universal and integral part of the experience of love. It follows marriage as normally as marriage follows courtship or as autumn follows summer. It is not a truncation of the process but one of its phases; not the interruption of the dance, but the next figure. We are taken out of ourselves by the loved one while she is here. Then comes the tragic figure of the dance in which we must learn to be still taken out of ourselves though the bodily presence is withdrawn, to love the very Her, and not fall back to loving our past, or our memory, or our sorrow, or our relief from sorrow, or our own love.
I am beginning to understand what Lewis meant by the next stage. At a gathering of family and friends shortly after Lisas death, one friend of mine (a person who has known me almost 50 years) made a comment that has remained with me. He said: Those of you who have known John only since he met Lisa can have no idea what a deep impact she had on him. Those of us who have known John for forty or fifty years can tell you that the impact was profound. Before Lisa, John was remarkably and uncontrollably immature.
The point is well taken. Today and tomorrow and for eternity, I am much more her than I am the person I would have been had I not loved her. It is impossible to understand how deeply and completely I am Lisa not just a product of Lisa, but Lisa herself. And the way I am in the world is better because she is with me. Each day I feel her in the depth of my being. The same is true for Katie and Jed.
One morning about a week before she died, as I walked through Washington Square Park on the way to my office, I sent a text message to Lisa. I miss you already, I wrote. She answered: I am always with you even when I am not with you physically. I still have that message from her. And I believe it.
Let me now close with something of a joke. Of course, in a sense this celebration is a joke on Lisa; she would have resisted mightily making her life so public. But the joke I want to tell here is more personal.
Lisas intellect, her virtue, her modesty and her capacity to love were, truth be told, unmatched. Many of you wrote that you had never met someone like her. A person could live the many lifetimes of Pete Hamills Forever without meeting a person as fully wonderful as Lisa. She was, simply put, the most perfect incarnation of humanity I can imagine.
When I would say that to her, I could feel that she could not perceive her own specialness. Often I would lighten the moment with a punch line built upon her chronic soft fear that the Catholic in me some day would cause me to seek a monastery. You are the worlds most perfect person, I would say, adding And that includes the big guy.
She would kid me privately about what she called my goyosity. This story builds on that.
Between us, there was this book a book most university presidents would be embarrassed to cite as important to them. But, in the hands of a magnificently mystical teacher 50 years ago, it help imbue a teenage John Sexton with an abiding optimistic faith in the world, its people, and the transcendent importance of love. Lisa, the voracious reader, struggled to read this book and ultimately succeeded only as an act of love. It was very Catholic, she said in critiquing it.
Goy that I am, I close by reading the final two paragraphs of that book, substituting Lisa for the main character.
This afternoon as I write, the sunlight lies across my desk. It rests with a pleasant warmth on my hands.
For the life of me, I cant believe that she is dead. No more could I believe it that day in the hospital. Why should this sunlight be so beautiful, why should people walk up and down the street, why should four robins hop in and out of the tree-shade on the lawn beyond my window, why should the glory of autumn be already in the air, and still she be dead? Why should that magnificent soul with her great vocation be gone, and people like me still here Why are all of us here, and not Lisa?
It cant be so. No one so brave, so heroic, so glorious, so immensely above the rest of us, can leave us like that. She cant have gone. No. Say what you will. Do what you will. You cant make me believe that Lisa is dead.
I love you, honey. More than ever before.
Friday, February 12, 2010
quotes
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
happiness studies
So true! I'll try (almost) anything at least once!
Happiness Makes Us Adventurous, Study Finds
By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Managing EditorLink to article: http://www.livescience.com/culture/happy-mood-try-new-things-100210.html
Feeling blue? You're more likely to stay in your comfort zone rather than venturing out to try something new, a recent study suggests. But as soon as you bounce back, so will that lure of exploration and adventure.
Scientists have known that we are drawn to the familiar, a phenomenon British psychologist Edward Titchener described as the "warm glow of familiarity" a century ago. But perhaps what we're at home with isn't always so enticing, the researchers surmised.
"We thought the value of familiarity would depend on the context," said study researcher Marieke de Vries, currently affiliated with the Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands. "Familiarity signals safety, which is pleasant in an unsafe or stressful context but might actually get boring when all is going fine."
Mood and familiarity
To find out, de Vries and colleagues presented participants with random dot patterns resembling constellations in the sky and made these familiar to them through exposure.
Then, the participants either recalled a joyous or sad event in their lives, which was meant to elicit a good or bad mood, respectively. During the remainder of the test, the good-mood participants listened to appropriately cheerful music while the sad group got an earful of music to match their moods.
Finally, the researchers measured the subjects' emotional and memory responses to dot patterns they had seen before and others they had not. Instead of just asking the participants if they were familiar with certain dot patterns and which they preferred, the scientists used physiological measures, such as skin conductors to assess sweat, and facial electrodes to detect frowns and smiles.
"When you recognize something your body rings an internal bell and you sweat a little bit more," said study researcher Piotr Winkielman, a psychology professor at the University of California, San Diego.
Participants primed to feel blue showed a preference for dot patterns they were familiar with from the first part of the study, even smiling at the sight of these dot arrangements.
A happy mood, however, eliminated that preference. In fact, these participants smiled more when looking at the unfamiliar patterns.
"When you're happy, known things, familiar things lose their appeal," Winkielman said. "Novelty, on the other hand, becomes more attractive."
Comfort foods
The finding may partly explain why we grab comfort foods when we're depressed, according to Winkielman. "You want to try new things when you're happy but when there is a signal of danger you go for the tried and true," Winkielman told LiveScience.
The phenomenon may have an evolutionary explanation.
"In evolutionary times [long ago], when everything was going well, animals might try out new berries or new grounds to graze, but when there's the possibility of a predator being around, they will go to a familiar place to eat and drink," Winkielman said. "That is probably why our minds have evolved this trick of exploring when things are safe and wanting something familiar when there is potential danger."
The results, which are detailed in the journal Psychological Science, have practical implications.
For example, when companies introduce new products, they may want to do so in settings that encourage a happy, playful mood. However, a doctor's office, which people visit rarely and in stressful circumstances, should probably stay away from edgy décor, opting instead for the comfy and familiar, Winkielman said.
The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, Radboud University Nijmegen, and the Dutch Science Foundation.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
quotes, love, life notes
Whoever lives true life, will love true love.
E. B. Browning—Aurora Leigh. Bk. I. L. 1,096.
Love, which is the essence of God, is not for levity, but for the total worth of man.
Emerson—Essays. Of Friendship.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
laughter, evolution
Everybody Laughs, Everybody Cries: Researchers Identify Universal Emotions
ScienceDaily (Jan. 26, 2010) — Here's a piece of research that might leave you tickled: laughter is a universal language, according to new research. The study, conducted with people from Britain and Namibia, suggests that basic emotions such as amusement, anger, fear and sadness are shared by all humans.
Everybody shares the vast majority of their genetic makeup with each other, meaning that most of our physical characteristics are similar. We all share other attributes, too, such as having complex systems of communication to convey our thoughts, feelings and the intentions of those around us, and we are all able to express a wide range of emotions through language, sounds, facial expressions and posture. However, the way that we communicate is not always the same -- for example, people from different cultures may not understand the same words and phrases or body language.
In an attempt to find out if certain emotions are universal, researchers led by Professor Sophie Scott from UCL (University College London) have studied whether the sounds associated with emotions such as happiness, anger, fear, sadness, disgust and surprise are shared amongst different cultures. The results of their study, funded by the Wellcome Trust, Economic and Social Research Council, University of London Central Research Fund and UCL, are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They provide further evidence that such emotions form a set of basic, evolved functions that are shared by all humans.
Dr Disa Sauter, studied people from Britain and from the Himba, a group of over 20,000 people living in small settlements in northern Namibia as part of her PhD research at UCL. In the very remote settlements, where the data for the present study were collected, the individuals live completely traditional lives, with no electricity, running water, formal education, or any contact with people from other groups.
Participants in the study listened to a short story based around a particular emotion, for example, how a person is very sad because a relative of theirs had died recently. At the end of the story they heard two sounds -- such as crying and of laughter -- and were asked to identify which of the two sounds reflected the emotion being expressed in the story. The British group heard sounds from the Himba and vice versa.
"People from both groups seemed to find the basic emotions -- anger, fear, disgust, amusement, sadness and surprise -- the most easily recognisable," says Professor Scott, a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellow. "This suggests that these emotions -- and their vocalisations -- are similar across all human cultures."
The findings support previous research which showed that facial expressions of these basic emotions are recognised across a wide range of cultures. Despite the considerable variation in human facial musculature, the facial muscles that are essential to produce the basic emotions are constant across individuals, suggesting that specific facial muscle structures have likely evolved to allow individuals to produce universally recognisable emotional expressions.
One positive sound was particularly well recognised by both groups of participants: laughter. Listeners from both cultures agreed that laughter signified amusement, exemplified as the feeling of being tickled.
"Tickling makes everyone laugh -- and not just humans," says Dr Disa Sauter, who tested the Himba and English participants. "We see this happen in other primates such as chimpanzees, as well as other mammals. This suggests that laughter has deep evolutionary roots, possibly originating as part of playful communication between young infants and mothers.
"Our study supports the idea that laughter is universally associated with being tickled and reflects the feeling of enjoyment of physical play."
Previous studies have shown that smiling is universally recognised as a signal of happiness, raising the possibility that laughter is the auditory equivalent of smiles, both communicating a state of enjoyment. However, explains Professor Scott, it is possible that laughter and smiles are in fact quite different types of signals, with smiles functioning as a signal of generally positive social intent, whereas laughter may be a more specific emotional signal, originating in play.
Not all positive sounds were easily recognisable to both cultures, however. Some, such as the sound of pleasure or achievement appear not to be shared across cultures, but are instead specific to a particular group or region. The researchers believe this may be due to the function of positive emotions, which facilitate social cohesion between group members. Such bonding behaviour may be restricted to in-group members with whom social connections are built and maintained. However, it may not be desirable to share such signals with individuals who are not members of one's own cultural group.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100125173234.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29#
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
animal intelligence
More on dolphins! I once participated in a dolphin autopsy while doing marine biology -- they are HUGE.
Dolphin Intelligence Explained
Today at Discovery News you can find out why dolphins are now believed to be the world's second most intelligent animals, with only humans displaying greater brainpower.
(An Atlantic white-sided dolphin; Credit: Carl Buell)
Intelligence itself is a very loaded issue. It's difficult to compare one individual's brilliance with that of another within the same species, much less to attempt to compare intelligence among multiple species. Intelligence is just one component of a species' survival, so one can argue that spiders have evolved to be as smart as they need to be for their species to continue, rats are as brainy as they need to be, and so on.
If human standards for intelligence are applied to non-human animals, however, dolphins come very close to our own brain aptitude levels, suggests Emory University dolphin expert Lori Marino.
She's performed MRI scans of dolphin brains. The scans prove dolphin brains are:
- big, relative to body size
- intricate, with a neocortex "more highly convoluted than our own"
- structured to allow for self-awareness and the processing of what Marino calls "complex emotions"
All animals share the capacity for emotions, she explained, but the part of the dolphin brain associated with processing emotional information is particularly expanded.
Why then did dolphins evolve to become so brainy?
Marino and her colleagues have analyzed modern dolphins and remains of ancient marine mammals to help answer that question.
The first jump in brain size happened 39 million years ago, when odontocetes (members of an order that includes dolphins, toothed whales, sperm whales, beaked whales and porpoises) diverged from their ancestral Archaeoceti group. When this split occurred, body sizes for some decreased and brain sizes increased, especially in the ancestors of modern dolphins. This coincided with the emergence of echolocation, so improved communication skills likely were tied to the brain size boost.
Fifteen million years ago yet another brain growth spurt happened. Marino and her colleagues speculate that changes in social ecology—essentially the dolphin's social lifestyle—probably contributed to the process. For example, the more a dolphin needed to communicate, benefiting its survival, the more its brain evolved to permit that interaction.
Moving to the present, dolphins have brains that are about "five times larger for their body size when compared to another animal of similar size," Marino said. "In humans, the measure is seven times larger—not a huge difference."
She concluded, "Essentially, the brains of primates and cetaceans arrived at the same cognitive space while evolving along quite different paths."
Monday, January 11, 2010
jewelry and evolution
Prehistoric Jewelry Reveals Neanderthal Fashion Sense
Even Neanderthals knew how to accessorize.
Pigment-stained seashells, likely worn as necklaces by Neanderthals, suggest these early Europeans were not only stylish, but that they were also just as smart and crafty as humans in Africa were, according to a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The colorful mollusk shells, which date to 50,000 years ago, were recently found in Murcia Province, Spain. Since the shells were painted 10,000 years before modern humans are believed to have settled in Europe, this leaves little doubt that Neanderthals made the still eye-catching pieces.
Click here for the full article
Joao Zilhao
Saturday, January 9, 2010
animal intelligence
Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'
Dolphins have long been recognised as among the most intelligent of animals but many researchers had placed them below chimps
Dolphins have been declared the world’s second most intelligent creatures after humans, with scientists suggesting they are so bright that they should be treated as “non-human persons”.
Studies into dolphin behaviour have highlighted how similar their communications are to those of humans and that they are brighter than chimpanzees. These have been backed up by anatomical research showing that dolphin brains have many key features associated with high intelligence.
The researchers argue that their work shows it is morally unacceptable to keep such intelligent animals in amusement parks or to kill them for food or by accident when fishing. Some 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises die in this way each year.
“Many dolphin brains are larger than our own and second in mass only to the human brain when corrected for body size,” said Lori Marino, a zoologist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, who has used magnetic resonance imaging scans to map the brains of dolphin species and compare them with those of primates.
“The neuroanatomy suggests psychological continuity between humans and dolphins and has profound implications for the ethics of human-dolphin interactions,” she added.
Dolphins have long been recognised as among the most intelligent of animals but many researchers had placed them below chimps, which some studies have found can reach the intelligence levels of three-year-old children. Recently, however, a series of behavioural studies has suggested that dolphins, especially species such as the bottlenose, could be the brighter of the two. The studies show how dolphins have distinct personalities, a strong sense of self and can think about the future.
It has also become clear that they are “cultural” animals, meaning that new types of behaviour can quickly be picked up by one dolphin from another.
In one study, Diana Reiss, professor of psychology at Hunter College, City University of New York, showed that bottlenose dolphins could recognise themselves in a mirror and use it to inspect various parts of their bodies, an ability that had been thought limited to humans and great apes.
In another, she found that captive animals also had the ability to learn a rudimentary symbol-based language.
Other research has shown dolphins can solve difficult problems, while those living in the wild co-operate in ways that imply complex social structures and a high level of emotional sophistication.
In one recent case, a dolphin rescued from the wild was taught to tail-walk while recuperating for three weeks in a dolphinarium in Australia.
After she was released, scientists were astonished to see the trick spreading among wild dolphins who had learnt it from the former captive.
There are many similar examples, such as the way dolphins living off Western Australia learnt to hold sponges over their snouts to protect themselves when searching for spiny fish on the ocean floor.
Such observations, along with others showing, for example, how dolphins could co-operate with military precision to round up shoals of fish to eat, have prompted questions about the brain structures that must underlie them.
Size is only one factor. Researchers have found that brain size varies hugely from around 7oz for smaller cetacean species such as the Ganges River dolphin to more than 19lb for sperm whales, whose brains are the largest on the planet. Human brains, by contrast, range from 2lb-4lb, while a chimp’s brain is about 12oz.
When it comes to intelligence, however, brain size is less important than its size relative to the body.
What Marino and her colleagues found was that the cerebral cortex and neocortex of bottlenose dolphins were so large that “the anatomical ratios that assess cognitive capacity place it second only to the human brain”. They also found that the brain cortex of dolphins such as the bottlenose had the same convoluted folds that are strongly linked with human intelligence.
Such folds increase the volume of the cortex and the ability of brain cells to interconnect with each other. “Despite evolving along a different neuroanatomical trajectory to humans, cetacean brains have several features that are correlated with complex intelligence,” Marino said.
Marino and Reiss will present their findings at a conference in San Diego, California, next month, concluding that the new evidence about dolphin intelligence makes it morally repugnant to mistreat them.
Thomas White, professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, who has written a series of academic studies suggesting dolphins should have rights, will speak at the same conference.
“The scientific research . . . suggests that dolphins are ‘non-human persons’ who qualify for moral standing as individuals,” he said.