Sunday, January 31, 2010

LINDOS PRESENTES PARA CURIOSA!!!!

BOM DIA, BOM DOMINGO A TODOS!!!

QUERO AGRADECER DE CORAÇÃO A SUA VISITA LINDA E MARAVILHOSA NA CURIOSA.
POR ESTE MOTIVO CONQUISTEI AS 40 MIL VISITAS. JÁ ULTRAPASSANDO NÃO É MESMO.
COM TODO ESTE CARINHO, QUE VOCÊ ME OFERECE, CHEGAMOS LÁ... MUITO OBRIGADA.

RECEBI ESTE LINDO PRESENTE DO BLOG DA CRIS.

MUITO OBRIGADA AMIGA. EU AMEI.

http://infinitodacris-selos.blogspot.com/





UM LINDO PRESENTE DO TOQUE DE AMOR. OBRIGADA SANDRA..AMEI...
http://aotoquedoamor.blogspot.com/





UM PRESENTE MUITO DO ESPECIAL.
OBRIGADA ETERNO APRENDIZ.

SIMPLESMENTE LINDOOOOO!!!!!
QUEM SABE ...SABE...

http://telvatanajura.blogspot.com/






MAIS UMA CARINHO RECEBIDO. É DA QUERIDA MILY.
http://cantinho-da-mimi.blogspot.com/
VALEU AMADA. LINDO!!
http://presentes-oferecidos-mily.blogspot.com/








MAIS MIMOS CHEGANDO!!!!!!
NOSSA, HOJE É DIA DE MUITOS PRESENTES...OBRIGADOOOOOOOO!!!!
ESTE VEIO DA ANNA L.
http://anninhadoleonardo.blogspot.com/
MUITO OBRIGADA AMIGA.
DEIXAREI AS SUAS PALAVRINHAS...
adorei!
Image and  video hosting by TinyPicParabéns você merece muitoImage and video  hosting by TinyPic
Image and  video hosting by TinyPic
Esse 'Mimo'é para você amiga espero que goste!
Beijoss


ESTE LINDO DO CORAÇÃO VEIO DE LÁ TAMBÉM.






REPASSO A VOCÊ QUE PASSA POR AQUI...E DEIXA AS SUA LINDAS PALAVRINHAS DE AFETO E CARINHO. MUITO OBRIGADA A TODOS.

OBRIGADA ANNA. ÉS MUITO GENTIL, AMIGA.


AGRADEÇO A TODOS OS PRESENTES LINDOS E MARAVILHOSOS QUE A CURIOSA RECEBEU... MENINAS MUITO OBRIGADA. NÃO TENHO PALAVRAS PARA DIZER, O QUANTO ESTOU FELIZ COM ESTES CARINHOS.
DE CORAÇÃO, MUITO OBRIGADA MESMO.




http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9875/81885471.gif

SE VOCÊ AINDA LEVOU O SEU SELINHO, ELE ESTÁ LOGO ALI, ABAIXO.
É MUITO ESPECIAL.

EI!!!!DEPOIS PASSE AQUI.Blog Coletivo-Uma Interação de Amigos
VOU TE ESPERAR, PARA CONVERSAR....

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Is Depression Undertreated?

Neuroskeptic readers will be familiar with the idea that too many people are being treated for mental illness. But not everyone agrees. Many people argue that common mental illnesses, such as depression, are undertreated. Take, for example, a paper just out in the esteemed Archives of General Psychiatry: Depression Care in the United States: Too Little for Too Few.

The authors looked at the results of three large (total N=15,762) surveys designed to measure the prevalence of mental illness in American adults. I've described how these surveys are conducted before: they took a randomly selected representative sample of Americans, and asked them a standardized series of questions (the CIDI interview) about their mood and emotions, in order to try to diagnose mental illness. The interviewers, while trained, were not clinicians.

What did they find? The rate of people experiencing Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), as defined in DSM-IV, in the past year, was 8.3%. When they examined ethnicity, this ranged from 6.7% in African Americans to 11.8% in Puerto Ricans. The average severity of the depression was roughly the same in all ethnic groups.

Of those with MDD, 51% reported that they'd had treatment in the past year, either antidepressants, psychotherapy, or both. This ranged from 53% for Whites down to just 29% of Caribbean Blacks and 33% of Mexican Americans. Therapy was somewhat more popular than drugs in all ethnic groups, although a lot of people used both. However, few of the treatments were classed as "guideline-concordant", i.e. long enough to do any good, which they defined as
use of an antidepressant for at least 60 days with supervision by a psychiatrist, or other prescribing clinician, for at least 4 visits in the past year. For psychotherapy...having at least 4 visits to a mental health professional in the past year lasting on average for at least 30 minutes each.
Only 21% of depressed people were getting such treatment, even though these strike me as very lenient guidelines, especially in the case of psychotherapy - how much good is 2 hours per year doing to do?

*

So depression's undertreated, especially in minorities. Too little, for too few. But this rests on an assumption: that we should treat Major Depressive Disorder.

That might not seem like an assumption, but assumptions generally don't. It seems like common sense, almost a tautology - it's a disorder, of course we should treat it! Yet it's not so simple. DSM-IV criteria for MDD require you to have 5 or more out of a list of 9 symptoms, including either depressed mood or a loss of interest in activities, lasting at least 2 weeks, and causing significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Fair enough. That's quite useful as a way of ensuring that psychiatrists in different countries are talking about the same thing when they talk about depression. But to think that depression is undertreated because only half of people meeting DSM-IV criteria for Major Depressive Disorder are being treated, is to put absolute faith in DSM-IV as a guide to who to treat. This is not what the DSM was meant to be, and there's no evidence it works for that purpose.

Is it really true that people with 5 symptoms need help, and those with 4 don't? Why not 6, or all 9? Why 2 weeks - why not 3 weeks, or 3 months? It's not as if there are loads of studies showing that treating people who have 5 symptoms for 2 weeks, and not treating people who don't, is the best strategy. I'm not aware of any such research. In particular, there's no evidence that people from the general population who meet these criteria when interviewed, but don't seek treatment, would all benefit from treatment as opposed to being left alone. Certainly some would, but they may be a minority.

This is not to say that any other criteria would be better than DSM-IV as guides to treatment, or that there is anything identifiably wrong with the DSM-IV criteria (although there is evidence that antidepressants are not useful in people with relatively "mild" MDD). The point is that doctors don't strictly apply textbook criteria when diagnosing and treating mental illness; they also use clinical judgement.

I don't know any psychiatrist who would prescribe treatment for someone solely on the basis that they met DSM-IV criteria for MDD. They would also want to know about the severity of the symptoms, whether they're related to any stresses or life events, how far they're "out of character" for that individual, etc. In general, they would deploy their training and experience to try to judge whether this person would benefit from treatment. This is why the DSM-IV carries a cautionary statement that "The proper use of these criteria requires specialized clinical training that provides both a body of knowledge and clinical skills."

So, it's far from clear that we should be treating everyone who answers interview questions in such a way that they meet DSM-IV criteria for Major Depressive Disorder. That's an assumption.

This isn't to say that everyone who needs depression treatment gets it. Sadly, there are many sufferers who would benefit from help and don't get any, or don't get it as early as they should. We need to do more to help such people. In this respect, depression is undertreated, although it's hard to know the extent of the problem. Yet it's quite possible that depression is also overtreated at the same time.

H/T Thanks to The Neurocritic for drawing my attention to this paper.

ResearchBlogging.orgGonzalez, H., Vega, W., Williams, D., Tarraf, W., West, B., & Neighbors, H. (2010). Depression Care in the United States: Too Little for Too Few Archives of General Psychiatry, 67 (1), 37-46 DOI: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.168

Is Depression Undertreated?

Neuroskeptic readers will be familiar with the idea that too many people are being treated for mental illness. But not everyone agrees. Many people argue that common mental illnesses, such as depression, are undertreated. Take, for example, a paper just out in the esteemed Archives of General Psychiatry: Depression Care in the United States: Too Little for Too Few.

The authors looked at the results of three large (total N=15,762) surveys designed to measure the prevalence of mental illness in American adults. I've described how these surveys are conducted before: they took a randomly selected representative sample of Americans, and asked them a standardized series of questions (the CIDI interview) about their mood and emotions, in order to try to diagnose mental illness. The interviewers, while trained, were not clinicians.

What did they find? The rate of people experiencing Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), as defined in DSM-IV, in the past year, was 8.3%. When they examined ethnicity, this ranged from 6.7% in African Americans to 11.8% in Puerto Ricans. The average severity of the depression was roughly the same in all ethnic groups.

Of those with MDD, 51% reported that they'd had treatment in the past year, either antidepressants, psychotherapy, or both. This ranged from 53% for Whites down to just 29% of Caribbean Blacks and 33% of Mexican Americans. Therapy was somewhat more popular than drugs in all ethnic groups, although a lot of people used both. However, few of the treatments were classed as "guideline-concordant", i.e. long enough to do any good, which they defined as
use of an antidepressant for at least 60 days with supervision by a psychiatrist, or other prescribing clinician, for at least 4 visits in the past year. For psychotherapy...having at least 4 visits to a mental health professional in the past year lasting on average for at least 30 minutes each.
Only 21% of depressed people were getting such treatment, even though these strike me as very lenient guidelines, especially in the case of psychotherapy - how much good is 2 hours per year doing to do?

*

So depression's undertreated, especially in minorities. Too little, for too few. But this rests on an assumption: that we should treat Major Depressive Disorder.

That might not seem like an assumption, but assumptions generally don't. It seems like common sense, almost a tautology - it's a disorder, of course we should treat it! Yet it's not so simple. DSM-IV criteria for MDD require you to have 5 or more out of a list of 9 symptoms, including either depressed mood or a loss of interest in activities, lasting at least 2 weeks, and causing significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Fair enough. That's quite useful as a way of ensuring that psychiatrists in different countries are talking about the same thing when they talk about depression. But to think that depression is undertreated because only half of people meeting DSM-IV criteria for Major Depressive Disorder are being treated, is to put absolute faith in DSM-IV as a guide to who to treat. This is not what the DSM was meant to be, and there's no evidence it works for that purpose.

Is it really true that people with 5 symptoms need help, and those with 4 don't? Why not 6, or all 9? Why 2 weeks - why not 3 weeks, or 3 months? It's not as if there are loads of studies showing that treating people who have 5 symptoms for 2 weeks, and not treating people who don't, is the best strategy. I'm not aware of any such research. In particular, there's no evidence that people from the general population who meet these criteria when interviewed, but don't seek treatment, would all benefit from treatment as opposed to being left alone. Certainly some would, but they may be a minority.

This is not to say that any other criteria would be better than DSM-IV as guides to treatment, or that there is anything identifiably wrong with the DSM-IV criteria (although there is evidence that antidepressants are not useful in people with relatively "mild" MDD). The point is that doctors don't strictly apply textbook criteria when diagnosing and treating mental illness; they also use clinical judgement.

I don't know any psychiatrist who would prescribe treatment for someone solely on the basis that they met DSM-IV criteria for MDD. They would also want to know about the severity of the symptoms, whether they're related to any stresses or life events, how far they're "out of character" for that individual, etc. In general, they would deploy their training and experience to try to judge whether this person would benefit from treatment. This is why the DSM-IV carries a cautionary statement that "The proper use of these criteria requires specialized clinical training that provides both a body of knowledge and clinical skills."

So, it's far from clear that we should be treating everyone who answers interview questions in such a way that they meet DSM-IV criteria for Major Depressive Disorder. That's an assumption.

This isn't to say that everyone who needs depression treatment gets it. Sadly, there are many sufferers who would benefit from help and don't get any, or don't get it as early as they should. We need to do more to help such people. In this respect, depression is undertreated, although it's hard to know the extent of the problem. Yet it's quite possible that depression is also overtreated at the same time.

H/T Thanks to The Neurocritic for drawing my attention to this paper.

ResearchBlogging.orgGonzalez, H., Vega, W., Williams, D., Tarraf, W., West, B., & Neighbors, H. (2010). Depression Care in the United States: Too Little for Too Few Archives of General Psychiatry, 67 (1), 37-46 DOI: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.168

BLOG DA CURIOSA CHEGA 40 MIL!!!!


CURIOSA ESTÁ COMPLETANDO MAIS DE 40 MIL VISITAS.
E ESTA CONQUISTA DEVO A VOCÊ QUE SEMPRE ESTÁ AQUI FAZENDO E CONTRIBUINDO, PARA QUE O MELHOR SEMPRE ACONTEÇA.FICO MUITO FELIZ COM A SUA COMPANHIA.

AGRADEÇO A TODAS AS VISITAS DE ONTEM..
PELA LEITURA COMPARTILHADA.
VOCÊ É UM AMIGO MUITO ESPECIAL PARA MIM...

ESTE SELO É SEU..
CURIOSA AGRADECE A SUA COMPANHIA.

VOCÊ PODE LEVAR OS DOIS SELOS. ELES SÃO PRESENTES.

DESEJO UM LINDO FINAL DE SEMANA A TODOS.


Poetas-Um Vôo Livre

Sinal de Liberdade-uma expressão de sentimento

Blog Coletivo-Uma Interação de Amigos
DEIXEI UM CAFEZINHO LÁ ...

Meus Mimos- deixei uma mensagem de final de semana para você.
VENHA LER...

Friday, January 29, 2010

BOM DIA A TODOS!!!

HOJE ESTOU PARTICIPANDO EM: O QUE ELAS ESTÃO LENDO.
A LEITURA NOS FORTALECE, ABRE OS NOSSOS HORIZONTES, NOS LEVA A VIAJAR PELO, MUNDO DAS LETRAS.
EM LETRA VAMOS GANHANDO OS ENSINAMENTOS PARA A VIDA.
NA MAGIA DAS PALAVRAS, VAMOS NOS TRANSPORTANDO PARA O MUNDO ENCANTADO DA LEITURA.

VENHA EU TE ESPERO, PARA COMPARTILHAR.


CONTO COM VOCE!
29.01.2010- É HOJE.

VENHA VER O QUE ESTOU LENDO AQUI NESTE LINDO CANTINHO......ELAS ESTÃO LENDO!!!

EU GOSTO DE LER!!!
Mulheres descoladas lêem. Mas como saber "O que elas estão lendo?" Clique na foto para o link abrir.


ESTÁ CURIOSA(O), PARA SABER, ENTÃO VEJA E SEJA MUITO FELIZ!

ESTE PRESENTE É PARA VOCÊ
AGRADEÇO A SUA COMPANHIA COM ESTE LINDO SOL, QUE VEIO LÁ DO BLOG DA MANUELA: http://www.simplesmentemanuela.com/.
MUITO OBRIGADA AMIGA.
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

AO VOLTAR DA LEITURA, VENHA E CONHEÇA..PARTICIPE..

VOCÊ QUE ESTÁ CHEGANDO PELA PRIMEIRA VEZ NESTE BLOG, VENHA CONFERIR...

( PRESENTES -QUE RECEBO E OFEREÇO)

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Braided Headband



I really want to make this headband this weekend. I like all of Ruby's crafts. They're so colorful!And the tutorial doesn't seem too hard. I think this is what I'm going to make this weekend. I have lots of fabric. Because of the gift card my Nono gave me for Christmas. I just hope I can make it! :) C

The British Media's "Blonde Moment"

Ten days ago, the Sunday Times - Britain's "newspaper of record" - recorded that
Blonde women born to be warrior princesses
Women with fair hair are more aggressive and determined to get their own way than brunettes or redheads, according to a study by the University of California... “We expected blondes to feel more entitled than other young women — this is southern California, the natural habitat of the privileged blonde,” said Aaron Sell, who led the study...
Well who'da thought it. Other sources repeated the story. The problem is, it was all made up. The study in question had nothing to do with blondes, or indeed hair at all. As originally reported over at Neuroworld, Dr. Aaron Sell, the lead author, denies saying the things he is quoted as saying in the article. His response -
Journalistic ethics requires, at a minimum, that you remove from this article all references to me, and to the research I and my collaborators have conducted. This article consists almost entirely of empirical claims and quotes about blonde women that Mr. Harlow fabricated, and then attributed to me. Please take the article offline immediately. Once your investigation is completed, please issue a retraction...
The Times has done neither - the article's still online. According to Dr. Sell, what happened was that journalist John Harlow noticed the paper, which is about, amongst other things, physical attractiveness and anger. Harlow, whose recent output includes "Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie no more" and that incisive piece of reportage, "Sandra Bullock overtakes Streep in dash for awards glory", wrote to Sell saying that he was writing an article about blondes, and asking whether Sell's data was relevant.

Sell hadn't considered hair color in his research, but he reanalyzed his data on Harlow's request. He found no association between blondness and personality, which is not surprising because it's hair we're talking about. Harlow, apparently unhappy with this, wrote the article anyway, simply making up various claims about blondes and attributing them to Sell and his paper, backed up with some fake quotes.

That's what Sell says, anyway. Maybe the Times dispute it, but since they haven't responded in any way, I guess we have to assume they agree. Science blogger Satoshi Kanazawa commented that "by American standards, all British newspapers are tabloids because they don’t distinguish between what is true and what they make up. " You can see his point. But I think the problem is especially serious when it comes to science journalism.

A journalist who faked an interview with a politician would be sacked on the spot - so noone would even consider doing that. Scientists, apparently, are fair game. The standard of British journalism in general may not be fantastic, but what appears on the "Science" pages is bad even by the standards of the rest, as Neuroskeptic readers know. To be fair to other journalists, Harlow's article is even worse than average. But it's not unique - a couple of years ago the Guardian ran a front-page story about autism research which was also largely made-up.

*

In all the excitement over the Times, though, the paper itself hasn't attracted much discussion. What Sell et al actually found was that in men, physical strength (as measured by ability to lift weights, etc.) correlates with the tendency to get angry, and feelings of entitlement. And in both men and women, perceived physical attractiveness was also correlated with angriness and entitlement. Specifically, the men and women were University of California students.


What does this mean? Sell et al describe their results as empirical proof of the "recalibrational theory" of anger. This is the idea that evolution provided us with anger to make other people treat us better, because early humans who got angry reaped benefits from it -
The function of anger is to orchestrate behavior in the angry individual that creates incentives in the target of the anger to recalibrate upwards the weight he or she puts on the welfare of the angry individual.
In essence: we get mad when we think that someone's not giving our interests the weight they deserve. Anger signals to the offender that if they don't pay the proper respect, we'll make them sorry, so they'd better fall into line... or else.

Sell et al say that the recalibrational theory predicts that people with more power to make others sorry - people with "formidability" - should get angry more easily, because their formidability means that they're likely to triumph if things came to blows (either literally or metaphorically).

They further say that in men, physical strength is an important part of formidability, while in women, attractiveness is more important. While men have the muscles, women have the babies, at least if they're fertile, so having a hot (a signal of fertility according to some accounts) woman, decide not to sleep with you is the ultimate evolutionary defeat for any male who wants to propagate his DNA, which, according to evolutionary psychology, is all of us -
males will tend to preempt and hence monopolize the use of force as an avenue of negotiation in social groups—an enduring feature of human sociality that should have shaped our species ... In contrast, in mammals such as humans, access to female sexuality was a far greater limiting factor for male fitness than access to male sexuality was for females. Insofar as attractiveness reflects fertility and offspring fitness, even small changes in the probability of a woman’s granting sexual access constitute a powerful benefit...
Still, this study only found a correlation between anger and "formidability" - it couldn't prove a causal link. Moreover, the seven measures of Proneness to Anger, Entitlement, and so forth, were all self-rated. People got questionnaires and ticked boxes next to statements like "I feel an urge to punch people who think they are better than me" or "I deserve more than the average person." That's not a measure of how easily people get angry, it's a measure of people's self-perceptions of their anger, which is not the same.

Overall, though, I find the recalibrational theory of anger at least as good as any other. How convincing you find it probably depends upon your feelings about this kind of evolutionary psychology in general. Maybe you think it's a profound insight into human nature. Or maybe you think it's an untestable, unscientific just-so-story about cavemen. Personally, I'm in the middle, although I lean towards evolutionary explanations, if only because I can't see any realistic alternatives; basic human emotions are universal across cultures, and biologically, they must have come from somewhere...

ResearchBlogging.orgSell A, Tooby J, & Cosmides L (2009). Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106 (35), 15073-8 PMID: 19666613

The British Media's "Blonde Moment"

Ten days ago, the Sunday Times - Britain's "newspaper of record" - recorded that
Blonde women born to be warrior princesses
Women with fair hair are more aggressive and determined to get their own way than brunettes or redheads, according to a study by the University of California... “We expected blondes to feel more entitled than other young women — this is southern California, the natural habitat of the privileged blonde,” said Aaron Sell, who led the study...
Well who'da thought it. Other sources repeated the story. The problem is, it was all made up. The study in question had nothing to do with blondes, or indeed hair at all. As originally reported over at Neuroworld, Dr. Aaron Sell, the lead author, denies saying the things he is quoted as saying in the article. His response -
Journalistic ethics requires, at a minimum, that you remove from this article all references to me, and to the research I and my collaborators have conducted. This article consists almost entirely of empirical claims and quotes about blonde women that Mr. Harlow fabricated, and then attributed to me. Please take the article offline immediately. Once your investigation is completed, please issue a retraction...
The Times has done neither - the article's still online. According to Dr. Sell, what happened was that journalist John Harlow noticed the paper, which is about, amongst other things, physical attractiveness and anger. Harlow, whose recent output includes "Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie no more" and that incisive piece of reportage, "Sandra Bullock overtakes Streep in dash for awards glory", wrote to Sell saying that he was writing an article about blondes, and asking whether Sell's data was relevant.

Sell hadn't considered hair color in his research, but he reanalyzed his data on Harlow's request. He found no association between blondness and personality, which is not surprising because it's hair we're talking about. Harlow, apparently unhappy with this, wrote the article anyway, simply making up various claims about blondes and attributing them to Sell and his paper, backed up with some fake quotes.

That's what Sell says, anyway. Maybe the Times dispute it, but since they haven't responded in any way, I guess we have to assume they agree. Science blogger Satoshi Kanazawa commented that "by American standards, all British newspapers are tabloids because they don’t distinguish between what is true and what they make up. " You can see his point. But I think the problem is especially serious when it comes to science journalism.

A journalist who faked an interview with a politician would be sacked on the spot - so noone would even consider doing that. Scientists, apparently, are fair game. The standard of British journalism in general may not be fantastic, but what appears on the "Science" pages is bad even by the standards of the rest, as Neuroskeptic readers know. To be fair to other journalists, Harlow's article is even worse than average. But it's not unique - a couple of years ago the Guardian ran a front-page story about autism research which was also largely made-up.

*

In all the excitement over the Times, though, the paper itself hasn't attracted much discussion. What Sell et al actually found was that in men, physical strength (as measured by ability to lift weights, etc.) correlates with the tendency to get angry, and feelings of entitlement. And in both men and women, perceived physical attractiveness was also correlated with angriness and entitlement. Specifically, the men and women were University of California students.


What does this mean? Sell et al describe their results as empirical proof of the "recalibrational theory" of anger. This is the idea that evolution provided us with anger to make other people treat us better, because early humans who got angry reaped benefits from it -
The function of anger is to orchestrate behavior in the angry individual that creates incentives in the target of the anger to recalibrate upwards the weight he or she puts on the welfare of the angry individual.
In essence: we get mad when we think that someone's not giving our interests the weight they deserve. Anger signals to the offender that if they don't pay the proper respect, we'll make them sorry, so they'd better fall into line... or else.

Sell et al say that the recalibrational theory predicts that people with more power to make others sorry - people with "formidability" - should get angry more easily, because their formidability means that they're likely to triumph if things came to blows (either literally or metaphorically).

They further say that in men, physical strength is an important part of formidability, while in women, attractiveness is more important. While men have the muscles, women have the babies, at least if they're fertile, so having a hot (a signal of fertility according to some accounts) woman, decide not to sleep with you is the ultimate evolutionary defeat for any male who wants to propagate his DNA, which, according to evolutionary psychology, is all of us -
males will tend to preempt and hence monopolize the use of force as an avenue of negotiation in social groups—an enduring feature of human sociality that should have shaped our species ... In contrast, in mammals such as humans, access to female sexuality was a far greater limiting factor for male fitness than access to male sexuality was for females. Insofar as attractiveness reflects fertility and offspring fitness, even small changes in the probability of a woman’s granting sexual access constitute a powerful benefit...
Still, this study only found a correlation between anger and "formidability" - it couldn't prove a causal link. Moreover, the seven measures of Proneness to Anger, Entitlement, and so forth, were all self-rated. People got questionnaires and ticked boxes next to statements like "I feel an urge to punch people who think they are better than me" or "I deserve more than the average person." That's not a measure of how easily people get angry, it's a measure of people's self-perceptions of their anger, which is not the same.

Overall, though, I find the recalibrational theory of anger at least as good as any other. How convincing you find it probably depends upon your feelings about this kind of evolutionary psychology in general. Maybe you think it's a profound insight into human nature. Or maybe you think it's an untestable, unscientific just-so-story about cavemen. Personally, I'm in the middle, although I lean towards evolutionary explanations, if only because I can't see any realistic alternatives; basic human emotions are universal across cultures, and biologically, they must have come from somewhere...

ResearchBlogging.orgSell A, Tooby J, & Cosmides L (2009). Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106 (35), 15073-8 PMID: 19666613

ME SINTO MUITO FELIZ!!!!


SIM. ME SINTO MUITO FELIZ QUANDO VENHO AQUI, MESMO RAPIDINHO E ENCONTRO MUITOS AMIGOS MARAVILHOSOS, QUE FAZEM PARTE DE MINHA VIDA.

NÃO MEDEM ESFORÇOS PARA ESTAREM AQUI, TODAS AS MANHÃS, TODAS AS TARDES, TODAS AS NOITES.
É COM GRANDE PRAZER QUE RECEBO VOCÊ NESTA CASA.
FICO MUITO FELIZ COM A SUA PRESENÇA.
PEÇO DESCULPAS PELOS ATRASOS DAS VISITAS.
MAS COM O OLHO AINDA INCHADO, FICA COMPLICADO VISUALIZAR TODOS OS CAMINHOS RSRSRSRSRSRRSRSRSR.

MAS PROMETO IR SIM...E VOCÊ SABE QUE EU VOU..
ME DÊ SÓ MAIS UM TEMPINHO.
HOJE QUERO COMPARTILHAR ALGUNS CARINHOS AQUI DEIXADOS. SEI QUE TODOS SÃO IMPORTANTES.. TERIA QUE TER UM BLOG SÓ PARA ISSO. MAS, DAI ACHO, QUE EU NÃO DARIA CONTA DE MAIS UM, RSRSRSRSRSRRSR.

ANA!
http://anamgs.blogspot.com/
VOU POSTAR A SUA MENSAGEM MINHA LINDA IRMANZINHA.

Desejo que em sua vida...

Não exista cara feia,
Não exista bolso furado,
Não exista tempo apressado,
Muito menos grãos de areia.
Não exista tempo fechado,
Não exista problema dobrado,
Não exista sonho frustrado,
Muito menos amor acabado.
Não exista amigo esquecido,
Não exista negócio falido,
Não exista boato mexido,
Muito menos dinheiro sumido.
Não exista tempo nublado,
Não exista ambiente abafado,
Não exista corpo dobrado,
Muito menos bom senso abalado.
Não exista mágoa engolida,
Não exista emoção reprimida,
Não exista alma sofrida,
Muito menos felicidade perdida...
Só desejo que você seja feliz!!!

(Desconheço o autor).

DESEJO E DEDICO A TODOS ESTA LINDA MENSAGEM RECEBIDO.
VALEU AMIGA.http://anamgs.blogspot.com/

VENHA NAVEGAR COMIGO:

( PRESENTES -QUE RECEBO E OFEREÇO)

UM SELO MUITO ESPECIAL QUE VEIO LÁ DO TOQUE DE AMOR.
CAIU CERTINHO PARA ESTE MOMENTO.
OBRIGADA
SANDRA

http://www.aotoquedoamor.blogspot.com/


http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/6663/linkoficialdotoque.gif



Wednesday, January 27, 2010

OLA MEUS AMIGOS, TUDO BEM!!!


AS VEZES PRECISAMOS DESSAS VIRTUDES, PARA APRENDER UM POUCO MAIS COM A VIDA!!!
AGRADEÇO DESDE JÁ O SEU CARINHO..
MEU OLHO JÁ ESTÁ MELHORANDO. UM POUCO EMBASSADO, MAS TRANQUILO. ESTA ALERGIA VEIO BEM FORTE DESSA VEZ... SEI LÁ PORQUE ACONTECE.
MAS AOS POUQUINHOS VOU RETRIBUIR O SEU CARINHO
SANDRA


SAÚDE- PARA CONSEGUIRMOS REALIZAR TUDO O QUE TEMOS A REALIZAR... E SERMOS FELIZES...

SENSIBILIDADE
Para não ficar indiferente diante das belezas da vida.


CORAGEM
Para colocar a timidez de lado e poder realizar o que tem vontade.

SOLIDARIEDADE
Para não ficar neutro diante do sofrimento da humanidade.

BONDADE
Para não desviar os olhos de quem te pede uma ajuda.

TRANQUILIDADE
Para quando chegar ao fim do dia, poder deitar e dormir o sono dos anjos.

ALEGRIA
Para você distribuí-lá, colocando um sorriso no rosto de alguém.

HUMILDADE
Para você reconhecer aquilo que você não é.

AMOR PRÓPRIO
Para você perceber suas qualidades e gostar do que vê por dentro.

Para te guiar, te sustentar e te manter de pé.

SINCERIDADE
Para você ser verdadeiro, gostar de você mesmo e viver melhor.

FELICIDADE
Para você descobri-lá dentro de você e doa-lá a quem precisar.

ESPERANÇA
Para fazer você acreditar na vida e se sentir uma eterna criança.

SABEDORIA
Para entender que só o Bem existe, o resto é ilusão.

ESTAS BELAS FRASES ENCONTREI NO BLOG DA RITINHA.
UMA GRANDE PESSOA, MARAVILHOSA..
http://pensamentosedeliriosdaritinha.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

The Grid in Your Head

According to a lovely new Nature paper combining fMRI imaging with animal experiments, the human brain encodes spatial information in the form of of a hexagonal grid - Evidence for grid cells in a human memory network.

If you've ever played Chinese checkers, you'll know what a hex grid is. It's already known that in rats, the entorhinal cortex of the brain contains "grid cells", each of which fires according to where in a certain place the rat is. The diagram above left shows how one example grid cell fires more often when the rat is in certain places in a 1m x 1m box.

Doeller et al wanted to test whether grid cells exist in humans, but being unable to just stick electrodes in people's heads, they made use of two useful facts about rat grid cells. First, the orientation of the grid is fixed in all the cells in each particular rat, although each cell prefers different locations, i.e. the "grids" are offset, but not rotated. Second, grid cells fire faster when the animal is walking or running in a direction which corresponds to "along the lines" of their brain's internal grid - especially when the movement is rapid.

So, if our brains do contain grid cells, our entorhinal cortex should be more active overall when we're moving along the lines of our grids, as opposed to across them. Bearing in mind that there are three axes, and that you could move either "forward" or "backward" along each one, that makes 6 directions, so the grid cell theory predicts that entorhinal cortex activity should correlate with direction of motion with "6-way directional symmetry", like this:

Doeller et al used fMRI to measure neural activity while 42 volunteers "walked" around a computer-generated landscape on a screen, and looked for areas where activity had the pattern above. Lo and behold, the entorhinal cortex did indeed show this pattern of activity in most volunteers. As a control, they looked for areas showing 4, 5, 7 or 8- fold directional symmetry, and didn't find any.

Doeller et al point out that they haven't directly proven the existence of grid cells in humans - in theory, these results could also indicate the presence of another type of cell which encodes direction with 6-way directional symmetry. But this is a great piece of research, and a nice example of using neuroimaging to test neurobiological theories, as opposed to just going hunting for blobs of activation without knowing what to look for, which I've criticized before.

ResearchBlogging.orgDoeller, C., Barry, C., & Burgess, N. (2010). Evidence for grid cells in a human memory network Nature DOI: 10.1038/nature08704

The Grid in Your Head

According to a lovely new Nature paper combining fMRI imaging with animal experiments, the human brain encodes spatial information in the form of of a hexagonal grid - Evidence for grid cells in a human memory network.

If you've ever played Chinese checkers, you'll know what a hex grid is. It's already known that in rats, the entorhinal cortex of the brain contains "grid cells", each of which fires according to where in a certain place the rat is. The diagram above left shows how one example grid cell fires more often when the rat is in certain places in a 1m x 1m box.

Doeller et al wanted to test whether grid cells exist in humans, but being unable to just stick electrodes in people's heads, they made use of two useful facts about rat grid cells. First, the orientation of the grid is fixed in all the cells in each particular rat, although each cell prefers different locations, i.e. the "grids" are offset, but not rotated. Second, grid cells fire faster when the animal is walking or running in a direction which corresponds to "along the lines" of their brain's internal grid - especially when the movement is rapid.

So, if our brains do contain grid cells, our entorhinal cortex should be more active overall when we're moving along the lines of our grids, as opposed to across them. Bearing in mind that there are three axes, and that you could move either "forward" or "backward" along each one, that makes 6 directions, so the grid cell theory predicts that entorhinal cortex activity should correlate with direction of motion with "6-way directional symmetry", like this:

Doeller et al used fMRI to measure neural activity while 42 volunteers "walked" around a computer-generated landscape on a screen, and looked for areas where activity had the pattern above. Lo and behold, the entorhinal cortex did indeed show this pattern of activity in most volunteers. As a control, they looked for areas showing 4, 5, 7 or 8- fold directional symmetry, and didn't find any.

Doeller et al point out that they haven't directly proven the existence of grid cells in humans - in theory, these results could also indicate the presence of another type of cell which encodes direction with 6-way directional symmetry. But this is a great piece of research, and a nice example of using neuroimaging to test neurobiological theories, as opposed to just going hunting for blobs of activation without knowing what to look for, which I've criticized before.

ResearchBlogging.orgDoeller, C., Barry, C., & Burgess, N. (2010). Evidence for grid cells in a human memory network Nature DOI: 10.1038/nature08704

O SONO!!!!


SIM, HOJE VOU FALAR UM POUQUINHO DELE. QUEM NÃO GOSTA DE DORMIR UM POUQUINHO MAIS? QUEM NÃO GOSTA DE TIRAR AQUELA SONEQUINHA A TARDE? POIS É EU GOSTO. SEMPRE QUE POSSO DURMO A TARDE. PRINCIPALMENTE NOS FINAIS DE SEMANA. MUITOS DIZEM QUE É DESPERDÍCIO DE TEMPO. MAS VEJA O QUE DIZ UM GRANDE AUTOR, MUITO CONHECIDO DE TODOS.

O DR. AUGUSTO CURY FALA O SEGUINTE:

"-O SONO É O ENCONTRO MAIS IMPORTANTE QUE TEMOS CONOSCO MESMO. É O PERÍODO EM QUE BILHÕES DE CÉLULAS RELAXAM PARA REORGANIZAR A ENERGIA PARA SUPORTAR AS ÁRDUAS BATALHAS DA SOBREVIVÊNCIA. DORMIR NÃO É PERDER TEMPO, MAS ACHAR O TEMPO." (LIVRO- 12 SEMANAS PARA MUDAR UMA VIDA)

ENTÃO, NÃO VOU MAIS ME SENTIR CULPADA E VOU CONTINUAR FAZENDO JUS AO MEU MOMENTO DO SONO.
JÁ LI O LIVRO DO NUNO COBRA, QUE TAMBÉM FALA DA IMPORTÂNCIA DO SONO. NO LIVRO DELE, TEM UM CAPITULO, QUE FALA SÓ SOBRE A IMPORTÂNCIA DO SONO. SEMPRE QUE TIVER UM TEMPINHO DISPONÍVEL, MARQUE ESTE ENCONTRO COM VOCÊ MESMO E REPONHA AS ENERGIAS.

EU SEMPRE DIGO, O SONO É O NOSSO GRANDE ALIADO, PARA MANTER A BELEZA DA PELE.
OLHA, ACHO QUE ESTOU COM A RAZÃO...

BOM SONO E DESCANSO PARA VOCÊ!

ESTA LEITURA JÁ FAZEM PARTE DO PROGETO DE LER DOZE LIVROS NO ANO.
ESTE JÁ É O MEU SEGUNDO.

Quer saber um pouquinho mais, veja:

Projeto 12 Livros em 12 Meses

Projeto 12 Livros em 12 Meses
Clique na imagem para saber mais sobre esse projeto de incentivo à leitura. E participe!!!

VOCÊ QUE ESTÁ VINDO PELA PRIMEIRA VEZ, VENHA CONHECER...
FICA O CONVITE PAR SER MEU SEGUIDOR NESSES CANTINHOS MARAVILHOSOS, QUE FALAM DE AMOR....

( PRESENTES -QUE RECEBO E OFEREÇO))

Monday, January 25, 2010

NESTA MANHÃ LINDA DE SOL!!!


FAZIA TEMPO QUE O SOL, NÃO APARECIA ASSIM, TÃO LINDO E CHEIO DE GRAÇA. MAS HOJE ELE VEIO. VEIO TRAZENDO A ALEGRIA E A BELEZA. ESPANTOU A CHUVA... OS PASSAREDO, ESTÃM TODOS FELIZES A CANTAR... A VIDA FICA MUITO MAIS BELA, COM A PRESENÇA DELE. OBRIGADA SENHOR PELO SOL... PELA VIDA... POR TUDO...

"O SENHOR É A MINHA LUZ. DEUS É A MINHA PROTEÇÃO. EU SÓ ENCONTRO A PAZ E A ALEGRIA, BEM PERTO DE TI. NO COLO DE DEUS, ME SEINTO PROTEGIDO. SENHOR ME ABENÇÕE. O SENHOR É O MEU PASTOR, QUE ME CONDUZ, A FELICIDADE. TODO BEM HÃO DE SEGUIR-ME".

UM LINDO DIA PARA TODOS.
COM MUITO CARINHO,
SANDRA
Estes lindos cartões vieram do Blog Coisinhas do Aconchego para dividir com vocês.
[10.jpg]




NÃO DEIXE DE PEGAR O SEU PRÊMIO.
PASSE LÁ
Meus Mimos!

SOMOS ÁRVORES....
Blog Coletivo-Uma Interação de Amigos

ESTAMOS EM FESTA!!! aqui.
Poetas-Um Vôo Livre

SEJA MAIS UM SEGUIDOR E LEVE O SELO..
Sinal de Liberdade-uma expressão de Sentimento