A higher level of education is associated with a greater risk of depression in China, for example — the reverse of the relationship in Europe and the United States.

This chimes with the latest results from the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative, published last week, which found that those with the lowest level of education in China and Japan had only one-fifth the likelihood of developing depression as those with the highest education levels. In other countries, a lower education level was linked to a similar or higher risk of depression than the most educated.

And whereas having authoritarian parents seems to increase the risk of major depression in the West, CONVERGE found that having an overprotective father actually reduces the risk of depression in Chinese women.
– Source: nature.com

This is very interesting to me as this seems to stem from the different cultural viewpoints. For instance, in the West, the more educated you are, the higher chance you have of achieving monetary stability, a secure lifestyle and thus have less to feel depressed about. However in the East, it is commonplace to simply “do as your told, no questions asked”. Therefore by gaining higher education in China, they may start to become critical and question things they normally would have just attributed to being “just the way things are”.

Despite these differences, the symptoms and patterns of risk factors remain the same across cultures.

Stressful life events, childhood sexual abuse and authoritarian parents increase the risk with about the same dose-response relationship. Earlier onset of depression makes patients less likely to marry, more likely to suffer anxiety and more likely to be chronically depressed.

But why China? The main reasons given for undertaking the study there is due to the large, ethnically homogeneous sample. Additionally, costs of conducting the experiments there are far lower.

If you wish to learn more about such things, you may be interested in taking online psychology classes.

Scientists tested this dichloroacetate on human’s cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It was tested on Rats inflicted with severe tumors; their cells shrank when they were fed with water supplemented with DCA. The drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use, why the major drug companies are not involved? Or the Media interested in this find?

In human bodies there is a natural cancer fighting human cell, the mitochondria, but they need to be triggered to be effective. Scientists used to think that these mitochondria cells were damaged and thus ineffective against cancer. So they used to focus on glycolysis, which is less effective in curing cancer and more wasteful. The drug manufacturers focused on this glycolysis method to fight cancer. This DCA on the other hand doesn’t rely on glycolysis instead on mitochondria; it triggers the mitochondria which in turn fights the cancer cells.

Most pages have been really positive about these findings; likening it to some kind of “miracle drug” and focusing more on how pharmaceutical companies and the media won’t pick it up. Perhaps the media are not interested in disseminating this radical information yet as still further testing is required and it is not certain yet that it really works. You can read the original research here.

Glenn Beck even did a report about it:

But for some reason it seems like this has not been the “miracle cure” that it’s been painted to be, because it is still not widely used and some patients have reported some disturbing side effects such as numbing of the hands, feet and face.

It seems that this DCA solution is most effective when used in combination with other drugs, so in 2010 MIT researchers combined DCA with cisplatin. This then displayed a “dual-killing” mode which was only effective in cancer cells! However, further research is required. In the meantime, DCA is still not approved for cancer treatment in the USA.

People should be warned to search google for alternative answers for curing cancer, as it is articles like the one on hubpages that don’t fully explain the situation but instead pick a sensationalist headline (and forget the publication date? — most people won’t even notice that the first comment on this article was posted 4 years ago!) and perhaps may give false hope to those suffering from the illness.

From the Daily Mail:

The survey of 1,500 gamers and their partners was undertaken by One-Poll.com. A spokesman said: ‘It seems like a games console often means there are three people in a relationship.

‘It’s a bit sad if the virtual world is taking precedence over the real world.’

The list for the top 20 “relationship-ending” games is as follows:
1. Call of Duty
2. Football Manager
3. Grand Theft Auto
4. FIFA
5. Medal of Honour
6. Halo
7. Super Mario Brothers
8. Gran Turismo
9. Mario Kart
10. Guitar Hero
11. Assassins Creed
12. Pro Evo Soccer
13. Resident Evil
14. World of Warcraft
15. F1
16. Red Dead Redemption
17. Need for Speed
18. Fallout
19. Gears of War
20. Angry Birds

First off, I am SO surprised to see Mario Kart so high on the list, and WoW so low. I can’t even understand how Mario can even be there on the first place.

And WTF is “Angry Birds”?

What do you think about this list? Leave a comment or tweet your thoughts @HelloLiefje

Source: The Daily Mail

She makes a lot of good points about gaming, although most of it is focused on World of Warcraft. McGonigal has written her PhD on why people are a so much better person in games than in real life. Basically it explains why it’s so easy to get sucked into those games since people feel that it’s better than real life.

Who am I to question someone with a PhD, although I believe that the statistics she’s looking at includes casual gaming, which gives many other “skills” rather than what she believes you’re getting from playing WoW. Immediately I don’t want to listen to what she’s saying because she’s constantly saying so many positive things are coming from the awful game WoW but she then goes on to explain how other games created could actually be helpful. Just be careful to dress those games up as non-educational, cos what gamer is going to want to be playing something you can actually learn from!

What do you think? Can gaming save the world? Leave a comment below or tweet your thoughts @HelloLiefje

Researchers at Germany’s Karlsruhe Institute of Technology report they were able to cloak a tiny bump in a layer of gold, preventing its detection at nearly visible infrared frequencies.

Their cloaking device also worked in three dimensions, while previously developed cloaks worked in two dimensions, lead researcher Tolga Ergin said.

The cloak is a structure of crystals with air spaces in between, sort of like a woodpile, that bends light, hiding the bump in the gold later beneath, the researchers reported in Thursday’s online edition of the journal Science.

Read more here.

Which way is she spinning for you? Clockwise or anti-clockwise? There is no correct answer.

Depending on which way you see her spin tells you which side of your brain is most dominant. If you see her spinning clockwise then the right side of your brain is used most and vice versa.

LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses logic
detail oriented
facts rule
words and language
present and past
math and science
can comprehend
knowing
acknowledges
order/pattern perception
knows object name
reality based
forms strategies
practical
safe

RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses feeling
“big picture” oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can “get it” (i.e. meaning)
believes
appreciates
spatial perception
knows object function
fantasy based
presents possibilities
impetuous
risk taking

Click the spoiler below if you wanna figure out how to make her switch directions

[spoiler]
The trick? If you think about which is the front of the dancer, you can get her to spin both ways without blinking.

This image shows what I mean:

The shadow could be of the front or the back of the dancer, depending which way you perceive it.
[/spoiler]

Neat huh? So do you see clockwise or anti-clockwise?

But if you were wondering why men don’t seem to like curvy ladies,’The Modern Man‘ has the answer for you.

Do men like fat women? Are men shallow because they are attracted to skinny women? In this video, Dan Bacon cuts to the truth of the matter and explains why men don’t find fat women attractive.

Here are the 15 reasons:

1. A fat woman isn’t the entire package that we’re looking for in a woman.
2. A fat woman looks like ‘used goods’.
3. A fat woman makes unattractive sounds during sex.
4. A fat woman lowers a man’s status.
5. A fat woman attracts less-favorable treatment in society.
6. A fat woman’s true physical appearance is hidden.
7. A fat woman is unhealthy.
8. A fat woman will likely pass on her bad habits to the children.
9. A fat woman is missing the most attractive element.
10. A fat woman is ‘heavy-lifting’ in the bedroom.
11. A fat woman requires more food.
12. A fat woman doesn’t have a natural, female form.
13. A fat woman is usually lazy.
14. A fat woman usually has psychological issues.
15. A fat woman looks older than she is.

I can admit that i’m shallow but this takes the cake. This douche can not understand that “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”. I’ve known a lot of men who are really turned off by skinny women and love to have some junk in the trunk.

Well I have 15 reasons why I would like to be fatter:

1. My boobs would get bigger
2. I’d  be warmer in the winter
3. More brands of adult clothing sizes would fit me
4. I’d be stronger (more weight = MORE POWER)
5. I could participate in those “OMG I can’t eat that, it’ll go straight to my thighs” conversations
6. I could eat more than just an appetizer in a restaurant
7. More cushion for the pushin
8. I could take up two seats on a bus and just pay for 1 without looking like a bitch
9. My appearance would match my fitness level
10. The fatter you are, the less wrinkles you have
11. I could eat full portions in a restaurant so I wouldn’t have to reassure the staff that “your food is fine, i’m just full.”
12.  My friends and family will not worry that i’m not eating enough
13. I’ll be less likely to get ill (i’m always catching colds)
14. I’d actually start caring about the nutrition info on food packets
15. My (future) kids would love to hug me cos i’d be soft

Do any of you agree with this guy? Or does he just sound like a balding idiot?

The answer of the report was no, but google is indeed changing the way people think. The report surveyed 895 technology stakeholders via the internet. About 76 percent of respondents said that Google will not make us stupid.

“Google allows us to be more creative in approaching problems and more integrative in our thinking. We spend less time trying to recall and more time generating solutions”

- Paul Jones of ibiblio.org at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.

This survey was sparked by an article published in The Atlantic by Nicholas Carr. According to Carr;

The process of adapting to new intellectual technologies is reflected in the changing metaphors we use to explain ourselves to ourselves. When the mechanical clock arrived, people began thinking of their brains as operating “like clockwork.” Today, in the age of software, we have come to think of them as operating “like computers.” But the changes, neuroscience tells us, go much deeper than metaphor. Thanks to our brain’s plasticity, the adaptation occurs also at a biological level.

I don’t know if google is making us stupid, but it sure is convenient. My spelling is probably worse than when I was 14 years old and I find myself googling things like “what is the cutest kitten in the world?”

What do you think? Leave a comment or tweet your thoughts @HelloLiefje

Cute! Visit John’s website to find out more.

“The factors in brewing that influence silicon levels in beer have not been extensively studied” said Charles Bamforth, lead author of the study. “We have examined a wide range of beer styles for their silicon content and have also studied the impact of raw materials and the brewing process on the quantities of silicon that enter wort and beer.”

“Beers containing high levels of malted barley and hops are richest in silicon,” concludes Dr. Bamforth. “Wheat contains less silicon than barley because it is the husk of the barley that is rich in this element. While most of the silicon remains in the husk during brewing, significant quantities of silicon nonetheless are extracted into wort and much of this survives into beer.”

Details of this study are available in the February issue of the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. Or you can just read more at the Science Daily.

Hmm, maybe theres something good then about the miracle beer diet?: