The duration and timing may differ, but it will happen.

I am talking about the disappearing act.

When a man withdraws particularly after getting close to a woman.

It happens. A lot.

But it does not have to spell the end of a relationship.

If anything, it is an opportunity to strengthen it.

Men have an intimacy fear. The source of this is way back from the hunter-gatherer days. If a hunter got too close to other people, his concentration during a hunt was disturbed. That could be a fatal mistake. Because his mind is programmed to think about one thing at once. Similarly, emotional connection to someone else was counterproductive to his (logiacl) thinking.

He was a lone warrior. He worked best that way.

In today’s world, there should be no fear of wild animals and hunting technique, but primordial habits die hard. Most men are natural loners. They may have one or two trusted friends, that’s it.

A woman can sometimes find herself welcomed into the male heart. This is a privileged place to be, as men guard their secret interior very closely, much more than women who are open, at least to those they trust. Some men never open up. Ever. Even to women they have been married to for years.

It is a question of trust. Back to the hunter-gatherer days, a man could lose his life if he trusted the wrong hunting partner, if he ever managed to get that far and actually acquire one.

Women trust more easily than men.

A man will at some point in a relationship want to know if his mate is trustworthy. He does not require her to be a hunting partner, so why the trust issues?

This particular issue is to do with a man’s greatest fear. To unwittingly raise the offspring of another man.

A woman’s greatest fear is to be abandoned by a man she has opened up to, i.e. trusted.

Same as a woman needs proof of emotional fidelity (sexual fidelity is desired but not essential to a woman’s contentment in a relationship, although it is a major threat to her survival if another woman is to share her man’s resources), a man needs to prove a woman’s suitability (read: loyalty and in particular, sexual faithfulness) if he is to consider her as a longterm relationship partner.

So why distance himself?

It is impossible to test one’s loyalty in favourable conditions.

He has to know that the woman is still in his corner even when he is separated from her. It is the ultimate test for a woman, whose greatest fear is to be abandoned and whose relationship litmus test is emotional connection.

A man does not need physical or emotional closeness to be still connecetd to his mate. This is why women are always amazed when a man ignores them for a month and suddenly reappears acting as if nothing has happened. To him, nothing has happened. He was otherwise engaged for a while. Period.

But he would not tell you the other reason for his absence. His biological need to test the woman’s loyalty.

A woman’s display of loyalty during a separation is an important part of the reunion process. As is a retreat of her own once this has been executed efficiently. This is the ‘invite and draw-in’ technique.

It is in a woman’s feminine power to draw the man back in. It is one of the gifts of femininity.

A relationship is never really over until the woman decides it is over. Even if it is the man who walked.

Emotoinal unavailability is an unhelpful label.

It prematurely ends a relationship that had potential and disempowers a woman to do what she does best.

Tackling the ‘emotionally unavailable’ man requires a lot of patience and a healthy dose of feminine charm.

In Part II, I’ll continue to present information to support my point that breakfast is far from the most important meal of the day, and in fact may be completely unnecessary.  If you are a breakfast eater, and you feel fine eating first thing in the morning, rest assured I am in no way trying to convince you to change your ways.  I am simply presenting a logical case for all of us anti-breakfast people, who are continually bombarded with dogma that has little support from scientific or historical fact.

Here I want to talk about is the history of breakfast.  In Part I, I already made a case that Paleolithic Homo sapiens and other human species that came before the agricultural age, probably did not have the means to indulge in breakfast every day.  They hunted and gathered, ate, and fasted until the next hunt.  So when did people start eating breakfast?  Probably in the Neolithic period when farming began to take hold.   We’re taking about 9,000 years ago or so.  So the first question is this: In considering whether or not breakfast is an important part of our day, would you rather look at the 200,000 years of human history before agriculture was invented, or the mere 9,000 years since human lives were changed by farming?  In other words, just because we’re doing it doesn’t mean we’re supposed to.  Our habits changed; our physiology has not.

In ancient Greece and Rome most people did not eat breakfast.  Except for the very rich, citizens of these ancient cultures ate a lighter meal around mid-day and a heavier meal in the evening.  They raised some of the greatest armies and athletes in history on this “one big meal a day” custom, so why are we so sure today that we need more? 

Where did modern breakfast come from anyway?  The “full English breakfast” of eggs, bacon, potatoes, etc, was likely an invention of the aristocracy.  The rich folks who owned the land would have been the only ones with the means to indulge in such food each morning.  The peasant who did most of the work probably ate nothing in the morning, or a little porridge if he could get it.  Remember, through most of history “farmers” did not own their own land.  Only relatively recently do we have this idea of the self-sufficient farmer, cooking up a big breakfast before going out into the fields for the day.  Even as recently as a couple of hundred years ago, most people were lucky to get hold of anything they could for breakfast, and they might not have gotten it every day.

So what about your breakfast?  Many people eat cereal in the morning.  Cereal grains have been grown and cultivated since the dawn of agriculture, but how did they get in those boxes with the cartoon characters on them?  The world’s first ready-to-eat cereal was Cornflakes, which came into prominence following their usage at the Battle Creek Sanitarium in the late 19th century.  Cornflakes were created by Seventh-day Adventists John Harvey Kellogg and Will Keith Kellogg, who were looking for a breakfast food suitable to their religiously motivated vegetarian diet.  The Kellogg brothers fed them to the Battle Creek Sanitarium patients as part of a super-restrictive health regimen, then started a company in 1906 to market them to the public.  Let me sum that up for you:  The breakfast cereals people eat today all evolved from Cornflakes, which were an invention of religious zealots who then decided to sell them to the general public due to the cereal’s popularity with hospital patients who were basically eating bland food every day.  Sound convincing to you?

In Part III I’ll be exploring metabolism myths associated with breakfast, but for now I’ll leave you with the following quote taken from an old sixteenth-century proverb:

To rise at six, dine at ten, sup at six and go to bed at ten, makes a man live ten times ten.

###

Next:  The Break Breakfast Hoax Part III

Subliminal message from MJ:  If you happened to StumbleUpon this and decided you Like It after you Reddit please Share it with your friends so they can Digg it too.

More by MJ here: MJRapp’s Portfolio

Thanks for reading!

I’ve been this way since I was a teenager.  All through grade school I would eat breakfast every morning, have my juice and cereal like a good little kid.  When I got to junior high I started to get sick every day at school.  I guess “sick” isn’t really the right word, but my stomach would hurt and I’d feel queasy.  So I quit eating breakfast.  Problem solved!

I played sports all through high school, and I was a pretty decent athlete.  I was an all-conference football player, and I never ate the day of a game until after it was over.  Yes, I played a full football game on an empty stomach and suffered no ill effects, even though conventional wisdom dictates you should load up on carbs before competition. 

Why am I telling you this?  Because I believe the “breakfast is the most important meal of the day” line is a big fat lie.  We don’t need it, and eating it doesn’t necessarily make us healthier.  Here’s a little info to support my point:

Put yourself in the shoes of Paleolithic man.  (Shoes you would have made yourself, of course!)  You wake up in the morning, and what’s the first thing you do?  Grab something to eat before you head off on the hunt?  Really, from where?  There is no farming yet, so you don’t have a store of grain from which to get your breakfast.  If it is winter there might be some chilled meat left over from the previous day’s hunt, but that’s about it.  In winter there’s no vegetation to eat, it’s all dead.  And if it’s summer, the meat from yesterday is probably rancid if there is any left.  You might have some fruit or nuts or root vegetable to munch on in the summer.  What you probably did was have a long drink of water, grab your spear, round up your buddies and head out to find food for the day — on an empty stomach.

This is not conjecture; this seems to be how we’re wired.  There is a hormone called Ghrelin that stimulates hunger.  Ghrelin increases as we require food, and decreases after we eat.  Ghrelin also does a couple of interesting things.  Studies indicate that higher Ghrelin levels can have a positive influence on learning and memory.  In other words, being hungry makes you sharper.  A great benefit for early humans who had to hunt on an empty stomach, wouldn’t you say?   Ghrelin also appears to help protect us from stress and anxiety, another important tool in keeping early man alive.

I’ve also done some research on the “dawn phenomenon” endured by diabetics.  This is where the liver dumps glucose into the bloodstream in response to hormonal activity during sleep, and is thought to be related to circadian rhythms.  It’s a big problem for people with diabetes, but can occur in many people.  Could this be the body’s way of preparing for the work of the day on an empty stomach by supplying the muscles with stored glucose?

As I write this article I am realizing I’m going to have to break it up into several posts, because I have much more to say on the subject.  I haven’t even gotten into the history of breakfast, the lies from cereal companies, the misread studies done on children, metabolism myths and the obesity epidemic.  You might be able to tell, this is a “hot button” of mine, but you’re surely tired of reading by now!

Part II will follow, but until then have a nice cup of coffee in the morning if you don’t feel like having breakfast.  Don’t let dogma rule your day!  And, if you do like a big breakfast first thing in the morning, enjoy!  You know what makes you feel happy! 

###  

Read on:  The Great Breakfast Hoax Part II

Subliminal message from MJ:  If you happened to StumbleUpon this and decided you Like It after you Reddit please Share it with your friends so they can Digg it too.

More by me:  MJ’s Portfolio

Human Family

by Dr. Maya Angelou

I note the obvious differences
in the human family.
Some of us are serious,
some thrive on comedy.

Some declare their lives are lived
as true profundity,
and others claim they really live
the real reality.

The variety of our skin tones
can confuse, bemuse, delight,
brown and pink and beige and purple,
tan and blue and white.

I’ve sailed upon the seven seas
and stopped in every land.
I’ve seen the wonders of the world,
not yet one common man.

I know ten thousand women
called Jane and Mary Jane,
but I’ve not seen any two
who really were the same.

Mirror twins are different
although their features jibe,
and lovers think quite different thoughts
while lying side by side.

We love and lose in China,
we weep on England’s moors,
and laugh and moan in Guinea,
and thrive on Spanish shores.

We seek success in Finland,
are born and die in Maine.
In minor ways we differ,
in major we’re the same.

I note the obvious differences
between each sort and type,
but we are more alike, my friends
than we are unalike.

We are more alike, my friends,
than we are unalike.

We are more alike, my friends,
than we are unalike.

————————-
­­­

Welcome ladies and gentlemen. Today I would like to talk to you about ‘race’ and the concepts we use to define ‘race’. What would you say if I told you that we’re all one race? Would you ask which race? Would you be happy if I said one ethnicity over another? Why is that? Why do we associate certain things with different ‘races’? I begin with this poem by Maya Angelou because she clearly shows what we see on a day to day basis. We see people that look different than us and assume they are just because of their skin color. We use this visual descriptor of ‘race’ to identify people and weed them out as different, when in reality we are all in fact, “more alike… than we are unalike” (Angelou).

What is race? Answers you may get are ‘your skin color’ and ‘your ethnicity,’ but what is it really? Race is a social construct. It was created as a social political concept and has no basis in biology. According to biology, race does not exist. Race is nothing but an illusion. The idea of race makes controlling people by government that much easier. If ‘Race A’ thinks that they’re better than ‘Race B,’ then they will fight amongst themselves and not realize that government institutes take their power from them. A distraction is always needed in politics. Whoever created the idea of race was very intelligent because it is the perfect distraction. It can never run out of possibilities. It feeds itself. If you point a finger at another race everyone is quick to jump on the bandwagon because the differences are clearly seen every day. An example of how race is not biological is seen in American politics.

Now let’s look at some statistical data of how we define race in the United States. The following chart is compiled from information found on the U.S. Census Bureau’s site in regards to citizens reports on their race.

Race is not biological. In the film, Race – The Power of an Illusion, Ossorio states that “race isn’t something biological, [but it is] real… Race as we understand it, [is] a social construct” (Adelman, 2003). Race only has the meaning that we give it. Without our social meaning behind skin color, it is just skin color and nothing separates us because of it. Hammonds states that, “Race is a human invention. We created it, we have used it in ways that have been in many, many respects quite negative and quite harmful (Adelman, 2003)”. Although it has become strongly accepted as fact, race is actually nothing but an illusion. Race is a man-made barrier meant to keep some people outside the circle and some people inside the circle. Our differences in skin color do not show any scientific meaning behind them and that is why it is so easy for us to continually change a person’s designated race.

During the time after slavery a person was judged by their degree of ‘blackness’. A person with 1/8 black heritage was considered white in one state. A person with 1/6 black heritage was considered white in West Virginia, and a single drop of black blood made you black in Louisiana. In the article, Race-making in “The Mississippi of the North”: The Indian-White Boundary in South Dakota, Thomas Biolsi reiterates the case of Plessy v. Ferguson where although Plessy looked white and had 7/8 white heritage, he was still considered black. Biolsi argues that, the “reputation of being white…is… the master-key that unlocks the golden door of opportunity” (Biolsi 1994; 4). Being considered “white” gives certain privileges. Black people were recovering from a time when they were defined as 3/5 of a person and didn’t have the same rights as white people. The blacks wanted to be considered white for the privileges it would provide them. A person could petition for whiteness in another state after being denied it in the last state. If race was biological, how could you ‘petition for whiteness’?

Native Americans had land that the United States government wanted and they were pushed onto reservations in order for the United States to gain this land. Since the United States had made provisions to them, at the time that they put the reservation system in place, the United States made loopholes to get their land. The United States could not take land from the Native Americans so they made it a statute that if you were one half white, you were white, not Native American. By encouraging Native Americans to mix and integrate themselves into white society the whites were able to strip the Native Americans power and their land from them easily. By taking away the legality of the Native American ethnicity from the Native Americans who had integrated within another race the United States government thereby took the rights of the Native Americans to get provisions and monetary compensation from the United States government. The government did not allow them the money that was entitled to them. This insured the United States could take their land, could tax them the same as any other Americans, and would no longer have to pay the Native Americans provisions for the atrocities that they had suffered at the hands of the United States government.

Native Americans are represented by racist depictions of them, even today, through marketing of sport’s teams, foods, and tobacco products which they are clearly not associated with. Ward Churchill’s article, Crimes Against Humanity, states that although “Julius Streicher… [was hanged for dehumanizing Jews” (Churchill, 1993; 369-370) in his tabloid, the racist depictions of Native Americans are still tolerated and even celebrated. Dehumanizing of one race is made to be more important because the condemning of a German citizen is much more accepted than for the United States to condemn its own people although they both do the same thing in dehumanizing another race.

The idea of ‘whiteness’ had now become subjective. The term ‘whiteness’ was instituted and manipulated by the government to get America whatever it wanted at the time. The term ‘whiteness’ was not awarded to Blacks because you have to keep a working class and it was thought to be easy to keep blacks down in the social hierarchy. The Blacks were here as slaves originally and they didn’t have anything else the United States could take from them. Blacks were used for cheap labor and weren’t seen as having any value. The Blacks had nothing to bargain with for their ‘whiteness’ because the United States had taken their rights and freedoms from them before they even set foot on the shore of the country. They wanted the comforts that ‘whiteness’ provided. Native Americans, on the other hand, had land. Land is power. America did not want to give the Native Americans money and to let them live tax-free on land they could use for their own monetary gains. By creating the loophole of Native Americans becoming white after one generation, they took power from them. So now Native Americans are easily converted to whiteness and blacks are not.

What about Indians? Are they white? In Karen Brodkin Sacks article, How did Jews Become White Folks?, she argues the case of Bhagat Sing Thind. Thind had tried to learn from the case of Chae Chan Ping, a Chinese immigrant who was denied citizenship on the basis of eugenics. Thind’s argument was based on eugenics. He proved that according to eugenics, the science of the time, that, “Asian Indians were the real Aryans and Caucasians and therefore white [but] the court countered that the US only wanted blond Aryans and Caucasians.” (Brodkin Sacks, 1996; 81). The same science used to deny Ping citizenship was now completely disregarded to keep Thind from becoming a citizen as well. Even after proving his ‘whiteness’ to the court, it was not seen as truth. In the film, Race- The Power of an Illusion, the court ruled that, “Thind might well be Caucasian, the high court said, but he was not white”. Scientific proof or not, Thind was not getting the title of ‘whiteness’. The conclusion people came to from the outcome of this case was that, “whiteness was what the common white man said it was”. The idea of race was an arbitrary one because even when scientific evidence of the time was used to argue the case of race, it was dismissed. The science behind race was not a factual one; it was just an excuse to keep certain peoples down.

Though Europeans from North Western Europe were originally seen to be the only true whites, eventually other groups were allowed into the white category. Brodkin Sacks states that the 1940 census was a turning point by no longer separating the European races into white and not-white categories. They “expanded [their] notion of whiteness,” even allowing “Mexicans to [be considered] white” (Brodkin Sacks, 1996; 81). By saying “notion” this implies that it is just a thought or a belief. A “notion” is not accepted as fact by all people.

Spencer Wells is a population geneticist and director of The Genographic Project. He has been trying to prove that we are all related, scientifically, and that there is no biological basis to race. His study has accumulated facts from biological tests of DNA of people from different ethnic backgrounds. According to the film, The Human Family Tree, these genetic tests have proved that although we look different from each other, we actually have only 0.01% difference in our DNA markers. All of the females that have been tested carry the same mitochondrial DNA of this one female, scientific Eve, who lived 200,000 years ago in Africa. All of the males that have been tested carry the same y chromosome of this one male, scientific Adam, who lived 60,000 years ago in Africa. From the testing of this theory we can see that there is scientific evidence proving that humans, no matter their ethnicity, all stem from branches of one family tree with roots in the continent of Africa.

The percent of differences is really small to have so many divisions based upon this theory of ‘race’. Let’s look at a chart so you can see how meaningful these numbers really are.

Now let’s take a look at a percentage of the people Spencer Wells tests that are thought to be of African descent based on their genetic makeup.

If we’re all African then how come we don’t look the same? The film, The Human Family Tree, addresses these differences. The difference in people’s visual appearance, such as their skin color, is based on environmental factors that a set of people faced over a specific period of time. People closer to the equator were exposed to a very warm climate and developed darker skin and melanin as protection from the sun’s effects (Straughn-Williams). People further from the equator developed lighter skin so they were able to absorb more sun and thereby warmth in a colder environment (Straughn-Williams). There are no genetic determinants for skin color. Skin color is not encoded in your DNA, it is determined by environment through an evolutionary process.

Race has become accepted to the general public as if it were biological. People are raising children from a young age with racist beliefs and ideals, even racist propaganda though subliminal at times, promotes the idea of race to become ingrained in one’s head from a young age. Our ideologies as Americans are altered by our parent’s concepts of race and by the media that is around us. Seeing racist propaganda on a continual basis almost makes one immune to it, like it’s the way it’s been and so it always will be, but we don’t immediately realize that race is a very fluid concept, like language, always changing. Race is not defined by biology and society keeps changing the meaning of each race. This ability to weave in and out of your race based on the times and your location shows that race is not a definite. You may be white today, but who is to say you will be white tomorrow?

——————————————————–
Works Cited

Adelman, L. (Producer) (2003). Race – The Power of an Illusion [DVD]. Available from http://www.newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0149

Angelou, Maya. Human Family. http://www.ctadams.com/mayaangelou12.html. Web. 13 Nov. 2011.

Biolsi, T. (1994). Race-making in “The Mississippi of the North”: The Indian-White Boundary in South Dakota. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Anthropology, Portland State University, Portland, OR, Portland, OR.

Brodkin Sacks, K. (1996). How did Jews Become White Folks?. In G. S. Gregory & R. Sanjek (Eds.), Race (pp. 78-102). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Churchill, W. “Crimes Against Humanity,” Z Magazine 6 March 1993:43-47.

Cohen, C. (Director) (2009). The Human Family Tree [Web]. Retrieved from
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/human-family-tree/

Straughn-Williams, Maritza. “Class Lecture”. Cultural Anthropology. LaGuardia Community College. Long Island City, New York. November 2011.

U.S. Census Bureau Website. “Race Statistics”. 2010 Census.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html. Web. 13 Nov. 2011.

            Aristotle: A Brief Introduction by Jonathan Barnes is a lecture style biography on Aristotle and his many schools of thought. In each chapter Barnes discusses in detail a different field of study with which Aristotle dedicated a great part of his life to, including: zoology, the arts, rhetoric, knowledge and the organization of knowledge, metaphysics, biology, logic, and politics. Most of the book centers around the time Aristotle spent at The Academy studying the sciences with his peers and underlings. Barnes frequently compares Aristotle’s beliefs and understandings with those of Plato’s, and many other well-known philosophers at that time, to illustrate Aristotle’s ideas about the world.

Barnes purpose for writing this book is to make Aristotle and his abstract ideas more clear and accessible to a wider audience. It’s no secret that the available works of Aristotle are not an easy read. Even Barnes remarks about the way Aristotle’s treatises are written, “Aristotle’s writings for the most part are terse. His arguments are concise. There are abrupt transitions, inelegant repetitions, obscure allusions. Paragraphs of continuous exposition are set among staccato jottings. The language is spare and sinewy” (Barnes 5).However, Barnes actually encourages the reader to read the treatises themselves, saying that once the reader has read a treatise; they wouldn’t want to have the information in any other form (like his book). “Aristotle’s treatises offer a peculiar challenge to their readers; and once you have taken up the challenge, you would not have the treatises in any other form” (Barnes 6).

When describing Aristotle’s ideas, Barnes uses a mix of germane quotes and anecdotes, along with his own examples of Aristotle’s ideas in practice. For example, when explaining Aristotle’s definition of knowledge – “’we think we know a thing when we know both the cause because of which the thing is and also that it is not possible for it to be otherwise’” (Barnes 53) – Barnes uses his own example to put Aristotle’s idea of knowledge (more like Aristotle’s guide to tongue twisters) into perspective. Barnes says, “A zoologist, then, will know that cows have four stomachs if, first, he knows why they do (if he knows that they have four stomachs because of such-and-such a fact) and, secondly, he knows that cows must have four stomachs (that it does not merely happen to be the case that they do)” (Barnes 53).

Another rhetorical device Barnes uses to help readers grasp the generalities of a concept is asking the questions which will be answered later on in the text. Instead of just starting with an initial point and arriving at conclusion Barnes helps the reader understand the path which he will be following to arrive at the conclusion. This may seem trivial to mention, but to an unskilled reader, the introductions of each new idea may help take and guide them to the conclusion. Contrary, a bad introduction to an idea may cause confusion to the reader. Questions like, “But what things are real?” (Barnes 64), as a rhetorical device, causes the reader to stop and question themself and things around them which causes their curiosity to spike, ultimately resulting in an increased focus on the text and the ideas. Barnes uses this rhetorical device throughout the book, usually in the beginning of a chapter.

Aristotle: A Brief Introduction is a biography of Aristotle, but it is also a lecture of his ideas and philosophies. The book, informative in nature, does not try to argue or persuade the reader to think a certain way, nor does it convince the reader to change the way they act. Rather, it provides information to the reader in an unbiased fashion. However, some of Aristotle’s ideas concern the just and unjust, the right and wrong, and the should and should not; these ideas come directly from Aristotle, not from Barnes. When Barnes covers certain philosophies of Aristotle, it is clear Aristotle believes some things are better than others. For example, when Barnes is talking about the categorization of the sciences, he says, “Nevertheless, natural science is not the best of sciences…. Theology is superior to natural science: ‘the theoretical sciences are preferable to the rest, and this to the other theoretical sciences’” (Barnes 41). In these statements, Barnes is showing the reader that not all sciences are the same in the eyes of Aristotle. If Barnes ever seemed to have a bias on a specific subject, I would say that it is not his bias, but rather just Aristotle’s beliefs.

There are many chapters in the book devoted to a single topic within theoretical science; however, Barnes covers practical science in just one chapter. Aristotle believes that when a city is first created, it is created out of the idea of wanting to live. However, as a city grows and becomes more organized, a city is no longer just a place for living; it becomes a place for living well. There are obvious differences between living and living well. Living implies only having the things that you need; like water food and shelter. A city provides these things but they also provide much more just by existing. A city can provide the things humans want or crave. When we have the things we want but don’t need we call it living well. Some argue that the things we want are also what are good in life- knowledge, good deeds and wealth.

According to Barnes, Aristotle defines a constitution as simply being the governing body (Barnes 128). Aristotle believes the correct regime is the one that aims toward the good of all. Barnes tells us about the 3 “main types” of constitutions: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy (Barnes 128). Barnes interestingly lists 2 deviations of the normal regimes, aristocracy and democracy. These two, according to Aristotle, are deviations from their counterpart regimes which aim to the good of all rather than to the good of the few.  Interestingly though, Aristotle doesn’t believe a monarchy is a deviation, he believes that as long as the kingship is ruling for the many and not the few, it is just.

From what I’ve said so far, one could infer Aristotle was a lover of liberty. According to Barnes, however, that is not quite true. Barnes has this to say, “…it is at once evident that in fact liberty will be severely restricted in an Aristotelian State” (Barnes 129). Barnes says that liberty only applies to citizens, however, “a large majority of the population will not possess citizenship” (Barnes 129). According to Barnes, women will not have citizenship and many men can be slaves. Barnes also claims that Aristotle’s regulations were “benevolent in purpose,” they just had a negative impact on liberty for most (Barnes 130).

In conclusion, Jonathan Barnes’ book is a great way for anyone who knows very little about Aristotle to get in to and enjoy the philosophies and sciences with which Aristotle devoted his life to. Barnes’ use of rhetoric and original examples makes understanding complex ideas on logic and knowledge very easy to understand. I also learned something new about Aristotle in the context of Government class. I learned that Aristotle, while a lover of liberty, supported “totalitarian” (Barnes 130) regulations and that an Aristotelian society would be far from a utopia.

Works Cited

Barnes, Jonathan. Aristotle: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.

What is Learning?

• Learning: change in an organism’s behaviour or thought as a result of experience

• Changes in behaviour do not always reflect learning

• Learning can occur without apparent changes in behaviour.

Classical Conditioning Principles

• Originally:

  • bell (neutral stimulus; NS) elicits no salivation response

  • food (unconditional stimulus; US) elicits salivation (unconditioned response; UR = natural)

• During pairing

  • bell elicits no response

  • Food (US) elicits salivation (UR)

• After pairing

  • Bell (CS) elicits salivation (CR)

• The CR and the UR are the same behaviour

  • Bell = initially neutral becomes the CS + Food = US

  • Salivation

    • UR when in response to US (food)

    • CR when in response to CS (bell)

Other Important terms in Classical Conditioning

• Spontaneous Recovery – The response learned will reappear after an interval of time.

• Generalization – The conditional response is generalized to similar conditions

• Discrimination – Responding to specific stimuli and not others

Conditional Emotional Responses

• Phobias are probably an example of a conditional emotional response

• Phobias are an unreasonable fear of specific object or situations, learned through classical conditioning.

Kill all cockroaches.

Operant Conditioning:

• It is a form of learning in which behaviour is affected by its consequences

• Favourable consequences strength the behaviour and unfavourable consequences weaken the behaviour

The Law of Effect:

• The Law of Effect: Thordnike’s idea that the consequences of a behaviours determines whether it is likely to be repeated.

Operant Conditioning – Principles of Reinforcement:

• Reinforcer:

  • Any even/consequence that strengthens behaviour

  • Positive: Adding a desirable stimulus

  • Negative: Removing an undesirable stimulus

• Punishment

  • Any event/consequence that weakens behaviour

  • Positive punishment: Adding an aversive stimulus

  • Negative punishment: Removing a desirable stimulus

Negative Side-effects of Punishment:

• Risk of injury

• Inducement of anxiety, fear and hostility

• Organisms learn only which response not to make

• Punishment does not teach the organism desirable responses.

Operant conditioning – Principles of Reinforcement:

Shaping: Reinforcing behaviours that resemble the targeted final behaviour in order to gradually guide the living organism towards the desired on.

• Primary reinforcer:

  • in innately reinforcing stimulus

  • Satisfies a basic need

• Conditioned reinforcer

  • A stimulus that gained its reinforcing power through association with a primary reinforcer

• Social reinforcers

  • Stimuli whose reinforcing properties derive uniquely from the behaviour of other members of the same species.

• A brain area called “Ventral tegmental area” in involved:

  • Becomes active when stimulus is reinforcing

  • Can be activated by conditioned reinforcers

  • Activated by amygdala, hypothalamus, prefrontal cortex.

Operant Conditioning – Timing of Reinforcement:

Continuous Reinforcement: When the behaviour is reinforced continually without limiting factors.

Partial Reinforcement: When the behaviour is reinforced based on 4 things:

• Fixed interval schedule

• Fixed ratio

Operant Conditioning – Cognitive Influences:

• Intrinsic motivation: The desire to perform a behaviour for its own sake. -learning

• Extrinsic motivation: The desire to perform a behaviour due to promised reward or threats of punishment – grades.

Adding extrinsic motivators can diminish intrinsic motivation.

Extrinsic motivators are effective when not used to bribe/control

Observation and Imitation:

• Classically conditioned and operant conditioned behaviours can be acquired through observation.

Observational Learning:

• Modeling: the process of observing and imitating a specific behaviour

• Called vicarious learning

• Occurs for both positive and negative behaviours

• Most effective models: actions match words.

Vicarious or Observational Learning: Biological Basic of Imitation:

Mirror Neurons:

• Neurons of the frontal lobe that fire when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another.

  • Enable Imitation

  • Enable the recognition of actions.

Sensation vs. Perception

Sensation:

• The process by which our sensory receptors and nervous system receive and represent stimulus energies from our environment

• Nerve stimulation.

Perception:

• The process of organizing and interpreting sensory information, enabling us to recognize meaningful objects and events

• Sensation + interpretation

Sensation –> perception: bottom-up process:

• Analysis that begins with the sense receptors and works up to the brain’s integration of sensory information.

Perception –> Sensation: top-down process

• Information processing guided by higher-level mental processes

• Draws on our expectations and experience.

#Vertical: Not horizontal. Don’t get confused.

Sensory Processing:

• Transduction:

  • Conversion of physical stimuli into changes in the activity of receptor cells of sensory organs.

• Receptor Cells:

  • Neurons that directly respond to a physical stimulus, like light.

Thresholds:

• Sensation starts with a stimulus (input detected from the environment)

• Threshold: The point at which a stimulus or a change in its value can be detected.

• Absolute Threshold: The minimum value of a stimulus (amount of stimulation) that a person can detect

Psychophysics: Weber

• JND: Just Noticeable Difference

  • The smallest difference between two similar stimuli that can be distinguished

• At Low Intensity:

  • Small changes are needed for JND

• At High Intensity:

  • Large changes are needed for the JND

Psychophysics: Weber:

Weber/Fenchner Law

• The size of the JND is a constant proportion of the original stimulus value

• If you start with a small value, you need a small change

• If you start with a large value, you need a large change.

This is a stupid way of saying an extremely simple mathematic principle. Noticeable change is based on percent of change. If you’re getting a lot of 90’s on tests and you get a 92 some day, nobody moves. You get a 50, and you will definitely notice.

Signal Detection Theory (STD):

• A mathematical theory (concerned with predictions) of how and when we detect the presence of a faint stimulus amongst background noise.

• This theory has numerous applications, such as telecommunication, medical, psychological

• Involves two things: sensory processes and decision processes.

• SDT is commonly used to measure the way we make decisions under conditions of uncertainty

• This theory assumes an active roles of the person taking the decision.

• In comparison to classical models of psychophysics, SDT is better equipped to explain the complexities of perception as it is applied in the real world.

• This is a lot of fucking bullet points

What is Light:

• Light is the physical stimulus for vision

• Light is a form of electromagnetic radiation that travels as a wave, moving at the speed of light.

• Light waves vary in amplitude and wavelength.

The Eye:

• Pupil: Adjustable opening in the center of the eye

• Iris: A ring of muscle that forms the colored portion of the eye around the pupil and controls the size of the pupil opening

• Lens: Transparent structure behind the pupil that changes shape to focus image on the retina

• Retina: Absorbs light, processes images and sends information to the brain

• Optic Nerve: Carries neuro-impulses from the eye to the brain.

• Fovea: The central point in the retina.

Functions of the Eyes:

• To house the retina

• Chanel light to get to the retina

Vision:

Accommodation:

• Change in shape of lens

• Process of adjustment of curvature of lens to alter the visual focus

Retina:

• Inner surface of eye

• Light sensitive

• Contains rods and cones (fovea has a lot of cones!)

• Layers of cells, such as photoreceptors, bipolar cells, ganglion cells

• beginning of visual information processing.

Acuity: Sharpness of Vision

Nearsightedness (Myopia):

• Nearby objects seen more clearly

• Lens focuses image of distant objects in front of fovea

Farsightedness (Hyperopia):

• Faraway objects seen more clearly

• Lens focuses near objects behind fovea

Cataracts:

A clouding that develops in the lens of the eyes and distracts the line of vision.

Visual Information Processing:

Feature Detectors:

Neurons in the visual cortex respond to specific features.

• Shapes

• Angle

• Movement

Visual Information Processing:

Trichromatic color theory:

• Young and Helomholtz

• Three different types of retinal photoreceptors:

  • Red

  • Green

  • Blue

Defective Color Vision:

There are three types of cones in the retina: red, green and blue

Protanopia: A form of hereditary anomalous color vision; caused by defective red cones

Dueteranopia: A form of hereditary anomalous color vision; defective green cones

Tritanopia: Hereditary, lack of blue cones

The Ear:

Outer Ear:

• Pinnea

Eardrum

Middle Ear

• Hammer

• Anvil

• Stirrup

Inner Ear:

• Cochlea

The Somatosense

What is The Human Homunculus?:

• Each area on the skin corresponds to an area on the somatosensory cortex

• Areas with low sensitivity are small areas in the brain

• Areas with high sensitivity are large areas in the brain.

Pain:

Gate Control Theory:

The Spinal cord contains a neurological gate which blocks pain signals or allows them to reach the brain:

• The gate is opened by the activity of pain signals travelling up the small nerve fibers

  • Open: small nerve fibers

• The gate is closed by activity in larger fibers or information coming from the brain.

  • Closed: large nerve fibers

• If only small fibers are activated:

  • Substantia Gelatinosa is activated and sends pain message to the brain

  • Gate is opened

• If large fibers are also active:

  • Substantia Gelatinosa is inhibited, and pain is also inhibited.

  • Gate is closed.

Perception:

• A rapid, automatic, unconscious process through one recognizes what is represented by the information that is provided by our sense organs.

Perceptual Organization:

• Visual Capture:

  • In perception, tendency for vision to dominate the other senses

• Grouping

  • The perceptual tendency to organize stimuli into coherent groups

• Figure and Ground: Organization of the visual field into objects and grounds

• Objects: Figures that stand out from their surroundings

• Grounds: The surroundings

Gestalt Psychology:

Gestalt: A theory of perception that is based on our tendency to organize elements and spaces into cohesive elements.

Grouping principles:

• Proximity: Group nearby figures together

• Similarity: Group figures that are similar

• Continuity: Perceive continuous patterns

• Closure: Fill in gaps

• Connectedness: Spots, lines and areas are seen as a unity when connected

Depth Perception:

• Definition of Depth Perception

  • Ability to see objects in three dimensions

  • Allows us to judge distances

I missed Benito the most. For a long time he had been my best friend. It didn’t matter that it had turned out to all be a lie. Not to me. I know, it sounds pathetic right? And I’d still take a bullet for him to this day if he were alive. But he’s not. He’s dead and he’s been gone for a while now. A few months maybe? Who knew. Despite myself, I had to check. I had to know. Nobody was looking that night. It felts strange to be digging into a fresh grave but nonetheless here I was with a shovel and a lantern doing something so senile I wondered if I had been spending too much time with my uncle; Like how Kyro says I do.

             ….But I’m right….

The casket is empty. Benito’s not there. I know where his body is and I know I’m running out of time but I can’t beg for help from the others…Benito was dead and he wasn’t coming back…so why should they worry if his body doesn’t exist anymore? I know it won’t phase them. It doesn’t matter to them..and I won’t burden them with my hair-brained schemes involving my old friend; my friends had done to much for me to drag them into that. I gave a brave sigh, nothing would happen to the body. At least not for a week. After that though…I would have to be brave and get it back from that awful place keeping it. My friend deserved a burial at the very least; he promised me he’d be buried.

Hours later, after I’ve patted the last of the dirt back into the ground and sat by the stone, just mourning; his family came. They knew me. As far as they knew I denied an arranged marriage with their son and quit a respectable job because I just didn’t like it. But they’ve never been mean to me; they understood. That is, until today.

“There she is. I can’t believe she came here.”
“I know. she’s caused enough trouble. Don’t you think?”
“He’s gone because of her.”

                      
                             ”He’s gone because of her”

Those were the words in a sighing whisper that slipped from his mother’s taught lips with such venom that it would be obvious to anyone that she wanted it to be heard. They blamed me. All of his family blamed me for Benito’s death.

I stood and turned to them. When Benito was alive, I could’ve been brave and faced them. Told them that I wasn’t to blame for anything and that they should step off. But I wasn’t strong right now. All I could see were the looks of disgusted hate burning into my soul by a group all dressed in black.

                        ”You shouldn’t be here.”

Ice cold words stung at me as his father looked down on me like I was lower than the bit of dog-crap stuck under his wife’s high-heel that she hadn’t noticed; I did because I could only bring my eyes to the ground to look away. To do anything.

Before I could really tell you how it happened, one of his cousins slapped me across the face and I just let him. The other cousins took this as an okay to start kicking me. Again, I just let them. In a way, it was my fault. By the time night came, I was bruised and bloodied all over. I had marks in my arms now from Benito’s father’s boot; he’d stepped on my arms. There was a smear of dog-crap on my back where his mother’d cut her heal into it mercilessly right over my old scar causing it to bleed profusely again. The entire time, I didn’t speak. I didn’t say a word. I deserved this. They had a right to blame me. To take it out on me. Right? Finally, I felt a smooth hand lift my chin up to face someone. This is the part I couldn’t believe. Benito’s doctor was a good friend of his family’s and with Benito. He had tried to convince me many times to see this woman for medical help and though I was scared crikeless of her we still maintained a stable conversation every now and then.

For a moment, I thought that maybe someone didn’t blame me. It was foolish to think that. Before I knew it I had three matching claw-marks mixed in with drying nail-polish; it wasn’t the kind of deep thing that would stay; it would be gone in a few days. However, there would be no way to hide it from my family. I wondered meekly if they’d believe whatever lie I came up with.

It was midnight when the last of Benito’s relatives finally tired of beating me. I waited until they had left the grave-site to get up and limp home. I deserved everything they did. No matter how you looked at it, Benito’s death was all my fault. They had a right to blame me.

There is one cause of death that tops them all and that because without this one none of the others would matter. So what is the single biggest cause of death?

LIFE

That’s right life is the single biggest cause of death is life itself. This is because if nothing ever lived nothing could ever die. Its basic biology that before something can die it has to first live. Rocks don’t die because only living thing can die.

Yes the term death is used for when a star burns out but that is not real death since the star was never alive.  

Image via Wikipedia

Conservation, an ideal that has so often championed the cause of environmental protection as opposed to plans that could offer greater short-term financial gain; has now realised the potential benefits of working with big business instead of opposing the plans of these companies. Environmental groups would like to get some of the funds that are available from wealthier companies, and have also realised that conservation must work with development to be successful rather than oppose such progression. The hope is that such change will improve the public perception of environmentalism and economic attitudes to it1.  Environmentalism does make economic sense, investment in programs such as mangrove reforestation (which can protect valuable fish stocks and protect agricultural land) or flood plain maintenance (which can add nutrients to improve land quality) will reap considerable financial benefits in the future.

There are many cases where working with big business could be advantageous to the goals of conservation, as has recently been highlighted by a growing demand to protect the Arctic Circle and the surrounding area. The area could exploited further as economic demands increase, but these demands could be mitigated significantly by the involvement of enterprise that could profit from the further exploitation of the Arctic Circle, or from its protection2. The Arctic Circle is in decline as ice cap of the region melts away, most people are aware of this fact.  The warming of the region has also made it more accessible: the area is now a viable trade route as ships can pass from Atlantic Ocean to Pacific Ocean and vice versa. Many artic regions are mineral rich, and there is also increased mining to acquire these important natural resources.  Businesses should be interested in the idea of conservation here because it could protect access to these important minerals and ensure that they remain a valued commodity.

Business, quite rightly, will look to profits and the potential for growth and development as measures of success. Environmentalism and conservation organisations will try to conserve our environment and natural resources. In order for conservation to be successful it must not hinder success. Conservation must work with big business in order to ensure that the goals of conservation are met within a practical timescale.

References

1.       Gilbert, N. (2011).  The practical conservationist, Nature: doi:10.1038

2.       Brigham, L. (2011). Marine protection in the Arctic cannot wait, Nature: 478, 157.

That is Biology;

Girl, is the specimen in femininity,

That is Biology;

Girl, is the scientific joy, to a boy,

You are a girl, I am a boy,

Oh, baby, that is Biology.

Boy, really have to hold

The girl in his arms,

To study all her charms;

Girl, never have the least

Intention to resist,

Not at a time like this,

Girl, is the scientific joy, to a boy,

You are a girl, I am a boy,

Oh, baby, that is Biologyl

When I touch your fingertips,

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttttttttttttt! Elec-tri-city!

Every time I kiss your lips,

Booooooooommmmmmmmm! Bi-o-lo-gy!

Boy, has the positive reaction in the dark,

Loves to go and park,

Girl, has the negative reaction

That is strong, not for very long,

Girl, is the scientific joy, to a boy,

You are a girl, I am a boy,

Oh, baby, that is BIOLOGY, BI-O-LO- GYYYYYYYYYYYY!

Singer: Unknown

Submitted by: Annie Almaden Gica