Cherry Juice Gives Post-Race Relief to Marathon Runners

by Natalie Shoemaker

A recent study has found a possible post-race remedy for marathon runners looking to quell the  inflammation that follows a 26 mile run: tart cherry juice.

Post-race, some runners often come down with a case of the sniffles. Study leader Glyn Howatson thinks kicking back with a cool glass of tart cherry juice leading up to and after the race will help reduced upper respiratory tract symptoms.

Howatson and his team of researchers followed two groups of runners before and after a marathon to see if they started coming down with symptoms of inflammation. One group was given cherry juice, while the other drank a placebo. Both groups were told to drink their respective drinks twice a day for five days leading up to the race and two days after. Each serving amounted to 236 ml of liquid and, for the group consuming the cherry juice, their drinks contained the equivalent of 50 to 60 whole Montmorency tart cherries.

While both groups displayed the marker for inflammation directly after the race, the group given juice showed lower markers for inflammation a day later, compared to the placebo group. After 48 hours none of the juicers showed upper respiratory tract symptoms. As for the runners that consumed the placebo, 50 percent came down with symptoms.

Howatson commented in a press release, saying:

"Many athletes can suffer from colds and sore throats following strenuous bouts of exercise, like marathon running and triathlons. This is the first study to provide encouraging evidence of the potential role of Montmorency tart cherries in reducing symptoms associated with the development of exercise-induced respiratory problems.”

The authors are hoping to continue their studies to build upon the body of research on post-run recovery to support the benefits of cherries.

Read more at EurekAlert!

Photo Credit: RAJESH JANTILAL / Stringer

“Her” Is Coming To Real Life: Meet Google's Chat Box

by Monica Joshi

Cleverbot, A.L.I.C.E., Elbot and others have graced us with their existence in virtual space. They have been able to hold up mini, superficial conversation when we've been lonely or just curious about what a chatbot could converse about. Now, Google has unveiled its new, philosophical, able-to-discuss-the-meaning-of-life bot.

Imagine a conversation that goes a little something like this:

“Human: what is the purpose of life?
Machine: to serve the greater good.
Human: what is the purpose of living?
Machine: to live forever.”

It seems like this has been taken straight out of Ex Machina, but it's an excerpt from a conversation between a human and machine – a machine built by Google.

Google detailed its project earlier this month in a research paper published to Arxiv, a popular repository for academic research. While other “chatbots” can carry on (somewhat) reasonable conversations with humans, this bot is a little different.

The team of software engineers did not code it to respond to certain questions with certain answers, as has been done in the past with Cleverbot and the likes, but rather this bot, built by Oriol Vinyals and Quoc Le, can analyze existing conversations and teach itself to respond.

Le said:

“Instead of using rules to build a conversational engine, we use a machine learning approach. We let the machine learn from data rather than hand-coding the rules.”
The system uses what are called neural networks, vast networks of machines that approximate the web of neurons in the human brain. Google’s paper shows they can also drive chatbots, and perhaps move us closer to a world where machines can converse like humans.

Google’s chatbot draws on research from across the larger AI community, including work from University of Montreal professor Yoshua Bengio and researchers at Facebook and Microsoft. This shouldn't be surprising as Google's Vinyals says that:

“Neural networks are already well known for modeling language.”

Previous research, however, has mostly focused on other tasks such as machine translation. Le—who has worked extensively with neural networks in recent years—says that when Vinyals brought the initial research to him, it was wholly unexpected. He didn’t think that neural nets would work so well with conversations.

The system that Le and Vinyals have built is just a proof of a concept for now, but they see it as a way of improving the online chatbots that help answer technical support calls. In addition to training the system on movie dialogue and having it chat about the meaning of life, they trained it on old support calls and had it chat about browser problems.

As these systems are perfected, they could even replace those in tech support centers. It may seem a little crazy, but they could even operate to be used as a source of news, whereby they could replace anchors or news companies entirely to provide you with your morning news.
As all of the examples and its training are lifelike, the proposition in Her doesn't seem as far fetched either. It would be fascinating to see it go in that direction where perhaps, possibly, sites like eHarmony could transform to connect humans to viable chatbots that fit the description of the person they are looking for.

Nice People Are More Likely to Follow Orders that Hurt Others

by Monica Joshi

People love being agreeable. Then, there are those who love it so much that they can just never say “no.” They may have just lost their ability to refuse any commands at all to the point where they might be capable of doing the most horrific things if they were actually ordered to do them.

A new psychology study published earlier this month in the Journal of Personality, has revealed this deep, dark, deadly new secret about the nicest, friendliest, and most agreeable people in our society. The experiment, based on Stanley Milgram's now famous 1961 experiment, further explores what kinds of people would go as far as they could simply because they were following orders.

In Milgram's famous experiment, he found that some people would even follow orders until the subject was dead. Although there was an actor faking the pain and even death, it gave a great insight into human nature, according to Milgram.

The new study concluded that:

“Those who are described as 'agreeable, conscientious personalities' are more likely to follow orders and deliver electric shocks that they believe can harm innocent people, while more contrarian, less agreeable personalities are more likely to refuse to hurt others.”

The experiment lasted over eight months. Researchers interviewed participants to gauge their social personalities, personal history, as well as their political leanings. They discovered that friendly people, or those who self-described as friendly, would follow orders to the T because they didn't want to upset anyone. On the other hand, unfriendly folk, or those who didn't get along with a lot of people, stuck to their beliefs. They also found that those with left-wing political views were less willing to hurt others.

The research delves into a deeper, more disturbing psychology, of those who aim to get along with everyone. They are, first off, far less likely to have a backbone — perhaps because of their years of training to not stand up for something. This stems from, perhaps, their unwillingness to sacrifice their popularity to act in a moral and just way toward others, be it people, or animals, or the environment in general.

Further research would need to be conducted on the ways in which, if the original experiment was conducted again and given our information age: Would we still be inclined to go all the way, to the fourth base (kidding!), to the death of the subject?

 

Consciousness May Not Be As Powerful As You Think

by Monica Joshi

The quality or state of awareness, or being aware of an external object or something within yourself, in short — consciousness, is the one thing that we have believed defines us as being the creatures that we are. René Descartes and John Locke struggled to comprehend its nature and Eastern philosophers have been content with calling it the “I Am.” This internal dialogue that seems to govern one's thoughts and actions, however, is far less powerful than people believe, according to a new theory proposed by a professor of psychology.

The San Francisco State researcher, Ezequiel Morsella has suggested in his “Passive Frame Theory” (a fitting name, as we'll soon find out), that the conscious mind is like an interpreter. It's simply helping speakers of different languages communicate using a common base.

Morsella said that:

"The interpreter presents the information, but is not the one making any arguments or acting upon the knowledge that is shared. Similarly, the information we perceive in our consciousness is not created by conscious processes, nor is it reacted to by conscious processes. Consciousness is the middle-man, and it doesn't do as much work as you think."

Morsella published his work online on June 22 in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. The work contradicts intuitive beliefs about human consciousness and the notion of self. According to the theory, consciousness is more reflexive and less purposeful than conventional wisdom would dictate. Consciousness, seemingly, just does the same, simple task, over and over again sans respite.

Although it appears to be in control of a myriad of impulses such as urges, thoughts, feelings, and physical actions, it simply is not. It gives us the illusion that it is doing more than it really is.

With regards to the counterintuitive nature of the theory, Morsella said that:

"We have long thought consciousness solved problems and had many moving parts, but it's much more basic and static. ... It goes against our everyday way of thinking."

According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind does not exist. Wait what? So, is free will really an illusion then? Possibly, but that's not what he's saying at all. Instead he's commenting on that idea that our consciousness is a “decider,” that it guides us to a particular course of action, is not true. Consciousness only relays information to control “voluntary” or “goal-oriented” action or movement that involves the skeletal muscle system.

Compare consciousness to the Internet, Morsella suggests in his work. The Internet can be used to buy books, reserve a hotel room, and complete thousands of other tasks. Taken at face value, it would seem incredibly powerful. But, in actuality, a person in front of a laptop or clicking away on a smartphone is running the show -- the Internet is just being made to perform the same basic process, without any free will of its own.

The Passive Frame Theory also rejects the intuitive belief that one conscious thought leads to another. One thought, therefore, doesn't lead to the next, but it is rather a choppy system that goes Thought 1; Thought 2; Thought 3; ... Thought n; without a connecting point in the middle, except that it is being thought by you.

On why it has taken Morsella and his team 10 years to come to this conclusion, he said:

"The number one reason it's taken so long to reach this conclusion is because people confuse what consciousness is for with what they think they use it for. Also, most approaches to consciousness focus on perception rather than action."

The theory has major implications for the study of mental disorders as it could provide reasons as to why one has urges that they shouldn't. It could help to explain the reasons why the consciousness system doesn't know that it shouldn't be thinking about something as it doesn't actually know and can't interpret that the urge is irrelevant to other thoughts or ongoing actions until consciously changed.

The whole enterprise, the study of consciousness, is quite a fascinating feat, given that there is the inherent difficulty of applying the conscious mind to study itself. This makes it not only complicated, but also immensely anthropomorphic. Trying to understand, connect the dots and make it applicable to other creatures is a task that will take us years. Until then, we had best be humble about our understanding of the human brain.

Bring in a Bike Share to Increase Property Value

by Natalie Shoemaker

Living near a school or park isn't the only thing that can up your property value. Researchers at McGill University in Quebec found that a bike share station can also raise the property value of homes in a neighborhood.

The researchers looked at a number of Montreal neighborhoods to draw their conclusions. Their data consisted of a diverse range of towns that either support bike share programs, have never had them, or had them in the past and lost them. They compared how the prices of the neighborhood's homes fluctuated based on these differences, using the prices at which the homes were sold (and only ones that were sold more than once). The history of these sales spanned 18 years going back as far as 1996 and being as recent as 2012.

The researchers reported in their paper that “the presence of a bicycle sharing system in a neighborhood with 12 stations serving an 800 meter buffer” helped to raise the property value of homes by 2.7 percent or about $8,650 on average.

What's more, "the combined benefits from such systems, including an increase in property taxes, might well outweigh the initial costs,” lead researcher Ahmed El-Geneidy pointed out in a press release. After all, it costs more to ride a car than to ride a bike—not just in gas, but to bridges, roads, and so on. Consider the benefits to infrastructure, fewer cars on the roads would mean less wear and tears. In an isolated study, biking has been found to be less costly to individuals and communities.

Read the full study or the press release at EurekAlert!

Photo Credit: ERIC FEFERBERG/Getty Images

Smart Tech Hack Makes Overtaking Big Trucks Easier and Safer

by Teodora Zareva

Big trucks on two-lane roads are a big problem in many countries. Specifically, those countries with less developed road infrastructure, where big parts of the territories are connected only with two lane roads and trucks on those roads often cause queues of traffic and accidents due to improper overtaking of impatient drivers. In the Western Balkans, Azerbaijan, or in Argentina, for example, bad overtaking is one of the main reasons for accidents that occur on roads.

To address this problem, the Argentinian arm of the South Korean tech giant Samsung, has introduced the Safety Truck. The Safety Truck is equipped with a built-in wireless camera (with night vision) in the front that sends live footage of the road to four outdoor monitors attached to the back of the truck. This allows drivers behind the truck to have the complete picture of the road ahead and make better judgment of whether it is safe to overtake. The system could also reduce accidents caused by animals on the road and sudden breaking.

So far, Samsung has built a prototype truck and confirmed that the technology works. The company is currently working together with safe driving NGOs and the Argentinian government, in order to perform the tests needed to comply with existing national protocols and obtain necessary permits and approvals.

 

Photo: SamsungTomorrow

 

 

 

Electronic Apparel Has Just Outed Fitness Wristbands as the Next Gen Tech

by Natalie Shoemaker

Researchers from the University of Tokyo have developed a new way for consumers to interact with textiles. The team was led by Professor Takao Someya, they demonstrate in their paper  how this ink tech was able to function (even when stretched up to three times its original length) as a sensor to measure heart rate, muscle contractions, and a number of other biological indicators—all in your shirt.

Until recently, transistors have only been able to be printed on plastic or paper substrates. But as past studies have shown, wearable bands often cease to be used after a month of use. Putting on a t-shirt that can double as a fitness monitor, however, doesn't detract from the routine.

Someya said:

"Our team aims to develop comfortable wearable devices. This ink was developed as part of this endeavor.”

Someya and his team claim they have developed an elastic conducting ink that's easily printed onto clothing—a big achievement for the future of wearable devices. They write in their paper that the ink is “comprised of [silver] flakes, a fluorine rubber and a fluorine surfactant. The fluorine surfactant constitutes a key component which directs the formation of surface-localized conductive networks in the printed elastic conductor, leading to a high conductivity and stretchability.”

Someya added:

“The biggest challenge was obtaining high conductivity and stretchability with a simple one-step printing process. We were able to achieve this by use of a surfactant that allowed the silver flakes to self-assemble at the surface of the printed pattern, ensuring high conductivity."

The team demonstrated the application of this conductive ink by printing a wrist-worn muscle sensor (seen above). The sensor was created by printing one on both sides of the cloth.

Google recently demoed its own take on the future of wearable fabrics at its I/O event, dubbed Project Jacquard. The future of wearables is looking interesting, the question will be who will be first to market. Singularity University's Vivek Wadhwa may have an idea, he details the tech innovations he's most interested in — including some exciting new wearables:

Read more at EurekAlert!

Photo Credit: 2015 Someya Laboratory, DALE DE LA REY/ Getty Images

How Self-Critical People Can Build Confidence Following a Big Win

by Natalie Shoemaker

No matter how much evidence may prove someone's worth, some people have such low self-belief that they can't "generalize from success," writes BPS. However, psychologist Peter Zunick and his team think they've found a technique to help these kinds of people change their way of thinking. They write about it in their recent paper; it's called directed abstraction.

I'm not sure what it means either. BPS breaks-down the definition:

“Direct abstraction means stopping to consider how a specific success may have more general implications — this is the abstraction part — and also ensuring this thinking is directed towards how personal qualities were key to the success.”

Zunick and his colleagues write how this might be put into practice. In one study with 86 students, the researchers had the participants guess the number of dots flashed up on a screen. All were given fake, positive feedback on their performance. Here's where the group splits: half the students were ask to describe the techniques they used to successfully complete the task. The other half were told to engage in direct abstraction, repeating the phrase “I was able to score very high on the test because I am: ... ” This mantra allows the individuals to focus on their own qualities.

The latter participants, even those who had reported a low self-belief in their abilities, began to have more confidence in their estimations as the study continued.

The researchers tried to replicate these results in another experiment that dealt with a more real-life scenario: public speaking. In this experiment, the team found 59 students who had little faith in their public-speaking skills. The researchers gave them a fairly easy topic to talk about: campus life. They filmed each student in front of a camera talking about the topic. The students then watched themselves with the experimenter giving them praise throughout the viewing.

The students were then told to either tell the researchers how they were able to do so well or engage in direct abstraction (e.g., I was able to speak well on this topic because I am: ...). After completing this task, they were thrown another topic — a bit harder this time with no researchers to soften the blow with praise.

But the million-dollar question that everyone wants to know is did the direct abstraction work?

After viewing the second-round video, individuals in the direct abstraction group reported an increase in confidence in their public-speaking skills.

Of course, use caution with this technique; employing it only on occasions where success can be seen. It may be good to have an “accountabilabuddy” to keep you honest.

Read more at BPS.

Photo Credit: JEWEL SAMAD/Getty Images

New, Smart, Biocompatible Insulin Patch Could Replace Needles For Diabetics

by Monica Joshi

There are currently about 29.1 million people in the United States living with Diabetes. That's 9.3% of the American population currently suffering from this illness that only has one cure: insulin. For those who suffer from diabetes, insulin injection can be sometimes a painful and often imprecise process of keeping their blood sugar levels under control. There's a new 'smart' insulin patch in the works that could do away with these painful injections and revolutionize the way that diabetics keep their blood sugar levels in check.

Created by researchers from the University of North Carolina and NC State, the patch is a thin square covered with more than 100 tiny needles. According to researchers, the patch works fast, is simple to use and is made from biocompatible materials. It has tiny, painless needles that are packed with insulin and glucose-sensing enzymes in microscopic storage units.

The patch is able to release these enzymes when blood sugar levels get too high.
In a mouse-model of type 1 diabetes, the study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed promising results. Researchers hope to see similar success in subsequent clinical trials in humans.

Co-senior author Zhen Gu said in a statement that:

"The whole system can be personalized to account for a diabetic's weight and sensitivity to insulin, so we could make the smart patch even smarter."

The study found that the patch lowered blood glucose in mice for up to nine hours. As mice are less sensitive to insulin than humans, the researchers suggested the patch could, in fact, have a longer-lasting effect in diabetic patients. The patch emulates beta cells. These beta cells generate and store insulin in tiny sacks called vesicles. Beta cells play an important role in monitoring blood sugar levels and sending signals to release insulin into the bloodstream.

First author Jiching Yu said:

"We constructed artificial vesicles to perform these same functions by using two materials that could easily be found in nature.”

When blood sugar levels increased, enzymes converted the excess glucose molecules that crowded into the vesicles into a product called gluconic acid. This reaction requires the consumption of oxygen. As the environment becomes starved of oxygen, this makes some of the molecules become water-fearing. Ultimately, this causes the vesicles to fall apart, sending insulin into the bloodstream.

Co-senior author John Buse said that:

"The hard part of diabetes care is not the insulin shots, or the blood sugar checks, or the diet but the fact that you have to do them all several times a day every day for the rest of your life. If we can get these patches to work in people, it will be a game changer."

Around 387 million people worldwide suffer from diabetes. These patients keep their blood sugar in check by monitoring their levels with regular finger pricks and repeated insulin shots. If the wrong amount of medication is injected, patients could suffer from severe complications. This patch could really change the way that insulin is given as well as prescribed to allow for a safe, secure blood sugar checks.

 

In One Year, You Can Buy Your Own Jetpack

by Monica Joshi

I remember that when I was younger, being stuck in traffic on long drives was a pain. It was such a pain that my mind would wander, dreaming of a time when I could zoom straight out of the car window and over all the cars to my home or the hotel. Now, New Zealand's Martin Jetpack has opened for public trading, making my and others' childhood dreams come true.

You’ll finally be able to soar to school, wing your way to work and descend upon your mortal enemies without them seeing you coming.

The Martin Jetpack was first flown in public in 2008. It isn’t technically the type of jetpack with which we’re all very familiar from TV and movies, as it belongs to a family of vehicles known as the “ducted fan”. The jetpack will include elements of some modern and old experimental hover bikes, as well as some drones.

It's powered by a V4 200 horsepower engine, which drives two ducted fans to achieve speeds of about 74 kilometers per hour (about 46 mph). Flight could be sustained for up to 20 minutes at a height of 1,000 meters (328 feet).

As it is smaller than a helicopter, but bigger than a drone, the jetpack's creators say that it can be used for rescuing surfers or even inspecting pipelines. So, while it's not exactly a “jetpack”, it's still an actual flying machine that is worn on a person's back and can hurtle them in space.

As long as money is not an issue, for between $150,000 to $200,000, you can own one in the second half of 2016! It's set to be marketed at the recreational folk as well as rich thrill-seekers – really, as only they will be able to afford this new gadget, given that it costs half of the house most of us currently own.

A few of the concerns about this new gadget are the way in which its use will be monitored by the government, i.e. will anyone be able to use the jetpack, or will there be certain age restrictions and licensing to allow jetpack use? I suppose, as you get older, safety becomes more of an issue and no longer does it seem “super cool” to fly around on a jetpack without having proper jetpack traffic guidelines.

While these new and improved technologies are certainly cool, they do require regulation. Chris Fussell explains why it's concerning when technology pushes conflict beyond regulators' abilities to rein them in. 

An Alternative to Blood Donations: Lab-Grown Blood Stocks

by Monica Joshi

The desperate cry for donations of life-saving, clean blood has won the hearts of an increasing number of people over the past few years. And yet, the higher number of donations is simply not meeting the demand. Scientists are now trying to find an alternative to the blood donations, so that we do not have to rely on the altruism of a handful of qualified donors.

There is a possibility that they could use synthetic blood substitutes, which could work very well by being given to any patient in need, regardless of their blood type. However, a less artificial approach could be to grow stocks of human blood cells in the lab. We should also be able to find out whether this works in just a few years (ideally, 2017), as the first clinical trial investigating their potential has recently been put in motion.

The U.K. National Health Service (NHS) announced that the trial will take place by 2017 and will involve transfusing tiny amounts of lab-grown blood into one group of volunteers. They will also be providing another group with donated blood for comparison purposes.

Scientists hope that this will help them understand the survivability of the cells in the recipients and whether there are any adverse effects that they should be aware of. They're hopeful that the technique will work, based on research from a few years ago. A previous study demonstrated that such cells are capable of behaving like the real thing in human subjects.

The precise technique that the NHS scientists will use to grow these cells is unclear at this stage. It has been reported that they intend to start off with stem cells taken from the bone marrow of adult donors. They would then encourage them to turn into red blood cells, by using a cocktail of growth-stimulating chemicals.

According to Nick Watkins, NHS Blood and Transplant assistant director of research and development:

“The intention is not to replace blood donation, but to provide specialist treatment for specific patient groups.”

If this is successful, they then plan on investigating another possible method, which would use the same starting cells, namely hematopoietic stem cells. They plan on instead sourcing these blood cells from donated umbilical cords.

Earlier works have shown that both of these methods have worked in the lab; however, the challenge — and possibly the most time-consuming one — is that they can't make more than a few teaspoons' worth. That simply isn't enough for a transfusion.

Nonetheless, this research is extremely valuable, as it could help to treat individuals with certain blood conditions, such as sickle-cell anemia. It could also be interesting to use this blood to study the particular structure of blood-related illnesses.

All Space Colonies Will Begin as Dictatorships

by Orion Jones

America is a land of plenty, but an American colony on Mars, which NASA scientists and Elon Musk's SpaceX hope to begin by 2030, would be anything but. A scarcity of crucial resources like water and air, and the high stakes of even temporarily running out, suggest that any Martian government would function as a military dictatorship.

That poses serious challenges to maintaining the liberties we prize here on Earth. So to answer that challenge, the British Interplanetary Society recently convened in London to imagine what a free and democratic Martian colony would look like.

In order for the colony to survive, violent revolution would be best avoided at all costs, as conference organiser Charles Cockell, professor of astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh, explained: 

“Say, for example, you don’t like your government and you resort to revolution,” says Cockell. “Someone goes and smashes up the habitat, destroys the windows and instantly the place is depressurised, the oxygen is lost, and everyone dies. 

The consequences of violence in space could be much more catastrophic than on Earth, so how do you dissent in an environment in which violent disobedience might kill everyone?”

The conference ultimately recommended founding documents based on the American Constitution and Bill of Rights, believing that free expression of thought and democratic principles are the best combination of rule and freedom to secure peace.

One freedom we currently enjoy, the freedom to opt-out of society, would likely not be possible on Mars. Everyone's efforts and skills would be needed for the group to survive, and hoarding resources for one's private use would soon spell death.

Former NASA astronaut Ron Garan argues that a moon base would be the best way to create space-based societies. If we get our footing closer to home, a Martian venture would be more successful.

The Gambler: How Paul Durand-Ruel Bet Big on Impressionism (and Won)

by Bob Duggan

What would you do? Imagine you’re a politically conservative, devoutly religious art dealer fleeing your war-torn country when you suddenly see art radically unlike anything you’ve seen before. Do you stay the course or gamble on this next “big thing”? Now add the sudden death of your pregnant young wife, which leaves you with five children under the age of nine whose futures now depend entirely on your choices. Do you roll the dice with your life and theirs? If you’re Paul Durand-Ruel and that artist is Claude Monet, the original Impressionist, you not only make that bet, but you go “all in”—staking your family’s fortunes to those of a family of revolutionary artists. The exhibition Discovering the Impressionists: Paul Durand-Ruel and the New Painting, currently at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, goes “all in” with Durand-Ruel’s gamble and pays off big with a stirring tale of personal courage and art history in the making.

Durand-Ruel’s role in the birth and eventual success of Impressionism as a key foundation of modern art has long been acknowledged. “The man was more than the dealer of the Impressionists,” John Rewald wrote in 1943, “he was their defender and friend, among the first to understand their revolutionary art, and for many years the only one with courage enough to invest up to his last cent in their paintings, a gesture which often brought him near bankruptcy.” Before that critical, public acclaim, the painters themselves praised Durand-Ruel as a savior—the man who consistently bought their paintings when few others did, the man who promoted their art better than they could themselves, and the man who struggled financially to ensure that they could literally stave off starvation and keep working.

Beyond Impressionism, Durand-Ruel helped shape the modern art market itself. “Credited with a double ‘invention,’ that of Impressionism and the profession of the modern art dealer,” the catalog introduction asserts, “Paul Durand-Ruel occupies a central position in the cultural history of art and taste, one on which paintings retain their pre-eminent position.” The quotes around “invention” are important, for despite the big banner hyperbole of Durand-Ruel as the man who “made the Impressionists” (a small, but growing market had begun years before Durand-Ruel became involved) and the man who revolutionized art dealing (he copied innovations of other dealers), Durand-Ruel’s true originality and genius reside in his gutsy determination to go bigger and bolder than any dealer of the Impressionists before. Anything less and modern art history and the modern art market wouldn’t resemble what they look like today.

The son of an art dealer, Paul Durand-Ruel joined the family business after considering careers in the military and missionary service. Durand-Ruel brought his militant, true-believer’s zeal to the field of art in first supporting the “School of 1830”—Eugène Delacroix, Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot, Jean-François Millet, and Theodore Rousseau. As Durand-Ruel’s descendants, Paul-Louis and Flavie Durand-Ruel, explain in the catalog, if Paul had died in 1870, “he would have been considered the most fervent champion of the 1830 school.” It took decades for the public and critics to catch up with the “School of 1830,” but by then Durand-Ruel was already championing newer artists such as Gustave Courbet, whose radical politics couldn’t have clashed more with the conservative Durand-Ruel’s, but nevertheless the two formed a close relationship over Courbet’s art.

In many ways, Durand-Ruel’s support of the Delacroix and his contemporaries set the stage for his later support of the Impressionists.  Having bet big once and won, Durand-Ruel felt confident enough to bet on the latest set of revolutionaries.  Also, just as the market for the 1830 crew blossomed and stabilized the Durand-Ruel’s business, he folded that money back into the business with large-scale purchases of Impressionist art. (Simon Kelly’s wonderful catalog essay argues for the importance of this overshadowed aspect of Durand-Ruel’s story.) Durand-Ruel himself saw a clear link between the two generations, once even owning Henri Fantin-Latour’s Homage to Delacroix, a “class picture” of sorts of 1860s artists (including Édouard Manet) surrounding and paying tribute to a portrait of Delacroix, and exhibiting it as “context” to help others make the connection between the old and new styles.

The exhibition develops as a series of curatorial “case studies” in which Durand-Ruel’s strategies and techniques shine through as he came closer and closer to the idea of the “dealer-critic” of today. One gallery reassembles key works from Durand-Ruel’s controversial 1876 Impressionist exhibition that made few sales but several critical enemies dubious about Monet and company. Two galleries recreate the solo exhibitions Durand-Ruel staged for Monet, the first being a mid-career retrospective in 1883 and the second being a smaller, more focused exhibition of Monet’s Poplars series from 1892.  Another gallery reunites works Durand-Ruel exhibited and sold in his New York City gallery (opened in 1887), to which American collectors flocked and from which Impressionism spread across America more quickly than it had in Europe. The largest exhibition of Impressionism then or since (more than 300 works)—Durand-Ruel’s 1905 Grafton Galleries show in London—lives again in a gallery hosting selections by Manet, Monet, Camille Pissarro, Edgar Degas, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, and others and serves as a triumphant “told you so” as much today as it did back then. A final, more intimate gallery recreates Durand-Ruel’s home as a showplace for his artistic and actual families, with portraits of his children commissioned from Renoir reminding you of everything that was on the line throughout this remarkable story.

For me, seeing art history take shape on the fly this way opened up whole new dimensions of the Impressionists. We’re so used to posthumous retrospectives of these figures that the idea of a mid-career retrospective with input from Monet himself paints an entirely different picture.  It’s not just a snapshot of an artist at that moment. It’s a selfie!  We see them as they (and Durand-Ruel) wanted to be seen. Looking at (the now privately owned) The Church at Varengeville, Morning Effect (1882) by Monet, with its bold low perspective and even bolder verticals snaking down the cliff face in the morning sun, you realize just how radical Monet once was and, more importantly, wanted to be. Likewise, the room of Poplars seems elementary to modern eyes used to Monet’s series, but to viewers in 1892 it was a revelation and to Monet it was the ideal setting to showcase his intentions.  The retrospective sold poorly, but the Poplars show sold out almost before it opened, providing Monet with the funds to purchase his home at Giverny, where he painted not only the Poplars but so many other signature works. So, no Durand-Ruel, no solo exhibitions, no Poplars sales, no Giverny, no Water Lillies, no Monet as we’ve come to know and love.  The chain of cause and effect is clear.

Another clear chain of cause and effect in the telling of Durand-Ruel’s story is between venue and narrative. This exhibition began in Paris at the Musée de Luxembourg, where they understandably focused on the Parisian part; continued to London and the National Gallery, which naturally targeted Durand-Ruel’s British invasion; and concludes in Philadelphia, where the PMA plays up the American angle, specifically local favorite Mary Cassatt’s role as artist, collector, and mentor to fellow American collectors. Cassatt scholar and feminist art theorist Griselda Pollock accused the National Gallery, London, not only of overly downplaying Cassatt’s role but also (more seriously) of “erasing women from the history of art.” I can see Pollock’s point, but can also see the thinking behind the National Gallery’s curatorial choices to winnow down such a multifaceted story. Fortunately, Philadelphia corrects any previous errors of exclusion by giving Cassatt due credit, including adding additional works from their Cassatt collection to better represent her visually. The Durand-Ruel—Philadelphia connection might have been even bigger and better if The Barnes Foundation, which is literally down the street from the PMA, could have been brought into the picture.  Dr. Albert Barnes purchased so frequently from Durand-Ruel that he joked to the dealer that “my collection is practically an annex of your business.” Alas, for undisclosed reasons, the Barnes Foundation couldn’t be a valuable “annex” to this exhibition.

A French art critic in 1911 called Paul Durand-Ruel “simplicity itself” in demeanor, but also recognized “every mark of uncommon obstinacy, of an unyielding yet nonviolent will that is imposed with a smile.” Like a good poker player, Paul Durand-Ruel knew when to hold ‘em, and knew when to fold ‘em—all with a smile beaming from an unshakable faith in his own judgment and the talent of his artist friends.   Discovering the Impressionists: Paul Durand-Ruel and the New Painting opens with Hugues Merle’s portrait of the dealer at 35 looking directly at the viewer with the brash confidence of youth.  The show concludes with a portrait by his friend Renoir of the dealer at 79, eyes downcast and musing on the trials and triumphs of the past as he eases into the comfort of age and a mission completed. Between those two portrait bookends sits a story of courage and perseverance that led to a chapter in art history that will never be erased.  Bet on it.

[Image: Photograph of Paul Durand-Ruel: Paul Durand-Ruel in His Gallery, c. 1910, by Dornac (Archives Durand-Ruel) © Durand-Ruel & Cie.]

[Many thanks to the Philadelphia Museum of Art for providing me with the image above from, a review copy of the catalog to, press materials related to, and a press preview invitation for the exhibition Discovering the Impressionists: Paul Durand-Ruel and the New Painting, which runs through September 13, 2015.]

[PLEASE NOTE: Philadelphia is the only United States venue for this exhibition, but an excellent film of the exhibition, titled The Impressionists and the Man Who Made Them, will be shown in select cinemas nationwide on July 14, 2015 through FathomEvents.com. Theater locations can be found here.]

[Please follow me on Twitter (@BobDPictureThis) and Facebook (Art Blog By Bob) for more art news and views.]

Why Visionary Leaders Have Regrettable Personalities

by Orion Jones

Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos are perhaps the most striking entrepreneurs of our time and their collective vision has brought about a different world. Musk especially has captured the popular imagination with innovations in the automobile and space industries.

But the three men are also infamous for pursuing their dreams in no-holds-barred fashion. Walter Isaacson's biography of Jobs portrayed a sensitive man who could nonetheless lash out at even his most dedicated employees. And people who worked for Bezos recalled him saying things like "Are you lazy or just incompetent?" and "Why are you wasting my life?"

As details of Musk's life emerge from the new biography, "Elon Musk: Tesla, Space X and the Quest for a Fantastic Future," a pattern emerges: brilliant visionaries with unpleasant personalities. Why is this so? And must it be? Tony Schwartz at the New York Times puts forth three explanations:

1. "Genius covers a lot of sins," writes Schwartz. Great individuals will sometimes behave badly because they can. "A great product is a great product, and you don’t have to do everything right to be successful. Most customers don’t care how the sausage gets made, as long as it tastes good."

2. When levels of money and power are achieved in excess, they excuse individuals from the norms that govern the rest of society. Jobs, for example, drove his car without a license and continually parked illegally in handicap spaces. Yet in the court of public opinion, he was beyond reproach. Ditto for Musk and Bezos.

3. Visionaries are fearful people, says Schwartz. They are afraid of losing control of their vision and, because they have further to fall, are typically terrified at the prospect of failure. But fear is ultimately a poor motivator for underlings and we can only wonder how much more were possible if our most brilliant people were also the most kind and generous.

Nonetheless, Jobs was able to form a large team of extremely loyal engineers and designers. As his biographer Walter Isaacson explains, the teamwork on display at Apple is what Jobs considered his favorite product. That's telling, both because Jobs considered people to be the most important and he considered them a product.

What Happens to Your Heroes When You Grow Up?

by Jason Gots

"Who are your heroes?" lifestyle gurus and people at cocktail parties are always asking. Why do they ask this? The idea is that your heroes -- those people who at different stages of your life you've wanted not to be LIKE but to BE, are supposed to reveal what you value most, and therefore who you are.

When I was 12, I wanted to be Michael Jackson. I got two versions of "the glove" (one with sequins, made by my mom, the other, infinitely more valuable to me (Whaddya want from me? Adolescents are narcissists.) inlaid with glittering crystals that might or might not have been actual diamonds, and purchased at Spencer's Gifts in the mall, purveyors also of a mysterious, hypnotizing product called "edible underwear"), and two Michael Jackson outfits: one this kind of ambassadorial Fantasia in lemon yellow and gold with a sash and epaulettes, the other a "Thriller" jacket which was actual leather and only slightly embarrassing because a) it wasn't the "Beat It" jacket, which was cooler but more expensive because of the chain mail, and b) It was purchased in the women's department and so had the zipper on the wrong side which hopefully no one would notice.

I covered my room with Michael Jackson posters and pullouts from Teen Beat. I starved myself on salads like the fanzines said Michael did. I recorded his performance of Billie Jean at the Grammys on VHS and watched it over and over, reverse-engineering the moonwalk and that leg shake thing until the tape wore out. I wasn't in love with the guy (I was a shy but emerging heterosexual) but I wanted to embody his spirit of loose, skeletal brilliance. I, too, wanted to be Peter Pan gliding across the floor as if on pixie dust. To this end I doused the soles of my MJ style penny loafers in extra virgin olive oil and ruined our living room floor.

When, in 7th grade, I transferred to a new, all-boys school, the MJ obsession earned me no end of ridicule and humiliation. Liking Michael made me “gay,” the worst thing you could be called at an all-boys’ school in 1986. After a few months of relentless pressure, I hung up the penny loafers and turned my attention to other things.

At age 16, I experienced a personal punk/Goth British Invasion. In one trip to a record store in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, DC, I simultaneously discovered the Cure, the Smiths, the Sex Pistols, and Siouxsie and the Banshees. I loved it all, but for some reason Robert Smith, with his fantastical hair like aerials reaching for the ethereal realms, and his aching, emotionally vulnerable voice, captured my imagination to the point where I found myself leaning backwards over chairs with a flattening iron and some kind of epoxy hairspray so that I could prance about Oxford (where I was in acting school for the summer) like a decaying spider dressed in gossamer black. Peter Jeffreys, a somewhat famous Shakespearean actor who was teaching us Speech, once intoned as I crawled into his class: "So, Mr. Gots . . . Hwat have we come as today?"

Why Robert Smith? This was a guy who lived with his mom until he was 30 (I think I read this in one of the many cheaply published Cure and Robert Smith biographies I had devoured). A man who, now past 40, sang only about misery and loneliness and dreamlike realms in which he could temporarily escape them.

But he (and the various iterations of The Cure he'd assembled over the years) wove a magical sonic landscape in which dark, ambivalent visions could emerge and be beautiful in spite (and because) of their weirdness. This resonated with my awkward, adolescent, suburban soul.

Robert met a similar fate to Michael’s when faced with my senior year of high school. It was universally agreed among my peers that he and Morrissey (who I also admired) were whiny crybabies, as was anyone who liked them. Then The Velvet Underground crept in and Lou Reed problematized the landscape with a more assertive, neurotic, New York masculinity that illuminated some of R. Smith's more glaring limitations.

At the end of college, Tom Waits took over. A lonely time for me--I was in the middle of a kind of depressive breakdown about facing the real world and had just broken up with a serious girlfriend because of it. Tom understood my loneliness, and made it hip. Fun, even. He was a drunken psychotherapist who had been there and done that and figured out how to turn the the misery into humor and poetry. I was listening mostly to "Nighthawks at the Diner" in those days-- the most brilliant of his early albums In which he slurs and improvises his way through a long, abject evening in one of those rundown joints that, in their pathetic loveableness are an externalized version of his own battered, wet-dog soul.

I see these men lined up in an evolutionary array, romantics at different life stages, increasingly weird and uncategorizable as life becomes more complex and ambivalent. You could unpack it further: Michael stuck in early adolescence, growing over time more twisted than beautiful because of his inability to adapt to adulthood. Robert stuck at maybe age 16, still spiritually living with his mom. Tom, who in real life quit drinking 20 years ago, does yoga, is happily married and has a son who plays drums on his records, the healthiest, most adaptable, most mature of all. And man...that voice.

Tom was my last real hero. After him came creative/intellectual crushes on David Foster Wallace, Elliott Smith, and others but no more illusions that I ever would or should be anyone other than my own hybrid self, whatever that might be or become.

Your heroes don't ever fully vanish. You hack them into pieces and absorb their better qualities (along with some of the bad ones, maybe -- thanks a lot for the Bushmills, Tom). You're Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, shuffling down the yellow brick road wearing Michael's one glove, Robert's art-fro, and Tom's steampunk goggles. Talismans of power turned dusty old knick-knacks that you can't quite bear to throw away.

Real adulthood, if it comes, comes when you know that you don't need "the glove" anymore. That it was only ever rhinestones, anyway, and you can moonwalk just fine without it.

 

 

An Open Mind Resists the Tyranny of Ideas

by DSN Editors

José Martí (1853-1895) is a Cuban national hero and an important figure in Latin American literary history. In his short life, he was a poet, an essayist, a journalist, a revolutionary philosopher, a translator, a professor, a publisher, and a political theorist. Through his writings and political activity, he became a symbol for Cuba's bid for independence against Spain in the 19th century, and is referred to as the "Apostle of Cuban Independence." His death was used as a cry for Cuban independence from Spain by both the Cuban revolutionaries and those Cubans previously reluctant to start a revolt.

"A knowledge of different literatures is the best way to free one's self from the tyranny of any of them."

 

Men Think They Can STEM, Therefore They Can

by Monica Joshi

For a while now, or at least in the past few years, more and more women have been trying their best to overcome any and all obstacles to enter the world of STEM. University programs, scholarships, and organizations have all tried their hardest to create an environment where girls and women can feel welcome and embrace STEM. Simply because there are still more men who pursue careers in science and engineering, does not mean that they are actually better at math than women are. The key is that men simply think that they are much better at math than they really are.

'You become what you think you are' is not completely untrue, at least in this case. Even though women tend to accurately estimate their mathematical competency, they outperform their male counterparts on mathematical tests in elementary school. According to Shane Bench's new study from Washington State University, people's biases and previous experiences about their mathematical abilities make them more or less likely to consider stepping into STEM-related courses and careers.

Bench's study, now published in Springer's journal Sex Roles, made use of two studies – one had 122 undergraduate students and the other 184 as participants. Each group first completed a math test before guessing how well they had done. In the first study, participants received feedback about their real test scores before they were asked to take the test again and predict their scores.

In the second study, by contrast, participants only wrote one test without receiving any feedback whatsoever. However, they were asked to report the likelihood that they would pursue math-related courses and careers.

On the findings, Bench reported that:

“Gender gaps in the science, technology, engineering and maths fields are not necessarily the result of women’s underestimating their abilities, but rather may be due to men’s overestimating their abilities.”

The conclusion of the two studies found that men overestimated the number of problems that they solved while women accurately reported how well they fared on the test. Following the results of the test in Study 1, the men estimated more accurately how well they had done on the second test. The results of Study 2 showed that because the male participants actually believed that they had a greater knack for maths than was actually true, they were more likely to pursue math-related careers and courses.

Since his team also found that women who had more positive past experiences with math tended to rate their numerical abilities higher than they really were, it is of note that positively reinforcing a woman's knack for mathematics, especially at a young age, could be valuable.

“Despite assumptions that realism and objectivity are always best in evaluating the self and making decisions, positive illusions about math abilities may be beneficial to women pursuing math courses and careers. Such positive illusions could function to protect women’s self-esteem despite lower-than-desired performance, leading women to continue to pursue courses in science, technology, engineering and maths fields and ultimately improve their skills.”

There is a sizeable gap between the number of men and women who choose to study and follow careers in the so-called STEM fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics in the U.S. This study could be key in creating or designing programs for elementary school students to encourage them to see the world of mathematics in a positive light.

 

We Don't Look How We Think We Look

by Monica Joshi

Pictures are worth a thousand words. Sometimes, they are worth Photoshop and blatant lies about how good you look when you actually don't look that good. Yeah, that smudge on your face that you wanted so badly to Photoshop out, it might just make you unique, i.e. you. According to a new study from the UNSW in Australia, we are so poor at picking good likenesses of our face, that even strangers can make better selections.

This is just one of the findings of a study by Dr. David White and colleagues published on Wednesday 24 June 2015, in the British Journal of Psychology. The study was supported by Australian Research Council grants and funding from the Australian Passport Office.

With regards to strangers picking better likeness photos, White said that:

“In face-to-face encounters with unfamiliar people, it is often necessary to verify that we are who we claim to be. For example, we are asked to prove our identity when processing financial transactions and crossing borders. In these and many other commonplace situations, photo ID is the most common method for identity verification. However, despite the clear importance of this visual task, previous research has shown that we are quite poor when matching photos of unfamiliar faces.”

In the first part of the study, a group of over 130 undergraduate students downloaded 10 suitable photos of themselves from Facebook. They then ranked them in order of the best to worst likeness. These participants took part in a minute-long webcam video of their face, and two still photos were also taken. In one, they were smiling, and in the other, they had a neutral expression.

In the second part of the study, sixteen participants who did not know the students watched the webcam videos. They were then asked to rank the Facebook photos in order of resemblance to the person they had seen in the video. In the final part of the study, another 73 participants were then recruited to complete an online face-matching test.

Results of the study showed that the unfamiliar participants chose a different set of ‘good likeness’ images compared to those that people had selected of themselves. Surprisingly, the images selected by strangers led to better performance on the online face-matching test. The size of the advantage in other-selection over self-selection was considerably great. The self-selected images were matched seven per cent less accurately compared to other-selected images.

With regards to expressions in photographs, such as smiling or frowning, White said:

“Interestingly we also noted there were better results when people were smiling in the photos. It is interesting that current passport guidelines prohibit smiling in photographs because this ‘distorts the normal facial features’. Given that faces are generally pictured smiling, and these images are rated as being more like familiar faces, it may be beneficial to permit expression in passport photographs.”

These results might help explain why we, especially 20-somethings, sometimes get carded and fail the identity test based on our IDs, as we select which photos are used in passports or other government-issued pieces of I.D. It might also be interesting to see this research used in criminology, to detect whether persons who look similar can get away with identity theft.

 

On Turning 40: Aging in America

by Derek Beres

While in college a general maxim regarding literature made the rounds: writers don’t hit their stride until forty. Now, when you’re a teenager such a sentiment is impossible—you already have a firm grasp on the world, ready to contribute book after book to the canon. 

I reflected on this notion as I turned forty last Thursday. Good writing can occur at any age, of course, but I must admit, there’s something about having lived two full generations that offers perspective. You experience cycles, you witness changes, some of which you’re open to, others appearing ineffectual from the outset. You watch your kids (or in my case my friends’ kids) become adults, preparing (or not) to usher in another generation. 

I’ve long respected old age, even if at times it seems to be rushing at you a little too quickly. Having studied religious traditions for over two decades, a common theme pervades numerous cultures: pay attention to your elders. Sadly, that’s something we see little of here in America. 

Instead of a spirituality that reveres the wisdom of aging, we’ve created a religiosity around eternal youth. Doctors nip and tuck and suck whatever hints at decay. The irony: toxins are injected into our skin to invoke youth. We use what kills to make us appear the opposite, refusing the inevitable slide toward death. 

And at root it is death that frightens us most. In the great Indian epic, The Mahabharata, the Lord of Death, Yama, asks his son what the most wondrous thing in the world is. Yudhisthira replies,

The most wondrous things in the world is that all around us people can be dying and we don’t believe it can happen to us.

That segment is quoted in the philosopher Evan Thompson’s magnificent tome on consciousness, Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation and Philosophy. While the bulk of the book discusses the role of sleep in our conscious lives (and how layers of consciousness construct identity), he spends a chapter on the subject of death.

Thompson’s book escapes the prevalent dogma on issues of consciousness, walking a razor’s edge between overanalyzing the brain’s hardware and reveling in the winsome abstractions of metaphor. While he’s honest with neuroscientific evidence, he recognizes the perils of relying too much on hard data. 

That’s because death can only be discussed by analogy, considering we have no other way of describing it. While Thompson finds that we’ve made amazing advances in medicine extending human aging to undreamed proportions, he recognizes pitfalls as well:

Biomedicine hides the inner experience of dying and the existential meaning of death.

Death is cultural, as is aging. While something all humans experience, how we deal with both varies widely. Entire spiritual practices are devoted to contemplating and preparing for death. What these disciplines suggest is living more clearly and thoughtfully, an idea lost in the futile marketing of ‘anti-aging’ creams and longevity pills. 

As a yoga instructor I witness the difference between ease and desperation on a daily basis, the discrepancies between exercising for health and happiness and bodily ‘enhancements’ that offer the world an illusion masquerading as strength and poise. One’s character is not so much defined by how much weight they throw around as much as in the quiet moments—long stretches, meditation, pranayama. Those comfortable in their skin settle into the postures, while those continually seeking the next thing fidget the entire time, often leaving when left alone with their thoughts.

Our bodies and brains are two-way streets in the same district. If we’re screaming on the outside for recognition and acceptance, you can only imagine what’s firing up top. And so we live one step removed from the life in front of us, always craving something else, an upgrade, always thinking about what to fix because everything feels so damn broken.

Contemplating death, understanding the transience of nature, eases this existential suffering, which concurrently helps us accept the body we inhabit. When life is lived in the present moment there is no fear or awareness of death. Every step of the process becomes something to be enjoyed and learned from, not the tragedy of transience. 

Our literature reflects this as well. Consider two of our most popular formats: self-help and memoirs. A culture of constant fixing; a culture of constant chattering. More importantly, a culture of constant ME: wanting to fix myself, wanting to talk about myself—the desire to be continually acknowledged. 

Yet death takes us all, as does its harbinger, aging. A number of my friends wrote on my birthday: welcome to the best decade. Now I’m guessing when I turn fifty they’ll say the same thing, and I’ll again smile and laugh as this is the right attitude to take: we’re slowing down, sure, but what we’ve lost in youth we’ve gained in wisdom.

This quote by Samuel Beckett has been with me since those college days half a life ago. It’s one that I turn to when I seem a little sluggish—a reminder of the beauty of transience, what we really gain when we think we’re losing so much.

Perhaps my best years are gone. When there was a chance of happiness. But I wouldn’t want them back. Not with the fire in me now. No, I wouldn’t want them back.

Image: Evgeny Atamanenko / shutterstock.com

MONOGAMY/SEXUAL OPPORTUNISM (feat: Henry Rollins) – Think Again Podcast, ep. 2

by Jason Gots

   

"Adulthood is trippy. . . . if you're not careful you can become somewhat damaged.  You can become cynical. . . ."

Is monogamy ridiculous? Does this change with age? What do we really want out of love and sex? 

In this week's episode of DSN's Think Again podcast, we're joined by legendary hardcore musician and spoken word artist Henry Rollins.

Listen to THINK AGAIN, EPISODE 2 - MONOGAMY/SEXUAL OPPORTUNISM (feat: Henry Rollins)

Other ways to listen: 

HELP! I have no idea what a podcast is or how to get one.

Think of a podcast as a radio show you can get on the internet, so you can listen any time you want.  You have two options: you can listen through a website (this is called streaming). Or, you can download a podcast, which means you're saving it on your phone, or tablet, or computer, and you can listen to it anytime, even without an internet connection.

To Stream: Go to a website, like http://ift.tt/1Iqpn12, and click the play button.

To Download: Get it delivered to your phone or tablet each week using an app.

For iPhones and iPads, use the Podcasts app. You get it from the App Store (it actually comes installed on newer devices). In the Podcasts app you search for Serial and then hit subscribe.

For Android phones and tablets, try the Stitcher app. Get that from Google Play. In Stitcher, search for Serial and click the plus sign (+), to add it to your Favorites List. Now go to the Favorites List.  Tell it to download new episodes by clicking the gear in the upper right corner.

Have fun!

--

About Think Again - A DSN Podcast: If you've got 10 minutes with Einstein, what do you talk about? Black holes? Time travel? Why not gambling? The Art of War? Contemporary parenting? Some of the best conversations happen when we're pushed outside of our comfort zones. Each week on Think Again, we surprise smart people you've probably heard of with handpicked gems from DSN's interview archives on every imaginable subject. These conversations could, and do, go just about anywhere.

Procrastination Is a Strong Emotional Coping Mechanism

by Orion Jones

Procrastination is more than simply spending time on Facebook before starting your work duties. At a foundational, psychological level, putting off your responsibilities for what seems like innocent short-term pleasure is a powerful emotional coping mechanism, says Dr. Tim Pychyl, professor of psychology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada.

"Psychologists see procrastination as a misplaced coping mechanism, as an emotion-focused coping strategy. [People who procrastinate are] using avoidance to cope with emotions, and many of them are non-conscious emotions. So we see it as giving in to feel good. And it’s related to a lack of self-regulation skills. ...we all have a six-year-old running the ship. And the six-year-old is saying, "I don't want to! I don't feel like it!""

The same mental processes that keep us from from smaller duties—washing dishes after we finish eating or saving emails when we could respond to them now—also delay long-term goals like saving for retirement or beginning to eat a healthier diet. It's estimated that five percent of Americans procrastinate in ways that seriously affects their quality of life.

We all want to beat procrastination but feel we have a limited amount of willpower to do so. DSN expert Dan Ariely recommends rewarding yourself after you complete specific tasks:

Procrastination happens when we put our present self ahead of our future self, prioritizing immediate pleasure over expected long-term gain. Ultimately, overcoming procrastination may require confronting yourself and specifying your future goals. (Do you really like your job? Could you push yourself to do something better?).

Pychyl also recommends breaking tasks down into smaller parts and then beginning work on one or two of those parts a little earlier than you normally would. Beating procrastination also requires intention, so formulate "if/then" statements in your mind like "if the phone rings, I'm not going to answer." 

Read more at Vox

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Decline in Memory and Thinking Tests Can Signal Alzheimer's Up to 18 Years Pior

by Natalie Shoemaker

Alzheimer's disease is something most of us would rather not think about—our memories and our identity slowly slipping as we age. But recent breakthroughs have shown significant hope, making diagnosis and early detection possible in the future. One past study showed a causal link between poor sleep and the disease later on in life. A new study suggests that errors in memory and thinking tests could be a red flag for Alzheimer's up to 18 years in advance.

Kumar B. Rajan, from the Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, led the study, which has been published in the journal Neurology.

He said in a press release that his findings suggest:

"The changes in thinking and memory that precede obvious symptoms of Alzheimer's disease begin decades before. While we cannot currently detect such changes in individuals at risk, we were able to observe them among a group of individuals who eventually developed dementia due to Alzheimer's."

The study consisted of 2,125 participants with an average age of 73—all without Alzheimer's disease when the study began. For the next 18 years, every three years, the participants were given an exam, which tested their memory and thinking. The researcher reported that a total of “442 (21%) developed clinical [Alzheimer's disease] dementia over 18 years of follow-up.”

Over the course of the study, the researcher found “[p]erformance on individual cognitive tests of episodic memory, executive function, and global cognition ... significantly predicted the development of [Alzheimer's] dementia, with associations exhibiting a similar trend over 18 years.” Their study shows substantial evidence that the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease may manifest substantially earlier than previously thought.

Rajan said:

"A general current concept is that in development of Alzheimer's disease, certain physical and biologic changes precede memory and thinking impairment. If this is so, then these underlying processes may have a very long duration. Efforts to successfully prevent the disease may well require a better understanding of these processes near middle age."

Read more about the study at Science Daily.

Photo Credit: AFP/ Getty Images

What Would It Take to Build a Jurassic World?

by Natalie Shoemaker

Paleontologist and geologist Anthony Martin looks at movies, like Jurassic World, and can't help but wonder: “where are the dung beetles?” This insect would be one of the many pieces ecological necessities in order for a dinosaur to live. 

In his article for The Conversation, he writes:

“Accomplishing this goal would require a huge team of scientists, consisting (at minimum) of paleontologists, geologists, ecologists, botanists, zoologists, soil scientists, biochemists and microbiologists.”

It looks like Masrani corporation has a few more positions to add to its career page.

One key issue these kind of scientists could solve was touched upon quite smartly in the first Jurassic Park film with the ill Triceratops. Recall how Paleobotanist Dr. Ellie Sattler looks through the dinosaur's feces in order to determine whether or not it had digested a toxic plant. Martin points out that this is a great nod to the evolutionary complications of having millions of years-old herbivores eat modern plants. They have evolved over the years to defend themselves against certain plant-eaters. The same issue could be said for the meat eaters.

On this point Martin notes:

“So despite a century of dinosaur flicks portraying tyrannosaurs and other predatory dinosaurs gratuitously munching humans, one bite of our species – or other sizable mammals – might make them sick.”

Indeed, we humans may have a War of the Worlds' effect on people-munching raptors.

What's interesting about this fanciful discussion of recovering and recreating an ecosystem is that scientists are doing it today. It's often referred to as “rewilding” projects, where scientists try to “restore ecosystems by closely mimicking their previous iterations, often include reintroducing locally extinct animals.”

Some of the most notable ones include reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone National Park, after they were driven from the land in the early 1900s. This lack of a predatory presence caused the elk population to spike causing “erosion and expanded floodplains.”

The dung beetles for the dinosaurs would help remove the dinosaurs' waste, as Martin writes “wastes, bodies and other forms of stored matter and energy must be recycled in functioning modern ecosystems.”

Read more at The Conversation.

Photo Credit: Ian Gavan/Getty Images

Owners Refuse to Face Their Cats' Kill Count

by Natalie Shoemaker

Regardless of the world's collective fondness of cats and the videos in which they star, they are ruthless killing machines. Don't believe me? The numbers don't lie.

Jenni McDonald from University of Exeter's Penryn Campus in Cornwall and her team of researchers estimate that the number of animals killed  at the hands of cats are in the millions, which is why there are proposals suggesting owners should keep their cats indoors. Many do not agree that their pets are harming the environment—as if Mittens would ever be capable of such a thing!

The researchers even gathered data on cats from two UK villages, Mawnan Smith in Cornwall and Thornhill, studying 86 cats from 58 households. The team compared predictions of how many animals would be caught by the cats with what they actually brought home. Surveys were also given to owners to assess their thoughts on their pet's predatory behavior.

McDonald found that no matter the number of “gifts” owners would find at their doorsteps, “owners do not accept that cats are a threat to wildlife they refused to agree that their pets were harmful to the local wildlife. The majority of cat owners seemed to be ignorant of how many animals their cat was hunting down and killing.”

Even informing the owners that keeping their cat indoors would be a good precautionary measure to help the local wildlife, they were unwilling to comply.

McDonald concluded:

"If we are to successfully reduce the number of wildlife deaths caused by domestic cats, the study suggests that we should use cat welfare as a method of encouraging cat owners to get involved."

Read more at EurekAlert!

Photo Credit: KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/ Getty Images

Émile Zola: The Buried Truth Won't Stay Buried For Long

by DSN Editors

Émile Zola (1840-1902) was a French writer, the most well-known practitioner of the literary school of naturalism and an important contributor to the development of theatrical naturalism. He was a major figure in the political liberalization of France and in the exoneration of the falsely accused and convicted army officer Alfred Dreyfus, which is encapsulated in the renowned newspaper headline J'accuse. Zola was nominated for the first and second Nobel Prize in Literature in 1901 and 1902.

Zola's words of wisdom below were originally written in support of Dreyfus, but the message within them is universal:

"If you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way."

Speaking of truth (and, almost necessarily, of freedom as well), Chinese artist Ai Weiwei shares his thoughts below on the internet's truth-spilling effect in China:

Scalia's Dissent in the Gay Marriage Ruling is a Dangerous Attack on American Democracy Itself

by David Ropeik

In the middle of the celebration of the Supreme Court decision establishing same gender marriage is a ominous attack on democracy itself from one of the highest constitutionally sworn officers in America, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. His dissent (appended to the full ruling) is a direct call for Americans to abandon their trust in and support for the institution of the Supreme Court and indeed in American democracy itself. Scalia’s message is frightening anti-government rhetoric so harsh and polarizing that it is potentially far more damaging to America than anything in the gay marriage ruling he laments.

Scalia’s dissent says "I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy."  And why does he think that threat exists? Because; 

It is of overwhelming importance…who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.

Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified (in states that passed bans on gay marriage), the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its 'reasoned judgment,' thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.

            In other words, Justice Scalia is unhappy that the Supreme Court gets to make the final call. He is rejecting the very right of the Supreme Court on which he sits to adjudicate disputes where the answer requires interpretation of the Constitution, (which is of course precisely what the Court did when it interpreted the 2^nd amendment to enshrine the personal right to own guns, an opinion Scalia wrote), a role that has proven to be a corner stone of American democracy. Because he is upset by this ruling, Justice Scalia directly rejects the authority of the Court itself.

But he goes further in undermining public trust in the court.

And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation. " 

Outrageously, he calls the ruling “a judicial putsch.” What incendiary rhetoric. The definition of the word putsch, as a man as erudite as Justice Scalia knows is

 a violent attempt to overthrow a government.

Scalia’s language is so harsh and divisively tribal that it could be a tract from a right wing anti-government radical group.

…the Federal Judiciary, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers, is hardly a cross section of America. Take, for example  this court, which consist of only nine men and women, successful lawyers who studied at Harvard of Yale law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count.) Not a single Evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans) or even a Protestant of any denomination. … to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

What a polarizing misinterpretation of the very role of the judiciary as defined by the Constitution Scalia so solemnly invokes. The judiciary was never intended to be the representative part of democracy. Scalia knows that. His ideological anger at today’s decision clouds his reason into saying things that are laughable in a high school civics class.

Scalia charges that

this  practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanies (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, (Scalia’s majority decision interpreting the Constitution’s 2^nnd  amendment right to own guns is laced with the same language he here laments.) robs the People of the most important liberty they asserts in the Declaration of Independence  and won in the Revolution of 1775: the freedom to govern themselves.

 

A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

 

            What an astoundingly, nearly treasonous thing to suggest for a justice of the Supreme Court. Scalia believes issues like gay marriage should be determined by the people, at the state level.

win or lose advocates of both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can later be negated by an electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.

            Well no, Mr. Supreme Court Justice Scalia, that is patently not true. You and your colleagues serve on the very institution American democracy has always relied on to resolve conflicts that arise when the electorate in one state sees things one way and another state’s electorate sees the issue another way, or when a state law tramples on rights covered by the overarching federal law of the Constitution which you so solemnly invoke. Your selective view of which branch of government gets the final say is not just the argument of the side that lost. Coming from a person in your position, such an argument is poisonous, harmful, and breeds mistrust in both the Supreme Court you serve and government itself.

If you have any doubt left that Scalia is proposing that today’s decision should undermine trust in the court, he closes by noting that the Judicial Branch of government has no real power in the Constitution to enforce it’s rulings. The courts power ultimately rests entirely on the public’s acceptance of their role to be our final interpreters of law.

With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a  bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

Far more than today’s decision itself, Justice Scalia’s ideological, angry attack on the very standing of the Supreme Court to make such rulings dramatically moves the court in that direction. His language does America great harm.

 

(image courtesy Wikipedia)