- Posts: 2612
- Thank you received: 0
You might also mention that Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign because of this finding. That is what the story emphasised. It is not PC. So science is not solely fact driven!Rockdoc Franz wrote: Odds and ends indeed, no pun intended. Something I had no clue about is now hot news. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-s ... 53164.html Be sure to read this. It is most interesting information.
What brought about semengate? The following lines, especially the final one.Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).
Presumably it was the closing line that caused the controversy: "So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates."
This concluded from studies that show.There is growing evidence that human semen has the potential to produce profound effects on women. We have replicated the effects showing female college students having sex without condoms are less depressed as measured by objective scores on the Beck Depression Inventory. We've also examined the data as a function of whether the students were using hormonal contraceptives, whether they were in committed relationships, and how long these relationships have lasted. The anti-depressant properties of semen exposure do not vary as function of any of these conditions. It is not a question of whether females are sexually active, since students having sex with condoms show the same level of depression as those who are not having sex at all.
As many of you know there is a growing body of evidence to support this (pun intended)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Imagine an insect repellant that not only is thousands of times more effective than DEET – the active ingredient in most commercial mosquito repellants – but also works against all types of insects, including flies, moths and ants.
That possibility has been created by the discovery of a new class of insect repellant made in the laboratory of Vanderbilt Professor of Biological Sciences and Pharmacology Laurence Zwiebel and reported this week in the online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The discovery of this new class of repellant is based on insights that scientists have gained about the basic nature of the insect's sense of smell in the last few years.
See article for list!The ability to effectively detect deception is crucial to public safety, particularly in the wake of renewed threats against the U.S. following the killing of Osama bin Laden.
UCLA professor of psychology R. Edward Geiselman has been studying these questions for years and has taught investigative interviewing techniques to detectives and intelligence officers from the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Marines, the Los Angeles police and sheriff's departments, and numerous international agencies.
He and three former UCLA undergraduates — Sandra Elmgren, Chris Green and Ida Rystad —analyzed some 60 studies on detecting deception and have conducted original research on the subject. They present their findings and their guidance for how to conduct effective training programs for detecting deception in the current (April) issue of the American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, which is published this week.
Geiselman and his colleagues have identified several indicators that a person is being deceptive. The more reliable red flags that indicate deceit, Geiselman said, include:
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
major bean wrote:
You might also mention that Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign because of this finding. That is what the story emphasised. It is not PC. So science is not solely fact driven!Rockdoc Franz wrote: Odds and ends indeed, no pun intended. Something I had no clue about is now hot news. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-s ... 53164.html Be sure to read this. It is most interesting information.
What brought about semengate? The following lines, especially the final one.Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).
Presumably it was the closing line that caused the controversy: "So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates."
This concluded from studies that show.There is growing evidence that human semen has the potential to produce profound effects on women. We have replicated the effects showing female college students having sex without condoms are less depressed as measured by objective scores on the Beck Depression Inventory. We've also examined the data as a function of whether the students were using hormonal contraceptives, whether they were in committed relationships, and how long these relationships have lasted. The anti-depressant properties of semen exposure do not vary as function of any of these conditions. It is not a question of whether females are sexually active, since students having sex with condoms show the same level of depression as those who are not having sex at all.
As many of you know there is a growing body of evidence to support this (pun intended)
Sort of reminds one of a thread a week or so ago in which a forum member stated as much. And many objected to that statement.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
TPP wrote: Rotating Sunspots Triggered Massive Solar Flare
The most powerful solar flare unleashed from the sun in nearly five years was triggered by interactions between dark regions on the solar surface that rotate and twist the sun's magnetic field, a new study shows.
In addition to the large X-class flare, the same region also released over 40 smaller flares during the five days studied.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20110503/sc_space/rotatingsunspotstriggeredmassivesolarflare
These are just some of the 5+ mag. Earthquakes since the X-class hit us…
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/
Update time = Wed May 11 20:00:05 UTC 2011
MAG UTC DATE-TIMEy/m/d h:m:s DEPTH km Region
5.5 2011/05/11 18:14:36 35.5 OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
5.3 2011/05/11 16:47:26 1.0 SPAIN
5.0 2011/05/11 15:59:11 29.6 TONGA REGION
5.0 2011/05/11 15:21:26 47.7 EASTERN NEW GUINEA REG, PAPUA NEW GUINEA
5.0 2011/05/11 10:39:39 37.2 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.1 2011/05/11 10:32:26 44.9 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.1 2011/05/11 09:21:37 38.7 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.2 2011/05/11 09:16:26 37.9 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.7 2011/05/11 08:19:39 45.6 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.1 2011/05/11 07:54:31 99.2 HALMAHERA, INDONESIA
5.3 2011/05/11 06:11:28 42.6 EAST OF THE NORTH ISLAND, NEW ZEALAND
5.0 2011/05/11 01:28:08 104.8 MINDANAO, PHILIPPINES
5.6 2011/05/11 01:20:08 25.1 OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
5.2 2011/05/10 19:31:51 52.9 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.0 2011/05/10 16:45:45 10.0 CENTRAL EAST PACIFIC RISE
5.4 2011/05/10 15:26:05 544.3 JILIN-HEILONGJIANG BORDER REGION, CHINA
5.0 2011/05/10 15:10:03 35.0 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.0 2011/05/10 15:05:22 10.0 CENTRAL EAST PACIFIC RISE
5.1 2011/05/10 14:53:35 42.7 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.1 2011/05/10 14:32:36 41.7 MOLUCCA SEA
5.3 2011/05/10 14:07:49 39.5 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.0 2011/05/10 13:03:03 92.5 SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS REGION
5.0 2011/05/10 12:07:37 20.5 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.3 2011/05/10 12:00:32 21.7 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.2 2011/05/10 11:31:48 20.4 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.5 2011/05/10 10:44:12 35.4 LOYALTY ISLANDS
5.2 2011/05/10 10:14:42 24.9 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
6.8 2011/05/10 08:55:10 14.9 LOYALTY ISLANDS
________________________________________
Connection? Maybe, why the fast melting of the snow, causing the floods down the Mississippi? Not man-made sorry.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Nice spin. But his research was not flawed. He had to resign because of the pressure from the scientific community who would not accept. They could not accept fact. They bend science to their point of view. Science is not fact, but consensus.Rockdoc Franz wrote:
major bean wrote:
You might also mention that Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign because of this finding. That is what the story emphasised. It is not PC. So science is not solely fact driven!Rockdoc Franz wrote: Odds and ends indeed, no pun intended. Something I had no clue about is now hot news. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-s ... 53164.html Be sure to read this. It is most interesting information.
What brought about semengate? The following lines, especially the final one.Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).
Presumably it was the closing line that caused the controversy: "So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates."
This concluded from studies that show.There is growing evidence that human semen has the potential to produce profound effects on women. We have replicated the effects showing female college students having sex without condoms are less depressed as measured by objective scores on the Beck Depression Inventory. We've also examined the data as a function of whether the students were using hormonal contraceptives, whether they were in committed relationships, and how long these relationships have lasted. The anti-depressant properties of semen exposure do not vary as function of any of these conditions. It is not a question of whether females are sexually active, since students having sex with condoms show the same level of depression as those who are not having sex at all.
As many of you know there is a growing body of evidence to support this (pun intended)
Sort of reminds one of a thread a week or so ago in which a forum member stated as much. And many objected to that statement.
Wrong. NOT FORCED. Chose to resign. Not for his own research findings, but for quoting the works of others and trying to be clever with words. You make it seem that his research was flawed, NOT the case at all. The article was not about him having to resign, but how stupid it was to garner such reaction to one sentence he wrote when a whole body of research by others brought to light the findings he was reviewing. Just another case were PC is the name of the game. Purely asinine is what the world has come to I would say. Even opinions are no longer tolerated with the social police.
Again, you apparently have read what you wanted to read. Dr. Greenfield was writing a review of other's works not his own. Those articles he reviewed and summarized came from refereed journals that require facts. Once again your own wish to portray science as something it is not rears its ugly head through misstatements. If you are going to report, do so accurately.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
major bean wrote:
Nice spin. But his research was not flawed. He had to resign because of the pressure from the scientific community who would not accept. They could not accept fact. They bend science to their point of view. Science is not fact, but consensus.Rockdoc Franz wrote:
major bean wrote:
You might also mention that Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign because of this finding. That is what the story emphasised. It is not PC. So science is not solely fact driven!Rockdoc Franz wrote: Odds and ends indeed, no pun intended. Something I had no clue about is now hot news. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-s ... 53164.html Be sure to read this. It is most interesting information.
What brought about semengate? The following lines, especially the final one.Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).
Presumably it was the closing line that caused the controversy: "So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates."
This concluded from studies that show.There is growing evidence that human semen has the potential to produce profound effects on women. We have replicated the effects showing female college students having sex without condoms are less depressed as measured by objective scores on the Beck Depression Inventory. We've also examined the data as a function of whether the students were using hormonal contraceptives, whether they were in committed relationships, and how long these relationships have lasted. The anti-depressant properties of semen exposure do not vary as function of any of these conditions. It is not a question of whether females are sexually active, since students having sex with condoms show the same level of depression as those who are not having sex at all.
As many of you know there is a growing body of evidence to support this (pun intended)
Sort of reminds one of a thread a week or so ago in which a forum member stated as much. And many objected to that statement.
Wrong. NOT FORCED. Chose to resign. Not for his own research findings, but for quoting the works of others and trying to be clever with words. You make it seem that his research was flawed, NOT the case at all. The article was not about him having to resign, but how stupid it was to garner such reaction to one sentence he wrote when a whole body of research by others brought to light the findings he was reviewing. Just another case were PC is the name of the game. Purely asinine is what the world has come to I would say. Even opinions are no longer tolerated with the social police.
Again, you apparently have read what you wanted to read. Dr. Greenfield was writing a review of other's works not his own. Those articles he reviewed and summarized came from refereed journals that require facts. Once again your own wish to portray science as something it is not rears its ugly head through misstatements. If you are going to report, do so accurately.
So, in light of this, can we accept science as the pure facts and uncorrupted? I think not.
Apparently, you have read into my post what you want it to say. Nice try.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.