Working from home could be ruining your sleep. This light therapy lamp can help.
Light therapy might help your natural circadian rhythm and even stave off seasonal depression.
- Night time artificial light has been shown to suppresses melatonin secretion and disrupt our natural circadian rhythm, negatively impacting our sleep.
- Disruptions to our circadian rhythms potentially damage our psychological, metabolic, and cardiovascular functions.
- The Aura Daylight Lamp can help restore your natural circadian rhythm.
Before the invention of artificial lighting, humans went to bed and woke up to the rhythm of the sun. While the benefits of the Industrial Age are numerous, our sleep patterns have been severely disrupted over the last two centuries. The technological age, with its flood of screens and distractions, has not made things better in that regard.
For those of us chasing a better night's sleep, though, there is hope.
The Aura Daylight Lamp is a light therapy tool invented by scientists and medical professionals to help restore your natural circadian rhythm and combat symptoms of Seasonal Affective Disorder. Many of us spend our lives indoors, shielded from the health effects of natural lighting. The 10,000 lux of bright light this lamp emits helps us beat the winter blues, circadian sleep disorders, work shift adjustment (like working from home!), daytime energy shifts, and even jet lag. The automatic timer is adjustable in 10-minute shifts so that you can control the amount of lighting you need.
There's a reason the Aura Daylight Lamp has a 4.4-star rating on Amazon. Pick one up today for only $94.99 and brighten your day.
Prices subject to change.
When you buy something through a link in this article or from our shop, Big Think earns a small commission. Thank you for supporting our team's work.
More From Big Think
Related Articles
Liberal and Conservative brains react to charged words differently
Partisanship can be seen in brain scans now.
October 23, 2020
Mind & Brain
- A new study shows brain activity differs between liberals and conservatives when they watch political videos.
- Brain activity differed between partisans when words tied to emotions, morality, or threats were used.
- The findings could help us understand how partisans process information, perhaps leading to new ways to bridging the divide.
<p> People are somewhat politically polarized these days. While the United States' polarization gets most of the press, increasing polarization is also causing problems in the United Kingdom, Turkey, Poland, Brazil, India, and a variety of other countries around the <a href="https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/01/how-to-understand-global-spread-of-political-polarization-pub-79893" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">world</a>. Attempts to understand why this is are endless, with hypotheses being offered from various schools of sociology, political science, and philosophy. <br> <br> Recently, scientists investigating partisanship have peered into the neurological basis for our partisan alignments, <a href="https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/non-partisan-brain" target="_self">if any</a>. Their discoveries suggest that partisans' brains may process information differently than those of non-partisans or the partisans of another group. </p><p>Adding evidence to this way of thinking is a new <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/10/19/2008530117" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">study</a> out of UC Berkely, which finds that liberals and conservatives' brains react vary differently to political trigger words. </p>
Oh, a study on how the brains of people on the left and right are different! This shouldn't be controversial at all.
<p> The <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/10/19/2008530117" target="_blank">study</a>, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, compared the stated political opinions of three dozen test subjects to their brain wave patterns while they watched videos about immigration policy. <br> <br> The researchers, led by <a href="https://ycleong.github.io/" target="_blank">Dr. Yuan Chang Leong</a>, determined the participants' ideologies by asking them how much they agreed or disagreed with proposed legislation. Each response was given a score, with lower values attached to stances considered liberal in the United States. </p><p>One such question was, "Would you support legislation that funds a wall along the US-Mexico border to reduce illegal immigration?" Those strongly agreeing were given a high score while those strongly disagreeing got a low score. The scores earned over six questions were used to place the participants on a scale from left to right. The questions had previously been tested on 300 people who identified as liberals, conservatives, or centrists to assure their accuracy. <br> <br> The test subjects then watched the previously mentioned videos.<br></p><p> While the parts of the brain dedicated to collecting sensory information reacted similarly for all of the test subjects, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorsomedial_prefrontal_cortex" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dorsomedial prefrontal cortex</a>, a part of the prefrontal cortex that deals with matters of identity, narratives, and morality, of liberals and conservatives reacted at different times. </p><p>Using an fMRI, the researchers saw that neural responses differed between liberals and conservatives as the videos' messages changed. More specifically, the brain's activity was stimulated by its response to messages concerning morality, emotions, or threats. The reactions to these terms were the points of greatest divergence. </p><p>A morality based message might be something like, "What are the fundamental ethical principles that are the basis of our society? Do no harm, and be compassionate, and this federal policy violates both of these principles." A threat-based statement might resemble, "I think it's very dangerous, because what we want is cooperation amongst the cities and the federal government to ensure that we have safety in our communities, and to ensure that our citizens are protected."<br> <br> Participants were asked to rate how much they agreed with each video and how likely it was to make them change their mind on anything after watching them. Curiously, the closer the subject's brain activity was to that of the "average" liberal or conservative of the study, the more likely they were to report that a video supporting those policies could make them change their <a href="https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/10/20/hot-button-words-trigger-conservatives-and-liberals-differently/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">mind</a>. </p>What does this all mean?
<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hg6XUYWj-pk" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> Dr. Leong summarized the findings by <a href="https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/10/20/hot-button-words-trigger-conservatives-and-liberals-differently/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">saying</a>:<br> <br> "Our study suggests that there is a neural basis to partisan biases, and some language especially drives polarization. In particular, the greatest differences in neural activity across ideology occurred when people heard messages that highlight threat, morality and emotions."</p><p>This study suggests that partisanship impacts how our brains process specific terms and that political messaging relying on threat-based or ethics-based language cause partisans to interpret the message in very different ways. This processing also means that people with similar brains to other partisans are likely to be convinced by similar messages. <br><strong></strong></p><p><strong> </strong>The location of the differences in brain function, in the later, higher-level processing department of the brain rather than in the earlier, sensory detecting department, implies that polarization does not affect sensory processing. Additionally, the results do not imply that these effects are hardwired in our brains. </p>How does it interact with what we already know?
<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3RsCp-sVl20" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> These findings can be added to the list of studies that show that our political alignments might have something to do with how our brains process information. Non-partisans, often suggested to not be a real group of people, have measurably different brain activity than <a href="https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/non-partisan-brain" target="_self">partisans</a>. Brain scans show Democrats and Republicans used different parts of their brains when playing a gambling <a href="https://www.livescience.com/27213-brain-scans-predict-political-party.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">game</a>. <br></p><p>Dr. Leong hopes to use this information to build better models of how the brain processes political information. Perhaps someday, these models can help us understand how to talk to each other without using these trigger words. <br> </p><p>Politics is becoming increasingly polarized in several countries all around the world. The causes for it are still up for debate, and ways to help narrow the gaps between people are still being investigated. An increasing number of studies suggest that some of it comes down to how our brains function. </p><p> While the idea of polarization being tied to how our brains work probably won't come as a comfort to most people, the ability to identify precisely what is happening when people have polarized reactions is a step forward, as it offers a chance to understand what the other side is doing when we disagree. Perhaps someday soon, this will translate to better ways to reach across the aisle and more productive conversations informed by neuroscience. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
Coffee and Green Tea may lower death risk for some adults.
Tea and coffee have known health benefits, but now we know they can work together.
October 23, 2020
Photo by NIKOLAY OSMACHKO from Pexels
- A new study finds drinking large amounts of coffee and tea lowers the risk of death in some adults by nearly two thirds.
- This is the first study to suggest the known benefits of these drinks are additive.
- The findings are great, but only directly apply to certain people.
<p> Coffee and tea are two of the most consumed beverages on the planet. Coffee is the second most traded commodity in the world. They are both enjoyed by billions of people for various reasons, and an increasing number of studies suggest they are good for you. <br> <br> Recently, another study attesting to the health benefits of these drinks was published in Japan. A several-year review of the health and dietary habits of nearly 5000 type two diabetics shows that those who drink more coffee and tea can enjoy a dramatically reduced death rate. </p>
Maybe you should enjoy this article with a cup of coffee or tea.
<p> The <a href="https://drc.bmj.com/content/8/1/e001252?T=AU" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study</a> involved 4923 type two diabetics living in Japan. The average participant was 66 years old. All of the participants were taken from the rolls of the Fukuoka Diabetes Registry, a study geared at learning about the effects of new treatments and lifestyle changes on the health of diabetics. <br> <br> The participants filled out questionnaires concerning their health, diet, habits, and other factors. Among the questions were two focused on determining how much green tea or coffee, if any, the participants consumed over the course of a week. The health of the participants was recorded for five years. During this time, 309 of the test subjects died from a variety of causes. <br> <br> Subjects who drank more than one cup of tea or coffee per day demonstrated lower odds of dying than those who had none. Those who consumed the most tea and coffee, more than four and two cups a day, respectively, enjoyed the most significant reductions in their risk of death. This level of consumption was associated with a 40% lower risk of <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201020190129.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">death</a>. </p><p>Most interestingly, the effects of drinking tea and coffee appear to combine to reduce risk even further. Those who reported drinking two or three cups of tea a day and two or more cups of coffee were 51% less likely to die during the study, while those who drank a whopping four or more cups of tea and two or more cups of coffee had a 63% lower risk of <a href="https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/diabetes-coffee-and-green-tea-might-reduce-death-risk" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">death</a>. </p>So, should I start swimming in a vat of coffee and green tea all the time?
<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LY0E-JQxeoY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> Not quite. </p><p> The primary takeaway from this study this "Japanese adults with type two diabetes who drink a lot of green tea and/or coffee die less often than similar people who do not." If this effect is caused by something in the drink, lifestyle choices people who drink that much tea all make, or something else remains unknown. The finding must be considered an association at this point. <br> <br> The eye-popping reductions in mortality rates are compared to the risk of death of others in the study. The people who died reported drinking less tea and coffee than those who lived. Unless you have several demographic and conditional similarities to the subjects of this study, you probably won't suddenly be at a two-thirds lower risk of death than your peers because you drink green tea. </p><p> Like all studies that depend on self-reporting, it is also possible that people misstated how much they consumed any one item. The study also did not look into other factors, like socioeconomic status or education level, also known to impact death rates and potentially linked to coffee and tea consumption. </p><p> However, it is yet another study in the pile that suggests that <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/top-13-evidence-based-health-benefits-of-coffee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">coffee</a> and <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/top-10-evidence-based-health-benefits-of-green-tea" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">green tea</a> are good for you. That much is increasingly <a href="https://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/health-benefits-linked-to-drinking-tea" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">agreed</a><a href="https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/discover-health/health-benefits-coffee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> upon</a>. This study also suggests the benefits are additive, a new development.</p><p><br> So, while it isn't time to start the IV drip of green tea, a cup or two probably won't <a href="https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20201022/coffee-green-tea-might-extend-life-for-folks-with-type-2-diabetes" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">hurt</a>. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
'Magic square' math puzzle has gone unsolved since 1996
Think you can solve it? One mathematician has already offered about $1,000 and a bottle of champagne to whoever cracks it first.
October 23, 2020
pxfuel.com
Mind & Brain
- The puzzle involves a particularly complicated type of magic square.
- Magic squares are square arrays containing distinct numbers, and the sums of the numbers in the columns, rows and diagonals must be equal.
- In 1996, the recreational mathematics writer Martin Gardner offered $100 to whoever could solve a 3x3 magic square — but using squared numbers.
<p>Magic squares have fascinated mathematicians for thousands of years, with the earliest known example dating back to 2,800 B.C.E., in China. The idea behind magic squares is simple, though the puzzles can get mind-numbingly complex. </p><p>First, take a square array — say, a 3x3 grid divided into 9 squares — and put a unique number in each square. But you must arrange the numbers such that the sums of the numbers in each row, column and diagonal add up to the same number.</p><p>Here's an example of a partially completed magic square. Try to figure out which numbers you'd need to put in the blank spaces in order to complete it.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDU2OTE3MS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NTcyMzU1MH0.2GZvpCd48lGd7MhM3EV5ZMYapqQ8t4TP3Qt1UvL7aY0/img.png?width=980" id="a5e7d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6df9406cc0bffdba0c3cbe7a7a13aa08" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Magic square" />
docdroid.net
<p>Given that you need each column, row and diagonal to add up to 15, you'd need to fill in the empty squares with a 9, 7 and 8. </p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDU2OTE0My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxOTE0MDgxNX0.gOWV0gMO6j46vbP3dP0FXVulmN8RaO1APbrP-WOApUc/img.png?width=980" id="387e5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="cd63cb380fe5fd654c144f5f76acc6bf" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Magic square" />
docdroid.net
<p>That may be easy enough. But magic squares become far more difficult when they use squared numbers, a concept <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-you-solve-a-puzzle-unsolved-since-1996/" target="_blank">first exemplified</a> by the 18th-century mathematician Leonhard Euler. </p><p>Since, mathematicians have generated various configurations of 4x4 magic squares of squares, including 5x5, 6x6 and 7x7 versions. But nobody has yet proven that a 3x3 magic square of squares is possible — or impossible, for that matter.</p><p>To date, there have been at least two prizes offered to whoever can solve this longstanding puzzle. Martin Gardner, a science and mathematics writer who was perhaps best known for devising recreational mathematics games that appeared for 25 years in a column published by <em>Scientific American,</em> offered a prize of $100 in 1996 to whoever could crack the code first. </p><ul> <p>"So far no one has come forward with a "square of squares"—but no one has proved its impossibility either," Gardner wrote in 1998 in <em><a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/a-quarter-century-of-recreational-m-2010-05-26/" target="_blank">Scientific American</a></em>. "If it exists, its numbers would be huge, perhaps beyond the reach of today's fastest supercomputers."</p></ul><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDU2OTUwNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNDg1NTIzNn0.2PKg6gfIcZ95Za_Hu5KBizAHUxl4XN4EeDtJ6fn0Mbs/img.jpg?width=980" id="4a499" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f047b379cb717e07be6825c943291f41" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Magic square" />
Melancholia I. (A 4x4 magic square is depicted in the top right of the painting.)
Dürer's
<p>In 2005, the mathematician Christian Boyer raised the stakes by offering €1,000 plus a bottle of champagne to anyone who could complete a 3x3 magic square of squares — using seven, eight or nine distinct squared integers. (Boyer also offered a prize for anyone who can show the puzzle is impossible, and he lists smaller prizes for other unsolved puzzles on his <a href="http://multimagie.com/indexengl.htm" target="_blank">website</a>.)</p><p>While both prizes remain unclaimed, some people have come close to solving the 3x3 magic square of squares, like this configuration listed on Christian Boyer's website.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDU2OTQyMy9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MTE5MjE5MX0.suDZaYHIwK2iC2OhVXTTmZBNRJ7wCdfNKhoPKh3UZJE/img.png?width=980" id="9d5f2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c376674c5d6daa3f5520d822c5cd05ad" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Magic square" /><p>To those unfamiliar with high-level mathematics, it may come as a surprise that there's no shortage of well-known unsolved math problems, from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inscribed_square_problem" title="Inscribed square problem" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">inscribed square problem</a> in Euclidean geometry, to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombieri%E2%80%93Lang_conjecture" title="Bombieri–Lang conjecture" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bombieri–Lang conjecture</a> in algebra. Solving some of the these puzzles could lead to useful applications in the real world. But cracking the magic square of squares problem? Not so much. </p><p>Still, that's unlikely to deter mathematicians from seeking solutions.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Such a magic square would probably not have any practical use," Gardner wrote in <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/a-quarter-century-of-recreational-m-2010-05-26/" target="_blank">Scientific American</a>. "Why then are mathematicians trying to find it? Because it might be there."</p><p>Not to mention the champagne.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Big think's weekly newsletter.
Get smarter faster from the comfort of your inbox.
See our newsletter privacy policy here
Most Popular
Most Recent
Big think's weekly newsletter.
Get smarter faster from the comfort of your inbox.
See our newsletter privacy policy here
© Copyright 2007-2020 & BIG THINK, BIG THINK EDGE,
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by Freethink Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by Freethink Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
