Big ideas.
Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced a number of new behaviours into daily routines, like physical distancing, mask-wearing and hand sanitizing. Meanwhile, many old behaviours such as attending events, eating out and seeing friends have been put on hold.
<p>However, one old behaviour that has persisted, and <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.pcad.2020.04.005" target="_blank">has arguably been amplified due to COVID-19, is sitting</a> — and it is not surprising to see why. Whether sitting during transportation, work, screen time or even meals, everyday environments and activities are tailored nearly exclusively to prolonged sitting. As such, sedentary behaviours, like sitting, make up the vast majority of our waking day. </p><p>Pre-COVID-19 estimates place the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-00925-8" target="_blank">average Canadian adult's sedentary behaviour at around 9.5 hours per day</a>. Current daily sedentary time is likely even higher as a result of stay-at-home orders, limitations on businesses and recreational facilities, and <a href="https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200527/dq200527b-eng.htm" target="_blank">elevated health anxieties</a>. </p><h2>Health vs. well-being</h2><p>This is a problem, given that chronic excessive levels of sedentary time have been linked to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105620" target="_blank">greater risk of diabetes, heart disease, mortality and even some cancers</a>. However, for many people, their own judgments and feelings about their quality of life (also known as <a href="https://dictionary.apa.org/subjective-well-being" target="_blank">subjective well-being</a>) may be more important and relevant for informing their health decisions and behaviours than potentially developing chronic diseases.</p><p>Subjective well-being encompasses <a href="https://nobaproject.com/modules/happiness-the-science-of-subjective-well-being" target="_blank">an individual's own evaluation of their quality of life</a>. It includes concepts like <a href="https://dictionary.apa.org/affect" target="_blank">affect</a> (positive and negative feelings) and <a href="https://dictionary.apa.org/life-satisfaction" target="_blank">life satisfaction</a>. Interestingly, these evaluations can conflict with physical health outcomes. For example, a person could have diabetes but still report good subjective well-being, while someone with no physical health conditions may report poor subjective well-being. </p><p>This is important, as it means how an individual feels about their own health may not always align with what their body may demonstrate. That's why evaluating subjective well-being is vital for painting a holistic picture of health. </p><h2>Different contexts of sitting</h2><p>Relatively little research has examined the relationships between sedentary behaviour and subjective well-being. Exploring these relationships is important, as different contexts of sitting — such as socializing versus screen time — may yield different feelings or judgments of subjective well-being, unlike relationships between physical health and sedentary behaviour, which <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094201" target="_blank">tend to be more consistent</a>. </p><p>As health psychologists focused on physical activity and sedentary behaviour, we <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.101920" target="_blank">reviewed the scientific literature</a> describing relationships between measures of sedentary behaviours such as physical inactivity and screen time, and subjective well-being as reflected by affect, life satisfaction and overall subjective well-being. </p><p><a href="https://www.sedentarybehaviour.org/2021/03/04/relationships-between-indices-of-sedentary-behavior-and-hedonic-well-being-a-scoping-review/" target="_blank">Our review</a> highlights three main findings. First, sedentary behaviour, physical inactivity and screen time demonstrated weak but statistically significant correlations with subjective well-being. In other words, those who reported sitting more often and spending longer periods with no physical activity reported lower positive affect, higher negative affect and lower life satisfaction than those who sat less and moved more. </p><p>We also found that this relationship was most apparent in studies that compared people who were very sedentary to those who had more active lifestyles. </p><h2>Not all sitting is bad sitting</h2><p>Our second main finding relates to the context of the sedentary behaviour. While many studies examined overall sedentary behaviour and physical inactivity, some studies looked at specific contexts or domains of sitting and its relationship with subjective well-being. These studies revealed that different domains of sedentary behaviour have unique relationships with subjective well-being. </p><p>For example, screen time was consistently and negatively associated with subjective well-being. However, domains like socializing, playing an instrument and reading actually demonstrated positive associations with subjective well-being. These results differ from the traditional health-related sedentary behaviour research, in which <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094201" target="_blank">all sedentary behaviour is viewed as harmful to health</a>. </p><p>Our review suggests that some types of sedentary behaviour may be beneficial to quality of life. Rather, not all sitting is the same in terms of subjective well-being. So when people work towards reducing their sitting time, they should consider not just how much to reduce, but what kind to reduce.</p><h2>Less sitting is good for everyone</h2><p>Our third main finding concerns overall sitting and self-perceived levels of sedentary behaviour. Most studies found a weak statistically significant association between higher overall sedentary time and lower subjective well-being. However, in studies where participants were asked to compare their sedentary behaviour to how much they normally sit, those who perceived themselves as more sedentary than usual reported significantly poorer subjective well-being.</p><p>These findings suggest that how much an individual sits overall may not be as important as how much an individual sits compared to their usual level of sitting. This infers that anyone, regardless of how much they normally sit or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30370-1" target="_blank">are physically active</a>, may potentially benefit from sitting less.</p><p>COVID-19 continues to influence daily life and routines. Even as businesses and gyms eventually reopen, and we feel more comfortable gathering with others and eventually stop wearing masks, we will almost certainly continue to sit and sitting will continue to change how we feel. While we may not be able to eliminate all of our sitting, we can all be mindful of both how much we can reduce it and where we can reduce it from to be healthier <em>and</em> feel better.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156289/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1"></p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wuyou-sui-1024154" target="_blank">Wuyou Sui</a>, Postdoctoral fellow, Behavioural Medicine Lab, School of Exercise Science, Physical & Health Education, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-victoria-1182" target="_blank">University of Victoria</a></em> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/harry-prapavessis-1115239" target="_blank">Harry Prapavessis</a>, Professor, Kinesiology, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/western-university-882" target="_blank">Western University</a></em></p><p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/too-much-sitting-is-bad-for-you-but-some-types-are-better-than-others-156289" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
VR experiments manipulate how people feel about coffee
A new study looks at how images of coffee's origins affect the perception of its premiumness and quality.
11 April, 2021
Expert drinking coffee while wearing a VR headset.
Credit: Escobar / Petit / Velasco, Frontiers in Psychology
- Images can affect how people perceive the quality of a product.
- In a new study, researchers show using virtual reality that images of farms positively influence the subjects' experience of coffee.
- The results provide insights on the psychology and power of marketing.
<p>Are coffee consumers influenced by the imagery and story around the production of the drink? Such was one of the central questions of a new <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.586983/full" target="_blank">study</a> that explored the power of marketing on how "premium" aficionados consider coffee to be. </p><p>The researchers set out to explore whether the origins of the coffee can affect the perception of its quality in the minds of the drinkers. In particular, they focused on the concept of terroir, the special characteristics conferred upon the coffee by the specific terrain in which it was grown. </p><p>"Terroir is more than a mere geographical link between product and land," write the authors. "It relates to the idea that products are a unique expression of different environmental and sociocultural characteristics of a specific place." Thus, focusing a customer's attention on the environment in which the coffee was grown might make the product seem more authentic and of better quality.</p><p>Therefore, the researchers examined the effect of images on the coffee-drinking experience in three experiments. The study was carried out by the food scientist Francisco Barbosa Escobar from Aarhus University in Denmark and marketing experts Olivia Petit from the Kedge Business School in Marseille, France, and Carlos Velasco from the BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, Norway. Incidentally, Norwegians are among the world's top coffee consumers, with an average Norwegian adult consuming around 4 cups of coffee a day, reports<a href="https://www.ssb.no/utenriksokonomi/artikler-og-publikasjoner/kaffeavhengige-nordmenn" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> Statistics Norway</a>.</p><p>The first experiment involved 770 non-expert participants from the UK. They were shown online images and descriptions of four different specialty coffees, traded by a Norwegian coffee company. The researchers found that coffees with pictures of farms were rated higher in premiumness by the subjects than coffees with pictures of cities.</p><p>For the second and third experiments, the study used virtual reality environments of Times Square in New York City and a farm in Kenya as well as a control setting of a white room. The second experiment engaged 143 non-expert participants recruited via a behavioral studies platform at the BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, Norway. The participants were asked to smell a sample of quality ground coffee from Kenya while at the same time traversing a virtual reality atmosphere. The subjects were then asked to rate the coffee. </p><p><br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAzOTYxMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMzM1OTM3Mn0.Bo8fM6zWiMO6cz0q8sgWy94OKPq48Q18W3gKnvB3cd0/img.jpg?width=980" id="ef190" width="660" height="1339" data-rm-shortcode-id="0ee1c7ccc92b9b1ec616aebb7fa00ff7" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption..."> Image (A) shows the instruments used in Experiment 2: Oculus GO virtual reality (VR) headset and sample coffee bag. The other panels show the VR environments used in the study - (B) farm, (C) city, and (D) control.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Credit: Escobar / Petit / Velasco, Frontiers in Psychology</small></p><p><br></p><p>Compared to the control (white room), subjects in the farm VR atmosphere rated the coffee as more acidic. Conversely, subjects rated coffee as sweeter when inside the control VR atmosphere compared to the city VR atmosphere. Furthermore, coffee was considered more premium when subjects were in the farm VR atmosphere compared to the control, but there was no difference in premiumness score between farm and city.</p><p>For the third experiment, the research team involved 34 people who were professionals in the coffee industry. They were asked to taste and score Kenyan coffee while being in the same city and farm VR environments used in the previous experiment. The results revealed a strong effect of atmosphere on how much the experts enjoyed their experience, with a much greater preference for the farm setting versus the control environment of a white room. </p><p>But the different VR atmospheres had little effect on how the experts rated the premiumness of the coffee. The researchers believe that "given their specialized knowledge, coffee professionals examined more objective attributes of the coffee and could discriminate intrinsic factors relevant for the assessment of the coffee from irrelevant extrinsic cues."</p><p>The researchers think their results can lead to developing more immersive marketing experiences in virtual reality, which could be groundbreaking in many industries. A premium experience can lead to customers paying premium prices.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Godzilla vs. Kong: A morphologist chooses the real winner
Ultimately, this is a fight between a giant reptile and a giant primate.
10 April, 2021
The 2021 film “Godzilla vs. Kong" pits the two most iconic movie monsters of all time against each other. And fans are now picking sides.
<p>Even the most fantastical creatures have some basis in scientific reality, so the natural world is a good place to look to better understand movie monsters. <a href="https://www.formorphology.com/">I study</a> functional morphology – how skeletal and tissue traits allow animals to move – and evolution in extinct animals. I am also a huge fan of monster movies. Ultimately, this is a fight between a giant reptile and a giant primate, and there are relative biological advantages and disadvantages that each would have. The research I do on morphology and biomechanics can tell us a lot about this battle and might help you decide – #TeamGodzilla or #TeamKong? </p><h2>Larger than life</h2><p>First it's important to acknowledge that both Kong and Godzilla are definitely far beyond the realms of biological possibility. This is due to sheer size and the laws of physics. Their hearts couldn't pump blood to their heads, they would have temperature regulation problems and it would take too long for nerve signals from the brain to reach distant parts of the body – <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-movie-size-too-big-2019-5">to name just a few issues</a>.</p><p>However, let's assume that somehow Godzilla and Kong are able to overcome these size limitations – perhaps because of their radiation exposure they have distinctive mutations and characteristics. Based on how they look on the big screen, let's explore the observable differences that might prove useful in a fight.</p><h2>Kong: the best of ape and human</h2><p>At first glance, Kong is a colossal primate - but he's not simply a giant gorilla.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAzODQ2Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MDc3NDM4NX0.16lYmKa-rUc-DYeoYLOp3I-B0Cwmsfh1CMdar9AsaJk/img.jpg?width=980" id="d466d" width="800" height="1200" data-rm-shortcode-id="1eb26a54f1eb117553aad0ef96991a9a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Kong has a mix of both gorilla and humanlike physical traits.">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Cliff/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY</small></p>
<p>One of the most striking things about Kong is his upright, bipedal stance – he mostly walks on two legs, unlike any other living nonhuman apes. This ability could suggest close evolutionary relationship to the only living upright ape, humans – or his upright stance could be the result of <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/convergent_evolution.htm">convergent evolution</a>. Either way, like us, Kong has thick muscular legs geared toward walking and running, and large free arms with grasping hands, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.04.001">enabling him to use tools</a>.<br></p><p>Humanity's bipedal, upright posture is unique in the animal kingdom and provides a slew of biomechanical abilities that Kong might share. For example, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9416">human torsos are highly flexible</a> and particularly good at rotation. This feature – in addition to our loose shoulder girdle – makes <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-humans-became-the-best-throwers-on-the-planet-131189">humans the best throwers</a> in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0107">the animal kingdom</a>. Throwing is helpful in a fight, and Kong could probably <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12267">throw with the best of them</a>.</p><p>Kong is also, of course, massive. He absolutely dwarfs the largest known primate, an extinct orangutan relative called <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23150"><em>Gigantopithecus</em></a> that was a bit bigger than modern gorillas.</p><p>Kong does have many gorillalike attributes as well, including long muscular arms, a short snout with large canine teeth, and a tall sagittal crest – a ridge of bone on his head that would be the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12609">anchor point for some exceptionally strong jaw muscles</a>.</p><p>Strong, agile, comfortable on land and with the unparalleled ability to use tools and throw, Kong would be a brutal force in a fight.</p><p><br></p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAzODQ3NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzY3MjE3MX0.nLpABTQui6xLmJ0yHpTARYZjp0joqNeKb6MrY5f6PAc/img.jpg?width=980" id="6dc96" width="800" height="867" data-rm-shortcode-id="064cef235fb2d309bff52f49c7daf6e0" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Godzilla's upright posture is unique among lizards and dinosaurs. Figure depicts what he'd look like with a dinosaur posture.">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Kenneth Carpenter/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA</small></p>
<p><br></p><h2>Godzilla: An aquatic lizard to be reckoned with</h2><p>Godzilla appears to be a giant, semiaquatic reptile. Like Kong, Godzilla has the traits of a few different species.</p><p>Recent Godzilla movies show him decently mobile on land, but seemingly much more comfortable in the water despite his lack of overt aquatic features. Interestingly, Godzilla is depicted with gills on his neck – a trait that land vertebrates lost after <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icm055">they emerged from the sea about 370 million years ago</a>. Given Godzilla's terrestrial features, it's likely that his species has land-dwelling reptile ancestors and reevolved a mostly aquatic lifestyle – kind of like <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0406">sea turtles</a> or sea snakes, which can actually <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9629(75)90387-4">absorb oxygen through their skin</a> in water. Godzilla may have uniquely reevolved gills.</p><p>Godzilla's tail is what really separates him from Kong. It is massive, and anchored and moved by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.21290">huge muscles attached to his legs, hips and lower back</a>. Dinosaurs like <em>Tyrannosaurus rex</em> stood horizontally and used their tails for balance and to help them walk and run. Godzilla, in contrast, stands vertically and keeps his tail low to the ground, probably for a different type of balance. This vertical posture is unique for a two-legged reptile and more <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0381">resembles a standing kangaroo</a>. Godzilla stands on two muscular, pillarlike legs similar to those of a sauropod dinosaur. These would provide stability and help support his gargantuan mass but would also bolster the strength of his tail.</p><p>In addition to his powerful tail, Godzilla carries three rows of sharp spikes going down his back, thick scaly skin, a relatively small head full of carnivorous teeth and free arms with grasping hands, all built onto a muscular body. Taken together, Godzilla is a terrifying and intimidating adversary.</p><p><br></p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAzODQ4MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODQzOTQ1N30.cO7kEO9SJ3rrahKmQ22lmyqnCyNUv5WINKzBhtdieAM/img.jpg?width=980" id="585d0" width="1118" height="1600" data-rm-shortcode-id="0ff6064d58a66b2ef4456fe61af8c8bf" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Tim Simpson/Flickr, CC BY-NC</small></p><div style="display: none;"><img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAzODQ4MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODQzOTQ1N30.cO7kEO9SJ3rrahKmQ22lmyqnCyNUv5WINKzBhtdieAM/img.jpg?width=980" id="585d0" width="1118" height="1600" data-rm-shortcode-id="5df8e29f86a5dfd40012d79c4c8d8948" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Kong is faster and could use tools, but Godzilla is stronger and has armored skin. "></div>
<p><br></p><h2>Ready, fight!</h2><p>So now that we've looked a little closer at how Godzilla and Kong are built, let's imagine who might emerge victorious in battle.</p><p>Though Kong is a little bit smaller than Godzilla, both are more or less comparably massive in size and neither has a clear advantage here. So what about their fighting abilities? </p><p>Godzilla would likely favor his robust tail for both offense and defense – much like modern-day large lizards that <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2017.2299">use their strong tails as whips</a>. Scale up that strength to Godzilla's size, and that tail becomes a lethal weapon – which he <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO_utO644sk&ab_channel=Gigan2004">has used before</a>.</p><p>However, Kong is more comfortable on land, faster and more agile, can use his strong legs to jump, and possesses much stronger arms than Godzilla – Kong probably packs a walloping punch. And as an ape, Kong would also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030380">likely use tools to some degree</a> and might even capitalize on his throwing ability.</p><p>Both would have a gnarly bite, with Kong likely getting a slight advantage. However, Godzilla's bite is by no means weak, and all of his teeth are flesh-piercing, similar to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.05.025">crocodile</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1666/0094-8373-35.4.525">monitor lizard</a> teeth.</p><p>On defense, Godzilla has the edge, with thick scaly skin and sharp spikes. He might even act like a porcupine, turning his back to a rapidly approaching threat. However, Kong's superior agility on land should be able to offer him some protection as well.</p><p>I will admit I am #TeamGodzilla, but it's very close. I may give a slight edge to Kong in broad terrestrial battle ability, but Godzilla's general mass, defense and tail would be hard to overpower. And lest we forget, the tipping point for Godzilla is that he has atomic breath! Until researchers find evidence of a dinosaur or animal with something like that, though, I will have to reserve my scientific judgment. </p><p>Regardless of who emerges victorious, this battle will be one for the ages, and I am excited as both a scientist and monster movie fan.</p><p><em>This article has been updated to use more inclusive language</em><img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157101/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1">.</p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kiersten-formoso-1218031">Kiersten Formoso</a>, PhD Student in Vertebrate Paleontology, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/usc-dornsife-college-of-letters-arts-and-sciences-2669">USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences</a></em></p><p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/godzilla-vs-kong-a-functional-morphologist-uses-science-to-pick-a-winner-157101">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Ancient cave artists were getting high on hypoxia
A new study says the reason cave paintings are in such remote caverns was the artists' search for transcendence.
10 April, 2021
Credit: Petar/Adobe Stock
Surprising Science
- Hundreds of prehistoric paintings have been found in subterranean chambers with barely enough oxygen to breathe.
- Low oxygen causes hypoxia that can induce exalted mental states.
- A new study says the artists chose these hard-to-each caverns in search of an oxygen-starved high.
<p>Artists of all types have been known to ingest a — shall we say — creative lubricant or two. One of the paradoxical things about art, even for people who love making it — maybe <em>especially</em> for those people — is that it's sometimes hard to get started, despite the fact that it's even harder to stop. </p><p>A <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1751696X.2021.1903177?casa_token=8ooGT9zoZvcAAAAA%3ALyJCGNa-r6jT0nrdc0iKa2T6dIS5C0Ag9e4l6jXYQUPsFVMq7m3_bOgYdC2VlFAuLw7hvzB9NIkHag" target="_blank">new paper</a> suggests this problem and solution go <em>way</em> back.</p><p>As archaeologist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rixNuw8AAAAJ&hl=iw" target="_blank">Yafit Kedar</a> from Tel-Aviv University in Israel was in France enjoying some cave art deep within the ground, she started to wonder why their creators would choose to create images so far away from natural light sources. These places are also airless, where what little oxygen there could have been would have been consumed by the burning torches the painters needed in order to see what they were painting.</p><p>Maybe, she thought, the reason these long-ago artists chose to create in such remote chambers was <em>because</em> of their lack of fresh oxygen. Perhaps the painters would have been down there creating in a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_(medical)" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">hypoxic</a>, trancelike state. In that pre-agricultural, pre-chemistry time, cave painting might have been a way to get inspirationally baked.</p><p>There are some 400 known prehistoric cave paintings found in Western Europe dating back to the Upper Paleolithic period from 40,000 to 11,00 years ago.</p><h2>The Greek oracles were probably high, too</h2><p><br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAzODQxMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MTYxNjM0Mn0.xU0lnGQr54WWPWIOU27ZqHgdpifEovCt5iGFEfVYnwA/img.jpg?width=980" id="f68fd" width="1440" height="810" data-rm-shortcode-id="a9ce46cc78574d295b40cd687bc2f28d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Credit: <a href="https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/205162455/matiasdelcarmine?load_type=author&prev_url=detail" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">matiasdelcarmine</a>/Adobe Stock</small></p><p><br></p><p>This might not be the only historical example of people inducing an oxygen-starved state to achieve transcendence or something like it. A <a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Geo....34..821E/abstract" target="_blank">2006 study</a> from scientists at the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Rome hypothesized that hypoxia might have been the source of the trances out of which Delphic oracles extracted their visions.</p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarch" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Plutarch</a> had written that trances began when the oracle—really generations of female oracles, all of them ceremonially named "Pythia" — inhaled sweet noxious fumes from cracks in the ground beneath the temple. Lead author of the 2006 study <a href="https://sites.google.com/a/ingv.it/getiope/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Giuseppe Etiope</a> suggested that these gasses may well have been nothing more miraculous than carbon dioxide and methane filling a poorly ventilated space, thus casting Pythia off into a netherworld of semi-consciousness.</p><h2>The air down there</h2><p><br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAzODQxNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNDU4NTkxMH0.diem1gOWXACdWUz1EP7upD43HyBGNVuqL4amN1POiKI/img.jpg?width=980" id="a273e" width="1440" height="810" data-rm-shortcode-id="46f23b3cf490d304c4cdbc8c86fdf69e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Credit: <a href="https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/207154513/aleksandr-volunkov?load_type=author&prev_url=detail" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Aleksandr Volunkov</a>/Adobe Stock</small></p><p><br></p><p>On the surface, the air we breathe is 21 percent oxygen. Kedar and her colleagues created computer models that revealed the likely levels of oxygen in the painted caves. They found that in some such caverns, oxygen levels can drop to 18 percent in just 15 minutes. Some models fell to 11 percent. Hypoxia is likely at oxygen levels below 14.5% percent.</p><p>Fire torches exacerbate the problem. Up near the surface in a cave open to outside air, a burning fire's exhaust flows up and out while fresh air comes in beneath it. In a narrow passageway, however, the carbon dioxide and oxygen mix, and the lighter oxygen floats upward and on out of the cavern toward the surface.</p><p>The deeper a painter went with their torch, the more extreme was the loss of oxygen. Some of Kedar's models of deep caverns found just 9 percent oxygen, the lower limit of survivability.</p><p>Kedar hopes to validate the modeled outcomes by measuring oxygen levels in existing painted caves. For now though, the models point to the "transformative nature of an underground, oxygen-depleted space."</p><h2>What is a hypoxic high like?</h2><p>Hypoxia releases dopamine and can produce euphoria, visions, and out-of-body sensations. Modern visitors have reported experiencing some of these same sorts of mental phenomena when viewing the artwork.</p><p>The paper suggests that, "The cave environment was conceived as both a liminal space and an ontological arena, allowing early humans to maintain their connectedness with the cosmos." The hypoxic mind may well have found it easy to imagine that they were seeing beyond the rock, and indeed, beyond their world. </p><p>"The images envisioned in such a hallucinatory state appear to float on the cave surfaces (walls, floors, and ceilings) as if these constituted a membrane connecting the upper and lower worlds," write the authors.</p><p>Considering the likelihood of hypoxic conditions inside caves, it may be that it was the promise of a transcendent experience that drove the painters deep into the ground rather than any inherent meaning attached to the caves. As the paper concludes:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"It was not the decoration that rendered the caves significant; rather, the significance of the chosen caves was the reason for their decoration."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Supernova 2014J
Credit: NASA.gov
Surprising Science
- There was a massive die-off of marine life 359 million years ago, and nobody knows why.
- A new study proposes that the Late Devonian extinction may have been caused by one or more nearby supernovae.
- The supernova hypothesis could be confirmed if scientists can find "the green bananas of the isotope world" in the geologic record.
<p>About 359 million years ago, at the end of the last phase of the <a href="https://www.livescience.com/43596-devonian-period.html" target="_blank">Devonian period</a>, there was a mass extinction event or series of events. An estimated 70 to 80 percent of the creatures living in the Earth's coral reefs during the so-called "age of fish" were wiped out. </p><p>There are theories about what happened, from <a href="http://www.sci-news.com/geology/volcanic-eruptions-late-devonian-mass-extinction-05967.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">volcanic activity</a>, to <a href="http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150624-the-day-the-oceans-died" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">predatory plants run amuck</a> (!), to an <a href="https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/14/9/776/204148/Late-Devonian-Kellwasser-Event-mass-extinction?redirectedFrom=PDF" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">asteroid impact</a> similar to the one believed to have killed off the planet's large dinosaurs, but no clear cause has been confirmed.</p><p>A study published in the <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/117/35/21008" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</em></a> from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign published in August proposes a more distant trigger: A supernova 65 light-years away in space destroyed the Earth's ozone layer. </p><blockquote>The researchers say that a supernova would be capable of damaging the ozone layer for as long as 100,000 years. </blockquote><p>In the same way that humankind has learned over the past century that events in one place often affect another, <a href="https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/750171228" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">says</a> lead study author astrophysicist <a href="https://astro.illinois.edu/directory/profile/bdfields" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Brian Fields</a>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The overarching message of our study is that life on Earth does not exist in isolation. We are citizens of a larger cosmos, and the cosmos intervenes in our lives — often imperceptibly, but sometimes ferociously."</p><h2>Thousands of generations of sunburnt plants</h2><p><br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAzNTIwMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3MDI3ODkxOH0.WdIdnXt-4QnfyPUfYWe1vg_HjAnC6pEHCfc2QKzbmyc/img.jpg?width=980" id="d28e0" width="810" height="926" data-rm-shortcode-id="f6affeb6aabfb01c6b5c140aec58f7b8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Among the plants growing during the late Devonian were <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteris" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Archaeopteris hibernica</a></small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Credit: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Daderot" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Wikimedia Commons</a></small></p><p><br></p><p>Fields and his colleagues arrived at their conclusion as they sought to explain an abundance of sunburnt plant spores, thousands of generations of them, located at the geologic boundary between the Devonian and <a href="https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/carboniferous/carboniferous.php" target="_blank">Carboniferous</a> periods. To the researchers, they indicate an extended period of ozone depletion in the Earth's atmosphere. (While terrestrial plants and insects weren't as decimated as sea organisms during the extinction, they were nonetheless subjected to whatever it was that happened.)</p><p>Fields says there's scant evidence of a local culprit such as volcanic activity. His team also ruled out dramatic events such as meteorites, solar storms, or gamma-ray bursts. As grad student co-author Jesse Miller explains, "These events end quickly and are unlikely to cause the long-lasting ozone depletion that happened at the end of the Devonian period."</p><p>"Instead," says Fields, "we propose that one or more supernova explosions, about 65 light-years away from Earth, could have been responsible for the protracted loss of ozone."</p><p>Such a flash of light would be both spectacular to witness and deadly. The researchers say that a supernova would be capable of damaging the ozone layer for as long as 100,000 years. Such an event would constitute a "one-two punch." It would begin with a barrage of destructive ultraviolet rays, X-rays, and gamma rays. This would be followed by a longer-term increase in cosmic rays striking the Earth as a result of blast debris colliding with surrounding gases and driving increased particle acceleration.</p><p>Considering that there was apparently a 300,000-year decline in biodiversity before the massive die-off, the team suggests that the Earth may even have been affected by a series of supernova explosions instead of just one.</p><p>"This is entirely possible," says Miller. "Massive stars usually occur in clusters with other massive stars, and other supernovae are likely to occur soon after the first explosion."</p><h2>A "smoking gun" for the supernova hypothesis</h2><p>The only way to verify the theory put forth by Fields' team would be to find a particular pair of radioactive isotopes—plutonium-244 and samarium-146—in the geologic record for the time frame in question.</p><p>Undergraduate co-author Zhenghai Liu explains, "Neither of these isotopes occurs naturally on Earth today, and the only way they can get here is via cosmic explosions."</p><p>Fields compares locating such isotopes to finding green bananas: "When you see green bananas in Illinois, you know they are fresh, and you know they did not grow here. Like bananas, Pu-244 and Sm-146 decay over time. So if we find these radioisotopes on Earth today, we know they are fresh and not from here—the green bananas of the isotope world—and thus the smoking guns of a nearby supernova."</p><p>The search for the isotopes has yet to begin.</p>Meanwhile, there's little reason to worry about future supernovae doing to us what those earlier ones may have done to the Earth's coral reefs, <a href="https://amzn.to/3uE49MV" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">science fiction</a> notwithstanding. Says another co-author, grad student Adrienne Ertel, "To put this into perspective, one of the closest supernova threats today is from the star Betelgeuse, which is over 600 light-years away."
Keep reading
Show less
Despite social pressure, boys and girls still prefer gender-typical toys
Fifty years of research on children's toy preferences shows that kids generally prefer toys oriented toward their own gender.
09 April, 2021
Credit: tan4ikk via Adobe Stock
Surprising Science
- A recent meta-analysis overviewed 75 studies on children's gender-related toy preferences.
- The results found that "gender-related toy preferences may be considered a well-established finding."
- It's a controversial topic: Some people argue that these preferences stem from social pressure, while others say they're at least partly rooted in biology.
<p>There's more gender equality in Western societies today than in the past. Inequalities still exist, of course, but <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/6990" target="_blank">research</a> shows a general uptrend in women joining and <a href="https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-management/#:~:text=Globally%20the%20Share%20of%20Women%20in%20Senior%20Management%20is%20Increasing%20Incrementally&text=In%202019%2C%20the%20proportion%20of,this%20percentage%20remains%20the%20same." target="_blank">rising within the workforce</a>, <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_310.asp" target="_blank">obtaining degrees</a>, and earning more money. The social expectations of men and women also seemed to have changed; this is harder to measure empirically, but it seems safe to say that our ideas about gender roles are more fluid today than they were, in say, the 1950s.<br></p><p>So, have these changes affected a crucial part of children's development: play? More specifically, as gender roles have become more fluid, have children's preferences toward gender-typed toys become more fluid, too?</p><p>The short answer seems to be no. For decades, <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715114739.htm" target="_blank">studies</a> <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/201212/sex-specific-toy-preferences-learned-or-innate" target="_blank">have shown</a> that boys and girls generally prefer playing with toys typically associated with their biological sex: toy trucks for boys and dolls for girls, to give a rough example.</p><p>These results have remained remarkably stable over the past 50 years, according to a 2020 meta-analysis of research on gender differences in toy preferences. Published in <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-01989-8" target="_blank"><em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em></a> and titled "The Magnitude of Children's Gender‐Related Toy Interests Has Remained Stable Over 50 Years of Research," the analysis examined 75 previous studies, 113 effect sizes, and a range of toy preference measurements. </p><blockquote>No matter what society wants, it's worth noting that there seems to be some biological drivers behind children's preferences for gender-typical toys.</blockquote><p>The authors, Jac T. M. Davis and Melissa Hines, found "a broad consistency of results across the large body of research on children's gender-related toy preferences: children showed large and reliable preferences for toys that were related to their own gender. Thus, according to our review, gender-related toy preferences may be considered a well-established finding."</p><p>A letter to the editor in the same journal sought to challenge these findings in a separate <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-01916-x" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">analysis</a>, which concluded that children actually spend less time playing with gender-typical toys these days. </p><p>The authors of that analysis speculated that the reason for this decline "might reflect social pressures in recent times for children to be less gender-typical in their behavior." In other words, the decline stems from parents wanting to be more in line with progressive ideas about gender fluidity. </p><p>However, Davis and Hines disagreed, proposing that the supposed decline appeared in the analysis only because of the specific methodology employed by the researchers. What's more, they noted that toy advertisers have been using more gender stereotypes to boost sales in recent decades—a finding that potentially complicates the claim that social pressures are causing kids to spend less time playing with gender-typical toys.</p><p>Davis and Hines concluded:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"It may be tempting to think that social changes over time might be reducing children's play with gender-related toys, given arguments that play with a broader set of toys would be beneficial for both boys and girls. Unfortunately, however, broad change in the social roles of men and women do not seem to have influenced children's toy choices, perhaps because they have been counteracted by stronger marketing of different toys to girls and boys over recent time. If society wants girls and boys to play with the full range of toys, more targeted action is probably required."<span></span></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjAzNTA4My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2ODk4MDkzNH0.ZJC_sylmbACQiQu1zssRSPUnHdPU3qUmeNfKDWDnYf0/img.jpg?width=980" id="97213" width="6658" height="4444" data-rm-shortcode-id="fb367869686ad03cbd1dd84aada1224a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Little boy playing mathematics wooden toy at nursery">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Little boy playing mathematics wooden toy at nursery</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Credit: <a href="https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/204567087/rawpixel-com?load_type=author&prev_url=detail" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Rawpixel.com</a> via Adobe Stock</small></p><p><br></p><h2>Why are we so concerned about which toys kids play with? </h2><p>But does society really want kids to play with less gender-typical toys? Some research suggests the answer is yes. A <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/12/19/most-americans-see-value-in-steering-children-toward-toys-activities-associated-with-opposite-gender/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">2017 survey from Pew Research Center</a> found that a majority of Americans considered it a "somewhat or very good thing" to steer kids toward toys and activities traditionally associated with the opposite gender (though respondents were less enthusiastic about doing so for boys than girls). </p><p>Encouraging kids to play with a wider range of toys could yield benefits. For example, a 2020 study published in <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2020.560176/full" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Frontiers in Human Neuroscience</em></a> found that when both boys and girls play with dolls, they experience heightened activation within brain regions associated with empathy and perspective-taking. </p><p>But no matter what society wants, it's worth noting that there seems to be some biological drivers behind children's preferences for gender-typical toys. </p><p>For example, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19016318/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">studies</a> have shown that babies tend to prefer toys oriented to their own gender, a finding that suggests their preference is innate because they're in the pre-socialization stage of development. Supporting that argument are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">studies showing</a> that baby monkeys also display gender-typical toy preferences. </p><p>Still, it's easy to see how social pressures might affect kids' toy preferences as they grow up. So, the question of why kids prefer the toys that they do likely boils down to a familiar answer: a tangled mix of environmental and biological factors.</p><div></div><ul class="ee-ul"></ul><div></div>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
