Monthly Archives: January 2020

Human Behavior

Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors …

Why we do stupid stuff

Compared with most animals, we humans engage in a host of behaviors that are destructive to our own kind and to ourselves. We lie, cheat and steal, carve ornamentations into our own bodies, stress out and kill ourselves, and of course kill others. Science has provided much insight into why an intelligent species seems so nasty, spiteful, self-destructive and hurtful. Inside you'll learn what researchers know about some of our most destructive behaviors.

Editor's Note: This list was first published in 2011 and was updated in March 2016 to include the latest studies and new information.

Nobody knows for sure why humans lie so much, but studies find that it's common, and that it's often tied to deep psychological factors.

"It's tied in with self-esteem," says University of Massachusetts psychologist Robert Feldman. "We find that as soon as people feel that their self-esteem is threatened, they immediately begin to lie at higher levels."

Feldman has conducted studies in which people lie frequently, with 60 percent lying at least once during a 10-minute conversation.

And lying is not easy. One study concluded that lying takes 30 percent longer than telling the truth.

Recent studies have found that people lie in workplace e-mail more than they did with old-fashioned writing.

It's a whole other matter whether people really mean to lie in many instances. Figuring that out requires coming up with a complicated definition of lying.

"Certain conditions have to be in place for a statement to rise to the level of a lie," explains philosophy professor James E. Mahon of Washington and Lee University. "First, a person must make a statement and must believe that the statement is false. Second, the person making the statement must intend for the audience to believe that the statement is true. Anything else falls outside the definition of lying that I have defended."

However, a study in 2014 found that white lies, for the right reasons, can can strengthen relationships

Animals are also known to be capable of deception, and even robots have learned to lie, in an experiment where they were rewarded or punished depending on performance in a competition with other robots.

Scroll up to click to the next item: Violence

The oldest evidence of human warfare dates back 10,000 years ago. Skeletons of 27 people show signs of projectile wounds and blunt force trauma. And so it has been ever since.

Some researchers figure we crave violence, that it's in our genes and affects reward centers in our brains. However, going back millions of years, evidence suggests our ancient human ancestors were more peace-loving than people today, though there are signs of cannibalism among the earliest pre-history humans.

A study in 2008 concluded that humans seem to crave violence just like they do sex, food, or drugs. The study, reported in the journal Psychopharmacology, found that in mice, clusters of brain cells involved in other rewards are also behind their craving for violence. The researchers think the finding applies to human brains.

"Aggression occurs among virtually all vertebrates and is necessary to get and keep important resources such as mates, territory and food," said study team member Craig Kennedy, professor of special education and pediatrics at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. "We have found that the reward pathway in the brain becomes engaged in response to an aggressive event and that dopamine is involved."

Many researchers believe violence in humans is an evolved tendency that helped with survival.

"Aggressive behavior has evolved in species in which it increases an individual's survival or reproduction, and this depends on the specific environmental, social, reproductive, and historical circumstances of a species. Humans certainly rank among the most violent of species," says biologist David Carrier of the University of Utah.

Scroll up to click to the next item: Stealing

Theft can be motivated by need. But for kleptomaniacs, stealing can be motivated by the sheer thrill of it. One study of 43,000 people found 11 percent admitted to having shoplifted at least once.

"These are people who steal even though they can easily afford not to," says Jon E. Grant of the University of Minnesota School of Medicine.

In a study in 2009, participants either took a placebo or the drug naltrexone known to curb addictive tendencies toward alcohol, drugs and gambling. Naltrexone blocks the effects of substances called endogenous opiates that the researchers suspect are released during stealing and which trigger the sense of pleasure in the brain.

The drug reduced the urges to steal and stealing behavior, Grant and colleagues wrote in the journal Biological Psychiatry.

Theft may be in our genes. After all, even monkeys do it. Capuchin monkeys use predator alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys to scatter and avoid threats. But some will make fake calls, and then steal food left by those that scattered.

Scroll up to click to the next item: Cheating

Few human traits are more fascinating. While most people would say honesty is a virtue, nearly one in five Americans think cheating on taxes is morally acceptable or is not a moral issue, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. About 10 percent are equally ambivalent about cheating on a spouse.

People who espouse high moral standards are among the worst cheats, studies have shown. The worst cheaters tend to be those with high morals who also, in some twisted way, consider cheating to be an ethically justifiable behavior in certain situations.

Cheating on spouses by celebrities and politicians thought to be moral leaders has become rampant. The behavior has a simple explanation, experts say: Guys are wired to want sex, a lot, and are more likely than gals to cheat. The behavior may be particularly likely for men with power.

"People don't necessarily practice what they preach," says Lawrence Josephs, a clinical psychologist at Adelphi University in New York. "It's not clear to what extent people's ethical values are actually running what they do or don't do."

Experts say there are two main reasons people cheat on their spouses: Either they bored with their sex life or they are unhappy with their relationship. A 2015 study found that a person who is economically dependent on their spouse is more likely to cheat than those in a financially equitable relationship.

Scroll up to click to the next item: Clinging to bad habits

Perhaps everything else on this list would be far less problematic if we were not such creatures of habit. In fact, studies have found that even when the risks of a particular bad habit are well-known, people find it hard to quit.

"It's not because they haven't gotten the information that these are big risks," says Cindy Jardine of the University of Alberta. "We tend to sort of live for now and into the limited future not the long term."

Jardine, who has studied why people cling to bad habits, cites these reasons: innate human defiance, need for social acceptance, inability to truly understand the nature of risk, individualistic view of the world and the ability to rationalize unhealthy habits, and a genetic predisposition to addiction.

People tend to justify bad habits, she says, by noting exceptions to known statistics, such as: "It hasn't hurt me yet," or, "My grandmother smoked all her life and lived to be 90."

Scroll up to click to the next item: Bullying

Bullying in childhood can leave worse mental scars than child abuse, and being bullied as a teen doubles the risk of depression as an adult, according to two separate studies in 2015.

Studies have found that half or more of grade-school children experience bullying. A European study found that children who bully at school are likely to also bully their siblings at home. That led a researcher involved in the study to speculate that bullying behavior often starts at home.

"It is not possible to tell from our study which behavior comes first, but it is likely that if children behave in a certain way at home, bullying a sibling for instance, if this behavior goes unchecked they may take this behavior into school," said Ersilia Menesini of the Universita degli Studi di Firenze, Italy.

But bullying is not just child's play. One study found that almost 30 percent of U.S. office workers experience bullying by bosses or coworkers, from withholding of information critical to getting the job done to insulting rumors and other purposeful humiliation. And once it starts, it tends to get worse.

"Bullying, by definition, is escalatory. This is one of the reasons its so difficult to prevent it, because it usually starts in really small ways, says Sarah Tracy, director of the Project for Wellness and Work-Life at Arizona State University.

Experts say to combat workplace bullies, respond rationally, specifically, and consistently.

Why do we do it? To gain status and power, psychologists say. And for some, it may be hard to resist the behavior. Researchers have seen bullying behavior in monkeys and speculate that the behavior may stretch way back in our evolutionary tree.

Scroll up to click to the next item: Nipping, tucking and plumping

Americans spent a record $13.5 billion on surgical and nonsurgical "aesthetic procedures" in 2014, the latest year for which data is available. Some 17 percent of U.S. residents now get cosmetic procedures, the industry estimates. Some would call it self-edification, of course, or art, or a way to kill time or perhaps rebel against authority. But in general, and given that people have died from cosmetic surgery procedures, what makes so many people so intent on artificially remaking themselves?

First, it's worth noting that while options at the body shop have never been more varied, the practice is ancient, often tied to cults and religions or power and status, and in fact much of the modern nip, tuck, paint, poke and plump procedures are benign compared with some ancient practices. People have reshaped their heads, elongated their necks, stretched their ears and lips, painted their bodies or affixed permanent jewelry for thousands of years.

Perhaps the strongest motivations nowadays are to be beautiful, however one might define that, or simply to fit in with a particular group.

The lure of beauty can't be denied as a prime motivator to nip and tuck. Studies have shown that shoppers buy more from attractive salespeople; attractive people capture our attention more quickly than others; and skinny people have an easier time getting hired and promoted.

"There's this idea that if you look better you'll be happier. You'll feel better about yourself," says psychologist Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families. "And logically that makes so much sense, because we live in a society where people do care what you look like."

A sign of the times, as Baby Boomer age: While cosmetic surgery sales sagged during the Great Recession a few years back, wrinkle-blasting laser treatments skyrocketed. In 2015, the industry said cosmetic procedures for men were up 43 percent over the past 5 years.

Scroll up to click to the next item: Stress!

Stress can be deadly, raising the risk for heart problems and even cancer. Stress can lead to depression, which can lead to suicide yet another destructive behavior that's uniquely human (and glaringly not on this list).

But exactly why we stress is difficult to pin down. These truths will resonate with many, however: The modern workplace is a source of significant stress for many people, as are children.

More than 600 million people around the world put in 48-hour-plus workweeks, according to the International Labor Organization. And advances in technology smartphones and broadband Internet mean a blurring of the lines between work and free time. About half of Americans bring work home, according to a recent study.

The stress of being a parent while also working is borne out by a 2007 study that found older people feel less stress. However, research in 2015 found high-stress jobs raise the risk of stroke, and stress can increase the risk of memory problems in older people.

"Many older workers are empty-nesters," says researcher Gwenith Fisher, an organizational psychologist at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research (ISR). "They don't have the same work-personal conflicts that younger and middle-aged workers deal with, juggling responsibilities to children along with their jobs and their personal needs."

Health experts suggest exercise and adequate sleep are two of the best ways to battle stress. [More Tips]

Scroll up to click to the next item: Gambling

Gambling, too, seems to be in our genes and hard-wired into our brains, which might explain why such a potentially ruinous behavior is so common.

Even monkeys gamble. A study that measured monkeys' desire to gamble for juice rewards found that even as potential rewards diminished, the primates acted irrationally and gambled for the chance to get a wee bit more.

A study published in the journal Neuron last year found that almost winning activates win-related circuitry within the brain and enhances the motivation to gamble. "Gamblers often interpret near-misses as special events, which encourage them to continue to gamble," said Luke Clark of the University of Cambridge. "Our findings show that the brain responds to near-misses as if a win has been delivered, even though the result is technically a loss."

Other studies have also shown that losing causes gamblers to get carried away. When people plan in advance how much to gamble, they're coldly rational, a study last year found. But if they lose, rationality goes out the window, and they change the game plan and bet even more.

Scroll up to click to the last item: Gossiping

Gossiping is a social skill, not a character flaw, argues psychology researcher Frank T. McAndrew at Knox College in a 2016 op-ed article.

We humans are evolutionarily set up to judge and talk about others, no matter how hurtful it might be, researchers say. Here's how Oxford primatologist Robin Dunbar sees it: Baboons groom each other to keep social ties strong. But we humans are more evolved, so we use gossip as social glue. Both are learned behaviors.

Gossip establishes group boundaries and boosts self-esteem, studies have found.

In many instances, the goal of gossip is not truth or accuracy. What matters is the bond that gossiping can forge, often at the expense of a third party.

People are mostly likely to spread a story if it's about someone familiar to them, and if the story is particularly "juicy," according to a 2014 study. "When two people share a dislike of another person, it [gossip] brings them closer," says Jennifer Bosson, a professor of psychology at the University of South Florida.

See the rest here:
Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors ...

Human Behavior

What is Classical Conditioning, and How Does it Impact Psychology – The Good Men Project

Classical conditioning is a type of learning where a conditioned stimulus is associated with a particular unconditioned stimulus to produce a response. The response is a behavior in reaction to the stimulus. The conditioned response is something that the participant learns. Ivan Pavlov, a renowned physiologist, did many experiments with animal and human behavior, and coined the term classical conditioning. He made the participants elicit a response in various studies. Pavlov had a famous study where he researched the behavior of dogs and how he could condition them to salivate upon hearing a sound. He would make a sound, and the dogs would respond by drooling. Even if there was no food involved, just by making the sound, the dogs associated the sound with the food, and so they began to salivate. He developed multiple experiments to prove his theory that classical conditioning could produce behavioral responses.

The conditioning is successful when the affiliation has been made between stimuli and a response that wasnt affiliated, to begin with. In the case of Pavlovs dogs, this was the bell and the salivation.

Think about how responses to stimuli occur in our brains. For example, when a dog sees food, several senses are involved, their vision and smell, that are sending information to their brains and different neural pathways that cause them to salivate. Our conditioning is displayed in a variety of ways. For example, if we have a bad experience every day at school, well begin to affiliate school with bad experiences and might start to fear to go to school. We can also purposefully condition ourselves, which would relate to conditioned stimulus and conditioned responses rather than unconditioned stimulus and responses. An example of this is if we give ourselves a reward for completing a task. For example, if we allow ourselves to watch television after completing homework, well start to look forward to finishing our homework because it means that we now get to watch the television show that we were looking forward to.

After Pavlovs famous experiment with dogs, there have been many more research studies conducted that show that classical conditioning works with humans. In the study of Little Albert, which was conducted by John B. Watson, a hammer would bang every time a boy interacted with a rat. The hammer taught him to be afraid of rats, whereas prior to the experiment, the young child was not at all afraid of animals. This experiment is one of the many pieces of proof which taught us that classical conditioning can be used on both animals and humans. With this knowledge, weve been able to make strides in the world of both psychology and education.

Human behavior is complex and multi-faceted. Sometimes, we dont understand why we do the things that we do, or we want to change our behavior, which is why therapy can be so helpful. Its essential to learn about yourself so that you can foster healthy relationships. A therapist can support you in understanding your behavior and make changes if needed. You can work with an online therapist or someone in your local area and work on your mental health.

Stock photo ID:528903494

Link:
What is Classical Conditioning, and How Does it Impact Psychology - The Good Men Project

Human Behavior

Column: Two views on the state’s poverty rate – Hickory Daily Record

Garbage in, garbage out. This rule of thumb applies to every field of human behavior very much including politics. For example, our political conversation about poverty is based on a fact that most political actors think is true but really isnt: that a persistently high share of the population lives in poverty.

Progressives who believe it contend that federal, state and local governments spend too little tax money combating poverty. Conservatives who believe it contend that governments have wasted gobs of tax money combating poverty with little to show for it. While the two groups draw different conclusions, they are assuming the same fact to be true.

Theyre mistaken. When you see an apocalyptic news report about our high poverty rate, you should discount it. This statistic is fundamentally flawed and routinely misinterpreted.

There are, of course, desperately poor people in North Carolina and the rest of America. There are hungry people. There are abused and neglected children, with addicted or absent parents, for whom academic achievement and life prospects are severely impaired. As fellow human beings, we should care about their plight and offer our time, efforts and resources to assist them. Our government should also expend our tax dollars on temporary assistance for jobless adults and their dependents, education and other interventions for disadvantaged children, and long-term assistance for those with severe disabilities.

Still, no good policy ideas can come from believing there are massive numbers of people who, even after taking such assistance into account, continue to live below the poverty line.

The official poverty measure leaves out free health care, free housing, free food, and other public assistance other than cash. It relies on data from income-tax returns and thus leaves out lots of off-the-books income. For poverty rates over time, government statisticians significantly overstate the effects of inflation. For these and other reasons, the official poverty rate is at best a measure of the extent of government dependency among low-income families, not the extent of material deprivation.

How big is the mismeasurement? Consider the most recent analysis from Bruce Meyer at the University of Chicago and James Sullivan at the University of Notre Dame. For years, Meyer and Sullivan have calculated a measure of consumption poverty based on what low-income households consume rather than the income they report to the IRS.

According to the standard poverty measure, the rate of American households in poverty was 13 percent in 1980. In 2018, it was 11.8 percent. Hardly an impressive improvement.

But watch what happens when Meyer and Sullivan used a more realistic inflation adjustment and include all forms of income consumed by households: the true poverty rate drops from 13 percent in 1980 to 3.3 percent in 2018.

Want to go further back in time? The official poverty rate was 19.5 percent in the early 1960s. By 2018, it had fallen 7.7 points to 11.8 percent. But measured properly, the decline in poverty was far larger roughly 25 percentage points!

I know thats a lot of numbers to digest. The policy nutrition is worth it, though.

When conservatives suggest that throwing tax money at poor people doesnt make any difference because they will still remain poor, conservatives are drawing the wrong conclusion from the wrong data. Government threw lots of tax money at the War on Poverty. The poverty rate declined dramatically. (Wiser conservatives point out that dependency didnt decline and single parenthood rose.)

As for progressives, while they might cheer the effects of government redistribution on an accurately measured poverty rate, they will find it hard to admit that the current poverty rate is in the low single digits, including for children (3.7 percent). A comprehensive and honest look at child poverty, observes American Enterprise Institute scholar Angela Rachidi, shows that American children are doing better than ever.

That doesnt mean there arent problems left to address. But how can we chart the right course for the future if we lack a clear picture of the past and present?

John Hood (@JohnHoodNC) is chairman of the John Locke Foundation and appears on NC SPIN, broadcast statewide Fridays at 7:30 p.m. and Sundays at 12:30 p.m. on UNC-TV.

See more here:
Column: Two views on the state's poverty rate - Hickory Daily Record

Human Behavior

HBO’s ‘Avenue 5’ Is the First Great Comedy of the 2020s and a ‘Crushing Existential Nightmare’ – The Daily Beast

While researching their new HBO series Avenue 5, which takes place on a space cruise ship 40 years in the future, Armando Iannucci (creator of Veep and The Thick of It) and Hugh Laurie (the actor best known for House) spent time with the people from Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, and the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Scientists explained to them, with a casual, almost unsettling seriousness, that when planning a long-distance journey, like to Mars, for example, it is of the utmost importance that astronauts continue to produce fecal matter, as one of the best ways to protect from radiation poisoning while in outer space is to pack the walls of a spacecraft with human waste.

Iannucci and Laurie, two men hoping to create a comedy series at least somewhat rooted in fact, looked at each other with glee. Actual space science was serving them comedy on a silver platter.

The Daily Beasts Obsessed

Everything we cant stop loving, hating, and thinking about this week in pop culture.

We sort of looked at each other and I said, Wouldnt it be funny if there was a puncture? Iannucci recalls. You know, because not only is there the comedy of just seeing a stream of shit flying out of the ship, but also the real danger that youre going to die of space cancer if somebody doesnt go out and sort that out. Sort out the gushing pipeline of human waste. That science requires for actual space travel. Poop in space.

Avenue 5, which debuts Sunday on HBO, takes place on a massive spacecraft making its eight-week maiden cruise around Saturn, on which passengers can swan around in kaftans, take yoga classes, and luxuriate in spas while participating in a revolutionary mission through the solar system. Yes, after all the fetishizing about the future of space travel and the glamour that may come from the possibilities technology may provide, in the end were just going to use it to push off a shitty cruise in space.

When a gravitational hiccup violently sends everyone careening to one end of the ship, the Avenue 5 is knocked off its orbit. The eight-week cruise is now on track to last three and a half years. If youve ever seen how entitled travelers react when things beyond their control go wrong during their trips, imagine how that mindset presents itself with four more decades of narcissistic incubation and the stakes being an additional two years and eight months spent 1.02 billion miles from earth.

Laurie stars as the ships fearless captain, who turns out not to be a captain at all, but an actor meant to keep up appearances. Josh Gad is an Elizabeth Holmes, Billy McFarland-esque tech grifter whose company owns the ship. Zach Woods is a hapless customer service rep with no tact, while Suky Nakamura, Nikki Amuka-Bird, and Lenora Crichlow all play the adults in the roomthe people with the smarts to actually stave off certain disaster, mutiny, or both.

Meanwhile on the passenger side, theres a couple (Jessica St. Clair and Kyle Bornheimer) who thought a little cruise adventure might save their marriage, only now to be trapped stewing in their toxicity for what may be years. Appointing herself as a de facto voice of the aggrieved is the futures version of the Id like to speak to the manager woman, played by Rebecca Front. Her name is, of course, Karen.

(Iannucci explodes with laughter upon learning about the Karen meme. He had no idea when he named the character. There must be some collective subconscious at work.)

For fans of Veep or The Thick of It, it might be surprising, and maybe even confusing, to learn that the man responsible for some of the greatest political insights, satirizations, and deconstructions in modern television is making what seems to be a sci-fi comedy. I dont call it sci-fi, Iannucci grins. I call it a crushing existential nightmare. But with a light touch!

You quickly learn that this sci-fi comedy/crushing existential nightmare has much to say about our current state of affairs as a society on the brink of a collective panic attack.

Not only is there the comedy of just seeing a stream of shit flying out of the ship, but also the real danger that youre going to die of space cancer if somebody doesnt go out and sort that out.

Armando Ianucci

I wouldnt claim that Avenue 5 has reduced the entire human condition to a single half-hour comedy, because you wouldnt believe that if I said it, Laurie says, flashing a wry grin. But what it has in common with Veep and The Thick of It is seeing how structures survive and what people are prepared to do to make it through the day when theyre under pressure.

The subject matter may be different from those political comedies. But its still one gigantic Stanford prison experiment, Laurie continues. Iannucci is professor Philip Zimbardo in the metaphor, the man who investigated the psychological effects of perceived power by focusing in on prisoners and prison officers.

He relishes putting people in stressful, compressed situations and seeing how will they survive, how will they struggle, who will go up, who will go down, how will they compete and make alliances with each other, and how long will the structure last before everything just gets ripped to pieces.

On the one hand, there is the threat of utter doom and destruction as the change in course could have fatal consequences, a danger that is met in the ships executive suites with concern for shareholders more than for the affected travelers. On the other hand, in the face of life-changing circumstances, customers are still bitching about towel service and the restaurant being out of tiramisutogether, dual indictments of corporate cynicism in tandem with our vapid human instinct.

Our anxieties seem to operate simultaneously on so many different levels, Laurie says. We have the why are we here, what happens after we die? kind of questions. And we also have why are the nuts so salty? questions.

Its as much a coping mechanism as anything else, Iannucci ventures. He remembers when he was working on his film The Death of Stalin, a historical comedy chronicling the power struggle following the death of Joseph Stalin, being struck by the reality that, facing the bleakest possibilities, people still find ways to get through the day. How the hell else would they get through the years?

It was a low-level fear under Stalin, he says. You couldnt be hyper, like, Im going to get shot at any minute, because you wouldnt last. So you had to just get through the day thinking, I might be shot today. I dont know. But Ive got to do the shopping.

Dark? Yes. Nihilistic. Of course. This is the man who brought you Veep, after all. Accurate to human behavior? Irrefutably.

At the same time, Laurie is quick to qualify, one of the things that I think gives the show a sort of merry kind of optimism is that it at least postulates a future.

He thinks about films like Blade Runner and its copycats, where things were so dystopian that audiences were left wondering if there would be a future at all.

We may be starting to feel that now, he continues. You look at the footage of Australia on fire, and you wonder whether were going to be around [until the time Avenue 5 takes place]. This at least postulates the idea that were actually going to exist. The space cruise awaits.

See more here:
HBO's 'Avenue 5' Is the First Great Comedy of the 2020s and a 'Crushing Existential Nightmare' - The Daily Beast

Human Behavior

War on alcohol: An experiment that was a ‘catastrophic failure’ – TribLIVE

The United States was a battleground before World War I with armies of people opposed to liquor and saloons lobbying politicians and marching on Washington, D.C., in their mission to outlaw what they considered a scourge on nations morality alcohol.

Prohibition had been a long time in coming, dating back to colonial times and the early 19th century, when opponents were concerned that husbands spending hard-earned money on liquor could lead to family poverty and domestic violence, said Jeanine Mazak-Kahne, who teaches American history at Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

A whole lot of people believe it (alcohol) destroys families, Mazak-Kahne said.

The Anti-Saloon League and Womens Christian Temperance Union, with the enthusiastic backing from Protestant evangelicals mixed in with a dose of anti-Catholic sentiment, gained more influence in the early 1900s. This highlighted the natural tension between the rural white Protestants and the diverse urban population, Mazak-Kahne said.

They saw it as a womens issue. This is one of the key movements to improve family life, said Laura Tuennerman, a California University of Pennsylvania history professor.

As women fought the right to vote, these groups convinced male legislators to pass various anti-liquor laws in 12 states by 1914.

They thought they could fix the problem (of drinking) with a law. They saw a need to clean up society, Tuennerman said. Some pushing Prohibition had a religious fervor and anti-immigrant bent, feeling it was those rapid waves of immigrants flooding the country from Eastern and Southern Europe who brought with them a propensity for drinking and needed to be controlled, Tuennerman said.

They also won the support of powerful industrialists wanting no part of a less-productive, hungover workforce on Blue Monday, Mazak-Kahne said.

The opposition to alcohol created unusual political alliances, no stranger than the strong support they received from the Ku Klux Klan, said Mazak-Kahne. The Klan, which hated African-Americans, Catholics and Jews, was a willing partner in the anti-alcohol movement, yet also backed the Suffragette movement to give women the right to vote, she noted. Women finally gained the right to vote with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920.

By the time America entered the war in Europe in April 1917, 26 of the countrys 48 states banned the sale of alcohol, spurred on no doubt by the need to feed the troops with the grain that had been devoted to making all that alcohol.

By December 1917, the 18th Amendment was submitted to the states and ratified by January 1919. The amendment lacked the measures to enforce the restrictions, which was remedied with the passage of the Volstead Act, giving the feds the authority to arrest violators. Congress passed it over President Woodrow Wilsons veto.

The call for repealing the 18th Amendment began as early as 1923 and gained more traction in 1925, as criminals rose to fill the void left by banning alcohol, Mazak-Kahne said. Preventing the production of illegal alcohol, and bootleggers bringing it in across the Canadian border, was near impossible.

With three Republican presidents in the 1920s Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover and the Republican Party toeing the Prohibition line, the repeal movement could not gain traction.

It took the election of President Franklin Roosevelt to break the deadlock over Prohibition. By the 1930s, even womens groups were pushing for the end of Prohibition, Mazak-Kahne said.

Within a few weeks of FDRs March inauguration, the Democrats pushed through Congress the Beer and Wine Revenue Act, levying a federal tax on the sale of beer with 3.2% alcohol content and wine, thus permitting the first legal sale of alcohol. It raised revenue for the cash-starved federal government struggling through the Great Depression.

In a sense, Prohibition worked because it reduced alcohol consumption, but it did not end alcohol consumption. Nothing really changes human behavior, said Tuennerman, the California University of Pennsylvania professor.

That modification of the Volstead Act cleared the path for passage of the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment.

Americas experiment to control peoples behavior in terms of drinking was a catastrophic failure, Tuennerman said. Most Americans broke the law. Its the law that made the average American a criminal. Everybody drank a little.

Prohibition proved, Mazak-Kahne said, you cant legislate morality. It never really works.

Joe Napsha is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Joe at 724-836-5252, [emailprotected] or via Twitter .

Prohibition TimelineCalls to ban the production and sale of alcohol in the U.S. started nearly a century before Prohibition, with the creation of temperance societies and growing support of the abstinence movement. Here are some key dates in the push for Prohibition and its eventual repeal:1826: American Society for the Promotion of Temperance formed in Boston.1836: American Temperance Union forms through merger of two national groups.1851: Maine becomes first state to prohibit manufacturing and sale of alcohol. (Repealed five years later.)1873: World's Woman's Christian Temperance Union formed in Hillsboro, Ohio.1893: Anti-Saloon League founded in Oberlin, Ohio, then organized as a national society in 1895.1913: Women's Christian Temperance Union and Anti-Saloon League march on Washington to demand a Prohibition constitutional amendment.May 9, 1917: Rotary Club of Pittsburgh calls for a temporary prohibition of alcohol during World War I as a means of preserving wheat, corn, rye and barley used by distillers and brewers for the war effort.Dec. 18, 1917: Congress passes the 18th Amendment, which would restrict the manufacture and sale of alcohol.Jan. 16, 1919: 18th Amendment is ratified when Nebraska becomes 36th state to bar the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes." 46 of 48 states eventually support prohibition, with Connecticut and Rhode Island as the only holdouts. (Alaska and Hawaii were not yet states.)June 30, 1919: Wartime Prohibition Act took effect, restricting the sale of beverages containing more than 2.75% alcohol.July 1, 1919: Commonly referred to at the time as June "Thirsty-First" the first day after wartime prohibition started.Oct. 28, 1919: Congress overrode President Woodrow Wilson's veto of the Volstead Act, which made it illegal to manufacture beverages with more than a half percent of alcohol and provided enforcement of the 18th Amendment. It was named for Andrew Volstead, a Minnesota Republican who served as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and introduced the bill.Jan. 17, 1920: The United States goes dry.Dec. 5, 1933: 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition is ratified, followed by announcement from President Franklin D. Roosevelt.Sources: Library of Congress, National Archives, National Constitution Center, Tribune-Review research

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Westmoreland Stories

Read more:
War on alcohol: An experiment that was a 'catastrophic failure' - TribLIVE

Immunology

Scientists find immune cells that fight tumours from within – The Straits Times

TOKYO Lurking deep inside some tumours are "factories" full of immune cells that help the body fight a rearguard action against cancer and are key to helping some patients recover, new research has shown.

In recent years, doctors have turned to a new treatment for cancer - immunotherapy - that works by leveraging the body's immune system to fight tumours.

The technique has largely focused on white blood cells called T-cells, which are "trained" to recognise and attack cancer cells.

But the innovative treatment works well for only around 20 per cent of patients, so researchers have been trying to understand why some people respond better than others.

Three papers published last Thursday in the journal Nature point the way, identifying a key formation inside some tumours: tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS).

TLS function like factories or schools for immune cells that help the body fight cancer, said Professor Wolf Fridman, a professor emeritus of immunology at the Cordeliers Research Centre of the Paris Descartes University medical school, who led one of the studies.

He said the cells need to be educated in "schools" - the TLS - where they learn to recognise and attack cancer cells.

Key to the findings is that T-cells are far from the only immune cells capable of taking the fight to cancer. Researchers found the TLS were full of B-cells, a kind of immune cell that produces antibodies.

"We have been T-cell addicts for 15 years in cancer," Prof Fridman said. "We analysed these sarcomas to see what groups they had and what's striking is that these B-cells appeared."

Dr Beth Helmink, a fellow in surgical oncology at the University of Texas' MD Anderson Cancer Centre, who worked on a second study, said the research had changed perceptions of the role of B-cells in immunotherapy.

"Through these studies, we find that B-cells are not just innocent bystanders, but are themselves contributing in a meaningful way to the anti-tumour immune response," she said in a statement from the centre.

The discovery is a surprise, as an abundance of B-cells in cancer patients has sometimes been seen as a marker for poor prognosis.

But the studies found patients with high levels of B-cells inside TLS in their tumours were more likely to respond well to immunotherapy.

Dr Louisa James, a lecturer in immunology at Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, said: "This series of studies is exciting because (it represents) real progress in the treatment of different types of cancer."

Dr James, who was not involved in the studies, added: "In the short term, these results provide a new tool to help predict which patients are likely to benefit from treatment with immunotherapy and may also pave the way for improved treatments in the future."

There are still many unanswered questions, including why TLS form in some tumours and not others.

While it now seems clear that B-cells inside the structures play a key role in the success of immunotherapy, scientists are not sure precisely how.

It may be that the B-cells are on the front lines, producing antibodies that attack cancer cells efficiently - or they may be bolstering T-cells, or perhaps even doing both.

And not all TLS are created equal: The researchers found three categories, but only one type was "mature" enough to churn out cancer-fighting immune cells.

The research opens up promising new avenues, the authors said.

Initially, the findings could help doctors screen patients to see which of them are most likely to respond well to immunotherapy.

It could eventually mean more patients are successfully treated with the technique, said Professor Goran Jonsson, a professor of oncology and pathology at Lund University in Sweden, who worked on a third study.

"If we come up with a treatment that could enhance TLS formation, we could combine this with current immunotherapy regimens," he said. "Most likely, this would lead to more patients responding to immunotherapy."

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Original post:
Scientists find immune cells that fight tumours from within - The Straits Times

Biochemistry

Will Maddox be the reason for the reunion of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt? – Morning Picker

Broken hearts, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Oscar-winning actress, filed for divorce on Sept. 19, 2016. The amazing couple was as one 12 years, however, wedded for two. They share six exquisite kids (Maddox, Pax, Zahara, Shiloh, and twins Knox and Vivienne), and lets be honest; these two were among the most beautiful pairings on earth, isnt that so? So what was the deal?

Jolie wasnt messing around with the part, at first enlisting big-name separate from attorney Laura Wasser to rep her a similar legal counselor who spoke to Johnny Depp in his ugly different separate from on-screen character Amber Heard.

Sources told TMZ that Jolies choice to end the marriage originated from conflicts with Pitt about child-rearing and his associations with the youngsters, yet it turns out this once-brilliant couple may have had a clothing rundown of reasons why it simply didnt work. We should investigate the stunning defeat of Brangelina.

In 2003, Brad Pitt, who was then hitched to Friends star Jennifer Aniston, marked on to star in Mr. whats more, Mrs. Smith. Initially, Nicole Kidman was set to play inverse the handsome hunk; however, Pitt supposedly didnt feel enough science with her and dropped out of the film. Kidman proceeded onward to Stepford Wives.

According to News.com.au, Producer Arnon Milchan said following he give [Jolie] a role as the female lead, Pitt got back to him to state he was glad to play Mr. to her Mrs. Filming began on January 2004, and gossipy tidbits before long started to twirl that the pair was attaching.

In May 2004, Pitt took then-spouse Aniston to the Troy debut, potentially to calm the shameful gab. That August, paparazzi caught Pitt and Jolie looking comfortable, which Mr. whats more, Mrs. Smith insiders rejected as being in character. In December 2004, Pitt traveled with Aniston, and after one month, in January 2005, they declared their detachment. That March, Aniston sought a legal separation. In April 2005, Pitt and Jolie were shot traveling with Jolies child, Maddox, and the rest is history.

Maddox | Angelina Jolie

Recently, Maddox, Maddox turned 18 today and decided to Educate himself further. According to a Peoplesource, Maddox had decided to South Koreas Yonsei University to study biochemistry. The news came after he and his Jolie were spotted visiting universities in South Korea back in November 2018.

Read the rest here:
Will Maddox be the reason for the reunion of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt? - Morning Picker

Biochemistry

Trends in the Ready To Use Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) Market 2019-2024 Dagoretti News – Dagoretti News

In 2018, the market size of Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) Market is million US$ and it will reach million US$ in 2025, growing at a CAGR of from 2018; while in China, the market size is valued at xx million US$ and will increase to xx million US$ in 2025, with a CAGR of xx% during forecast period.

In this report, 2018 has been considered as the base year and 2018 to 2025 as the forecast period to estimate the market size for Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) .

This report studies the global market size of Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) , especially focuses on the key regions like United States, European Union, China, and other regions (Japan, Korea, India and Southeast Asia).

Request Sample Report @ https://www.marketresearchhub.com/enquiry.php?type=S&repid=2534347&source=atm

This study presents the Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) Market production, revenue, market share and growth rate for each key company, and also covers the breakdown data (production, consumption, revenue and market share) by regions, type and applications. Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) history breakdown data from 2014 to 2018, and forecast to 2025.

For top companies in United States, European Union and China, this report investigates and analyzes the production, value, price, market share and growth rate for the top manufacturers, key data from 2014 to 2018.

In global Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) market, the following companies are covered:

Jinhe Biotechnology (China)Pucheng Chia Tai Biochemistry (China)CP Group (China)Neimeng Kaisheng (China)Alpharmal Inc (USA)

Segment by RegionsNorth AmericaEuropeChinaJapanSoutheast AsiaIndia

Segment by TypeGranulesPowderTabletsOther

Segment by ApplicationPig FeedChicken FeedOther

Make An EnquiryAbout This Report @ https://www.marketresearchhub.com/enquiry.php?type=E&repid=2534347&source=atm

The content of the study subjects, includes a total of 15 chapters:

Chapter 1, to describe Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) product scope, market overview, market opportunities, market driving force and market risks.

Chapter 2, to profile the top manufacturers of Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) , with price, sales, revenue and global market share of Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) in 2017 and 2018.

Chapter 3, the Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) competitive situation, sales, revenue and global market share of top manufacturers are analyzed emphatically by landscape contrast.

Chapter 4, the Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) breakdown data are shown at the regional level, to show the sales, revenue and growth by regions, from 2014 to 2018.

Chapter 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, to break the sales data at the country level, with sales, revenue and market share for key countries in the world, from 2014 to 2018.

You can Buy This Report from Here @ https://www.marketresearchhub.com/checkout?rep_id=2534347&licType=S&source=atm

Chapter 10 and 11, to segment the sales by type and application, with sales market share and growth rate by type, application, from 2014 to 2018.

Chapter 12, Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) market forecast, by regions, type and application, with sales and revenue, from 2018 to 2024.

Chapter 13, 14 and 15, to describe Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) sales channel, distributors, customers, research findings and conclusion, appendix and data source.

View post:
Trends in the Ready To Use Chlortetracycline (Feed Grade) Market 2019-2024 Dagoretti News - Dagoretti News

Genetics

Cobb-Vantress appoints genetics executive – The Poultry Site

Today, Cobb-Vantress appointed Dr Mark Cooper as managing director of genetics to oversee the companys global genetic program. Effective immediately, Dr Cooper will continue work to achieve genetic gains and competitive advantage through alignment of Cobbs breeding program with its product strategy, developing a portfolio of products to meet growing global market needs. He will report to Dr Aldo Rossi, vice president of research and development (R&D).

In his new role, Dr Cooper will lead a global, multifunctional team, including Dr Rachel Hawken, senior director of genetics; Dr Manouchehr Katanbaf, senior geneticist; and Dr Sriram Krishna, senior geneticist. Prior to this appointment, Dr Cooper previously worked as director of product testing. Since joining Cobb, he has also served as pedigree geneticist responsible for male line development, European director of genetics, director of genetics for all of Cobbs breeding programs, and director of product management.

Cobb has been dedicated to genetic research and the responsible use of technology for over 100 years, said Dr Rossi. Dr Cooper has made a big impact in his nearly 20 years with Cobb, and were looking forward to the continued advancements we expect him to accomplish in this new position.

In his time at Cobb, Dr Coopers research has focused on technology development and implementation in the breeding program, welfare parameters and meat quality. He has also spent time with global business leaders and customers to understand and update the R&D team on the product portfolio needed for the future. Most recently, he led Cobbs product testing team, helping to evaluate the companys product performance and development.

Im honored to take on the position of managing director of genetics, said Dr Cooper. Im fortunate because Cobb invests a significant percentage revenue into research and development, allowing us to continue leading the way in genetic progress.

Dr Cooper earned a bachelors degree in poultry science from Texas A&M University, a masters degree in poultry genetics from the University of Georgia, and a PhD in poultry genetics from the University of Arkansas.

Read more:
Cobb-Vantress appoints genetics executive - The Poultry Site

Genetics

Healthy Headlines: Four common myths about genetic testing and why they are not accurate – User-generated content

St. Elizabeth Healthcare

If you could take a simple test that would identify your risks of developing a potentially deadly disease so you could prevent it or treat it sooner, wouldnt you?

A proactive genetic test can do just that. Caroline Ewart, Genetic Counselor in the Center for Precision Medicine and Genomic Health at St. Elizabeth Healthcare, says, Understanding your family tree is important for your future health. Genetics play a big role in what diseases we will develop in the future. The more we understand the family, the more you can proactively do to protect your health.

Many people dont consider genetic testing because they think it is too expensive, not accurate enough, or doesnt screen for the diseases that run in their family. Ewart is helping us bust some of the common myths of genetic testing.

Myth #1: Genetic Testing is Too Expensive

When proactive genetic testing started, it was very expensive, and only a few select laboratories across the country performed the testing. Today, genetic testing is very affordable. Many health insurance companies will provide some coverage for testing, and the laboratories now have a limit on what they can charge.

A proactive screening in the Center for Precision Medicine and Genomic at St. Elizabeth Healthcare is just $395. That includes an initial genetic counseling visit, coordination of blood tests, carrier status screening, and a comprehensive consultation discussing your results. Individuals with a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Savings Account (HSA) may be able to use these funds to pay for the cost of the screening.

Myth #2: Genetic Testing Only Finds Breast Cancers

Its true, when genetic testing was in its infancy, we only tested for BRCA1 and 2 genes which detect breast and ovarian cancers, says Ewart. But the tests today are far more sophisticated. We now test for over 100 different gene mutations looking for a range of diseases and cancers.

Inherited conditions the tests screen for, include:

Breast cancer

Cardiovascular diseases

Colorectal cancer

Cutaneous melanoma

Gastric cancer

Ovarian cancer

Pancreatic cancer

Renal cell cancer

Thyroid cancer

Myth #3: Genetic Testing Doesnt Help the Treatment of Diseases like Cancer

Genetic testing is used not only to proactively screen for certain diseases, but it is used to treat cancer as well.

If you have been diagnosed with cancer, the gene mutation may guide treatment. It can also help your team manage increased risks of developing other types of cancers, says Ewart.

More importantly, the results of proactive genetic testing can guide your healthcare teams recommendations for screenings of cancer and cardiovascular diseases. This may include starting screenings at an earlier age, increasing the frequency of screenings or suggesting more advance screenings.

By screening early, we can find the disease early, when it is most treatable, says Caroline.

Myth #4: Genetic Testing isnt Accurate

Ewart says, Certainly there are limitations to testing, but our process is more than just a blood test. By gathering a thorough family history we can determine your risk factors for developing certain diseases, even if a blood test comes back negative.

At St. Elizabeth Healthcare, if you are found to be at high risk or test positive for genetic cancers, you are referred to the Heredity Cancer Clinic to develop a plan for future cancer screenings. They may also recommend your family members be tested, so you can get a full picture of your familys health. St. Elizabeth has many types of genetic screenings. To find the one that best fits your needs, pleasestelizabeth.com/dna or call 859-301-GENE (4363).

See original here:
Healthy Headlines: Four common myths about genetic testing and why they are not accurate - User-generated content