La identificación de muchas de las lagunas de la secuencia original ha ofrecido detalles relevantes de la estructura y función de nuestro genoma.
Read More
La identificación de muchas de las lagunas de la secuencia original ha ofrecido detalles relevantes de la estructura y función de nuestro genoma.
There is a popular idea that is so deeply rooted that, despite the evidence, it continues to be entrenched in our thinking: that human beings are like pieces of fresh clay perfectly moldable by education or context. However, There are many features that come standard and little or nothing can be modulated (not to mention that those traits themselves shape the context, in turn).
For this reason, no matter how much effort has been made by institutions, educational centers and even television advertisements, a new meta-analysis (composed of 75 studies) has not found that boys and girls have changed their preferences for toys in the last half century.
Children toys"
Parents of young children know that boys like different toys than girls like. Children show a preference for cars, robots, soldiers, bicycles, LEGOs. Girls also like bicycles, cars and LEGOs, but they also play with dolls and stuffed animals, toys that children find least appealing for active play.
According to the analysis, then, boys show a strong preference for “boys” toys, while girls are more flexible and tend to like toys more in general, although they are also typical of children.
Is this difference in toy preference solely due to socialization from parents, other children, and the media, or are there basic perception/action differences between men and women that make some toys better suited or more attractive to one sex than to another?
Interestingly, this trend is similar to what has been found in macaques that are offered “boy” and “girl” toys, according to a study conducted in 2008, so sexually dimorphic toy preferences appear to reflect basic neurobiological differences between males and females and are not caused solely by socialization, as social-cognitive theories of gender role behavior have suggested.
–
The news
In 50 years, 75 studies suggest that boys and girls have not changed their preferences for toys (like monkeys)
was originally published in
Xataka Science
by
Sergio Parra
.
The myths associated with food multiply exponentially, partly due to ignorance, but above all due to the multiplicity of media that live off of it. clickbait and social networks, that disperse the myths themselves or transform them into even more dangerous myths.
Don't let them mess you up with your food, from the doctor in Food Science and Technology Miguel Ángel Lurueña He has come to put some order and tell us that almost everything we took for granted was actually not true.
Food myths
In 2018, in various national media, It was claimed that McDonald's fries could be the solution to baldness. In reality, the news echoed a Japanese study that talked about producing hair follicles in culture dishes and manufacturing small silicone structures to serve as support and could be implanted in the skin of laboratory mice.
Don't get confused with food: An essential guide to know if you are eating well: 313 (Imago Mundi)
The relationship with French fries was only fortuitous: that used silicone, called dimethylpolysiloxane It is used as a food additive (E 900) in different foods, including frying oils, where they fulfill the function of preventing splashes and the formation of foams. Nothing else.
News like this, distorted by the media, is published every day, which added to all the myths perpetuated by our grandmothers, makes books like these essential: full of useful, practical and, above all, demystifying information. For this reason, the book has been a source of inspiration for entries in Xataka Ciencia such as If there is more air than potatoes in your bag of potatoes, it is not necessarily to deceive you..
"Organic" bananas, "antibiotic-free" meat, cookies enriched with vitamins, yogurts that "help our defenses." To eat safely and healthily you don't need to complicate your life. There's no need to count calories or juggle, either. The problem is that we are very clueless. It is not surprising. Every day we receive an enormous amount of information that is not rigorous and even contradictory. Is a daily glass of wine good for your heart or dangerous for your health? And if you look at advertising, it's even worse: what does it mean that a tomato sauce is “100% natural”? Furthermore, we do not have enough knowledge to properly interpret food labels and recognize their ingredients. In short, the world of food today can be summarized with three words: misinformation, ignorance and distrust.
–
The news
Books that inspire us: 'Don't let them mess you up with food' by Miguel Ángel Lurueña
was originally published in
Xataka Science
by
Sergio Parra
.
Often, we open a bag of potato chips and, surprise, it is half empty, even though it seemed completely full because it was actually full of air. However, this strategy is not the result of marketing. In reality it is somewhat more complicated and has to do with the preservation of the potato chips themselves.
Being half empty, the bags can fill with air, but a very special air, an atmosphere that protects the potato.
Light and oxygen
Potato chips and other similar snacks go rancid easily when exposed to light and oxygen. To avoid this, opaque bags are used to act as a light barrier.
In addition, inside there is a protective atmosphere: the air is replaced by a mixture of gases that protect the product, as explained Miguel Ángel Lurueña in his book Don't let them mess you up with your food:
In the specific case of French fries, nitrogen is normally used, which is a colorless, odorless, tasteless and inert gas, that is, it does not react with other compounds and is safe for health. For this protective atmosphere to be effective, the ratio between the volume of gas and the volume of food must be equal to or greater than two, which explains why there is so much "air" in the bags and so few potatoes. Incidentally, this protects the product against breakage due to impact or crushing, that is, it serves as an "airbag".
–
The news
If there is more air than potatoes in your bag of potatoes, it is not necessarily to deceive you.
was originally published in
Xataka Science
by
Sergio Parra
.
The Dutch Golden Age It was a period of great wealth for the Dutch Republic. International trade flourished with the Dutch East India Company (VOC). This attracted immigrants, so the growth of the most important ports and cities was also stimulated.
During this time, the 17th century, art and science flourished, as can be seen in the famous works of the Dutch masters: Rembrandt, Hals, Vermeer and Steen. And heterodox thinkers also arrived. The most iconoclastic of them all was, without a doubt, Spinoza. And that's how it changed our ideas of the natural world.
Spinosists
The most controversial philosopher of the time, Baruch Spinoza, he came to consider whether there is an ideal form of government, what is the responsibility of rulers towards their people, and other questions that seemed untouchable, such as the existence of God.
At the same time, it gained prominence Johan de Witt, a brilliant intellectual, a specialist in mathematics and law, who was also a very attractive boy. Despite coming from an aristocratic family, he was a fervent defender of republicanism. At 28, he was named Prime Minister of the Netherlands. De Witt longed for the country to be governed by the idea that the successors of kings and princes were those who were born from their wombs, but rather those who were chosen for their merits.
Those ideas were accepted with quite a bit of acceptance: not in vain, 30 % of all the books published in the world were published in Amsterdam. We were, therefore, facing a literate people and, furthermore, with a lot of editorial freedom.
But De Witt also had opponents: on the one hand, the orangers, who believed that every country needed a monarch; On the other hand there were the orthodox calvinists, who believed that all government needed to be founded on the Bible.
Spinoza idolized De Witt, and decided to leave his deepest philosophy behind to get down to work and support him with a new book intended for the general public. For the first time in history, someone declares that the basis of politics should be individual freedom, also adding that the democratic government was the closest to the state of nature and the most akin to said freedom. The book was published in 1670 and claimed things like the Bible was human and full of errors.
And, like religion, the government also had to abandon that mystical halo and submit to rational, scientific and secular principles.
The impact of the work was so profound and caused so many commotions that even De Witt had to join the voices that condemned him so as not to end up committing political suicide. However, De Witt was assassinated for espousing such unorthodox ideas. Spinoza could not believe how far human barbarism reached.
But, even though the attempt at a republican, humanist form of government, far removed from obeisance, had not finally caught on, those ideas did not completely die. They caused philosophical and political resonances in half the world. A new term even appeared: “spinosista”, from Spinoza, which meant subversive, extremist, dangerous, and even atheist. The Spinosists, however, were growing in number, and for them the term was synonymous with modern, rational, lucid, free of superstitions.
It was also a type of thought that fuels the trait of ambivalenceThat is, not being sure about everything, continuing to investigate, not proposing fixed recipes for complex problems. You can learn more about this feature, as well as its advantages and disadvantages, in the following video:
–
The news
Spinoza was such a groundbreaking philosopher for his time that his followers were branded extremists, dangerous, and even atheists.
was originally published in
Xataka Science
by
Sergio Parra
.
As it appears from this new study, men and women They perceive the beauty of the opposite sex differently depending on whether or not they consider them to be a long-term partner..
Thus, women perceive men as less attractive as long-term partners if they have first imagined them as one-night stands. In contrast, men perceive women as less attractive as one-night partners if they have first imagined them as long-term partners.
Different evolutionary strategies
Women and men show symmetrical biases, but in diametrically opposite ways. This is what a total sample of more than 3,000 individuals from different studies suggests.. Whatever the interpretation of such results, these biases are capable of producing spurious or inconsistent associations and mislead us when we compare studies that superficially appear similar.
It is not known why this happens, but it is probably related to the fact that both sexes follow different reproductive strategies. depending on what they should invest biologically: Men can ejaculate sperm whenever they want and get women pregnant; But women, once pregnant, invest months in the gestation process.
That is to say, women, on average, will find the commitment and fidelity of a man to be the most desirable trait, as he has more incentives to get other females pregnant. But men who are willing to commit, however, will conceptualize one-night stands differently: a kind of indiscriminate spread of genes.
However, so far no study has statistically controlled for the effect of the order in which participants consider the two types of relationships.
This would also explain the reason why beauty signs are different both in them (show more resources) and in them (show more beauty):
–
The news
Depending on whether you imagine someone of the opposite sex as a long-term partner or not, you will perceive their beauty differently.
was originally published in
Xataka Science
by
Sergio Parra
.
There are beautiful and well-made films, that even convey interesting ideas, and even greater awareness about the environment. However, the world is complex and intricate, and a trend instilled by a movie can have an unwanted side effect.
This was the case of the Pixar film Finding Nemo, which documented what happens when we end up releasing our pets into the environment: we cause serious imbalances in the ecosystem.
Invasive species
In the film Finding Nemo There is a scene where two fish escape down the toilet drain. Many children, upon watching the film, imitated this example and wanted to do a good deed, throwing the fish down the toilet so that they would be free. However, this was a problem, as explained JM Mulet in his book Real environmentalism:
Most home aquariums are for exotic or tropical species, which are very attractive but usually die in cold waters. The problem is that the film was also seen in Florida, so in the Caribbean right now there are colonies of scorpion fish, originally from Asia, that are causing real havoc.
And more bad news: Because it lacks the genetic ability to adapt to rapid changes in its environment, such as those resulting from current global warming, the clownfish popularized by the movie Finding Nemo It is going to be extinct without remedy. This is what researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) conclude in a recent study published in the journal Ecology Letters. Although, fortunately, it is not his fault. Finding Nemo.
–
The news
When 'Finding Nemo' ruined the environment or the problem of releasing our pets
was originally published in
Xataka Science
by
Sergio Parra
.
There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to addressing the problems of growth and the environment. Both are diametrically opposed. One bets on asceticism, the other, on the contrary.
Predicting the future is not easy. In 1798, Thomas Malthus He predicted that the human population would inevitably outstrip the food supply. This was not the case, mainly due to technological advances that Malthus could not foresee.
two visions
- The Malthusians (by Thomas Malthus): They predict that resources will be exhausted and that growth cannot be indefinite. In English this group is usually referred to as doomers.
- The cornucopians (for cornucopia, the horn of plenty): growth can be unlimited because science and technology will always find the solution to problems and the way to obtain and optimize resources. In English this group is usually referred to as boomers (explosion, or expansion).
Which of the two positions is correct? It is a difficult question, as summarized JM Mulet It's your book Real environmentalism:
Throughout the 20th century, various authors have subscribed to these currents. Among the Malthusians we have Jared Diamond (Collapse) or the aforementioned Paul Ehrlich, and among the Cornucopians we have Julian Simon or Amory Lovins. What is the best attitude? Is anyone right? Most likely not and it depends on each specific problem.
The solution may not be asceticism so much as new technologies that generate fewer emissions (i.e. Who has done more for trees, environmentalists or pendrives?). But perhaps we are heading towards a point of no return. Be that as it may, below you can explore a series where, for the first time, they bet on the Cornucopians instead of the Malthusians: Dr Stone.
–
The news
Cornucopians VS Malthusians: how to face a finite world in which there are more and more people?
was originally published in
Xataka Science
by
Sergio Parra
.
There are many ways to conceptualize the human being, but if we talk about his nature in harmony with the environment and to what extent he is free/responsible for his destiny, there are essentially two visions in this regard, treated by Thomas Sowell in his book Conflict of visions.
These visions are the Restricted and the unrestricted, which we will see below.
Factory defects or system failures
In the restricted vision It is proposed that human beings have immutable, serial, factory defects, and that these defects include intellect and moral character. Once that premise is accepted, we must place our trust in proven and reliable systems (science, market, institutions, etc.). This vision, with all its variants, is supported by thinkers such as Hobbes, Smith, Burke, Malthus or Hamilton.
In the unrestricted vision It is established that human beings are born good by nature, and that the defects we observe are the result of failures of the system or social institutions. This vision, with all its variants, is supported by thinkers such as Voltaire, Rousseau, Paine or Veblen.
To delve deeper into these two visions (probably neither of the two positions is true, or it is not true at all times or circumstances, but rather we must swing between one extreme and the other), I recommend Sowell's book., Conflict of visions. According to Sowell, these visions are at the origin of the political struggles developed, first, in Europe and, later, throughout the world since the end of the 18th century: the vision that he calls "constrained" ("restricted", "conditioned", also meaning "tragic", "pessimistic") and the "unconstrained" vision ("unconstrained", "utopian", "optimistic").
You can also expand on these visions in the following video, where I speak about my beliefs, and where I lean much more towards the restricted vision:
–
The news
Basically there are two visions of the nature of the human being: the restricted and the unrestricted.
was originally published in
Xataka Science
by
Sergio Parra
.