Monday, December 07, 2009

Jay Dixit - The Art of Now: Six Steps to Living in the Moment

http://www.lysergid.com/blog/images/2/now_lsd.jpg

Good article from Psychology Today, even though it's a bit old. We obviously can't live in the NOW every moment of every day, but when we want to, it's nice to know how to do it.

A friend was walking in the desert when he found the telephone to God. The setting was Burning Man, an electronic arts and music festival for which 50,000 people descend on Black Rock City, Nevada, for eight days of "radical self-expression"—dancing, socializing, meditating, and debauchery.

A phone booth in the middle of the desert with a sign that said "Talk to God" was a surreal sight even at Burning Man. The idea was that you picked up the phone, and God—or someone claiming to be God—would be at the other end to ease your pain.

So when God came on the line asking how he could help, my friend was ready. "How can I live more in the moment?" he asked. Too often, he felt, the beautiful moments of his life were drowned out by a cacophony of self-consciousness and anxiety. What could he do to hush the buzzing of his mind?

"Breathe," replied a soothing male voice.

My friend flinched at the tired new-age mantra, then reminded himself to keep an open mind. When God talks, you listen.

"Whenever you feel anxious about your future or your past, just breathe," continued God. "Try it with me a few times right now. Breathe in... breathe out." And despite himself, my friend began to relax.

You Are Not Your Thoughts

Life unfolds in the present. But so often, we let the present slip away, allowing time to rush past unobserved and unseized, and squandering the precious seconds of our lives as we worry about the future and ruminate about what's past. "We're living in a world that contributes in a major way to mental fragmentation, disintegration, distraction, decoherence," says Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace. We're always doing something, and we allow little time to practice stillness and calm.

When we're at work, we fantasize about being on vacation; on vacation, we worry about the work piling up on our desks. We dwell on intrusive memories of the past or fret about what may or may not happen in the future. We don't appreciate the living present because our "monkey minds," as Buddhists call them, vault from thought to thought like monkeys swinging from tree to tree.

Most of us don't undertake our thoughts in awareness. Rather, our thoughts control us. "Ordinary thoughts course through our mind like a deafening waterfall," writes Jon Kabat-Zinn, the biomedical scientist who introduced meditation into mainstream medicine. In order to feel more in control of our minds and our lives, to find the sense of balance that eludes us, we need to step out of this current, to pause, and, as Kabat-Zinn puts it, to "rest in stillness—to stop doing and focus on just being."

We need to live more in the moment. Living in the moment—also called mindfulness—is a state of active, open, intentional attention on the present. When you become mindful, you realize that you are not your thoughts; you become an observer of your thoughts from moment to moment without judging them. Mindfulness involves being with your thoughts as they are, neither grasping at them nor pushing them away. Instead of letting your life go by without living it, you awaken to experience.

Cultivating a nonjudgmental awareness of the present bestows a host of benefits. Mindfulness reduces stress, boosts immune functioning, reduces chronic pain, lowers blood pressure, and helps patients cope with cancer. By alleviating stress, spending a few minutes a day actively focusing on living in the moment reduces the risk of heart disease. Mindfulness may even slow the progression of HIV.

Mindful people are happier, more exuberant, more empathetic, and more secure. They have higher self-esteem and are more accepting of their own weaknesses. Anchoring awareness in the here and now reduces the kinds of impulsivity and reactivity that underlie depression, binge eating, and attention problems. Mindful people can hear negative feedback without feeling threatened. They fight less with their romantic partners and are more accommodating and less defensive. As a result, mindful couples have more satisfying relationships.

Mindfulness is at the root of Buddhism, Taoism, and many Native-American traditions, not to mention yoga. It's why Thoreau went to Walden Pond; it's what Emerson and Whitman wrote about in their essays and poems.

"Everyone agrees it's important to live in the moment, but the problem is how," says Ellen Langer, a psychologist at Harvard and author of Mindfulness. "When people are not in the moment, they're not there to know that they're not there." Overriding the distraction reflex and awakening to the present takes intentionality and practice.

Living in the moment involves a profound paradox: You can't pursue it for its benefits. That's because the expectation of reward launches a future-oriented mindset, which subverts the entire process. Instead, you just have to trust that the rewards will come. There are many paths to mindfulness—and at the core of each is a paradox. Ironically, letting go of what you want is the only way to get it. Here are a few tricks to help you along.

1: To improve your performance, stop thinking about it (unselfconsciousness).

I've never felt comfortable on a dance floor. My movements feel awkward. I feel like people are judging me. I never know what to do with my arms. I want to let go, but I can't, because I know I look ridiculous.

"Loosen up, no one's watching you," people always say. "Everyone's too busy worrying about themselves." So how come they always make fun of my dancing the next day?

The dance world has a term for people like me: "absolute beginner." Which is why my dance teacher, Jessica Hayden, the owner of Shockra Studio in Manhattan, started at the beginning, sitting me down on a bench and having me tap my feet to the beat as Jay-Z thumped away in the background. We spent the rest of the class doing "isolations"—moving just our shoulders, ribs, or hips—to build "body awareness."

But even more important than body awareness, Hayden said, was present-moment awareness. "Be right here right now!" she'd say. "Just let go and let yourself be in the moment."

That's the first paradox of living in the moment: Thinking too hard about what you're doing actually makes you do worse. If you're in a situation that makes you anxious—giving a speech, introducing yourself to a stranger, dancing—focusing on your anxiety tends to heighten it. "When I say, 'be here with me now,' I mean don't zone out or get too in-your-head—instead, follow my energy, my movements," says Hayden. "Focus less on what's going on in your mind and more on what's going on in the room, less on your mental chatter and more on yourself as part of something." To be most myself, I needed to focus on things outside myself, like the music or the people around me.

Indeed, mindfulness blurs the line between self and other, explains Michael Kernis, a psychologist at the University of Georgia. "When people are mindful, they're more likely to experience themselves as part of humanity, as part of a greater universe." That's why highly mindful people such as Buddhist monks talk about being "one with everything."

By reducing self-consciousness, mindfulness allows you to witness the passing drama of feelings, social pressures, even of being esteemed or disparaged by others without taking their evaluations personally, explain Richard Ryan and K. W. Brown of the University of Rochester. When you focus on your immediate experience without attaching it to your self-esteem, unpleasant events like social rejection—or your so-called friends making fun of your dancing—seem less threatening.

Focusing on the present moment also forces you to stop overthinking. "Being present-minded takes away some of that self-evaluation and getting lost in your mind—and in the mind is where we make the evaluations that beat us up," says Stephen Schueller, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania. Instead of getting stuck in your head and worrying, you can let yourself go.

2: To avoid worrying about the future, focus on the present (savoring).

In her memoir Eat, Pray, Love, Elizabeth Gilbert writes about a friend who, whenever she sees a beautiful place, exclaims in a near panic, "It's so beautiful here! I want to come back here someday!" "It takes all my persuasive powers," writes Gilbert, "to try to convince her that she is already here."

Often, we're so trapped in thoughts of the future or the past that we forget to experience, let alone enjoy, what's happening right now. We sip coffee and think, "This is not as good as what I had last week." We eat a cookie and think, "I hope I don't run out of cookies."

Instead, relish or luxuriate in whatever you're doing at the present moment—what psychologists call savoring. "This could be while you're eating a pastry, taking a shower, or basking in the sun. You could be savoring a success or savoring music," explains Sonja Lyubomirsky, a psychologist at the University of California at Riverside and author of The How of Happiness. "Usually it involves your senses."

When subjects in a study took a few minutes each day to actively savor something they usually hurried through—eating a meal, drinking a cup of tea, walking to the bus—they began experiencing more joy, happiness, and other positive emotions, and fewer depressive symptoms, Schueller found.

Why does living in the moment make people happier—not just at the moment they're tasting molten chocolate pooling on their tongue, but lastingly? Because most negative thoughts concern the past or the future. As Mark Twain said, "I have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened." The hallmark of depression and anxiety is catastrophizing—worrying about something that hasn't happened yet and might not happen at all. Worry, by its very nature, means thinking about the future—and if you hoist yourself into awareness of the present moment, worrying melts away.

The flip side of worrying is ruminating, thinking bleakly about events in the past. And again, if you press your focus into the now, rumination ceases. Savoring forces you into the present, so you can't worry about things that aren't there.

3: If you want a future with your significant other, inhabit the present (breathe).

Living consciously with alert interest has a powerful effect on interpersonal life. Mindfulness actually inoculates people against aggressive impulses, say Whitney Heppner and Michael Kernis of the University of Georgia. In a study they conducted, each subject was told that other subjects were forming a group—and taking a vote on whether she could join. Five minutes later, the experimenter announced the results—either the subject had gotten the least number of votes and been rejected or she'd been accepted. Beforehand, half the subjects had undergone a mindfulness exercise in which each slowly ate a raisin, savoring its taste and texture and focusing on each sensation.

Later, in what they thought was a separate experiment, subjects had the opportunity to deliver a painful blast of noise to another person. Among subjects who hadn't eaten the raisin, those who were told they'd been rejected by the group became aggressive, inflicting long and painful sonic blasts without provocation. Stung by social rejection, they took it out on other people.

Read the rest of the article.


Wired - Rudiments of Language Discovered in Monkeys

Very cool - and not at all surprising.

Rudiments of Language Discovered in Monkeys

campbellmonkey-s

Campbell’s monkeys appear to combine the same calls in different ways, using rules of grammar that turn sound into language.

Whether their rudimentary syntax echoes the speech of humanity’s evolutionary ancestors, or represents an emergence of language unrelated to our own, is unclear. Either way, they’re far more sophisticated than we thought.

“This is the first evidence we have in animal communication that they can combine, in a semantic way, different calls to create a new message,” said Alban Lemasson, a primatologist at the University of Rennes in France. “I’m not sure it has strong parallels with humans, in the way that we will find a subject and object and verb. But they have meaningful units combined into other meaningful sequences, with rules imposed on how they’re combined.”

Lemasson’s team previously described the http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007808 in a paper published in November. It detailed the monkeys’ basic sound structures and their uses: “Hok” for eagle, “krak” for leopard, “krak-oo” for general disturbance, “hok-oo” and “wak-oo” for general disturbance in forest canopies. A sixth call, “boom,” was used in non-predatory contexts, such as when calling a group together for travel or arguing with neighboring groups.

Impressive as that was, however, it was still relatively one-dimensional, not much different from verbalizations heard in many animal species, from other non-human primates to songbirds. The team’s latest findings, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, describe something far more complicated: syntax, or principles of word sequence and sentence structure.

Though some researchers have ascribed syntax to animals, it’s never been formally demonstrated — until now.

“People have criticized the use of ’syntax’ to describe animals just because they produce sequences of sound. They say that each unit has no meaning, that no rules explain how they’re combined,” said Lemasson. “Here we have rules of combination.”

For example, male monkeys called “boom boom” to gather other monkeys to them, but “boom boom krak-oo krak-oo” meant that a tree or branch was about to fall. Adding a “hak-oo” to that sequence turned it into a territorial warning against stray monkeys from neigboring groups. Multiple “krak-oo” calls added to an original “krak” meant not only that a leopard was in the area, but that it posed an immediate threat.

The research raises the question of whether early humans or our primate ancestors combined calls in a similar way, turning a small set of sounds into a rich verbal reportoire.

According to Lemasson and to Jared Taglialatela, a chimpanzee communication researcher at Clayton State University, it’s too soon to say whether the monkey talk is proto-human.

“I’d shy away from that. But this is certainly syntax,” said Taglialatela, who was not involved in the study. But he described the proto-human question as secondary to a far more intriguing possibility: that the potential for language is widespread in the animal kingdom.

“People like to draw lines and make boxes and put animals inside them. I don’t like to do that. There are differences and shades of grey. And when you take the time to collect data in a way that allows you to recognize complexity and patterns, than you find evidence of them,” said Taglialatela.

Lemasson’s analysis was based on a vast set of recordings, gathered from 10 monkey groups observed for two full years in their African rain forest homes.

Lemasson, who is further investigating Campbell’s monkey talk by measuring their reactions to recorded calls, suspects that a dense jungle environment drove the evolution of syntax. Since the monkeys had trouble seeing each other, they compensated by talking.

The same compensatory dynamic could operate in other species, such as whales that live in mostly sunless waters, he said.

“We can imagine that this ability has evolved in other lineages,” said Lemasson.

Image: Florian Möllers

See Also:

Citation: “Generating meaning with finite means in Campbell’s monkeys.” By Karim Ouattara, Alban Lemasson, and Klaus Zuberbuhler. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106 No. 48, December 7, 2009.


Tibetan Buddhism philosophy and psychology

Interesting.

LETTING GO: Wise men from the East, bearing precious gifts of knowledge and insight gleaned from their age-old lineage of Tibetan Buddhism, as well as their travels through America: Geshe Drakpa Gelek, a brilliant master of Buddhist philosophy and psychology; and Lama Passang Gelek, a master teacher who has trained under His Holiness the Dalai Lama.



Watch Tibetan Buddhism philosophy and psychology: 12/30/07 in Faith & Spirituality  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com


Sounds True - Ken Wilber: Integral Transformation, Part Two

Here is part two of Tami Simon's conversation with Ken Wilber.

Ken Wilber: Integral Transformation, Part Two
Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Ken WilberTami Simon speaks with Ken Wilber, in the second of a two-part series. Ken is one of the most influential and widely read American philosophers of our time. He is the founder of the Integral Institute and has published more than 25 books, including A Brief History of Everything and The Simple Feeling of Being, as well as the Sounds True audio learning programs Kosmic Consciousness and The One Two Three of God. Ken discusses “shadow work,” the importance of meditation, and other practices that help us on a path of genuine transformation. (48 minutes)


icon for podpress Standard Podcast: Hide Player | Play in Popup


Enlightenment, DP/DR & Falling Into the Pit of the Void - Shinzen Young

I found this video at Enlightenment Ward.

Just the other day, Jami and I were talking about how pre-personal states and transpersonal states look so similar that there might be similar brain areas involved in both. We also talked about how depersonalization might easily be confused with enlightenment by those unfamiliar with both states and the theoretical underpinnings of how they differ.

This video from Shinzen Young looks at the issue.
Shinzen talks about the empowering facets of enlightenment and compares this to "enlightenment's evil twin" DP/DR. He talks about the rare occasions that he's encountered a meditator moving in the direction of DP/DR and the strategy he used to "cure" it using mindfulness methods. Filmed in Nov. 2009 at Mt. Carmel Spiritual Centre in Niagara Falls.





Sunday, December 06, 2009

The Atlantic - The Science of Success

Interesting article in the new issue.

The Science of Success

Most of us have genes that make us as hardy as dandelions: able to take root and survive almost anywhere. A few of us, however, are more like the orchid: fragile and fickle, but capable of blooming spectacularly if given greenhouse care. So holds a provocative new theory of genetics, which asserts that the very genes that give us the most trouble as a species, causing behaviors that are self-destructive and antisocial, also underlie humankind’s phenomenal adaptability and evolutionary success. With a bad environment and poor parenting, orchid children can end up depressed, drug-addicted, or in jail—but with the right environment and good parenting, they can grow up to be society’s most creative, successful, and happy people.

by David Dobbs

In 2004, Marian Bakermans-Kranenburg, a professor of child and family studies at Leiden University, started carrying a video camera into homes of families whose 1-to-3-year-olds indulged heavily in the oppositional, aggressive, uncooperative, and aggravating behavior that psychologists call “externalizing”: whining, screaming, whacking, throwing tantrums and objects, and willfully refusing reasonable requests. Staple behaviors in toddlers, perhaps. But research has shown that toddlers with especially high rates of these behaviors are likely to become stressed, confused children who fail academically and socially in school, and become antisocial and unusually aggressive adults.

At the outset of their study, Bakermans-Kranenburg and her colleagues had screened 2,408 children via parental questionnaire, and they were now focusing on the 25 percent rated highest by their parents in externalizing behaviors. Lab observations had confirmed these parental ratings.

Bakermans-Kranenburg meant to change the kids’ behavior. In an intervention her lab had developed, she or another researcher visited each of 120 families six times over eight months; filmed the mother and child in everyday activities, including some requiring obedience or cooperation; and then edited the film into teachable moments to show to the mothers. A similar group of high-externalizing children received no intervention.




Video: Watch an interview with Stephen Suomi, one of the researchers featured in this story

To the researchers’ delight, the intervention worked. The moms, watching the videos, learned to spot cues they’d missed before, or to respond differently to cues they’d seen but had reacted to poorly. Quite a few mothers, for instance, had agreed only reluctantly to read picture books to their fidgety, difficult kids, saying they wouldn’t sit still for it. But according to Bakermans-Kranenburg, when these mothers viewed the playback they were “surprised to see how much pleasure it was for the child—and for them.” Most mothers began reading to their children regularly, producing what Bakermans-Kranenburg describes as “a peaceful time that they had dismissed as impossible.”

And the bad behaviors dropped. A year after the intervention ended, the toddlers who’d received it had reduced their externalizing scores by more than 16 percent, while a nonintervention control group improved only about 10 percent (as expected, due to modest gains in self-control with age). And the mothers’ responses to their children became more positive and constructive.

Few programs change parent-child dynamics so successfully. But gauging the efficacy of the intervention wasn’t the Leiden team’s only goal, or even its main one. The team was also testing a radical new hypothesis about how genes shape behavior—a hypothesis that stands to revise our view of not only mental illness and behavioral dysfunction but also human evolution.

Of special interest to the team was a new interpretation of one of the most important and influential ideas in recent psychiatric and personality research: that certain variants of key behavioral genes (most of which affect either brain development or the processing of the brain’s chemical messengers) make people more vulnerable to certain mood, psychiatric, or personality disorders. Bolstered over the past 15 years by numerous studies, this hypothesis, often called the “stress diathesis” or “genetic vulnerability” model, has come to saturate psychiatry and behavioral science. During that time, researchers have identified a dozen-odd gene variants that can increase a person’s susceptibility to depression, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, heightened risk-taking, and antisocial, sociopathic, or violent behaviors, and other problems—if, and only if, the person carrying the variant suffers a traumatic or stressful childhood or faces particularly trying experiences later in life.

This vulnerability hypothesis, as we can call it, has already changed our conception of many psychic and behavioral problems. It casts them as products not of nature or nurture but of complex “gene-environment interactions.” Your genes don’t doom you to these disorders. But if you have “bad” versions of certain genes and life treats you ill, you’re more prone to them.

Recently, however, an alternate hypothesis has emerged from this one and is turning it inside out. This new model suggests that it’s a mistake to understand these “risk” genes only as liabilities. Yes, this new thinking goes, these bad genes can create dysfunction in unfavorable contexts—but they can also enhance function in favorable contexts. The genetic sensitivities to negative experience that the vulnerability hypothesis has identified, it follows, are just the downside of a bigger phenomenon: a heightened genetic sensitivity to all experience.

The evidence for this view is mounting. Much of it has existed for years, in fact, but the focus on dysfunction in behavioral genetics has led most researchers to overlook it. This tunnel vision is easy to explain, according to Jay Belsky, a child-development psychologist at Birkbeck, University of London. “Most work in behavioral genetics has been done by mental-illness researchers who focus on vulnerability,” he told me recently. “They don’t see the upside, because they don’t look for it. It’s like dropping a dollar bill beneath a table. You look under the table, you see the dollar bill, and you grab it. But you completely miss the five that’s just beyond your feet.”

Though this hypothesis is new to modern biological psychiatry, it can be found in folk wisdom, as the University of Arizona developmental psychologist Bruce Ellis and the University of British Columbia developmental pediatrician W. Thomas Boyce pointed out last year in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science. The Swedes, Ellis and Boyce noted in an essay titled “Biological Sensitivity to Context,” have long spoken of “dandelion” children. These dandelion children—equivalent to our “normal” or “healthy” children, with “resilient” genes—do pretty well almost anywhere, whether raised in the equivalent of a sidewalk crack or a well-tended garden. Ellis and Boyce offer that there are also “orchid” children, who will wilt if ignored or maltreated but bloom spectacularly with greenhouse care.

At first glance, this idea, which I’ll call the orchid hypothesis, may seem a simple amendment to the vulnerability hypothesis. It merely adds that environment and experience can steer a person up instead of down. Yet it’s actually a completely new way to think about genetics and human behavior. Risk becomes possibility; vulnerability becomes plasticity and responsiveness. It’s one of those simple ideas with big, spreading implications. Gene variants generally considered misfortunes (poor Jim, he got the “bad” gene) can instead now be understood as highly leveraged evolutionary bets, with both high risks and high potential rewards: gambles that help create a diversified-portfolio approach to survival, with selection favoring parents who happen to invest in both dandelions and orchids.

In this view, having both dandelion and orchid kids greatly raises a family’s (and a species’) chance of succeeding, over time and in any given environment. The behavioral diversity provided by these two different types of temperament also supplies precisely what a smart, strong species needs if it is to spread across and dominate a changing world. The many dandelions in a population provide an underlying stability. The less-numerous orchids, meanwhile, may falter in some environments but can excel in those that suit them. And even when they lead troubled early lives, some of the resulting heightened responses to adversity that can be problematic in everyday life—increased novelty-seeking, restlessness of attention, elevated risk-taking, or aggression—can prove advantageous in certain challenging situations: wars, tribal or modern; social strife of many kinds; and migrations to new environments. Together, the steady dandelions and the mercurial orchids offer an adaptive flexibility that neither can provide alone. Together, they open a path to otherwise unreachable individual and collective achievements.

This orchid hypothesis also answers a fundamental evolutionary question that the vulnerability hypothesis cannot. If variants of certain genes create mainly dysfunction and trouble, how have they survived natural selection? Genes so maladaptive should have been selected out. Yet about a quarter of all human beings carry the best-documented gene variant for depression, while more than a fifth carry the variant that Bakermans-Kranenburg studied, which is associated with externalizing, antisocial, and violent behaviors, as well as ADHD, anxiety, and depression. The vulnerability hypothesis can’t account for this. The orchid hypothesis can.

This is a transformative, even startling view of human frailty and strength. For more than a decade, proponents of the vulnerability hypothesis have argued that certain gene variants underlie some of humankind’s most grievous problems: despair, alienation, cruelties both petty and epic. The orchid hypothesis accepts that proposition. But it adds, tantalizingly, that these same troublesome genes play a critical role in our species’ astounding success.

The orchid hypothesis—sometimes called the plasticity hypothesis, the sensitivity hypothesis, or the differential-susceptibility hypothesis—is too new to have been tested widely. Many researchers, even those in behavioral science, know little or nothing of the idea. A few—chiefly those with broad reservations about ever tying specific genes to specific behaviors—express concerns. But as more supporting evidence emerges, the most common reaction to the idea among researchers and clinicians is excitement. A growing number of psychologists, psychiatrists, child-development experts, geneticists, ethologists, and others are beginning to believe that, as Karlen Lyons-Ruth, a developmental psychologist at Harvard Medical School, puts it, “It’s time to take this seriously.”

With the data gathered in the video intervention, the Leiden team began to test the orchid hypothesis. Could it be, they wondered, that the children who suffer most from bad environments also profit the most from good ones? To find out, Bakermans-Kranenburg and her colleague Marinus van Ijzendoorn began to study the genetic makeup of the children in their experiment. Specifically, they focused on one particular “risk allele” associated with ADHD and externalizing behavior. (An allele is any of the variants of a gene that takes more than one form; such genes are known as polymorphisms. A risk allele, then, is simply a gene variant that increases your likelihood of developing a problem.)

Bakermans-Kranenburg and van Ijzendoorn wanted to see whether kids with a risk allele for ADHD and externalizing behaviors (a variant of a dopamine-processing gene known as DRD4) would respond as much to positive environments as to negative. A third of the kids in the study had this risk allele; the other two-thirds had a version considered a “protective allele,” meaning it made them less vulnerable to bad environments. The control group, who did not receive the intervention, had a similar distribution.

Both the vulnerability hypothesis and the orchid hypothesis predict that in the control group the kids with a risk allele should do worse than those with a protective one. And so they did—though only slightly. Over the course of 18 months, the genetically “protected” kids reduced their externalizing scores by 11 percent, while the “at-risk” kids cut theirs by 7 percent. Both gains were modest ones that the researchers expected would come with increasing age. Although statistically significant, the difference between the two groups was probably unnoticeable otherwise.

The real test, of course, came in the group that got the intervention. How would the kids with the risk allele respond? According to the vulnerability model, they should improve less than their counterparts with the protective allele; the modest upgrade that the video intervention created in their environment wouldn’t offset their general vulnerability.

As it turned out, the toddlers with the risk allele blew right by their counterparts. They cut their externalizing scores by almost 27 percent, while the protective-allele kids cut theirs by just 12 percent (improving only slightly on the 11 percent managed by the protective-allele population in the control group). The upside effect in the intervention group, in other words, was far larger than the downside effect in the control group. Risk alleles, the Leiden team concluded, really can create not just risk but possibility.

Can liability really be so easily turned to gain? The pediatrician W. Thomas Boyce, who has worked with many a troubled child in more than three decades of child-development research, says the orchid hypothesis “profoundly recasts the way we think about human frailty.” He adds, “We see that when kids with this kind of vulnerability are put in the right setting, they don’t merely do better than before, they do the best—even better, that is, than their protective-allele peers. “Are there any enduring human frailties that don’t have this other, redemptive side to them?”

As I researched this story, I thought about such questions a lot, including how they pertained to my own temperament and genetic makeup. Having felt the black dog’s teeth a few times over the years, I’d considered many times having one of my own genes assayed—specifically, the serotonin-transporter gene, also called the SERT gene, or 5-HTTLPR. This gene helps regulate the processing of serotonin, a chemical messenger crucial to mood, among other things. The two shorter, less efficient versions of the gene’s three forms, known as short/short and short/long (or S/S and S/L), greatly magnify your risk of serious depression—if you hit enough rough road. The gene’s long/long form, on the other hand, appears to be protective.

In the end, I’d always backed away from having my SERT gene assayed. Who wants to know his risk of collapsing under pressure? Given my family and personal history, I figured I probably carried the short/long allele, which would make me at least moderately depression-prone. If I had it tested I might get the encouraging news that I had the long/long allele. Then again, I might find I had the dreaded, riskier short/short allele. This was something I wasn’t sure I wanted to find out.

But as I looked into the orchid hypothesis and began to think in terms of plasticity rather than risk, I decided maybe I did want to find out. So I called a researcher I know in New York who does depression research involving the serotonin-transporter gene. The next day, FedEx left a package on my front porch containing a specimen cup. I spat into it, examined what I’d produced, and spat again. Then I screwed the cap tight, slid the vial into its little shipping tube, and put it back on the porch. An hour later, the FedEx guy took it away.

Of all the evidence supporting the orchid-gene hypothesis, perhaps the most compelling comes from the work of Stephen Suomi, a rhesus-monkey researcher who heads a sprawling complex of labs and monkey habitats in the Maryland countryside—the National Institutes of Health’s Laboratory of Comparative Ethology. For 41 years, first at the University of Wisconsin and then, beginning in 1983, in the Maryland lab the NIH built specifically for him, Suomi has been studying the roots of temperament and behavior in rhesus monkeys—which share about 95 percent of our DNA, a number exceeded only in apes. Rhesus monkeys differ from humans in obvious and fundamental ways. But their close resemblance to us in crucial social and genetic respects reveals much about the roots of our own behavior—and has helped give rise to the orchid hypothesis.

Read the rest.


Tibet: a Buddhist trilogy

This is a 2+ hour film on Buddhism and Tibet. A little something to keep you busy on a cold Sunday morning.

Tibet: A Buddhist Trilogy takes you on an intimate journey deep into the heart of an ancient Buddhist world. Four years in the making and hailed as a cinematic masterpiece in 1979, writer/director Graham Coleman's three-part feature has been unseen for over 20 years. Now, the film has been reworked into a single presentation, complete with digital restoration of the original material and new commentary. Part 1 is an intimate portrait of the Dalai Lama as a spiritual and temporal leader. Part 2 journeys deep into the mystical inner world of monastic life and presents an authentic revelation of tantric Buddhism, with commentaries by the great 20th century master Dudjom Rinpoche. Part 3, photographed in the awesome landscapes of Ladakh, is a meditation on impermanence and the depiction of the monastery's moving ritual response to a death in the community.





Saturday, December 05, 2009

Shinzen Young - Spiritual Teachers' Behaviour: Feedback & Ethics

Cool video.
Shinzen talks about spiritual teachers whose behaviour has been flagrantly abusive and less than ethical. He talks about the larger context in which this happens, and suggests that regular contact with a more senior teacher is important. He goes on to say that a feedback loop regarding the teacher's behaviour be set up with students, family and all other people regarding how that teacher is carrying themselves in the world, and that this be established and maintained despite how much time and energy it consumes. Filmed in Nov. 2009 at Mt. Carmel Spiritual Centre in Niagara Falls.





Dharma Quote of the Week - "Who is holding me back from awakening right now?"


NO SELF, NO PROBLEM
by Anam Thubten,
edited by Sharon Roe

more...


Dharma Quote of the Week

If we are still wondering how to awaken, I suggest that we meditate now and then and focus on the following question: "What is holding me back from realizing my true nature, my Buddha Nature?" This is a very powerful inquiry. I am sharing this based on my own meditation practice. This is one of my favorite meditations because it always takes me to the place where I cannot blame anybody or anything for my lack of awakening.

When we open our hearts and let go of all of our theories and speculations, when we are not distracted even by spiritual fantasies, when we simply wholeheartedly and courageously inquire into what is holding us back, that is all that we need to do. Sometimes it is good when we are by ourselves to.. shout loudly to the sky, "Who is holding me back from awakening right now?" Or we can just ask the truth, "What is holding me back from awakening right now?" Either way we can't find any answer because there is nobody there. There is nothing holding us back and that's why we never really find any answers.

If anybody tells us that they have the answer, they are obviously lying because there isn't any answer. Next we might ask, "If there are no obstacles holding me back, then why am I not awakened right now?" And when we look we realize that we are attached to our thoughts. That's all that is happening. Samsara is nothing more than our identification with thoughts. That's all there is. There is nothing there except thoughts.

--from No Self, No Problem by Anam Thubten, edited by Sharon Roe, published by Snow Lion Publications

* * *

So many opportunities and benefits! Read about what's available at...


Also, find great Last-minute gift ideas at bargain prices in our

On Sale While They Last! section.


Friday, December 04, 2009

Humor - Phases of Working

Jami sent me this today, which may be indicative of how her day is going. I'm not normally a fan of the cat stuff, but this is pretty funny.

Phases of Working

Phase 1


You are listening to jazz -- Your first day at work is
Great. Your co-workers are wonderful, your office is
Cute .

Phase 2

You are listening to pop music -- After a while you are
So busy that you are not sure if you're coming or going
Anymore.

Phase 3

You are listening to heavy metal --
This is what happens after about SIX Months!

Phase 4

You are listening to hip hop -- You become bloated due to
Stress, you're gaining weight due to lack of exercise
Because you are so tired and have so much work to do and
When you get home you have more work to do.
You feel sluggish and suffer from constipation.
Your fellow co-workers are too cheerful for your liking and the walls of
Your cubicle are closing in.

Phase 5

You are listening to GANGSTA RAP --
After more time passes, your eyes start to twitch,
You forget what a 'good hair day' feels like as you
Just fall out of bed and load up on caffeine.

Phase 6

You are listening to the voices in your head --
You have locked the office door to keep people out,
You wonder WHY you are even here in the first
Place and WHY did I come to work today!

Nate Green - The Squat: Good Exercise Gone Bad?

The Squat: Good Exercise Gone Bad?

I love squats and will always do some form of squats (back, front, split, etc). The day I no longer do squats will be the day after they roll my corpse into the furnace. However, not all of my clients do squats, and this article touches on why.

Each of the four perspectives offered here are useful.

The Squat: Good Exercise Gone Bad?

A few weeks ago a video of strength coach Mike Boyle presenting at a seminar hit the Internet, and boy did it piss some people off. Why? Just take a look at this quote from Boyle:

"This is going to be the hardest thing for people to accept. The muscle-head crowd, the T-Muscle crowd...they're gonna be like, 'Mike you're saying don't do squats any more.' Yes, I'm saying don't do conventional squats any more."

I watched the clip again. No more squatting? But isn't it the king of lower body exercises? Just what the hell was going on?

The forums were already exploding with people agreeing and vehemently disagreeing with Boyle. I had to get to the bottom of it.

So I called Boyle to get his thoughts. Then, because I wanted to hear other points of view, I called Dave Tate, Christian Thibaudeau, and Eric Cressey.

I learned a ton about squats over the next few hours (more than I cared to know, honestly). But more importantly, I had the information to decide for myself if I'd continue to squat or not.

After reading this article, I hope you'll be comfortable making your own decision, too.

But don't take anything here as gospel; it's just four dudes who really know their stuff.

The Functional Strength Coach: Mike Boyle

I've watched over two million squats and have come to this conclusion: the squat is not a leg exercise; it's a low-back exercise.

The whole purpose of the conventional squat is to put a barbell on your shoulders and transfer power from there, through your body, and into your legs. But the weak link isn't your legs—it's your back. Watch someone squat and you'll see they rarely have trouble getting out of the hole. But nearly all of them will bend forward when they fail.

My business isn't getting someone to squat a lot of weight or getting someone's legs big. It's developing the best performer and exposing that person to the lowest injury-rate possible. I have to look at everything from a risk to benefit ratio.

We realized we could load the spine with fifty percent less weight, do a single-leg exercise, and quadruple the benefits. If one of our athletes could squat 400 pounds for one rep, we'd put 200 pounds on his back, and have him do a rear-leg elevated split squat (Bulgarian split squat). The average reps, we found, were 10 to 14 on each leg.

What that tells me is that if we split the load in half and do ten reps with what was half of our regular bilateral 1RM load, it makes it a superior exercise.

Why wouldn't you do this? It's like if I offered you the exact same car but sold it to you at half-price. "But, Mike, I've always paid full price."

What these guys are saying to me is, "Mike, I've always risked my spine and I'm going to keep doing that."

I say fine. Do what you want.

That's why they'd use the leg press or the leg extension machine. Because it "took their back" out of the exercise. Well, why not take less pressure off the back from the start, get more load on each leg, and fully reap the benefits? And why do bodybuilders really care about the squat? They just want big legs, right? There are other ways to get 'em.

Oh, Mike Boyle's a pussy and doesn't want to lay it on the line. He doesn't even look like he lifts. Whatever. It doesn't bother me.

I'm not sure about the front squat; I may find we're not getting strong enough and put it back in, but I doubt it. When I've taken this much time to make a decision I've rarely gone back.

We do rear-elevated split squats, unsupported single-leg squats, trap bar deadlifts and single-leg straight-leg deadlifts. We hit it hard, so don't think we're slacking.

Look, we haven't done a back squat in over 10 years and we stopped doing front squats this summer. I didn't just want to create controversy on the Internet. My "negative" point of view on squats is the product of over 25 years of thinking about the best ways to get strong and stay injury free.

The Powerlifter: Dave Tate

There's just bad application or bad programming. Is there something wrong with the squat? Yes and no. If the program is a disaster or the person isn't built for it, then yes, there is something wrong. If it's programmed well then I don't see any problem at all.

We train the movements that would make the squat better. From my experience, training the squat week in and week out without having a program to make the squat better is going to be a huge problem.

That's why we may use the cambered or safety squat bar. We may do box squats, belt squats, or squats against bands.

First, it's an exercise that's part of a sport. The squat, bench press, deadlift, clean, jerk, and snatch all are part of sports and are pretty fucking important. I mean, they don't have a single-leg squat competition.

The squat was probably one of the first exercises ever done with a barbell. It's one of the few that has stood the test of time. How many other machines, products, or fads have come and gone?

If it were truly a bad exercise it would have faded out a long time ago.

I can't think of another exercise that builds more confidence. It takes persistence and straining to get better.

We're going to sit down and pick up shit all our lives. Now all of a sudden these main lifts aren't functional? What's more functional than sitting down?

It just doesn't make you any money. Give me twenty bucks and I'll tell you the greatest exercise ever. You ready? The squat. No, you can't have your fucking money back.

Anything can be over-trained. But if you've got a program that's producing a bunch of people who are squatting 275 pounds, your program sucks. We've got high school kids doing that after training for a month.

They just don't transfer over for powerlifters. If one leg is already stronger than the other, doing single-leg work doesn't balance anything out. It just makes it worse. We need our guys to be able to push evenly with both legs.

If it's to get bigger legs, break out a tape measure and calipers. If your legs are getting bigger, you're not getting fatter, and you're not squatting, then keep doing what you're doing.

The worst thing you can do is switch because someone told you to. If you're making progress with what you're doing, then stick to it.

The Bodybuilder: Christian Thibaudeau

Guys who have long legs compared to their torsos, like hockey players, would turn the back squat into a low-back exercise since their leverage is different. And if you worked primarily with those kinds of athletes, then I could definitely see why you may not think the squat is an optimal exercise. Still, it's great for the guys who have shorter legs and longer torsos.

Stand in front of a wall with your hands behind your head in a squatting stance. Your toes should be about six inches away from the wall. Do a regular squat. If your knees or face touch the wall you're not built for squatting. If they don't, you're fine. If you fall over backward then you need to lay off the booze.

Just replace them with trap bar and snatch-grip deadlifts. You'll get some great quad development from those two exercises.

In this case the squat is showing you what you need to work on: your low-back and abs.

My training partner Nick has strong legs but always fell forward when he went above 365 pounds. His back was his weak link, so we dropped the squat for six weeks and worked on his low-back. When he came back to the squat it increased by 50 pounds.

If I'm doing a bench press and I always fail at the mid-point, it doesn't mean the bench press is a bad exercise or will hurt my shoulders. It just means my shoulders are weak compared to my other pressing muscles. I'd be smart to take some time off of pressing and fix my shoulder weakness.

If I do reps with both legs on the leg extension I may be able to do 200 pounds. But if I do each leg separately I may be able to do 120 pounds with each leg or 240 pounds total. How does that work?

Well, when you do a unilateral movement, the whole nervous impulse is sent to one side and allows you to focus more of your attention and muscle fibers on that single working limb.

That's one of the reasons people with long limbs will do better with single leg movements: they're able to recruit more muscle fibers.

But as that athlete becomes more and more efficient at recruiting muscle fibers, you'll see the deficit vanish and they'll be at the same strength. Then it's time to go back to bilateral movements.

It's called delayed transmutation of gains. You're basically getting a new body. Let's say you're used to driving a Honda Civic but now you have a Lamborghini. Even though the Lamborghini is more powerful, it takes some time to learn how to handle it. It's the same thing with your body.

The Athlete-Creator: Eric Cressey

People may be skewed because they deal with different populations. Mike deals with mostly hockey players. For those guys, it's understood that you're going to play most of your career with a groin strain. It's a population where their hips are an absolute disaster. They have poor hip internal rotation and bad adductor tissue quality and length. And when those are your issues it makes it harder to squat deep safely.

I tend to be more cautious with upper body stuff since I deal with more baseball players. It's understandable. But a lot of our guys still squat. We do mainly front squats but we also do back squats with the cambered and safety squat bars. It all depends on if their flexibility is up to par.

I don't know if anything is truly functional. The guys who walk through our door, their problems can be fixed with a little more strength and a better attitude.

But I think you're missing out if you drop squats altogether. Bilateral movements are still our bread and butter. I mean, you squat every time you take a shit.

Some guys can't front squat because they have shoulder problems. Does that mean the front squat is a bad exercise? Nope, it just means guys with messed up shoulders shouldn't be doing them.

Optimize your hip, thoracic-spine, and ankle mobility. Work on core stability and see what happens. If you fix all of that I don't know why you wouldn't squat. Athletes have been doing it forever; it's just a damn good exercise.

The T-MUSCLE Reader: You


100 Killer iTunes Feeds for Serious Science Geeks

One of the authors/editors at Online Colleges sent me a link to this cool post - or at least it's cool if you are science geek or just someone who enjoys learning new things.

November 30th, 2009

Science majors and amateur scientists may want to take a break from their text books and head to iTunes when they get tired of traditional studying. You can find lectures, videos and interviews on all types of scientific subjects, from computer science to engineering to life sciences to physics. Here are 100 killer iTunes feeds for serious science geeks.

General Feeds

These science feeds cover all types of topics, so you’ll get a range of discussions each time you tune in.

  1. Yale Science: Subscribe to this feed if you want a diverse stream of science topics. [Yale]
  2. Science Talks: Award-winning scientists, including Nobel Laureates, talk about science in this feed. [92nd Street Y]
  3. Science and Nature: These talks address topics in physics, biology, environmental science and more. [KQED QUEST]
  4. Natural Science: From the Big Bang Theory to Newton’s theories to physics topics, you’ll find a range of natural science topics here. [Stanford]
  5. Lectures: Science lectures in this feed cover medical geology, ecology, quantum mechanics and more. [Wellesley College]
  6. Mellon College of Science: Lectures here cover sustainable technology, biomedicine and green chemistry. [Carnegie Mellon]
  7. Highlighted lectures and interviews: You’ll get to listen to lectures on evolution, gender ethnicity, astronomy, political science and HIV. [Cambridge]
  8. Physical Sciences: Earth sciences, astrophysics, astronomy and chemistry topics are all discussed in these lectures. [Australian National University]
  9. Speaking of Science: Recent lectures here discussed sustainability, agriculture, wildfire preparation, biodiversity, biofuels and corn breeding. [University of Minnesota]
  10. Science C100: This group of interdisciplinary science lectures cover astronomy, climate change, evolution and more. [Columbia]

Biology and Health

Study biological issues like reproduction, aging, microbiology, cell division, genetics and biodiversity from these feeds.

  1. DNA, RNA and Protein Formation: This intro class covers human proteins. [The Open University]
  2. Human Biology: This feed includes lectures on genetics, cell division, basic chemistry, the digestive system and more. [Harrisburg Area Community College]
  3. Microbiology: Get lectures relating to microbiology topics here. [HACC]
  4. Introductory Biology: From biochemistry to molecular biology, you’ll get an introduction to various sub-fields of biology. [MIT]
  5. Contemporary Biology: From pandemics to birth control to mad cow disease to death and aging, you’ll find important health and biology issues studied today.
  6. Science and Medicine: This feed includes talks about the future of medicine. [Brown University]
  7. Biology: Uniformity and Diversity: From microbes to fungi, to spiders’ webs, you’ll learn about biology uniformity and the diversity of life here. [The Open University]
  8. Darwin’s Legacy: Study genes, evolution, science and religion, and other topics related to Darwin’s impact on science. [Stanford]
  9. Microbiology: These microbiology recaps are hosted by the Chair of the Health Sciences Department. [East Tennessee State University]
  10. Biology: Review DNA, anatomy, neurons, carbohydrates, lipids and other bio topics here. [Cassiopeia Project]
  11. Complexity: Try to understand the inner workings of the human brain here. [Cassiopeia Project]
  12. Introd Acids/Bases: Hemoglobins, protein structure, enzymes and carbohydrates are just some of the topics covered here. [Oregon State University]
  13. Biology: Biology lectures here include "Who Owns Life?" and "The Biology of Autism." [Stanford]
  14. Medicine and Life Sciences: From sex chromosomes to DNA to biosecurity, you’ll find a range of biology and health sciences topics here. [Australian National University]
  15. Microbial Genetics: So far, there are over 35 lectures about microbial genetics in this feed. [University of Arizona]

Astronomy

You can learn about galaxies, physics principles, and black holes when you subscribe to these feeds.

  1. Astronomy: Learn about the sun, the shape and scale of the galaxy, and other topics. [The Open University]
  2. Exploring Black Holes: General Relativity: This physics and astronomy feed covers X-Ray Binaries, Einstein and more. [MIT]
  3. Survey of Astronomy: Get lectures from an astronomy survey course here. [Missouri State University]
  4. Stargazing for Everyone: If you’re just getting into astronomy, subscribe to this feed to learn about lunar eclipses, the planets and more. [Arizona's IDEAL eLearning Platform]
  5. Astronomy and Astrophysics Lecture Series: Talks here cover relativistic jets, acoustic astronomy and colliding galaxies. [Florida Institute of Technology]
  6. Astrobiology and Space Exploration: Consider life in space when you follow this feed. [Stanford]
  7. Spaced Out: Study stars, galaxies, energy waves and more. [Ohio]

Chemistry

These lectures will introduce you to organic chemistry, the periodic table, atomic theory and more.

  1. Principles of Chemical Science: Professors at MIT discuss periodic trends, atomic theory, hybridization, bond energies and other chemical science principles. [MIT]
  2. Chemistry: Study density, heat transfer, bonding, the periodic table and more. [Miami Dade College]
  3. Chemistry: Learn about properties of matter, molarity and mole problems, and more. [Michigan's MI Learning]
  4. Organic Chemistry Lecture II: Get chapter study guides and recaps for organic chem here. [University of New Orleans]
  5. General Chemistry: Lectures here cover stoichiometry, electrolytes, acids, Lewis structures and more. [Seattle Pacific University]
  6. Fundamentals of Chemistry: Study chemical fundamentals and applications from lectures here. [Missouri State University]
  7. Elementary Biochemistry: Study protein purification, membranes, nucleic acids, DNA and RNA synthesis and more. [Oregon State University]
  8. CHEM 111: These lectures come from a Chemistry 111 class that discussed gas laws, kinetic theory, acid-base properties and more. [Case Western Reserve University]
  9. Chem 105: Get lectures on atomic structure, molecular structure, bonding and more. [Case Western Reserve University]
  10. Chemistry: Learn about entropy and heat engines, chemical equilibrium, buffer solutions and more. [University of Utah]

Physics

From kinetic energy to Einstein’s theories and relaxed discussions with top scientists, you’ll explore all kinds of fascinating physics principles here.

  1. Physics I: Classical Mechanics: Study vectors, friction, Hooke’s Law, kinetic energy and more. [MIT]
  2. Einstein and the Mind of God: Listen to interviews about Einstein’s impact on science, ethics, string theory and more. [American Public Media]
  3. Physics III: Vibrations and Waves: This advanced physics feed covers forced oscillation and more. [MIT]
  4. The physical world: quantum: Study Einstein’s and Bohr’s principles in this feed. [The Open University]
  5. Principles of Physics: These short physics recaps tackle gravity, fluids, Newton’s laws of motion and more. [Denison University]
  6. Modern Physics: The Theoretical Minimum: These physics lectures address classical and quantum mechanics, theories of relativity, cosmology and more. [Stanford]
  7. The physical world: waves and relativity: Learn about the nature of sound waves and get tips on making your own radio here. [The Open University]
  8. Saturday Morning Physics: These interviews with physicists are relaxed and easy to understand.

Environmental Science

Study issues like renewable energy, biodiversity, sustainability and global warming in these feeds.

  1. Earth’s physical resources: renewable energy: Learn all about biofuels, hydroelectricity and what European countries are doing to promote renewable energy. [The Open University]
  2. Smart Energy: Margo Gerritsen’s lectures are on nuclear energy and naturally powered energy solutions. [Stanford]
  3. TERRA: The Nature of Our World: This feed tackles various subjects in environmental science, sustainability and biodiversity. [TERRA]
  4. Environment: Biodiversity, oil, and climate change are all addressed here. [Cambridge]
  5. Yale Environment: From global warming to sustainability to ethical eating, this feed covers many different aspects of environmental science. [Yale]
  6. Environment: Learn about the effects of coal, lead and oxyfuels on the environment. [Public Radio International]
  7. 4 Degrees Celsius and Beyond: Discover the effects of global warming on food systems and agriculture. [University of Oxford]
  8. Environmental Science: Lessons here are entitled "Nature’s Economy," "The Earth in the Balance" and "Global Warming." [Stanford]
  9. Energy Seminar: This lecture series is partly sponsored by the Woods and Precourt Institutes. [Stanford]
  10. Nicholas Talks: From global warming to the future of the forests, listen to lectures from various professors and scientists here. [Duke]
  11. Environmental Studies: This interdisciplinary feed considers conservation and other environmental studies topics. [Bowdoin College]

Technology

Computer science students and those who are interested in how technology systems are collaborating with other scientific fields will appreciate these feeds.

  1. Science and Technology: You’ll explore various technology topics by subscribing to this feed, from brain development and music, to drug treatments to technology management. [UCTV]
  2. The next big thing: Nanotechnology: Learn the basics of nanotechnology and why it’s "the next big thing." [The Open University]
  3. Computer Science: Listen to lectures on computer science topics like mechanism design and more. [Duke]
  4. Science and Technology: Lectures here address technology’s role in research in biology, chemistry and other fields. [McGill University]
  5. The Naked Scientists Podcast: This weekly podcast covers topics in medicine, science and technology. [Cambridge]
  6. School of Computer Science: Lectures in this feed discuss green computing, robots and more. [Carnegie Mellon]
  7. Computer Science 61A: Study user interface, generic operations and programming here. [UC Berkeley]
  8. Higher Computing: Learn about coding and computing history, among other CS topics from this feed. [UNSW]
  9. Microcomputer Applications: Lectures here cover networks and the Internet, peripherals and digital media. [Bacone College]
  10. Computer Science: Design and Analysis of Algorithms: This is a graduate-level computer science class covering network flow applications, graph algorithms and more. [UC Davis]

Geology and Earth Science

From oceanography to geographic formations, you’ll get to listen to exciting lectures on geology here.

  1. Earth and Life: Study volcanoes, the geological history of Tibet and various geological phenomena in this feed. [The Open University]
  2. Diving Deeper: Listen to discussion with the scientists from the National Ocean Service here. [Virginia Department of Education]
  3. Rocks in the Field: Study rocks and rock formations on the Antrim Coast and elsewhere. [The Open University]
  4. Geological Time: Get an introduction to how geological time is measured. [The Open University]
  5. Fossil Detectives: Study fossil excavation and the dinosaurs here.
  6. Geology and Earth Sciences: Lessons here cover turbidities, boundary layers, petroleum, virtual geology and other topics. [UC Davis]
  7. Geological structures exposed: Consider rock deformation and special geological structures here. [The Open University]
  8. The Forest Files: Study water cycle, soil cycle, and human impact on forests. [Virginia Department of Education]
  9. Perspectives in Ocean Science: Oceanography students will like these video lectures. [UCTV]

Math and Engineering

From green design to sketching and differential equations, these feeds can provide a good foundation for other science courses too.

  1. Green Buildings, Design and Practices: Green engineering students can subscribe to this feed for discussion about sustainable design. [UC Davis]
  2. Engineering: Recent lectures in this feed discussed renewable energy, jet engines and Einstein’s theories.
  3. Going Green: Explore green building and sustainable engineering topics here. [SUNY - ESF]
  4. Mathematics and Science Conference: Learn about the various math and science research studies going on today. [Abilene Christian University]
  5. Discrete Mathematics: Study algebraic structures, discrete probability and more. [UC Berkeley]
  6. Differential Equations: This feed can help you build a solid foundation for your science and engineering studies too. [MIT]
  7. Mathematical Methods for Engineers: Study matrices, network flows, optimization and more. [MIT]
  8. Introduction to Lean Six Sigma Methods: Engineers who need to work with Six Sigma will benefit from the lectures here. [MIT]
  9. Design and Designing: Get tips on creating cubic designs and sketching. [The Open University]
  10. Single Variable Calculus: These lectures cover differentials, Newton’s laws, and more. [MIT]

Social Sciences

Study psychology, archaeology, geography and brain capacity when you listen to these feeds.

  1. World Archaeology: From Pompeii to the origins of the field, you’ll learn a lot about archaeology here. [The Open University]
  2. Roots of Humanity and Civilization: Recent lectures here are titled "How did the universe begin?" and "When did culture begin?"
  3. Geography of Europe: Study cultural and economic geography of European societies. [Arizona State University]
  4. Cannabis, Consciousness and the Imagination: You’ll explore the nature of consciousness and substances that impede brain capacity. [The Open University]
  5. Great Ideas in Psychology: Consider the scientific method in psychology. [Missouri State University]
  6. Understanding Social Change: You’ll learn how globalization, welfare and the notion of work affect society. [The Open University]
  7. Child Developmental Psychology: If you’re studying psychology, you’ll want to tune into this feed that explores gender identity, emotions, attachment and child abuse. [UMBC]
  8. Brain Facts: Study the effects of sleep, stress and aging on the brain. [Denison University]
  9. Understanding Human Behavior: This multidisciplinary feed considers evolution, genetics and more. [Santa Fe Institute]
  10. Ethnic Relations in the U.S.: Study ethnic