Many of us have a profile on facebook, including me. I'm not quite as active as some people are, but I do try to update my status and keep up to date on what is going on in my friends' lives. A few of them have really gotten into facebook, and I've found it's the only way to keep in touch with them anymore since their e-mail accounts seem to be non-existent.
But what I'm really curious about is how do you choose who is your "friend" on facebook? Everyone's definition of "friend" is different, and I would presume on facebook, it may not be as conventional since it is a social networking site.
For me, when someone adds me as their friend, there has to be some personal connection with them. I've never denied anyone who has asked me, since it is usually someone who I know well, went to high school with, grew up with, etc. Though even with my college, high school/childhood classmates, I am often interested in who chooses whom to be their "friends." On a few occasions, I found someone who I went to elementary school with, and e-mailed them first. Some included me as their "friend," others did not.
So herein lies my dilemma. And it is probably incredibly corny and juvenile. Yesterday, this guy from high school added me as his "friend." I was quite surprised to see this, despite the fact that we have several mutual friends. This was a guy who I dated in my early years of high school. We went to a winter dance together and was supposed to go to prom together, but he wound up going with someone else. That really upset me, especially since everyone kept saying he was going to ask me. I went to prom alone that year, but that's okay, because I was on prom committee, so I handled the decorations and all.
Eventually, I got over being dumped and actually decided I did not like the guy anymore. It wasn't, because he dumped me but more that he had changed. In his junior year, he ran for student government and became elected president. He was no longer the charming, sweet, sensitive guy I knew, but rather turned into just "one of the crowd," finally gaining his acceptance into popularity. He went from being drama boy to student elected government president. It seriously changed him, and we never connected again.
I guess my dilemma is whether to add him as my friend even though I guess I could say I'm holding a small grudge. I don't have any interest in him in terms of "boyfriend" or playing out the "would have" scenario, but I do hold a little curiosity in what was going through his head at that time. Besides, even if I was interested in him, I found out he recently came out of the closet. This reminds me, another crush I had in elementary school, apparently is also gay now too. I guess I'm 0 for 2 in the department of childhood crushes.
If you're interested, here are several samplings of studies/articles about facebook:
Facebook friends=poor adjustment
Facebook benefits extroverts most
Want to win friends and influence people? Use facebook and IMs
Number of friends on Facebook and Narcissism
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Ranting on mental health
I don't get it, why is our mental health system so problematic? If you have studies like this that say 5% of the general population suffers from persistent depression and/or anxiety with only a small percentage actually receiving adequate care, or this one, saying that half of young adults experience a mental disorder, why isn't mental health services at the top of the agenda? I know the passage of the recent mental health parity law is certainly a good thing, but still, there's just so much further to go.
I wish the government, insurance companies, and otherwise would understand how valuable it is to really have a sound mind. Just think how much more productivity there would be within the general population. Maybe, we'll get there some day when everyone can have the mental health coverage they deserve and need. Until then, I'll be holding my breath.
I wish the government, insurance companies, and otherwise would understand how valuable it is to really have a sound mind. Just think how much more productivity there would be within the general population. Maybe, we'll get there some day when everyone can have the mental health coverage they deserve and need. Until then, I'll be holding my breath.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
100% organic
"Organic" is a buzz word these days, and it seems everyone has an opinion about it. Some people feel organic is better and healthier than conventional, while others feel there is no difference.
One doctor set on a quest to see, well, if he could really be 100% organic. Dr. Greene, a pediatrician in California, decided to eat everything organic for three years to see if his health would improve.
This experiment proved to be a little more challenging than Dr. Greene thought. In order to complete this test, one of the main things he had to do was to cut back his consumption of meat due to the high cost and availability. Besides shopping at places like Whole Foods, he also went to local farmer's markets, and joined a Community Support Agriculture group. Dining out, he had to call in advance to find whether a particular restaurant had organic items.
After three years, he hasn't decided yet whether he will continue on the organic diet, however, Dr. Greene says he has more energy and wakes up earlier. Apparently, his urine is also a brighter yellow, signifying the consumption of more vitamins and minerals.
I think this is an interesting experiment, but certainly not one I would take on. For starters, just the shear cost would be difficult, let alone really "searching" for your food. It almost reminds me of the hunter-gatherer type days with a little more obsession involved. For some foods, I do think organic is the better way to go since I really don't want to ingest x, y, z pesticides and hormones. However, actually adhering to it would be so inconvenient and financially difficult unless money grew on trees. ;-)
So, the question is, if money was no object, would you go all organic? Or would it just not be worth the hassle at all?
One doctor set on a quest to see, well, if he could really be 100% organic. Dr. Greene, a pediatrician in California, decided to eat everything organic for three years to see if his health would improve.
This experiment proved to be a little more challenging than Dr. Greene thought. In order to complete this test, one of the main things he had to do was to cut back his consumption of meat due to the high cost and availability. Besides shopping at places like Whole Foods, he also went to local farmer's markets, and joined a Community Support Agriculture group. Dining out, he had to call in advance to find whether a particular restaurant had organic items.
After three years, he hasn't decided yet whether he will continue on the organic diet, however, Dr. Greene says he has more energy and wakes up earlier. Apparently, his urine is also a brighter yellow, signifying the consumption of more vitamins and minerals.
I think this is an interesting experiment, but certainly not one I would take on. For starters, just the shear cost would be difficult, let alone really "searching" for your food. It almost reminds me of the hunter-gatherer type days with a little more obsession involved. For some foods, I do think organic is the better way to go since I really don't want to ingest x, y, z pesticides and hormones. However, actually adhering to it would be so inconvenient and financially difficult unless money grew on trees. ;-)
So, the question is, if money was no object, would you go all organic? Or would it just not be worth the hassle at all?
Perceptual illusions of body swapping
Awhile back, I posted on some research about the rubber hand illusion. Now, researchers are looking at not only just a limb of the body, but the entire body as a perceptive illusion.
Researchers at the Karolinska Institute induced these "out of body" experiences in a group of healthy volunteers through various visual and tactile stimulation experiments. The first several experiments involved a mannequin which was used as the perceptual "other body." Two small cameras were placed on the mannequin's head which were hooked up to small screens positioned in front of the participants' eyes. This gave the illusion that participants' were looking through the eyes of the mannequin. Therefore, if the subjects tilted their heads down, they only saw the mannequin's.body and not their own.
Then, the researchers stroked both the subjects' and mannequin's bodies at the same time. The participants were able to see the stroking via the cameras on the mannequin, however, not their own. Questionnaires taken after this test showed that participants felt the mannequin's body was their own and sensed the touching of the abdomen on the mannequin.
To test the physiological response of owning another's body, researchers measured the skin conductance response, an indicator of stress that the polygraph lie detector test reads, of participants after threatening the mannequin body by "cutting" its abdomen. They observed there was a higher SCR (skin conductance response) when the mannequin was threatened with a knife.
Then, as a way to test whether participants could "body swap," they had experimenters wear the cameras which had been on the mannequin. Subjects were asked to take hold of the experimenter's hand and continuously squeeze. This set-up allowed the subjects to be able to see both parts of their own body as well as the other experimenter. The results indicated the participants felt the experimenter's arm was their own, like they were shaking hands with themselves.
Similar repetitive tests of threatening the experimenter's body (in this case, their hands) with a knife were done and the SCR tested. They found that the SCR results were again significant when the knife was threatening the experimenter's hand.
These series of experiments indicate how people can perceive both another human body as well as an artificial humanoid body as their own whether they are at a standstill or making voluntary movements. The "ownership" idea is especially evident when there deems a physical threat to the other body as shown through the greater SCR responses.
In the words of the author, "This shows how easy it is to change the brain's perception of the physical self. By manipulating sensory impressions, it's possible to fool the self not only out of its body but into other bodies too."
The implications and uses for this research is far ranging. Everything from body image to phantom limb pain/amputee pain to self-identity to robotics. It is a reminder how malleable our minds are and all the multisensory signals our body uses. For those with distorted body image, the hope is that this research can become a possible therapeutic tool as a way to perceive their bodies with more accuracy.
The full study is published on the online journal Public Library of Sciences and can be read here.
Researchers at the Karolinska Institute induced these "out of body" experiences in a group of healthy volunteers through various visual and tactile stimulation experiments. The first several experiments involved a mannequin which was used as the perceptual "other body." Two small cameras were placed on the mannequin's head which were hooked up to small screens positioned in front of the participants' eyes. This gave the illusion that participants' were looking through the eyes of the mannequin. Therefore, if the subjects tilted their heads down, they only saw the mannequin's.body and not their own.
Then, the researchers stroked both the subjects' and mannequin's bodies at the same time. The participants were able to see the stroking via the cameras on the mannequin, however, not their own. Questionnaires taken after this test showed that participants felt the mannequin's body was their own and sensed the touching of the abdomen on the mannequin.
To test the physiological response of owning another's body, researchers measured the skin conductance response, an indicator of stress that the polygraph lie detector test reads, of participants after threatening the mannequin body by "cutting" its abdomen. They observed there was a higher SCR (skin conductance response) when the mannequin was threatened with a knife.
Then, as a way to test whether participants could "body swap," they had experimenters wear the cameras which had been on the mannequin. Subjects were asked to take hold of the experimenter's hand and continuously squeeze. This set-up allowed the subjects to be able to see both parts of their own body as well as the other experimenter. The results indicated the participants felt the experimenter's arm was their own, like they were shaking hands with themselves.
Similar repetitive tests of threatening the experimenter's body (in this case, their hands) with a knife were done and the SCR tested. They found that the SCR results were again significant when the knife was threatening the experimenter's hand.
These series of experiments indicate how people can perceive both another human body as well as an artificial humanoid body as their own whether they are at a standstill or making voluntary movements. The "ownership" idea is especially evident when there deems a physical threat to the other body as shown through the greater SCR responses.
In the words of the author, "This shows how easy it is to change the brain's perception of the physical self. By manipulating sensory impressions, it's possible to fool the self not only out of its body but into other bodies too."
The implications and uses for this research is far ranging. Everything from body image to phantom limb pain/amputee pain to self-identity to robotics. It is a reminder how malleable our minds are and all the multisensory signals our body uses. For those with distorted body image, the hope is that this research can become a possible therapeutic tool as a way to perceive their bodies with more accuracy.
The full study is published on the online journal Public Library of Sciences and can be read here.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The anxiety medication dilemma
I had an appointment with C. yesterday. Like last week, she mentioned medications again. Not really so much for depression, but rather anxiety and to help me clear my brain.
It's an understandable suggestion. I've made some progress of my original goals in seeking her counsel, however, it's very slow. She knows and reminds me I only have ten sessions through insurance, and she wants to be able to help me. I can of course continue to still see her after ten sessions, it's just I'd have to pay out of pocket.
The last few weeks, I have not thought much about the whole future/career oriented decisions in my life. I'm sure part of it is avoidance (though I know I need to get a grip on it), but really it's that my mind has been more riddled with holiday stress and guilt. My father's wife even wanted to pay a plane ticket for me to visit at Christmas. I politely said no and responded that I may be able to visit at New Year or in January when things are less busy.
Even though I haven't had any more meltdown sessions, maybe that is part of my fear--that that will happen again. I know this issue isn't going to go away nor is it getting better. This is especially evident since my anxiety has increased which for me just ramps up my exercising habits. It doesn't even make sense, because I'm not really even thinking about it and my dad has surprisingly not brought up the issue in three weeks. That's a record for him since every conversation normally started out with "so have you thought more about your future? Have you put those applications in for grad school?" I told this to C. and how I knew it was really difficult for him not to say anything, and her reply was "so what," reminding me it was not of my concern.
In the past, I've been on anti-depressants unsuccessfully. No, I haven't tried every one in the book, but enough to feel hesitant about them. I've only had major side effects from one, but the rest didn't do anything for me. Maybe it was dosing, maybe it was impatience, maybe it was all the wrong psychiatrists. I know I could easily just go to my nurse practitioner whom I see for just routine check ups and ask for prescription A or B and she would hand it to me without any questions. That can be a good and bad thing--a) you get what you want, but b) it might not be what you need per se.
So righ t now, I'm sitting on the fence. I told C. I'd think about it--week number 2 here for that same line. I know she is hoping I give it a try, at least to perhaps speed up the process and let me think without such an overwhelmness if nothing else. However, with anxiety medications (not immediate ones like Xanax), they take 8-12 weeks or longer to kick in. My impatience with medications doesn't bode well for this fact.
Her goal for me, or at least what she feels like she can to do help me is to have all the information there (I've made a list of many options) and BREATHE, rather than having everything simply float around in my head which at the moment is where it is.
I told her that somehow I felt like I should be able to "tough" this out. Her reply, "I think you've already done that. You've toughed it out enough."
As I left and was still saying how unsure I was of medications, her reply was, "what I know is that you don't want to be in this place any longer." So the truth, but so hard to move out of the box.
It's an understandable suggestion. I've made some progress of my original goals in seeking her counsel, however, it's very slow. She knows and reminds me I only have ten sessions through insurance, and she wants to be able to help me. I can of course continue to still see her after ten sessions, it's just I'd have to pay out of pocket.
The last few weeks, I have not thought much about the whole future/career oriented decisions in my life. I'm sure part of it is avoidance (though I know I need to get a grip on it), but really it's that my mind has been more riddled with holiday stress and guilt. My father's wife even wanted to pay a plane ticket for me to visit at Christmas. I politely said no and responded that I may be able to visit at New Year or in January when things are less busy.
Even though I haven't had any more meltdown sessions, maybe that is part of my fear--that that will happen again. I know this issue isn't going to go away nor is it getting better. This is especially evident since my anxiety has increased which for me just ramps up my exercising habits. It doesn't even make sense, because I'm not really even thinking about it and my dad has surprisingly not brought up the issue in three weeks. That's a record for him since every conversation normally started out with "so have you thought more about your future? Have you put those applications in for grad school?" I told this to C. and how I knew it was really difficult for him not to say anything, and her reply was "so what," reminding me it was not of my concern.
In the past, I've been on anti-depressants unsuccessfully. No, I haven't tried every one in the book, but enough to feel hesitant about them. I've only had major side effects from one, but the rest didn't do anything for me. Maybe it was dosing, maybe it was impatience, maybe it was all the wrong psychiatrists. I know I could easily just go to my nurse practitioner whom I see for just routine check ups and ask for prescription A or B and she would hand it to me without any questions. That can be a good and bad thing--a) you get what you want, but b) it might not be what you need per se.
So righ t now, I'm sitting on the fence. I told C. I'd think about it--week number 2 here for that same line. I know she is hoping I give it a try, at least to perhaps speed up the process and let me think without such an overwhelmness if nothing else. However, with anxiety medications (not immediate ones like Xanax), they take 8-12 weeks or longer to kick in. My impatience with medications doesn't bode well for this fact.
Her goal for me, or at least what she feels like she can to do help me is to have all the information there (I've made a list of many options) and BREATHE, rather than having everything simply float around in my head which at the moment is where it is.
I told her that somehow I felt like I should be able to "tough" this out. Her reply, "I think you've already done that. You've toughed it out enough."
As I left and was still saying how unsure I was of medications, her reply was, "what I know is that you don't want to be in this place any longer." So the truth, but so hard to move out of the box.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Ugly produce gets rights
Today, I went grocery shopping. Some days, it's filled with anxiety, unsure of what to actually buy. Other days I feel "interested" in everything, deciphering every piece of fruit and vegetable, looking at new products, and thinking about trying foods once avoided at the cost of calories. At times, I even become inspired and decide to gear myself up for a challenge in new foods. I think my last major challenge attempt which I posted about was avocados.
I ran across this article today about the lifting of restrictions for produce in the EU. Apparently, not all produce is considered equal, and there is an actual list of strict requirements before placing the produce out for sale. Several bans include:
Green asparagus that is not green for 80% or more of its length
Cucumbers that bend by a curve of more than 10 mm per 10 cm
Cauliflower less than 11 cm in diameter
Forked carrots
Bananas malformed or having abnormal curvature though Class 1 bananas can have “slight defects of shape,” and Class 2 bananas can have full “defects of shape” (from NY Times)
I'm thinking geez, who has time to measure every single piece of produce or determine a percentage of color? That just seems absurd, especially since a good percentage of produce is wasted simply, because it is not "pretty" enough.
It's good that some of these restrictions are being lifted, although apples, kiwis, strawberries, lettuce, peaches, nectarines, pears, table grapes, sweet peppers and tomatoes still need to be attractive.
It's funny, but this type of thing reminds me of something like from a Disney animated cartoon where all the produce characters could talk. I'm wanting to know if the produce could actually express their own feelings, what they would really say? Would the pretty or ugly produce be happy to be chosen? Would they not want to be chosen, knowing they were going to be consumed?
This is obviously lame, and I'm sooo anthropomorphizing. I really need to go to bed.
So I leave you with the question of how do you choose produce? Do you go for the clean cut, unblemished, unbruised type, the rugged type, or simply don't consider it at all? Personally, it depends, but I mostly go for the clean cut type, although a few blemishes are okay. After all, it's not fair to leave out all the ugly produce which just mind end up as the best tasting! Remember, we can't judge solely by the outside what is actually inside.
I ran across this article today about the lifting of restrictions for produce in the EU. Apparently, not all produce is considered equal, and there is an actual list of strict requirements before placing the produce out for sale. Several bans include:
Green asparagus that is not green for 80% or more of its length
Cucumbers that bend by a curve of more than 10 mm per 10 cm
Cauliflower less than 11 cm in diameter
Forked carrots
Bananas malformed or having abnormal curvature though Class 1 bananas can have “slight defects of shape,” and Class 2 bananas can have full “defects of shape” (from NY Times)
I'm thinking geez, who has time to measure every single piece of produce or determine a percentage of color? That just seems absurd, especially since a good percentage of produce is wasted simply, because it is not "pretty" enough.
It's good that some of these restrictions are being lifted, although apples, kiwis, strawberries, lettuce, peaches, nectarines, pears, table grapes, sweet peppers and tomatoes still need to be attractive.
It's funny, but this type of thing reminds me of something like from a Disney animated cartoon where all the produce characters could talk. I'm wanting to know if the produce could actually express their own feelings, what they would really say? Would the pretty or ugly produce be happy to be chosen? Would they not want to be chosen, knowing they were going to be consumed?
This is obviously lame, and I'm sooo anthropomorphizing. I really need to go to bed.
So I leave you with the question of how do you choose produce? Do you go for the clean cut, unblemished, unbruised type, the rugged type, or simply don't consider it at all? Personally, it depends, but I mostly go for the clean cut type, although a few blemishes are okay. After all, it's not fair to leave out all the ugly produce which just mind end up as the best tasting! Remember, we can't judge solely by the outside what is actually inside.
Hands
Do you ever look at your hands? I caught myself doing that the other day. No real reason except perhaps reminding myself of my dermatology appointment today. Years before, I'd look at my hands and feel very ashamed due to the marks left from purging. It wasn't a pretty sight, and I distinctly remember people asking about it. I lied saying they were rug burns. I'm not sure how I came up with that one.
I no longer have those reminders, however, I do have something else to contend with: incredibly dry hands.. Though
this happens year around, winter makes it much worse. It's only the first day of December and already there are cracks in several places as well as that dry, chapped look. Last winter, it got to the point of my hands feeling like they were on fire if there was anything remotely touching them.
The ironic thing about this is that my hands would look lovely if I washed my hands less! So herein lies the problem, I simply cannot. I really hate the feel of grimy, dirty hands and find myself washing them quite a lot in any given day. Even trying to use hand sanitizers like my dermatologist suggested still left my hands feeling "unclean." Don't ge me wrong if I have to use hand sanitizers, I of course will--think like porta-potty or something of that nature.
At today's dermatology appointment, my Dr. noticed my awful looking hands. I really thought she was going to be upset with me since I didn't adhere well to the hand sanitizers. Surprisingly, she understood and said some people just don't do well with them. She said it was something that had to work into your life. For example, at her office, she uses hand sanitizers all the time, but that makes sense. A CNN article talked about that here since there are many superbugs in a hospital environment.
My dermatologist gave me something new to try--a script for Tetrix, a cream that is supposed to act like a barrier against allergens, irritants, and gentle hand washing. (Another study is found here) I'm not too keen that this is another steroid-based medication, but they do seem to be the only thing that provide real relief. I've used many, many different lotions and creams, and all are short-lived relief.
For some reason, this whole hand washing thing is bothering me a lot. I don't *think* it is compulsive. I do not think I'm going to die, get some disease, get sick, etc. if I do not wash my hands X times a day. I'm not trying to get some stain out either. (bonus points for that reference) I simply do not like dirty hands. I guess I'm wondering if I'm obsessing about this too much. Anxiety is already a problem for me (that's an upcoming post), and :sigh: I don't want to have to add another thing to my already enough disorderedness. Oh yeah, and did I mention I have a horrible nail biting habit?
I no longer have those reminders, however, I do have something else to contend with: incredibly dry hands.. Though
this happens year around, winter makes it much worse. It's only the first day of December and already there are cracks in several places as well as that dry, chapped look. Last winter, it got to the point of my hands feeling like they were on fire if there was anything remotely touching them.The ironic thing about this is that my hands would look lovely if I washed my hands less! So herein lies the problem, I simply cannot. I really hate the feel of grimy, dirty hands and find myself washing them quite a lot in any given day. Even trying to use hand sanitizers like my dermatologist suggested still left my hands feeling "unclean." Don't ge me wrong if I have to use hand sanitizers, I of course will--think like porta-potty or something of that nature.
At today's dermatology appointment, my Dr. noticed my awful looking hands. I really thought she was going to be upset with me since I didn't adhere well to the hand sanitizers. Surprisingly, she understood and said some people just don't do well with them. She said it was something that had to work into your life. For example, at her office, she uses hand sanitizers all the time, but that makes sense. A CNN article talked about that here since there are many superbugs in a hospital environment.
My dermatologist gave me something new to try--a script for Tetrix, a cream that is supposed to act like a barrier against allergens, irritants, and gentle hand washing. (Another study is found here) I'm not too keen that this is another steroid-based medication, but they do seem to be the only thing that provide real relief. I've used many, many different lotions and creams, and all are short-lived relief.
For some reason, this whole hand washing thing is bothering me a lot. I don't *think* it is compulsive. I do not think I'm going to die, get some disease, get sick, etc. if I do not wash my hands X times a day. I'm not trying to get some stain out either. (bonus points for that reference) I simply do not like dirty hands. I guess I'm wondering if I'm obsessing about this too much. Anxiety is already a problem for me (that's an upcoming post), and :sigh: I don't want to have to add another thing to my already enough disorderedness. Oh yeah, and did I mention I have a horrible nail biting habit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)