Some see telescope as an opportunity for science education

 

Fri, 05/08/2015 Jennifer Sinco Kelleher, Associated Press   In this photo taken on Wednesday, April 22, 2015, Heather Kaluna poses for a photograph at the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy in Honolulu. Kaluna, who grew up in a rural town on Hawaii’s Big Island, is on track to become the first Native Hawaiian to earn a doctorate in astronomy from the university. While she’s busy preparing for graduation and defending her thesis, opposition is mounting against building one of the world’s largest telescopes near the summit of a mountain held sacred by Native Hawaiians. Astronomers say Mauna Kea is an ideal location for viewing the skies. (AP Photo/Caleb Jones) HONOLULU (AP) — Before going up to Mauna Kea's summit on Hawaii's Big Island, Heather Kaluna makes an offering to Poliahu, the snow goddess of the mountain. She holds it sacred, as do other Native Hawaiians. The mountain holds another important place in her life: Poised to be the first Native Hawaiian to get an astronomy doctorate from the Univ. of Hawaii, she uses the mountain to gaze at the stars. The two aspects of her identity have collided as protests have erupted in recent weeks over the construction of one of the world's largest telescopes atop the mountain, pitting her against many in her community and even her own family. "It's definitely hard not to feel torn," said Kaluna, 31. "I respect their beliefs but at the same time I think there are a lot of voices not being heard at the moment." Some opponents describe fighting the telescope as an "awakening," an issue Native Hawaiians can band together against. But their reasons vary, from preventing Mauna Kea's desecration to preserving culture to curbing development. For some, however, the telescope represents an opportunity to get Native Hawaiian children interested in science, technology, engineering and math—areas that they've lagged behind. "If you give kids opportunity, give them education, who knows what's possible. We need all the help we can get," said Richard Ha, a Native Hawaiian farmer on the Big Island who has long been supportive of the telescope. Native Hawaiians make up about 23 percent of the state's population. A push by the Univ. of Hawaii has resulted in 12% of STEM majors at its three four-year campuses being Native Hawaiian, up from 9 in spring 2009. During the early years of the $1.4 billion Thirty Meter Telescope project's planning, officials met with Big Island residents and heard there was a desire for more high-tech jobs and education, said telescope spokeswoman Sandra Dawson. "It became clear to us that supporting STEM, we can train kids and then hire them," she said. In November, the telescope launched the Hawaii Island New Knowledge Fund for STEM education. The fund will contribute $1 million annually for the 19-year Mauna Kea sublease with the University of Hawaii. The money is given to two foundations, which distribute the money to schools and nonprofit organizations. The $1 million was recently awarded, but telescope officials held off on announcing the winners. "Everybody was afraid it would get lost in all the shouting," Dawson said. The remaining funds will be disbursed as long as the project is under construction or in operation, she said. Telescope opponent Kealoha Pisciotta calls the fund "buy-off money" that will cost Hawaiians their culture. "The money they've offered is really too little, too late," she said. Construction began last month on Mauna Kea's summit after seven years of environmental studies, public hearings and court proceedings. The Univ. of Hawaii leases the land from the state and subleases it to TMT. Astronomers revere the site because its summit at 13,796 feet is well above the clouds, and provides a clear view of the sky for 300 days a year. There's also very little air and light pollution. Native Hawaiians don't oppose the telescope itself but strongly disagree with its location atop the dormant volcano. A lawsuit challenging the project's construction permit is pending before a state appeals court. "Aspiring to be an astronomer is a wonderful thing," said Kehau Watson, owner of Honua Consulting, which focuses on conservation and community engagement. "But the telescope is not the issue." Its location and the process by which it was approved was the problem, she said. The protests haven't dampened Mailani Neal's passion for astronomy. The Native Hawaiian high school senior at Hawaii Preparatory Academy started an online pro-telescope petition. She was introduced to astronomy while a seventh grader at Kamehameha Schools in Honolulu, learning about Polynesian voyaging and how Hawaiians navigated using the stars. After graduation, she's headed to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, where she plans to major in applied physics with a concentration in space science. Someday, she'd like to return to the Big Island and work at the telescope. "I really love the Hawaiian culture ... but at the same time, I'm a scientist. I was really torn," she said. "I kind of realized that I can use this telescope to be a connection between my cultural side and the scientist in me."

Truly Breathtaking Hyper Realistic Painting Art by Marco Grassi

 

At first blush, Marco Grassi’s works of art look like intimate photographs, his models glancing shyly away from the camera. Their skin has a velvety fuzz and slightly mottled tone; their lips and knuckles are softly creased. Their tousled hair forms a halo of barely visible fibers around their heads. A second look shows something is awry; the subjects of his works, despite their freckles and pores and fly-away hairs, are like no humans ever photographed. One has a smooth porcelain back with delicate cutouts revealing a hollow torso; others have vibrant, fluorescent tattoos or greenery teeming over their skin. Grassi, who terms the style of his photoreal paintings “surreal hyperrealistic,” is inspired by different textures: “He especially is attracted to the material’s consistency, how the light catches them and how the light reflects off them just like how a precious stone, pottery or glass would.” The interplay between the living human canvas and the inhuman elements introduced to them emphasizes both the suppleness and variegated pigmentation of the body, as well as the blanched brittleness of glazed pottery or the sinuous gleam of glass sculpture. By combining inhuman elements with such lifelike human portraits, his paintings explode our self-deception about the humanity of what we’re viewing. The figures aren’t just humans viewed as objects, but humans hollowed of their subjectivity and person-hood and transformed into true decorative objects. All such realistic portraiture takes the externality of the human figure and frames it as an object, but Grassi makes this objectification of the subject undeniable. source : www.tooartistic.com

Walking or cycling to work could help you lose weight

 

Leaving your car at home could help shed pounds – according to new research from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR). New research shows that making a change from driving to work to using public transport, cycling or walking could help reduce BMI over two years. The findings come from the research team that discovered that walking and cycling to work improves wellbeing and mental health. They hope that making the switch could reduce the level of obesity at population level. The proportion of people in England and Wales who commute by car has increased from 42 per cent to 67 per cent over the last 40 years. Lead researcher Adam Martin, from UEA’s Norwich Medical School, said: “It is well established that being overweight or obese is linked to a wide range of diseases, most notably type 2 diabetes, cancer, heart disease and stroke. “This study highlights the potential to contribute to reducing the average weight of the population by helping commuters build regular physical activity into their daily routines through walking, cycling and using public transport on their journey to work.” The research team, from UEA, the University of Cambridge and the University of York, based their findings on the responses of more than 4000 adults in three annual waves of the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) collected between 2004 and 2007.   Commuters reported their usual main mode of travel to work each year, and their height and weight in the first and third years. The researchers then used a series of analyses to see if changes in mode of transport were linked to changes in weight over time. While the link between commuting and weight may seem intuitive, it has rarely been tested in a longitudinal study using data from a representative national survey in this way. Adam Martin said: “We found that switching from the car to walking, cycling or public transport is associated with an average reduction of 0.32 BMI, which equates to a difference of about 1 kg for the average person. “This might sound like a relatively small proportion of their total weight, but we also found that the longer the commute, the stronger the association.  For those with a commute of more than 30 minutes, there was an average reduction of 2.25 BMI units, or around 7 kg (over one stone) for the average person.”   The research team also found that switching to using a car to get to work was associated with a significant average increase of 0.34 BMI units. “The key feature of this study is that we were able to compare changes in weight over time between commuters who had, and had not, changed how they travelled to work. However it is an observational study, so we can’t draw definitive conclusions about cause and effect. “Combined with other potential health, economic, and environmental benefits associated with walking, cycling and public transport, these findings add to the case for interventions to support a larger proportion of commuters taking up these more sustainable forms of transport.” Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by University of East Anglia. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. Journal Reference: Adam Martin et al. Impact of changes in mode of travel to work on changes in body mass index: evidence from the British Household Panel Survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2015 DOI: 10.1136/jech-2014-205211

Dog Portraits by Dragos Birtoiu

 

Dragos Birtoiu est un photographe originaire de Roumanie. Dans une série de portraits canins, il sublime le regard et les expressions de nos amis à quatre pattes. Ses clichés attirent notre oeil sur celui des chiens photographiés et réussissent à nous procurer les mêmes expressions que celles suggérées par leur regard. source – www.fubiz.com

Hyperrealistic Crinkled Plastic Paper Paintings

 

 

Robin Eley est un artiste d’origine anglaise qui a longtemps vécu et étudié en Australie. Aujourd’hui basé aux États-unis, l’artiste peintre s’est vu attribué de nombreux prix pour ses oeuvres. Ici nous découvrons ses toiles hyperréalistes représentant des hommes et des femmes emballés dans du papier plastic froissé

source : www.fubiz.com

Energy from the Sun

 

Solar power to go!

More energy from our sun hits the Earth in one hour than is consumed on the planet in a whole year! But, the burning question is--how can we put all that sunshine to work making usable fuel? With support from the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Office of Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation, California Institute of Technology (Caltech) chemical engineer Sossina Haile and University of Minnesota mechanical engineer Jane Davidson are working to expand the nation's renewable energy storage capacity. Their mission is to put the heat of the sun to work creating renewable fuels from sources that don't need to be drilled out of the ground. The researchers are collecting sunlight to drive chemical reactions that break apart water and carbon dioxide molecules in order to make alternative fuels, such as hydrogen fuel. Solar-powered fuels, or "sun gas," would power the vehicles we drive today, as well as airplanes. In this case, the sky really is the limit!

Credit: National Science Foundation

Royal Bengal Tiger

 

The protected mangrove forests of the Sunderbans, sprawling between India and Bangladesh, are renowned for the wildlife they shelter, including an unknown number of the severely threatened Royal Bengal Tiger. Photograph by Steve Winter, National Geographic

Volvo's electric bus set to leave depot for public use

 

The new bus route 55 in Gothenburg will feature three all-electric buses and seven electric-hybrid buses Next month, Gothenburg's public transport will get a little bit greener. The Swedish city will see the introduction of its first fully electric buses. According to Volvo, which makes the vehicles, they use 80 percent less energy than diesel equivalents. The buses, which were announced back in 2013, are being introduced on a new route. Route 55 will run between the Lindholmen and Chalmers/Johanneberg areas of the city and will be served by three all-electric buses and seven electric-hybrid buses. The new route is part of the ElectriCity scheme, through which research, industry and city bodies seek to develop, demonstrate and evaluate the next-generation of sustainable public transport. In addition to offering quiet, exhaust-free buses, the route will see the buses powered by electricity from renewable sources and passengers picked up indoors. The buses measure 10.7 m (35.1 ft) long and can carry up to 86 passengers, with the central position of the driver’s seat helping to maximize capacity. Volvo says they are designed to be modern and welcoming with bright and airy interiors. Amongst their features are power sockets for passengers to recharge their mobile phones and on-board Wi-Fi. The firm says that passengers also helped to shape the design of the vehicles. Aspects that were developed through passenger input include extra-wide and low-access doors for quick boarding and alighting, and a spacious flat floor for good stroller and wheelchair access. "This marks a major milestone in our development of new solutions for electrified buses," says president of Volvo Buses Håkan Agnevall. "Quiet and entirely exhaust-free operation will contribute both to a better urban environment and reduced climate impact, while passengers get a more pleasant ride." The buses are currently undergoing final testing to ensure that they can operate with no problems in regular city traffic. They will go into operation on route 55 on June 15. Sources: Volvo, ElectriCity

The Bullshit Hypocrisy of "All-Natural" Foods

 

Here’s the thing about nature: It will fuck up your shit. A few weeks ago, the website The Naked Label published a picture of a vibrant, colorful mushroom. It was captioned with a quotation from author and paleo diet advocate Diane Sanfilippo: “We cannot make food better than nature.” The problem? The mushroom pictured was the Amanita muscaria, which is highly poisonous. The Naked Label probably wasn’t recommending poisonous mushrooms as a part of your balanced cannabis-induced munchies on purpose. However, this tiny meme is symptomatic of a bigger problem on the internet: self-declared “natural health” gurus who say everything natural is automatically better. It’s not. Are chemical additives safe or should you eat an “all-natural” diet? Is there a reason for the chemical paranoia brought on by Dr. Oz-endorsed mommy-bloggers, or is this just fear mongering from people who need to go back to chemistry class? Is the vision of “nature” propagated by Whole Foods and the like just another marketing term? Recently, several large companies have made decisions to alter their products based on chemical phobia. Is this a good thing? If you follow any “natural” food blogs, you might say yes. But the science says otherwise. And stuck in the middle trying to make sense of it all is the consumer. What the hell does “natural” mean anyway when it’s on a food label? Let’s examine a few recent food kerfuffles to figure out what Nature, Inc. offers the consumer. Kraft Macaroni and Cheese: Still Awful Last month I wrote about Vani Hari, AKA the Food Babe. I decreed that her tactics and statements about food were devoid of science (fine, she’s full of shit). One of her attention-grabbing schemes was petitioning Kraft to remove artificial dyes from their macaroni and cheese. Shortly after my article made her cry tears of blood about her life decisions, Kraft announced that they would be removing the artificial dyes, although they claimed that they started reformulating the recipe a year before she launched her campaign. Whether or not this was a response to her petition, did the change make the product healthier? To start with, let’s remember that we’re talking about a product with powdered cheese. If you were looking for health food, you took a wrong turn three aisles ago after the spinach. We’re also not removing something that causes foodborne illness and replacing it with hummingbird whispers. We’re switching food dyes synthesized in the laboratory to food dyes that are… well, still going to be produced in the laboratory. We now have the safest class of food dyes ever on the market (here’s some reading on the short history of food dye regulation in America). Laboratories have helped that process because they can check final products for safety and purity, whether synthetic or derived from natural sources. And no matter what the source of the dye, a chemical solvent is used to extract the target color molecule. A common tactic of the Food Babe is to tell you these solvents are toxic only in products she’s deemed evil. Paprika is one of the sources for Kraft’s new and improved mac and cheese, and just like in the processes used for some synthetic dyes, hexane is used in processing (when consumed in large quantities, hexane is metabolized into a neurotoxic chemical). Note, with both classes of dyes, you are not consuming hexane, but then again, the Food Babe isn’t known for facts. As for the safety of the synthetic dyes, any substance has drawbacks and they’re about equal in synthetic and natural dyes. Some parents who previously bought the product for their fussy eaters are complaining about the new paprika-based dye. Even though it’s all natural, you can have allergies to paprika. This isn’t the only natural dye with this issue; carmine dye derived from the cochineal insect, sometimes used to punch up the red color in strawberry milkshakes, can induce anaphylactic shock. But it is natural. Raw Milk Will Make You Sick One sacred cow of the natural food movement is raw milk. And why not, all the natural hipsters know that organic kool aid is so five minutes ago and they’ve switched to suckling the raw teet. All my favorite bullshit peddlers—Mercola, Modern Alternative Mama, and Weston Price—endorse raw milk. Even the Food Babe buys into it, saying that “raw dairy is the best choice,” and that “raw dairy products are “alive.” Scary. They say that raw milk maintains milk’s natural enzymes and vitamins, that it even has components to fight off bacteria itself because of the goodness of its wonderful “naturaliness” (my version of truthiness). But when natural advocates endorse going back to a time before we introduced a technological advancement, they often fail to remind the consumer why we made those advancements in the first place. Pasteurization, the process of heating milk to a high temperature for a very small amount of time, kills a vast majority of the bacteria in it and keeps it safe for a longer period of time. Before the process became widespread in the early 20th century, milk was safe for maybe the day after you purchased it, and old milk was a source of festering disease. There are a lot of myths about what pasteurization does to milk that have been floated by the natural health movement. But let’s lay those rumors to rest: It does not induce allergies or lactose intolerance. If you can’t tolerate pasteurized milk, you’re not going to be able to tolerate raw milk either. And as for all those “enzymes” that allegedly die off when Big Dairy is reaching around into your wallet, relax. Your stomach acid will destroy them anyway. All the macronutrients and micronutrients in your pasteurized milk are exactly the same as raw milk. But is raw milk safe? You might think so, but you’d be misled. According to the CDC, less than 1% of milk consumed in the United States is raw milk. From 1993-2006, 121 outbreaks (causing 4,413 illnesses and three deaths) were caused that could be linked back to dairy. Seventy-three of the outbreaks were from raw milk and 48 were from pasteurized milk. Given that less than 1% of the dairy in the country is raw, if it’s safe, why is it causing a majority of the illnesses? The simple answer? It’s not safe, and the people promoting it are not promoting healthy food. They’re promoting the natural epidemic at any cost. Aspartame Won’t Kill You or Make You Fat Recently, Pepsi announced that they were going to remove aspartame from from Diet Pepsi and replace it with sucralose and acesulfame potassium, AKA Ace K. Sucralose is derived from sugar, and Ace K is the sweetener used in Coke Zero that gives it that “real sugar” flavor. Internet-based fears about aspartame are sweeping. Quacks and conspiracy theorists say it’s the most dangerous substance in food, that it causes MS like symptoms and, my personal favorite, that it killed Heath Ledger. So with all these fears, was removing aspartame from Diet Pepsi necessary for safety or health? Science says no. Aspartame is one of the most-studied food additives ever. It’s been shown, time after time, to be safe. No links to cancer, MS, ADHD, the NY Yankees, premature ejaculation, your dog sniffing the litter box, or any other random thing you want to blame on this. It just tastes sweet. It’s not even making you fat. I’m sure you’ve heard that diet soda with aspartame can cause weight gain. I drank Diet Coke when I was overweight, I drank Diet Coke all through my 90lb-weight loss, and I still drink Diet Coke. The difference is that I eat a lot more fruits and vegetables now and fewer french fries. An excess of calories will make you gain weight, not carbonated water with caffeine. Studies linking diet soda to weight gain are, at best, corollary, and haven’t closely enough examined the other behaviors of the people in the study. And speaking of my favorite soda, Coca-Cola offers multiple sugar-free varieties of cola for their customers with different types of sweeteners, and they all taste a little different. Pepsi’s decision to change the sweetener due to a small decline in sales will change the flavor that 95% of their loyal customers enjoyed. It only serves the people with overblown fears of a safe product. Given that aspartame is safe, why not just offer a second option like their competition did? That doesn’t make as good of a press release from Nature, Inc. Paleo: Not Good for Babies Pete Evans is a former pizza chef from Australia. Now he’s trying to harm your children. Evans became a celebrity chef due to his popular and flavorful pizza offerings. But then he discovered the Paleo lifestyle, or the annoying-everyone-you-know diet. The Paleo diet alleges to be a natural diet, one that closely mimics what our primal ancestors ate. Paleo devotees say that many diseases in society came along with the “unnatural” introduction of modern agriculture. Under this line of reasoning, Paleoites believe all foods that came with agriculture should be removed from your diet for optimal health. So when Evans, the man who made a fortune as a celebrity pizza chef, found Paleo, he began advocating the removal of grains, dairy, and other whole food groups from your life in order to find health. So if it’s so healthy, why was Evans’ new cookbook, Bubba Yum Yum: The Paleo Way, pulled before publishing over concerns that the recommendations would harm a baby? In attempt to be more natural than store-bought formulas, Evans’ bone-broth based baby formula recipe could have potentially starved a baby. Despite the recipe’s overwhelming naturaliness, it lacked calories, something tiny humans very much need to thrive. Furthermore, the liver pate recipe for infants contained such high levels of vitamin A that it could have caused toxic side effects. The unfortunate part of this is that well-meaning parents with every intention of feeding their children healthy foods easily would have bought this thinking they were doing the right thing for their kids. Parents, whether you choose breast milk or formula, please consult your pediatrician or a registered dietitian. Just like you wouldn’t consult your local Dominos pizza guy on what to feed your baby, Pete Evans the pizza chef is also not an expert. Non-GMO Chipotle Will Still Make You Need to Use Chipotlaway Burrito giant Chipotle announced last week that they ditched the GMOs from their menu. Amid random pictures on the internet of fish being spliced into tomatoes, reports from people who have never worked in food regulation about no-GMO regulation, and questions from mommy-bloggers-cum-doctors about GMOs causing health problems, did Chipotle act in the best interest of the public? Not. Even. Close. Chipotle claims that GMOs increase pesticide use and that the long-term health impact of their consumption are unknown. However, the claims just don’t stack up. We also have decades of data showing that GMOs are safe for consumption and the environment. In a large-scale analysis of all the studies done of GMOs, data showed that they reduced chemical pesticide use by 37% and increased crop production by 22%. Farmers can spend less and use a lower amount of safer types of pesticides. In fact, by switching to non-GMO ingredients, Chipotle is knowingly endorsing the use of more toxic pesticides and a fairly hazardous production method in the name of avoiding the GMO title. As Stephan Neidenbach wrote at We Love GMOs and Vaccines: BASF used a process known as mutagenesis to breed their sunflowers. Their seeds were doused with ethyl methanesulfonate and sodium azide to alter their DNA.[8] Ethyl mathanesulfonate is a possibly carcinogenic compound that produces random mutations in DNA.[9] Sodim azide is an extremely toxic compound used as a biocide and in airbag systems. It is lethal to humans at only 0.7 grams.[10] (...)The one conclusion that we can draw is that Chipotle is not doing this for any reason other than to profit off of the current GMO paranoia. Additionally, it’s incredibly disingenuous for Chipotle to claim that they’re only using non-GMO ingredients. The meat they serve still comes from animals that eat GMO feed. To switch to non-GMO feed would make their prices skyrocket and drastically hurt their business. As was demonstrated by this marketing stunt, their commitment to “food with integrity” comes right after their commitment to shareholders. Promoting fresh, natural thousand-calorie burritos with integrity gets harder if the price goes up to $16. Panera’s Publicity Ploy On the heels of the Chipotle decision, not to be outdone, Panera announced that they were tired of serving poison to their customers and would be removing approximately ⅓ of their ingredients from their recipes. This list of ingredients they’re removing includes caffeine, components of vanilla, and artificial sweeteners. According to Nature, Inc., this means their menu, from their 1,110-calorie sandwich to their 700-calorie caffeinated milkshakes, is suddenly a beacon of health. Unless they’re getting rid of the coffee and soda, claiming they’re removing caffeine from the menu is total bullshit. Remember, everything is made of chemicals, even your cup of “make-me-not-hate-life” in the morning. And if they do get rid of the option to add Splenda to the coffee, I’m heading back to Starbucks for a “toxic” PSL, thanks. The reasoning behind the retooling is publicity. Ron Shaich, Panera’s CEO, claims his “kids are eating Panera 10 to 11 times a week,” and he doesn’t want them to eat “junk.” Whenever a decision like this comes out, you should take an enormous pause to consider what it says about the ingredients the establishment was serving before. How much did Shaich care about his company’s food previously if he’s calling it junk now? Is this just a new way of greenwashing a thousand-calorie sandwich? Was Shaich not aware of the incredibly strict regulations involved in getting food additives to market? Didn’t anyone tell him that chefs and food scientists, who his company chose to hire, worked to make those exact flavors for their company that he’s now publicly deemed “junk?” (Those latter two questions are rhetorical.) And as for Shaich’s kids eating Panera ten times a week, I offer this suggestion: locate a grocery store. Maybe buy some goddamn apples. The Difference Between Nature, Inc. and Nature What is natural, anyway? And what’s the difference between slapping “natural” on a label versus… getting food from nature? We drive hybrid cars, own designer dogs that have been inbred from the grey wolf down to the chihuahua, and live in temperature-controlled, eco-friendly environments. We load the hybrid dog into the hybrid car, stretch on a pair of green-friendly $100 lululemons while hiking in the artificially designed nature trails of L.A. while drinking artificially sanitized water and tweeting selfies on our technological marvel iPhones with the hashtag #nature. That’s Nature Inc™. Nature, on the other hand, is generations ravaged by smallpox because vaccines weren’t invented yet. It’s having a home birth not because it’s been romanticized, but because it’s your only option. It’s dying of malnutrition because, even though you have soil, sunlight and water, you don’t have the technology to fight off bugs, weeds, or droughts. Nature is one too many sunburns leading to melanoma. Nature is when shows like Naked and Afraid and Born In The Wild are just life, and not documentary-worthy expenditures of bored and privileged twenty-somethings who can call the hospital when something goes horribly wrong. Because as much as nature makes delicious fruits and vegetables, if you’re not paying attention, it also makes poisonous mushrooms. Yvette d’Entremont holds bachelor’s degrees in theatre and chemistry and a master’s degree in forensic science. With a background working as an analytical chemist, she now runs SciBabe.com full time. She’s currently working on her first novel, SciBabe’s Ten Rules To BS Detection, due out in winter 2016. Her site debunks pseudoscience with humor and science. She lives in southern California with her dog, Buddy, and cat, Lexi. Follow her at fb.com/sciencebabe and scibabe.com. Image by Jim Cooke

Top 10 Ways to Trick Your Brain Into Doing What You Want

 

Ever feel like your brain is out to get you? Like it's convincing you to do things that aren't actually in your best interest? Our brain is a funny thing, and sometimes the only way to fight it is to trick it right back. Here are 10 ways you can overcome your brain's tricks and get it to do what you want. 10. Stay Healthy Instead of Giving Into Cravings It's amazing how the mere mention of cupcakes can make you crave cupcakes. Don't give into cravings just because your brain tricked you! Serve healthy food before the unhealthy food to curb your hunger, for example, or link up a healthy habit (like exercising) with something you do every day. The more you can reward your brain for positive things, the less it'll crave the positive reward from something you know isn't good for you. 9. Declutter Your Life Instead of Getting Attached to Your Junk You know your life is full of clutter that you don't need, but every time you go to clean, you hardly throw anything out. For every item you touch, your brain convinces you that you "might need it one day." Sound familiar? It's amazing how just touching an item can cause you to feel a sense of ownership. So instead, work in reverse: what if you lost everything? What would you re-purchase and what would you let slide? If you think about it that way, you can finally kick that clutter habit for good—despite your brain's illogical protests. 8. Make Your Day Last Longer Instead of Wondering Where It Went No matter how productive you are in a day, it always seems like there aren't enough hours before bedtime. Part of this is due to the way our brains perceive time. Luckily, you can turn this around. The more information your brain has to process, the more time it feels has passed. So, to make the day feel longer, present your brain with new information regularly: keep learning, meet new people, visit new places, or learn a new skill. You'd be surprised what kind of difference it makes. 7. Get Stuff Done Instead of Procrastinating Your brain doesn't want you to get things done. It's always worrying about what can go wrong, and will abandon ship at the first sign of distress, making it hard to achieve your goals. Luckily, you can trick your brain into getting more done, both with simple tricks (light changing the lighting or playing unfamiliar music) and a new outlook on your goals (like focusing on the long-term benefits). Treat it like any other involuntary bad habit, and you can overcome your brain's bad choices. 6. Make Friends Instead of Enemies When someone wrongs you, it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's easier to just make an enemy out of them instead. When that isn't in your best interest—say, if that person is your boss, or your sister's boyfriend—you can trick your brain into liking them. Try working on a difficult task with that person, which will bond you together. And if they're the ones who don't like you, you can trick their brain into liking you by asking them for a favor. 5. Focus on the Positive Instead of the Negative Ever have one tiny thing ruin your entire day? That's your brain tricking you again. Our brains like to focus on the negative. It can even convince you that you hate something you like. Don't let it ruin your day—remember that one small issue or false start does not make the whole. Make your brain store the positive memories instead of that negative one and you'll remember it more fondly. (Though sometimes, negative thinking isn't such a bad thing). 4. Base Your Decisions on Reality Instead of Optimism There are exceptions to your brain's negativity, though. If you're looking forward to something, or want something really bad, the opposite happens: your brain gets overly optimistic. It's why anticipation makes you happier than the result usually does, or why you think you could win the lottery but smoking will only kill other people. Don't fall for this trick, since it'll lead to poor decision-making. Similarly, don't confuse the number of choices you have with the importance of any given choice—like the brand of toothpaste you buy. Your brain tends to think the two are intertwined, when they are obviously not. 3. Save Money Instead of Blowing It Saving money is harder than it should be. We all know we should do it, yet as soon as we come into some cash we think "look at all this money I can spend!" This is because our minds are quick to forget what it was like to not have money. It doesn't help that stores try to trick your brain into buying stuff, either. The solution? Trick your brain into better money habits. Adopt new money mantras and repeat them over and over, so your brain can't tempt you. Send your money to a savings account automatically. But most importantly, think about what that money should go towards instead of just thinking "I should save" or "I shouldn't blow it." It's a lot easier when you have a clear goal in mind. 2. Be Happier Everyone wants to be happier, right? Your brain, unfortunately, makes that easier said than done. So, instead of resolving to "be happier," resolve to do more things that make you happy. Even simple things like getting more exercise, getting better sleep, or going outside more often can make you happier without you even realizing it. Small changes can make a big difference. 1. Realize That the World Doesn't Revolve Around You It's not surprising that our brains force us to be self-centered, but it can be detrimental. For example, you probably think you're never wrong, you're great at everything you do, you're just unlucky when bad things happen, and that the other lanes of traffic are always moving faster than yours. The reality is, most of this couldn't be further from the truth. Unfortunately, this is one area in which your brain tricks you, but you can't really trick it back. The best thing you can do is be aware of these phenomena so you won't fall prey to them as often. Images by Dooder (Shutterstock), Seamartini Graphics (Shutterstock), Alex Mit (Shutterstock) and Maksym Bondarchuck (Shutterstock), Ben Sutherland, anthonycz (Shutterstock), Alex Mit, Galushko Sergey (Shutterstock), Tina Mailhot-Roberge, and a2gemma.