The human brain was initially used for basic
survival tasks, such as staying safe and hunting and gathering. Yet,
200,000 years later, the same human brain is able to learn abstract
concepts, like momentum, energy and gravity, which have only been
formally defined in the last few centuries.
New research from Carnegie Mellon University has now uncovered how
the brain is able to acquire brand new types of ideas. Published in Psychological Science,
scientists Robert Mason and Marcel Just used neural-decoding techniques
developed at CMU to identify specific physics concepts that advanced
students recalled when prompted. The brain activation patterns while
thinking about the physics concepts indicated that all of the students’
brains used the ancient brain systems the same way, and the patterns
revealed how the new knowledge was formed – by re-purposing existing
neural systems.
The findings could be used to improve science instruction.
“If science teachers know how the brain is going to encode a new
science concept, then they can define and elaborate that concept in ways
that match the encoding. They can teach to the brain by using the
brain’s language,” said Mason, a senior research associate in the
Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences’ Department of
Psychology.
New research from Carnegie Mellon University
shows for the first time how learning physics concepts is accomplished
by repurposing neural structures that were originally used for general
everyday purposes. More specifically, the brain is able to learn physics
concepts because of its ability to understand the four fundamental
concepts of causal motion, periodicity, energy flow and algebraic
(sentence-like) representations. Credit: Carnegie Mellon University
actually wait i want to talk about the weird Tree Orbs i found while i was visiting my family a while back
they were everywhere, attached to a lot of the oak leaves on the ground and nobody had Any idea what they actually were, so i took em home and did a little digging
in fact the balls are called oak apple galls, and are caused by WASPS. actual literal wasps are directly responsible for these tiny tree eggs, and inside of them are, you guess it, More Wasps
the insect responsible is called the oak apple gall wasp, and the growth ( which is initially bright green) is caused by chemicals injected along with the wasps egg directly into the center vein of the leaf. eventually the round outer husk forms with the tiny wasplet inside, who lives in and eats the gall until it emerges later as an adult wasp
the lifecycle of em actually starts at the ROOTS of the oak tree instead of right with the leaves – whatever adult wasp that manages to stay alive long enough to lay its eggs puts em directly at the bottom of the tree, where they hatch into larvae that eventually molt into all-female wingless wasps. THEN these wasps crawl up the tree every spring and put ANOTHER egg into the leaf, and the whole thing starts all over again. seems like a lot more steps than necessary but im also not a wasp what do i know
the apple galls are mostly hollow when you crack em open and look an awful lot like a tiny shaved kiwi filled with string, but theres actually many species of gall wasp that all cause different distinctive growths along their chosen plant, like the artichoke gall wasp
and the beaked twig gall wasp
and others ! the growths themselves dont usually damage the plant though and the wasps are entirely stingless, so if youve got a bunch of these things around your house and had no idea they were filled with little flying bugs until Just Now, no worries
This looks like a scene straight out of a Dr. Seuss movie (x)
This is so cute and genuine she’s so happy about the color green.
If gender is innate, if girls and boys are just naturally different and naturally like different things, want different things, show different behaviors, why do we have to put so much effort, so much work into separating them?
If gender was innate it wouldn’t have to be indoctrinated into anyone. Everyone would naturally pick what they want to pick, and every girl would pick the same thing while every boy would pick the opposite. We would never have to tell any little girl or little boy anywhere, “this is not for you, it’s for boys/girls”.
“intersexism does not disprove dimorphism” first of all, fuck you for dehumanising me “intersexism” wtf is that bullshit
second, @hollyjollyjustice can u send me some resources to roast this radscum bullshit since you’re a biology major? if not that’s totally fine
*Rubs hands together*
My time has come. I don’t have alot of online sources because most of this has come from either my paper and ink textbooks or professors.
Which is pretty legit considering I go to the top undergraduate university in Canada, UNBC. My education is pretty legit. So I can give you a rundown.
The whole concept of ‘biological sex’ and sexual dimorphism in humans is based in a basic misunderstanding of how science and biology as a science defines sex.
The definition of sex is so wildly different in different offshoots of biology that it’s ridicules. Botanists often define it as if something gives gametes or receives, and sex is often narrowed down to one part of a plant, not the whole. Biologists who study animals define sex differently depending on what animal they work on, and in many cases have to either have to inaccurately describe something as male or female or abandon the binary completely.
In human, medical biology sex is defined by a list of about 6 different types of sexes. There’s chromosomal sex (the chromosomes present), nuclear sex (the phenotype of the chromosomes ie how that chromosome pattern actually looks), endocrinologic sex (sex based off the phenotypes influenced by endocrine system), sex hormones (the balance of testosterone and estrogen, along with other influencing hormones), gonadal sex (based on gonadal tissue like ovaries), and morphological sex (the appearence of external genitals).
That’s alot of categories to fit into. And alot of them have blurred edges. None of them have an easy black and white, male or female to them, They’re all nuanced and affected by many different factors. Nuclear sex could indicate a female result and endocrinalogic sex could say male while chromosomal sex says an xx/xy mosaic.
Intersex people aren’t some mutation out of a clear black and white binary. Intersex people are proof that our system of sex sucks for humans. There are too many categories with ill defined lines for everyone to fit into. Life is messy. Genetics is messy. You can’t fit humans into an easy two sex binary because there is much too much variation.
Sexual dimorphism barely works for non-human animals. A sex binary works best for science when we’re trying to study other animals. It’s easier to figure out the behavioral patterns of salmon if we can split them into two groups, those that lay the eggs and those that fertilize them. It makes fish counts easier to understand, data easier to interpret. It helps us learn more about species that aren’t us.
But we don’t need that for humans. Humans can communicate with each other. We have a knowledge of our bodies that far surpasses what we will know about any other species.
The studies done on humans right now have surpassed the point where a ‘biological sex’ is useful. At this point instead of simplifying, it introduces more variables.
If your cancer research focuses on people with a certain level of estrogen then defining them as women muddies your results. how many of these ‘women’ have had chromosome testing, how many have gonadal tissue still, how many fit the same morphological sex, how many of them have large amounts of breast tissue?
If a ‘biological’ woman gets a mastectomy and no longer fits that part
of the endocrinological definition of female is she no longer female? If
a ‘biological’ woman has cancer and gets her ovaries removed,
nullifying a gonadal sex definition is she still female.
If your study doesn’t account for outliers, then it’s a shitty study. Sexual dimorphism in humans automatically has many outliers.
The idea of a cut and dry sex binary only fits into a elementary school level of biology. It, like much of the other oversimplified nonsense we teach children, does not reflect the scientific reality.
So In conclusion:
Sex is so much more complicated than ‘this = girl this =boy’
There are many factors that determine sex, none of which have nice, black and white definitions
Sexual dimorphism is a thing only useful for the study of nonhuman organisms, humans have moved past it’s usefulness
‘Biological sex’ is a simplified definition taught in elementary and highschools; but they also taught you in elementary school that the great wall of china can be seen from space and that there are only 5 senses and both of those are just plain wrong.
As a note:
If anyone wants to hear more biology ranting like this just as, I’m always a slut for a analysis of the current state of biology and it’s relations to culture. And if anyone want’s to use my word’s to slam some nonsense go ahead and quote me! Just @ me so I can see it. If I have the spoons, I’d love to help you correct someone knowledge of science.
EY FATTY BOOM BOOM 