23 July 2014
14 July 2014
I'll report back on our success, or lack thereof. We've baited it with a piece of sausage, a little bit of a pear, and it has some leftover cherry coke in it, too.
|7:30 PM on 14 July 2014 Trap Set|
|About 8:15AM on 15 Jul 2014, no flies, banana bits added.|
Joyce added a shrimp at about 9AM. No flies in the trap yet.
Joyce added a piece of plum at about 10:30AM. No flies in the trap yet.
I put it outside for a proof of concept trial about noon and at 1:45PM we had trapped 8 flies! Brought it back inside to finally trap the ones that matter.
There are six dead flies in the trap. The rest seem to have figured out how to escape. And while there are fewer flies in the house the trap does not seem like it made much of a contribution to that fact.
23 June 2014
I'm pasting the list here so I can find them again without worrying about the link changing.
Thanks to Business Insider
Which would you recognize?
If you're hungry, research suggests that all you see is cake.
"Most people come with the very strong belief they should never make an opening offer," says Leigh Thompson, a professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. "Our research and lots of corroborating research shows that's completely backwards. The guy or gal who makes a first offer is better off."
Bias blind spots
Ask one subject and several fake subjects (who are really working with the experimenter) which of lines B, C, D, and E is the same length as A? If all of the fake subjects say that D is the same length as A, the real subject will agree with this objectively false answer a shocking three-quarters of the time.
"That we have found the tendency to conformity in our society so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern," Asch wrote. "It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct."
Curse of knowledge
Fundamental attribution error
Illusion of control
Suppose you ask subjects to press one button if a string of letters forms a word, and another button if the string does not form a word. (E.g., "banack" vs. "banner".) Then you show them the string "water". Later, they will more quickly identify the string "drink" as a word. This is known as "cognitive priming"
Priming also reveals the massive parallelism of spreading activation: if seeing "water" activates the word "drink", it probably also activates "river", or "cup", or "splash"
From Less Wrong:
Self-enhancing transmission bias
Status quo bias
Tragedy of the commons
Unit biasWe believe that there is an optimal unit size, or a universally-acknowledged amount of a given item that is perceived as appropriate. This explains why when served larger portions, we eat more.
This plays to our desire to have complete control over a single, more minor outcome, over the desire for more — but not complete — control over a greater, more unpredictable outcome.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-2014-6?op=1#ixzz35UEYybVi
21 April 2014
Heat is the main culprit that is definitely implicated in the loss of nutritional value of food. The argument is turned around based on this fact and microwaving might be beneficial in the nutritional sense because it takes less time to cook.The New York Times article specifies some instances in which the evidence shows this to be true.
Another culprit is water. The New York Times article further points out how cooking vegetables in water takes out nutrients.
The CNN article goes into the details of various ways to rob your food of nutrients.
But microwaves were always found not guilty of robbing nutrition from food.
New York Times
Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide
08 March 2014
I have a friend who brought this to my attention and so what follows is the results of doing my due diligence. My sources are listed at the end.
- Does aerosolization occur as a result of flushing a toilet?If not, then this discussion is over and no action should be taken.
- If toilet aerosolization occurs, does this mean organisms are thereby introduced to faucets, mirrors, toothbrushes, etc.?If not, then this discussion is over and no action should be taken.
- If toilet aerosolization routinely introduces organisms throughout bathrooms, does it pose a significant health hazard?
- If aerosolization occurs and DOES NOT pose a significant health risk, then this is one of those basic germ facts o' life--you come into contact with them every day, and they're not gonna kill you.Then this discussion is over and no action should be taken.
- If aerosolization occurs and DOES pose a significant health risk, would closing the toilet lid actually do anything to reduce the risk? (It's not like it forms an airtight seal!)
- If aerosolization DOES pose a significant health risk would any risk reduction be significant enough to justify badgering people who share my bathroom to start closing the lid when they use the toilet and thereby potentially damaging my relationships with them?
a. If not, then discussion ends and action should be taken privately. If you choose to act as if this is true anyway and also cannot resist the urge to share then it should be done in a manner that neither expresses nor implies that this behavior is reasonably expected of others (it might be UNreasonably expected, but that goes with the territory of sharing spaces with intimate partners and is OK as long as it's acknowledged as an unreasonable expectation).b. If so, evangelize this hygienic revelation!
- Aerosolization does occur from toilet flushing.
- Organisms are routinely introduced throughout bathrooms (though there may be other explanations besides toilet aerosolization as the Myth Busters found out in their experiment).
- That aerosolization occurs and DOES NOT pose a significant health risk is the conclusion that was reached by Mythbusters.
- IF aerosolization DID pose a significant health risk then closing the toilet lid would NOT reduce the risk. This is a conclusion that a commenter at Snopes.com claimed was reached by Mythbusters, but the episode in question did not address it at all. However, given that they had control toothbrushes in an area separate from the bathroom and still got fecal coliform introduced, then it is probably safe to say that the bacteria have other transportation options besides toilet aerosolization.
- The New York Times article says the scientific evidence is non-conclusive. “[A] new review article finds that there are as yet no direct cases of proven infection, and that the possible risk is still unknown.”
- Evangelizing does not appear to be warranted since the advocated behavior of closing the lid before flushing would appear to have little or no effect on reducing the introduction of organisms throughout the bathroom since that seems to occur independent of toilet flushing.