Tag Archives: science

Science Reveals How the Brains of Social Justice Activists Are Different From Everyone Else’s

“…People who are more sensitive to the ideas of fairness and equity are driven by logic, not emotion, according to a recent University of Chicago study published in the Journal of Neuroscience…

The research suggests that human rights and environmentalist organizations could get more public support by appealing to people’s sense of logic and reason rather than to their emotions. Efforts to combat global warming, for example, saw a surge in public support after scientists and statisticians began publishing data about how much sea levels and temperatures would rise instead of sad polar bears on a floating iceberg.

Perhaps your activist alter-ego was more level-headed than you thought.”

 

FACTS PEOPLE.

 

 

(My bolds are applicable to those thoroughly depressing commercials about abused animals and hungry children.)

Advertisements

Leave a comment

June 26, 2014 · 9:20 pm

The Backfire Effect: The Psychology of Why We Have a Hard Time Changing Our Minds

by 

“How the disconnect between information and insight explains our dangerous self-righteousness.

On the internet, a giant filter bubble of our existing beliefs, this can run even more rampant — we see such horrible strains of misinformation as climate change denial and antivaccination activism gather momentum by selectively seeking out “evidence” while dismissing the fact that every reputable scientist in the world disagrees with such beliefs. (In fact, the epidemic of misinformation has reached such height that we’re now facing a resurgence of once-eradicated diseases.)

“In disputes upon moral or scientific points, ever let your aim be to come at truth, not to conquer your opponent. So you never shall be at a loss in losing the argument, and gaining a new discovery.”

McRaney traces the crushing psychological effect of trolling – something that takes an active effort to fight – back to its evolutionary roots:

Have you ever noticed the peculiar tendency you have to let praise pass through you, but to feel crushed by criticism? A thousand positive remarks can slip by unnoticed, but one “you suck” can linger in your head for days. One hypothesis as to why this and the backfire effect happen is that you spend much more time considering information you disagree with than you do information you accept. Information that lines up with what you already believe passes through the mind like a vapor, but when you come across something that threatens your beliefs, something that conflicts with your preconceived notions of how the world works, you seize up and take notice. Some psychologists speculate there is an evolutionary explanation. Your ancestors paid more attention and spent more time thinking about negative stimuli than positive because bad things required a response. Those who failed to address negative stimuli failed to keep breathing….”

Leave a comment

May 20, 2014 · 6:28 pm

‘Eating On The Wild Side:’ A Field Guide To Nutritious Food

July 10, 2013 2:27 PM

Eating on the Wild Side
 
Eating on the Wild Side

The Missing Link to Optimum Health

by Jo Robinson and Andie Styner

We like to think that if we eat our recommended daily allowance of fruits and vegetables, we’re doing right by our bodies. Think again, says health writer Jo Robinson.

In her new bookEating on the Wild Side, Robinson argues that our prehistoric ancestors picked and gathered wild plants that were in many ways far healthier than the stuff we buy today at farmers’ markets.

But this change, she says, isn’t the result of the much-bemoaned modern, industrial food system. It has been thousands of years in the making — ever since humans first took up farming (some 12,000 years ago, more or less) and decided to “cultivate the wild plants that were the most pleasurable to eat,” she writes. More pleasurable generally meant less bitter and higher in sugar, starch or oil.

“Basically,” Robinson tells Fresh Air‘s Dave Davies, “we looked around at all this wild food that we had been eating for millennia, forever, and we kind of said to each other, ‘We’re getting tired of eating this bitter, chewy, fibrous, low-sugar food, and we can do better than that!'”

But over the centuries, Robinson says, those choices in human agriculture led to a dramatic loss in the nutrient value of the plants we eat most commonly — something she says we had no way of knowing until recently, when modern technology made it possible to do so.

But Robinson isn’t arguing that we should all go back to foraging for our dinner. Rather, she calls her book “a field guide to nutritious food.” Drawing on hundreds of scientific studies, she uses her book to lay out which commonly available foods offer the best nutritional bang for the bite.

We learn, for example, that longer cooking can boost tomatoes’ health benefits. And that broccoli begins to lose cancer-fighting compounds within 24 hours of harvest — that’s why it’s one of the foods that Robinson suggests people eat “as fresh as possible.”

On prehistoric bananas

“To peel them you had to get a machete or something similar to that to take off the skins, so we looked around and one of our remote ancestors came upon a mutant banana. This was nature’s mutant — nature is making mutations all the time — and that’s how we get all of the varieties that we have in our fruits and vegetables. Well, this particular mutation did away with the seeds, so that the seeds had been diminished to tiny black dots, and if you look at the bananas in our supermarket, that’s what you’ll see: no viable seeds but just these little dots.”

On her focus on ‘phytonutrients’

“These are molecular nutrients; they’re not macronutrients, and the reason that I’m focusing on them is that we’re just beginning to realize that these plant compounds — the technical name for them is ‘polyphenols’ [but] I call them ‘phytonutrients’ — they play a role in every cell and system of our bodies, and every month, new information is published showing these phytonutrients are really essential for optimum health. … [T]hese are the things we’ve reduced more than any of the other nutrients.”

On why we should eat dandelions

For 15 years, author and journalist Jo Robinson has been researching the foods we eat and the nutritional losses they've undergone over thousands of years.

For 15 years, author and journalist Jo Robinson has been researching the foods we eat and the nutritional losses they’ve undergone over thousands of years.

Frances Robinson /Little Brown and Co.

“[G]o out and find a dandelion leaf, rinse it well, and take a bite, and pay attention to your senses. For the first 10 seconds you won’t sense much at all, except you’ll notice that the leaf is hairy, and quite dense, quite chewy. Then, this bloom of bitterness [will] come at the roof of your mouth and go down your throat, and it’s going to stay there for about 10 minutes. And many of the wild plants that we used to eat had levels of bitterness similar to that dandelion. … Compared to spinach, which we consider a superfood, [a dandelion] has twice as much calcium, and three times as much vitamin A, five times more vitamins K and E, and eight times more antioxidants.”

On maximizing the nutrients in lettuce

“If you take your lettuce right from the store and rinse it and dry it and then, if you rip it into bite-sized pieces before you store it, you’re going to increase the antioxidant activity … fourfold. The next time you eat it, it’s going to have four times as many antioxidants.”

On which produce you should eat as fresh as possible

“There [are] fruits and vegetables that also burn up their antioxidants and their sugar at a really rapid rate, and they happen to be those superstars of nutrition that we’re all encouraged to eat. So I’m just going to give you a list of things you should get as fresh as possible, perhaps from a farmers’ market, which … is going to be probably fresher than from the supermarket, and eat as soon as possible. So it would be artichokes, arugula, asparagus, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, kale, lettuce, parsley, mushrooms and spinach. …
I think you should have an ‘Eat Me First’ list on your refrigerator of those [foods] that you should eat the day you bring them home, or the next day. It could [make] a measurable difference in your health.””

Leave a comment

July 11, 2013 · 3:09 pm

Vaccine Against HPV Has Cut Infections In Teenage Girls

June 19, 2013 3:10 PM
A 13-year-old girl gets an HPV vaccination from Judith Schaechter, a pediatrician at the University of Miami, in 2011.

A 13-year-old girl gets an HPV vaccination from Judith Schaechter, a pediatrician at the University of Miami, in 2011.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

 

“A vaccine against human papillomavirus — the most common sexually transmitted infection and the cause of almost all cervical cancer — is dramatically reducing the prevalence of HPV in teenage girls.

The first vaccine against HPV, Merck’s Gardasil, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2006. Cerverix, from GlaxoSmithKline, was approved in 2009.

In the first four years of immunizations, infections from the four strains of human papillomavirus targeted by the vaccines plummeted by more than half among 14-to-19-year-olds in the United States.

Federal health officials say they were surprised by the number since only about 1 in 3 girls in this age group has received the full three-dose course of the vaccine. About half have received a single dose.

Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, acknowledges that the number of girls who have gotten the HPV vaccine is “very disappointing” and “certainly not good enough.”

Still, Frieden says, “The vaccine works and works very well.” The findings of the CDC study were released Wednesday in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

The vaccine has been controversial, with some parents worried about possible health risks, and others worrying that vaccination could encourage earlier sexual activity.

The study didn’t find a decrease in the HPV strains covered by the vaccine in other age groups, a clue that the vaccine is responsible for the decrease among teenagers.

 

Researchers also didn’t find any decrease in sexual activity among girls in the target population that might explain why HPV prevalence is down, from nearly 12 percent to just over 5 percent.

 

The current recommendation is that girls get the HPV vaccine when they are 11 or 12, before the initiation of sexual activity, when the vaccine produces the best protection. Females up to age 26 are urged to get the three-shot course if they have not received the vaccine earlier.

The recommendation is similar for boys, in whom HPV can cause genital warts along with penile and anal cancers, except that the so-called catch-up vaccination is recommended for males only up to age 21.

The vaccine costs between $128 and $135 a dose, or around $400 for the full course, on the private market. Many insurers cover HPV vaccination, and the federally sponsored Vaccines for Children program provides it free of charge for qualified patients.

CDC officials say they intend to use the new results to press for wider use of HPV vaccines. The goal is to get 80 percent of adolescents fully vaccinated.

Frieden says the payoff will be tens of thousands of fewer cases of cervical cancers and deaths.

“Of girls alive today between the ages of zero and 13, there will be 50,000 more cases of cancer if we don’t increase the rates to 80 percent,” Frieden says. “And for every single year we delay in getting to 80 percent, another 4,400 women are going to develop cervical cancer in their lifetimes — even with good screening programs.”

CDC officials say that HPV vaccines have a very good track record for safety following distribution of 56 million doses in this country.

“We have a very clear idea of the safety,” Frieden says. “We’ve looked at all the adverse events that have been reported. Virtually all have not been serious. Among the serious events, the main issue has been fainting, redness and swelling at the injection site and other temporary symptoms.”

Last week Japanese health officials suspended their recommendation to vaccinate girls between 14 and 19 against HPV after some reports of pain and numbness following injection. Japanese officials say they want to investigate a possible link.

“The outcomes they were concerned about are things we have looked for in our data system here in the U.S.,” says the CDC’s Dr. Cindy Weinbaum. “We found a total of about a dozen reports that related to something like regional pain syndrome such as Japan was reporting.”

Weinbaum says the CDC found “really no consistency among them that would suggest anything specifically related to the vaccine.”

The CDC has investigated 42 reports of deaths among HPV vaccine recipients.

“The cause of these deaths has been very varied,” Weinbaum says. “It’s everything from cardiovascular to infectious, neurologic and hematologic. Again, there’s no consistent pattern of deaths that have occurred after vaccination that would give us any cause to be concerned” that the vaccine was responsible.”

Leave a comment

June 20, 2013 · 5:43 pm

Abortion bill sponsor said what?

By Donna Brazile, CNN Contributor

updated 3:37 PM EDT, Sun June 16, 2013

 

“Editor’s note: Donna Brazile, a CNN contributor and a Democratic strategist, is vice chairwoman for voter registration and participation at the Democratic National Committee. She is a nationally syndicated columnist, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and author of “Cooking with Grease: Stirring the Pot in America.” She was manager for the Gore-Lieberman presidential campaign in 2000.

(CNN) — “The stupidity is simply staggering,” Rep. Charlie Dent, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania, told Roll Call. He was referring to the political miscalculation of anti-abortion forces in the House Judiciary Committee who insisted this week on reviving the culture wars, years behind us, still again, with yet another proposed abortion bill.

This bill, championed by Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks, sought to ban abortions after 20 weeks nationwide, with no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. “I’ll be very frank: I discouraged our leadership from bringing this to a vote on the floor,” Dent said.

My e-mail box was flooded with headlines that began “This again?” and “This … is the GOP’s idea of outreach to women? Really?” and “He said what?” The latter referred to a remark by Franks, chairman of the committee, that “incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,” as a justification for the bill ignoring rape and incest victims.

 

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were apparently willing to allow the time when an abortion is legal to be reduced by one month. They sought to add exceptions for rape, incest and the woman’s health — all of which were rejected by Republicans on the panel.

But it appears the House Republican leaders, recognizing a train wreck, added the language to the bill anyway to avoid an embarrassing defeat. The bill will also include an exception for a medical emergency in which the woman might die. This new altered version goes before the Rules Committee on Monday. There are, by the way, 22 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. All men. Not a single woman.

It’s hard to avoid inflammatory remarks when discussing rape. And the line between inflammatory and insulting is thin. It’s also porous. So if Franks thought he had to address the issue of rape, he should have done so judiciously.

His remark says to women impregnated by rape: You don’t count. There aren’t enough of you to matter. That’s not just insensitive; it’s immoral.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California, first pounced on the statement’s factual inaccuracy. “I just find it astonishing to hear a phrase repeated that the incidence of pregnancy from rape is low,” she said. “There’s no scientific basis for that.”

Then Lofgren, one of five women among the Democratic minority on the committee, added, “And the idea that the Republican men on this committee can tell the women of America that they have to carry to term the product of a rape is outrageous.”

It might be that Franks’ argument, such as it is, echoed a comment by Missouri Republican Rep. Todd Aiken, who claimed during his Senate campaign last fall that women’s bodies have a built-in mechanism to prevent impregnation from “a legitimate rape.” Aiken’s candidacy went into a tailspin from that misinformed remark, and never recovered.

Fact checkers have pointed to studies that indicate Franks’ claim is as suspect as Aiken’s. One study by St. Lawrence University found that pregnancies resulting from rape were higher than from other instances.

Franks later walked back his low-pregnancy-from-rape argument, saying he was not claiming it was harder to get pregnant from rape. Franks apparently based his claim on there being fewer pregnancies from rape than from consensual intercourse. Even so, that’s a “Duh, do the math” excuse.

GOP aides now say Rep. Marsha Blackburn will be managing Franks’ anti-abortion bill. Given her record — “no” votes on major equality or women-protection legislation and “yea” for issues like ending federal funding for Planned Parenthood — that’s hardly an improvement.

And it misses the point. It’s not the who, it’s the what — the argument itself does not stand.

During the Judiciary debate, Franks said, “When you make that exception, there’s usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours. And in this case that’s impossible. … And that’s what completely negates and vitiates the purpose for such an amendment.”

So, Franks’ argument then became a technical one, that if a rape wasn’t reported, a decision after 20 weeks to abort was made too late. But why is it too late? Does psychological trauma have a timetable? Each case of rape that produces a pregnancy is as individual as the woman who was raped. And the ordeal — psychological, emotional, physical, spiritual — is not term-limited.

The issue of abortion raises real and poignant moral questions. Franks made many remarks that show his obvious, deeply felt, conviction that abortions after 20 weeks are wrong.

But majorities in Congress and of Americans, also with deep conviction, came to a different conclusion: They feel compelled to support exceptions for rape, incest and health.

Franks’ outrageous comment and the viewpoints of other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee illustrate that when one party becomes so narrowly composed that it represents a particular religious culture, we’re headed to what people in other countries face when a ruling party begins making laws from religious theology, without regard to a democratic, secular society — thus excluding other religious viewpoints and dismissing those who suffer as too few to matter.”

Leave a comment

June 18, 2013 · 5:29 pm

Ray Kurzweil: Artificial Intelligence Will Save Humans From Ourselves

Ray Kurzweil

ray, kurzweil:, artificial, intelligence, will, save, humans, from, ourselves,

Ray Kurzweil Artificial Intelligence Will Save Humans From Ourselves

 

“Editor’s Note: Ray Kurzweil is a best-selling author, inventor, futurist, and Director of Engineering at Google. He has been described as “the restless genius” by The Wall Street Journal, and “the ultimate thinking machine” by Forbes. Inc. magazine ranked him #8 among entrepreneurs in the United States, calling him the “rightful heir to Thomas Edison.” PolicyMic editor Michael McCutcheon recently spoke with Ray Kurzweil about how technology and artificial intelligence can and should be used to address climate change and save the planet. Read their interview below.

Michael McCutcheon (MM): What are the possibilities for using technology to address climate change that people aren’t talking about?

Ray Kurzweil (RK): Larry Page (cofounder and CEO of Google) and I were asked by the U.S. National Academy of Engineering to review all of the emerging energy technologies and recommend a policy for the United States. We focused on solar energy because its use is growing exponentially. It is becoming increasingly cost effective as we apply nanotechnology to the design of solar panels. The cost of solar energy is coming down rapidly and is now at parity with energy from coal and oil in several parts of the world.

According to a recent report by Deutsche Bank, “The cost of unsubsidized solar power is about the same as the cost of electricity from the grid in India and Italy. By 2014 even more countries will achieve solar ‘grid parity.’” The total amount of solar energy produced in the world is now about 1% of our energy needs but is doubling every two years. So, it is only 7 doublings from meeting all of our energy needs. This means we can meet all of our energy needs with solar energy in less than 20 years and that it will be much less expensive than energy from current techniques and, of course, completely non-polluting. It is also decentralized and therefore not subject to disastrous events such as the Gulf oil spill. Once solar is meeting all of our energy needs, we will only be using one part in ten thousand of the sunlight that falls on the earth, meaning we have 10,000 more in sunlight than we need to do the job. Our conclusion is that within two decades, we will be able to produce all of the energy we need at lower cost and with no negative effect on the environment.

MM: Are humans built to be able to tackle problems that are global in nature like climate change? Are politicians?

RK: Due to increasingly pervasive communication, we are now in much closer touch with problems than ever before. When I tell people that we are now in the least violent period of human history, people react with astonishment and ask whether I am in touch with the pervasive news of constant violence in the world. But that is the key point – we have much better knowledge of problems in the world than ever before. If there is a battle in Damascus, we are there. A hundred years ago, if there was a battle in the next village, we didn’t know about it. 

Steven Pinker’s new book The Better Angels of our Nature points out that the chance we will be killed by violence (of any type – interpersonal or state sponsored) is 500 times less than it was a few centuries ago when there was extreme scarcity of resources. I wrote in the 1980s that the Soviet Union, which was then going strong, would be swept away by then emerging decentralized communication – the social network of that day, which was early forms of email over teletype lines. People thought it was ridiculous that this mighty nuclear superpower would be swept away by a few clandestine hackers with teletype machines, but in the 1991 coup against Gorbachev that ended the Soviet Union, that is exactly what happened. So while the world may seem chaotic, people today have far greater knowledge and power to shape events and respond to problems.

MM: Is there a way we can use AI to help us make policy decisions about problems that are outside many people’s grasp, like climate change? How do we use AI to guide people to better behavior?

RK: We are already smarter today than we were, say, a decade ago because of all the brain extenders we have at our fingertips, such as search engines and Wikipedia. During that one day SOPA strike (in which Wikipedia, Google, and other online services went on strike for one day to protest pending legislation that would have limited online access to information), I felt like a part of my brain went on strike. These tools do deploy AI to help us access useful information. A kid in Africa today with a smart phone has access to more instantly available information than the President of the United States did 15 years ago. I am now at Google as Director of Engineering to help develop smarter AI to continue this process.

MM: Is the destruction of the planet inevitable (before the implosion of the sun)? Should we be putting more resources into planning how to live on a planet other than Earth, rather than saving the environment on this planet?

RK: I mentioned above an emerging energy technology that is environmentally friendly.  There are similar emerging technologies for such resources as water, food, housing, and other material needs. We should focus our efforts on applying these 21st century technologies to solving the grand challenges of humanity.”

Leave a comment

May 2, 2013 · 5:33 pm

The Science of Love: How Positivity Resonance Shapes the Way We Connect

by 

“The neurobiology of how the warmest emotion blurs the boundaries by you and not-you.

We kick-started the year with some ofhistory’s most beautiful definitions of love. But timeless as their words might be, the poets and the philosophers have a way of escaping into the comfortable detachment of the abstract and the metaphysical, leaving open the question of what love really is on an unglamorously physical, bodily, neurobiological level – and how that might shape our experience of those lofty abstractions. That’s precisely what psychologist Barbara Fredrickson, who has been studying positive emotions for decades, explores in the unfortunately titled but otherwise excellent Love 2.0: How Our Supreme Emotion Affects Everything We Feel, Think, Do, and Become (UKpublic library). Using both data from her own lab and ample citations of other studies, Fredrickson dissects the mechanisms of love to reveal both its mythologies and its practical mechanics.

She begins with a definition that parallels Dorion Sagan’s scientific meditation on sex:

First and foremost, love is an emotion, a momentary state that arises to infuse your mind and body alike. Love, like all emotions, surfaces like a distinct and fast-moving weather pattern, a subtle and ever-shifting force. As for all positive emotions, the inner feeling love brings you is inherently and exquisitely pleasant – it feels extraordinarily good, the way a long, cool drink of water feels when you’re parched on a hot day. Yet far beyond feeling good, a micro-moment of love, like other positive emotions, literally changes your mind. It expands your awareness of your surroundings, even your sense of self. The boundaries between you and not-you – what lies beyond your skin – relax and become more permeable. While infused with love you see fewer distinctions between you and others. Indeed, your ability to see others – really see them, wholeheartedly – springs open. Love can even give you a palpable sense of oneness and connection, a transcendence that makes you feel part of something far larger than yourself.

[…]

Perhaps counterintuitively, love is far more ubiquitous than you ever thought possible for the simple fact that love is connection. It’s that poignant stretching of your heart that you feel when you gaze into a newborn’s eyes for the first time or share a farewell hug with a dear friend. It’s even the fondness and sense of shared purpose you might unexpectedly feel with a group of strangers who’ve come together to marvel at a hatching of sea turtles or cheer at a football game. The new take on love that I want to share with you is this: Love blossoms virtually anytime two or more people – even strangers – connect over a shared positive emotion, be it mild or strong.

Fredrickson zooms in on three key neurobiological players in the game of love – your brain, your levels of the hormone oxytocin, and your vagus nerve, which connects your brain to the rest of your body – and examines their interplay as the core mechanism of love, summing up:

Love is a momentary upwelling of three tightly interwoven events: first, a sharing of one or more positive emotions between you and another; second, a synchrony between your and the other person’s biochemistry and behaviors; and third, a reflected motive to invest in each other’s well-being that brings mutual care.

She shorthands this trio “positivity resonance” – a concept similar tolimbic revision – and likens the process to a mirror in which you and your partner’s emotions come into sync, reflecting and reinforcing one another:

This is no ordinary moment. Within this mirrored reflection and extension of your own state, you see far more. A powerful back-and-forth union of energy springs up between the two of you, like an electric charge.

What makes “positivity resonance” so compelling a concept and so arguably richer than traditional formulations of “love” is precisely this back-and-forthness and the inclusiveness implicit to it. Fredrickson cautions against our solipsistic view of love, common in the individualistic cultures of the West:

Odds are, if you were raised in a Western culture, you think of emotions as largely private events. you locate them within a person’s boundaries, confined within their mind and skin. When conversing about emotions, your use of singular possessive adjectives betrays this point of view. You refer to ‘my anxiety,’ ‘his anger,’ or ‘her interest.’ Following this logic, love would seem to belong to the person who feels it. Defining love as positivity resonance challenges this view. Love unfolds and reverberates between and among people – within interpersonal transactions – and thereby belong to all parties involved, and to the metaphorical connective tissue that binds them together, albeit temporarily. … More than any other positive emotion, then, love belongs not to one person, but to pairs or groups of people. It resides within connections.

Citing various research, Fredrickson puts science behind what Anaïs Nin poetically and intuitively cautioned against more than half a century ago:

People who suffer from anxiety, depression, or even loneliness or low self-esteem perceive threats far more often than circumstances warrant. Sadly, this overalert state thwarts both positivity and positivity resonance. Feeling unsafe, then, is the first obstacle to love.

But perhaps the insight hardest to digest in the age of artificial semi-connectedness – something Nin also cautioned against a prescient few decades before the internet – has to do with the necessary physicality of love:

Love’s second precondition is connection, true sensory and temporal connection with another living being. You no doubt try to ‘stay connected’ when physical distance keeps you and your loved ones apart. You use the phone, e-mail, and increasingly texts or Facebook, and it’s important to do so. Yet your body, sculpted by the forces of natural selection over millennia, was not designed for the abstractions of long-distance love, the XOXs and LOLs. Your body hungers for more.

[…]

True connection is one of love’s bedrock prerequisites, a prime reason that love is not unconditional, but instead requires a particular stance. Neither abstract nor mediated, true connection is physical and unfolds in real time. It requires sensory and temporal copresence of bodies .The main mode of sensory connection, scientists contend, is eye contact. Other forms of real-time sensory contact – through touch, voice, or mirrored body postures and gestures – no doubt connect people as well and at times can substitute for eye contact. Nevertheless, eye contact may well be the most potent trigger for connection and oneness.

[…]

Physical presence is key to love, to positivity resonance.”

Leave a comment

April 20, 2013 · 4:33 pm