It must be mine.

http://www.neatoshop.com/product/Giant-Brain-Plush

The Sex and the City of research articles

I wrote previously that a research article on the motivation behind wearing red lipstick or items of clothing would be the Sex and the City of research articles.
I was wrong.
THIS is the Sex and the city of research articles. ("I see you've played knifey-spoony before")
(NOTE:its not a peer reviewed article,just a pop science article)
http://jezebel.com/5845413/your-neural-pathways-will-never-let-you-get-over-mr-big
Love really is a drug.Or so your brain thinks.
That what anthropologist and relationship scientist Helen Fisher says. (Relationship scientist? Is that a real type of science?If that's the case I'm a Nutella on toast scientist)http://www.helenfisher.com/

"We're all addicted to our own personal Mr.Big". I get where this is coming from. "Why do we torture ourselves?" I KNOW.Why do I torture myself? Fisher says it's because love plays with your brain in the same way drugs do. "She has studied people who'd experienced heartbreak and found that rejection by one's own Mr. Big lights up the same areas of your brain that fire up when you have a craving for something you're addicted to." I'm guessing she used fMRI and  hasn't just used a jam jar and a set of spoons to figure this out.
So how does one kick the habit?(I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.I CAN STOP AT ANY TIME)
"It really is an addiction; you have to treat it as an addiction." "That means cutting yourself off from him cold turkey."
No blue satin Manolo Blahniks for me.
Easier said than done my sister from another mister.
Watch her TED talk "The Brain in Love" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfoGTIG7pY

ITS THE RETURN OF THE MISLEADING POP SCIENCE ARTICLE TITLE! Finally science proves something important:Red lipstick is sexy/You look like a whore.Nice.

Andrew Elliot found (in 2008)  that men found women who wore red lipstick more attractive and sexually desirable that those who wore a different colour lipstick. The men "sat closer to women in red and asked them more intimate questions" or what normal people call "flirting". 

Elliot also points out "that men see women in red as ready and willing, and that this sexual receptiveness is what makes them attractive and desirable." (Hmmmmm. Maybe I did look like a Russian hooker after all.Sound).

Beauty really does lie in the eye of the beholder. Or are men inherently misogynistic?GET THE SMELLING SALTS! A feminist can of worms just exploded somewhere.


Cue a convenient evolutionary -type-cave man-explanation to ease my feeble lady-brain. Red is a sexual cue in nature.Increased blood flow in both human and non-human primates is an indication of ovulation and means its time to do the no pants dance, the old sideways shimmy, the matrimonial polka,the backseat mambo,the horizontal hula.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18954199 (Journal of personality and social psychology)


In this new article the trials actually took place using women wearing red shirts and not red lipstick, as one was led to believe from the post about this on Popular Science about the same paper .ITS THE RETURN OF THE MISLEADING ARTICLE TITLE!
 http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-02/are-women-who-wear-red-more-attractive?cmpid=fb
And Andrew Elliot's next topic of investigation? Looking at the motivation behind the wearing of the colour red and "collecting data to see if women on dating sites that cater to one-night-stands and casual sex are more likely to wear red in their profile pictures than women using services that cater to long-term relationships or marriage."


Because women can be just divided into two group, right?Those who sleep around and those who want to get married. 
Madonna/Whore complex anyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna%E2%80%93whore_complex
Its going to be the Sex and the City of research articles.
Germaine Greer just turned in her Birkenstocks.

Its not myelin!Say whaaa?!

Multiple sclerosis is an autoimmune disorder in which the body's own immune system attacks the the sheath of myelin surrounding the axon of the nerves and brain, resulting in disturbance of the normal transmission of electrical signals between these nerves and their co-laterals and eventually the brain itself. 

Symptoms manifest in hundreds of different ways including physical and cognitive disabilities.

So it looks like myelin is not the problem.At least not in the CNS according to the big guys in Zurich. (They printed it in Nature Neuroscience so its probably pretty accurate.) 

http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2012/multiple-sklerose-beschaedigtes-myelin-ist-nicht-der-ausloeser_en.html

They say: " In the popular hypothesis, the scientists assume that MS-triggering myelin damage occurs without the involvement of the immune system. In this scenario, the immune response against myelin would be the result – and not the cause – of this pathogenic process."

I thought it happened that way anyway?!1)Myelin damage-2)immune systems responds-3)symptoms.

I think priming is involved.Definitely priming.Like in Alzheimer's.Yeah,priming.